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 183.89.13.86 (talk) at 16:55, 7 December 2019 (→Pictures or reference to areas not under SDF control anymore). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Oof (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I'm not sure why this RM was relisted, as there is sufficient participation here thus far. That isn't the issue. The issue is that consensus among participants has failed to emerge, and that does not seem likely to change by relisting. As for the arguments: both sides invoked either COMMONNAME or the number of Google hits into the crux of their arguments, often. Which is all well and good, but that internal contradiction was, in the end, left unresolved. Other, more opinion-based exclamations which did not seem to be grounded in policy were generally discounted. No, not all arguments were weighed equally in this closure. Perhaps there is a compromise to be had here per Rob984, for example, although I admit to not fully grasping their proposal. I note that I do see several editors who I am well aware are highly knowledgeable about this part of the world and its history positioned opposite to one another — on a personal note, I found that most confusing. Finally, canvassing was factored into (was a factor in) this evaluation. El_C 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Rojava → North and East Syria – Propose move from Rojava to North and East Syria, due to concerns that the name "Rojava" doesn't properly reflect the non-Kurdish inhabitants of the region. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the reason why the government no longer calls itself Rojava (I believe as early as 2015), since they've dropped Kurdish nationalism. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would move it to "Northeastern Syria" or "East of Euphrates". The entire part of northern Syria to the west of Euphrates is not under SDF control, therefore "North" is not exactly correct. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the shorten form of the official title "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "kurdish areas" in Syria, they are Kurdish-occupied. Also, Kurds in Syria article already exists.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Not sure what information is being brought forward that wasn't considered in the last move. This article is about Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan), as its administration and the region are synonymous. What is the benefit of forking "Rojava" from "North and East Syria" as proposed above? What sections would be included/excluded from the split? czar 00:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a Kurdish administration though. That's why the administration officially dropped "Rojava" from its title in December 2016. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Geographically, Syrian Kurdistan and the territory controlled by the Aut. Administration are entirely different. Syrian Kurdistan, a map of which can be seen here, only refers to the far northern regions where there are significant Kurdish populations. However, the territory controlled by the Syrian Democratic Council, seen here in green, does not line up with the territory known as Syrian Kurdistan. Adding in the Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch zones occupied by Turkey, which are considered by the SDC righfully part of their administration, Syrian Kurdistan only covers the regions of Afrin, Manbij, Euphrates-Kobane, and Gozarto-Jazira. So geographically the terminology does not align. The terminology also does not align based on demographics, while no census has been conducted on the region as a whole, a survey of its military, the Syrian Democratic Forces, estimated that the SDF was 50-70% Arab, and within the survey ~69% of correspondents were Arabs. Compare this to the approximated 30-50% of Kurds and 17% of correspondents being Kurdish. (see survey here). -Thespündragon 04:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics are irrelevant. Rojava is the correct name in English. Google makes this very obvious [1] -- for Rojava; which is much more common than "North and East Syria" [2] let alone that word soup Autonomous Admini... WP:COMMONNAME is not optional.--Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. Rojava is a reference to Kurdistan and this entity expanded way beyond the Kurdish inhabited regions, hence, the scope of theis article is way bigger than the three Kurdish inhabited regions.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move I support the move, however, I feel that either the prefixes of 'Autonomous Administration of' or 'Administration of' North and East Syria should be included in the name as it is de facto a distinct political entity separated from the "rest" of Syria. Naming the article sans a prefix would just cause confusion, from my point of view. Sisuvia (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move Given the recent input by other Wikipedians which shows that Rojava overwhelmingly outnumbers other names, including the official Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria for the de facto autonomous government, and WP:COMMONNAME, I now oppose the proposed move. Sisuvia (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' The adminstation's name and other geographical terms aren't recognisable and unambigious. Media and such refer to 'Rojova' . Previously I've suggested a split between the long-standing Kurdish-majority region of Rojova and the current much larger administrative territory. I still see this as the best solution but I don't think 'Rojova' becomming a redirect is fesible as a first step, since this could allow for the removal of information of the well-established Kurdish region. We dont even know if 'North and East Syria' will be an accurate description in a few months. Turkey plans on taking practically all of the Kurdish-majority areas, which means long standing 'Rojova' will not even be under its current admnstration, but rather TFSA/'Syrian Interim Government'. Rob984 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move Which credible media organizations refer to practically the entire northeastern quadrant (and beyond) of Syria as Rojava? Rudaw and Democracy Now!? Even organizations that typically refer to the much smaller, majority-Kurdish-inhabited northeastern corner of Syria (around Qamishli and perhaps the Kobane/Ayn al-Arab enclave) are certainly not of the caliber of credible media organizations such as the BBC, CNN, AP, Al Jazeera, NY Times, etc. It's very much a polemical term that means, in effect, "western Kurdistan" and the scope of this article is not limited to that particular geographical space. Furthermore, the unrecognized, semi-autonomous administration that currently controls this wide region do not refer to it as Rojava. What's making us cling on to this name then? Al Ameer (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move A few years ago the correct name would have been "Rojava" - that is, however, not the case today. HistoryofIran (talk)
When was the correct name for northeast Syria "Rojava" ? Who recognized this as the official name for the region? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The de facto autonomous administration officially referred to itself as "Rojava" from March to December 2016. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They officaly call themselves Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, not "Rojava". So Rojava is indeed a fake name.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose move -- It doesn't matter what it calls itself. In the English language, the name Rojava has been established, and it has stuck [3]. The nauseating word soup of "Autonomous Administration of (take a breath) North and East Syria" is about one thousandth as commonly used -- as google reveals [4]. As for "North and East Syria" this is semiotically problematic as much of North Syria and much of East Syria are not included; furthermore, this too is dwarfed by "Rojava" in English language usage [5]. Our policies i.e. WP:COMMONNAME are clear -- we must use Rojava. Our job is not to change the English language --Calthinus (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record here, these links point to opinion pieces (such as an NY Times opinion piece) or websites and news sites that are not really mainstream (Green Left Weekly, Democracy Now!, Rudaw, Socialist Alliance, The Canary, Slate, Jacobin Magazine, etc.) so the claim that Rojava is the term commonly used in the English language is a bit misleading. The NY Times generally does not refer to "Rojava", nor does CNN, the BBC, WPost, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, the AP, AFP, or other mass English-language media that are relatively neutral on this subject. Nor does the self-declared autonomous administration in this area call itself Rojava, so what am I missing? Al Ameer (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move The term "North East Syria" or NE Syria is used by the UN, US, EU, the mainstream Western media and the administration on the ground itself to refer to the region. So despite any problematic aspects regarding the current conflict and chaos within the region - I would support this move. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GHits Google hit results provided by Calthinus (search language: English, Wikipedia filtered out, etc -- North and East Syria -- 34,700 hits [[6]]; Rojava -- 11,300,000 hits [[7]]; AANES [8] only 14,800. --Calthinus (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google books results: Rojava 10,300 results [[9]], North and East Syria only 625. --Calthinus (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official name used by the kurdish administration is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", the person that started this RfC wanted it to fail.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want it to fail, what sort of accusation is that? Please refer to the fact that NES is the official abbreviation and we have articles such as Symbols of North and East Syria. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 11:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1: Please refrain from making accusations about people, it seems evident that Nice4What made the proposal in good faith.
2: North and East Syria, or the alternative translation Northern and Eastern Syria, is in use by pro-SDF/C media as a short-form name for the territories under the Administration's control. Here are some examples of this usage: Hawar News Agency ([10], [11], [12]) Firat News Agency ([13], [14], [15], [16]). -Thespündragon 14:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I feel that the person that started this RfC did it in a bad way so that it wouldn't be moved, he himself opposes the move and suggest a move to "North and East Syria", this article is about the political administration, so instead it should be discussed if it should be moved to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine to go by the number of google hits. This gives "Northeastern Syria" 30,700,000 hits here, three times your rojava hits. Let's prove that we are not cherry picking.

Here are some quick examples of MAINSTREAM media outlets (not ARA News, Rudaw, Hawar, etc.) currently adopting the name "Northeastern Syria":

  • CNN: [17]
  • Washington Post: [18]
  • New York Times: [19]
  • Business Insider: [20]
  • Al-Jazeera English [21]
  • Wall Street Journal [22]
  • Financial Times [23] (used Northeast Syria)
  • The Telegraph: [24] (used Northeast Syria)
  • PBS: [25]
  • France24: [26]
  • BBC: [27] (used Northeast Syria)
  • LA Times [28]
  • CBC: [29]

I can keep going with the list. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you managed to find a single usage by some sources. Google has already revealed the overall pattern. --Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support move, Rojava means "West" in Kurdish. Isn't this area to be supporsed north of Syria? It is. Beshogur (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS Beshogur was canvassed here by Amr ibn Kulthoum, who notified [[30]] him and KasimMejia. [[31]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't read the WP:Canvas policy. Here is an Excerp fron WP:Canvass:

" On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed".

Back to our topic now, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)•[reply]

Nope, WP:VOTESTACK under WP:CANVAS : Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.. KasimMejia and Beshogur have already demonstrated aversion to the term Rojava on other talk pages, so their viewpoints are not mysterious -- for example here we have Beshogur arguing in favor of the Turkish gov't terminology, "Operation Peace Spring", in a move discussion you were also present in. But it's curious. Why did you notify these two editors, and not others who participated, like BobNesh, Jtbobwaysf, etc? Therefore it falls under WP:VOTESTACK, which mandates Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.. --Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support move Since the Operation Peace Spring began the areas under this regions control is about %80 Arab and %20 Kurdish yet we are calling it a Kurdish name? I find this racist towards the local Arabs. Also Rojava is the non official name of the region so why is it included in the first place? KasimMejia (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because of kurdish propaganda and pov pushers with an agenda.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVAS KasimMejia was canvassed here by Amr ibn Kulthoum, who notified [[32]] him and Beshogur. [[33]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the best option would be not to use either official names such as AANES or contentious titles such as "Rojava", but instead turn to titles employed by academics? "Democratic Autonomous Administration" is a name used by some experts, such as Allsopp & van Wilgenburg and the Omran Center in an attempt to stay neutral and objective. Applodion (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a step towards improving the credibility and neutrality of this page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion Google info on academic usage. "Rojava -Wikipedia" : has 1810 results. '"North and East Syria" -Wikipedia' : has a miniscule yield of 25 results. AANES returns results based on the surname Aanes even when we had Syria to the search we cannot find the acronym. "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", a hilariously miniscule 8 results [34]. What news media, what common people, and what academia all use is incredibly clear.--Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware that the other names are much more common, even in academic circles (note that I said "some experts"). My proposal was simply an attempt to offer a possible alternative. :-) Applodion (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point but given the discrepancy I'm not even sure that the alternatives would be recognized as the same entity. --Calthinus (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Applodion (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To go by user Calthinus I have run Google Scholar for academic usage. "Northeastern Syria -Wikipedia" : has 2580 results.
  • To compare apples to apples, I only included results for '"Northeastern Syria" -Wikipedia' since 2011, when the word rojava appeared: [35] since 2011 = 1350 results.
  • "North eastern Syria - Wikipedia"' [36] since 2011 = 631.
  • "Northeast Syria - Wikipedia"' [37] since 2011 = 828.
  • "North east Syria - Wikipedia"' [38] since 2011 = 316.
    • Obviously putting the results from the above (since 2011) together (as they are simply variations of the same name) we get 3125 results, way exceeding academic hits for rojava (1810). Northeastern Syria is obviously the name we should be adopting for this article. We can add the pre-fix "Administration of" to that too. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.... and most of these do not refer to the political entity Rojava (i.e. that administered by the AANES), but simply to a part of Syria. I.e., totally irrelevant to our conversation. --Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus there is no political entity called "Rojava". It is "North Syria"[39] (not even the eastern of Syria is part of Rojava). You are totally unaware of this.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You are totally missing the point on this page subject and move request. The rojava you are talking about existed back in 2012-2014 with the territory that you can see here. Since then, things have changed quite a bit, resulting in the administration dropping the name rojava and adopting AAONES. I understand that most users here get this, but since you're a new comer to this page you seem to miss it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: || If you must know, @Calthinus: has been editing pages related to Syria and the Syrian civil war since at least 2012. So you might want to retract that statement. Anyways, it would seem that despite innumerable back-and-forth 'discussions' here on the talk page, you are the one that is totally missing the point. Yes, Rojava as the official name for the de facto autonomous polity located in North and Eastern Syria is no longer used by that polity itself. However, that name has since been set in stone, in the sense that it is now ubiquitous and widely used by a great many people to refer to that polity, including both academics to commoners. Following Wikipedia policy which has been linked to you twice prior, we have to use Rojava as the name for this article. Sisuvia (talk)
  • Support move, I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum. The name Rojava is not used anymore since 28 December, 2016[40] and its borders are totally different so the argument about google hits doesn't make any sense. It is like arguing that google shows more results to "Republic of Macedonia" than "Republic of North Macedonia" further more the term Rojava refers to a region with totally different borders. Examining reliable sources:
The United Nations in its recent reports about the current crisis use the term "north east Syria"!.[41][42][43][44]
As well as, save the children [45]
The Guardian [46][47] use the term "north-eastern Syria" and "north-east Syria".
CNBC In its call for mobilization, the local Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria,
Middle East Eye: Berivan Xalid, the co-chair of the executive council of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria
BBC: A US pullout from north-east Syria has set Turkish and Kurdish fighters ...
Financial Times Turkish ground troops have stepped up their offensive against Kurdish forces in north-eastern Syria...
New York Post The local Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria
Haaretz in its live updates about the current crisis use the term northeastern Syria 23 times.
Associated Press ... without electricity or in open fields in Kurdish-run areas around northeast Syria.
I can bring much more sources for this but I think these are enough. The question is why do we have an article called Rojava conflict. I am unable to figure out why is it called Rojava when all reliable sources refers to the region as North East Syria? I watch news everyday, I have never heard of Rojava; hence, I don't even know how to pronounce it.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is not Rojava and reliable sources as I presented above use"North East Syria" when talking about the subject of this article. Further more, the name Rojava is no longer used to refer to "Northern Syria" Rojava is now called "Northern Syria"[48] and both are not the subject of this article that includes Eastern Syria. The subject of this article is Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Ironically this is proving my point. Many of the sources you and Amr are using are not actually referring to the same entity as Rojava. Northeast Syria simply refers to the northeast of Syria -- whether or not the area is currently or was ever part of Rojava.
Most of Amr's results actually have nothing to do with Rojava. Result number one of his triumphantly proclaimed 2500 results list is... a 2010 (Rojava did not exist then) paper on "urbanism and cultural landscapes". Result number two: a 1997 paper on archaeoecology on the northeast of Syria. Number 3 -- on petroleum on the northeast of Syria and Iraq, again cannot be about Rojava since it is from 1974.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of the sources of his result list have nothing to do with the entity of Rojava -- and you actually have to put effort into finding anything even remotely related to Rojava in that list, which he disingenuously presented as representing usage referring to the same entity as Rojava.
His other strategy, which you have replicated, is finding single instances where media has used "northeastern Syria" or some variant thereof -- however this is also disingenuous for two reasons. The first is that it obfuscates the overall trend, which I already demonstrated with Google results. The second-- many of these, too, do not necessarily refer to Rojava. Kurdish/Rojavan forces have clashed with Syrian or Turkish or Turkish allied forces in regions that have never been under the jurisdiction of Rojava.
Lastly, the argument that "the government calls itself this so we should too" does not hold water. This is not what we do on Wikipedia. The Czech Republic's government would like us to call it Czechia. After many long fights over the issue, Wikipedia returned to its policy -- WP:COMMONNAME, which mandates the use of the Czech Republic, regardless of what its government would like. --Calthinus (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The name Rojava is a widely used and is a common name not only in English but also in Kurdish and Arabic. Except for some hardliners in parts of Turkey and Iran, it is used by people and media all over the world. There are tonnes of examples online, which are coming from different political backgrounds: Aljazeera, BBC, CBC, Fox and so on. Plus, the proposed name is quite vague and can cause confusion. It is like referring to a region like New England as North East US! So, I am afraid it is against the Wikipedia's policy on article names. Pirehelo (talk) 04:48, 23 October 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.

Map of Treaty of Sevres

I have added a map of the Treaty of Sevres, but two users here have removed it, with the first user claiming it is not relevant here. If people here are claiming this is the western part of Kurdistan, and the map I inserted shows a proposed state of Kurdistan, then how is this not relevant here. It just seems some pro-Kurdish users here are cherry-picking and trying to hide any historical facts of the region they are claiming to be part of Kurdistan. This article has VERY SERIOUS credibility issues. If this persists, I will be reporting this and ask for arbitration. Your call. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The map of the Treaty of Sevres would be more fitting on the articles on Kurdish nationalism or the geographic region Kurdistan rather than on the article about a de-facto autonomous region in Syria. If we create a page on the geographic region Syrian Kurdistan, and reliable sources back up its significance, then it may also be included there. -Thespündragon 04:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, people are claiming this area to be part of Kurdistan. This map couldn't be more RELEVANT in this context. Well, at least if users here want to show both sides of the story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources describing the importance of the Treaty of Sevres to the Self-Administration of North and East Syria? The borders ascribed to the geographic region Kurdistan are relevant to an article on Kurdistan itself, not to an autonomous region that has some territory that is sometimes described as being part of Kurdistan. -Thespündragon 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the name of this article is rojava, which means in Kurdish western Kurdistan, as the introduction says, right? If this is western Kurdistan, then a map of original Kurdistan won't be relevant here, or you are just trying to hide facts? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: Quit it with the bad faith accusations, how old are you? The article's title may be Rojava, but it is clearly articulated within the lede that this article is about the Autonomous Administration which is more often than not simply called Rojava by certain sources. No one, and I literally mean no one is claiming that this article nor the area shown in the article is a part of Kurdistan. The only person that thinks so is you. Either learn to be more objective about events and controversies or get off of Wikipedia, period. Sisuvia (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: It seems you are still new around here. Why don't you start by educating yourself about the history of this page and related article to get some background, instead of personal attacks. You may want to start with Rojava#Polity_names_and_translations to see what I am referring to with the map? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: It really is ironic that you would attempt to lecture others and I on neutrality. For one, Rojava in Kurdish means "the West", and is used to refer to the Western Part of Kurdistan by Kurds, yes. However, as I have already explained in my previous input, this article might be named Rojava (which literally just means 'the West'), however, it is definitively explained in the lede that the article is specifically about the Autonomous Administration and not the region of 'Rojava' itself. The name, even if slightly erroneous, is not a necessarily a serious problem as the NES is also commonly referred to simply as Rojava, numerous "respected" news organisations have done this atleast once. Stating the facts, that is that you are acting in bad faith and accusing others of doing the same is not a personal attack. Despite living in Canada, you seem to lack proficiency in the English language. Now that, mate, is a personal attack. Sisuvia (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: Hahaha, how funny! Since you are so eloquent in English, I suggest you check the spelling AND grammar of your comment right above. This is the last time I waste my time on you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: I do pride myself on my proficiency in the English language. Given that, I am glad to say that the only (possible) mistakes in my previous post were the misplacing of commas. Unlike you, I actually paid attention in my English lessons classes as a child. I'm glad that you've chosen to only attack me in your post without even attempting to defend yourself. That just shows to the rest of the community that you are acting in bad faith with your edits and in accusing other Wikipedians of doing the same. You, my man, are pathetic. It is people like you who ought to be banned permanently from editing on Wikipedia. You should also consider reading Help:Talk pages#Replying to an existing thread as you seem to lack any idea as to how you're supposed to reply to an existing thread. Sisuvia (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish propaganda

This sentence is in the lead in the "Polity names and translations" section: "Much of northern Syria is considered to be Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎) or Rojava (/ˌroʊʒəˈvɑː/ ROH-zhə-VAH; Kurdish: [roʒɑˈvɑ] "the West")"

It doesn't say who is considering this, it also has an unreliable kurdish source.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, “much of northern Syria is considered to be Rojava” is downright false and the source is not credible. This needs to be removed immediately pending accurate and reliably sourced information. —Al Ameer (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source is good. It is an academic book used in European universities. Maybe we could adapt the wording, because Rojava is really not so big to be called "Much of Northern Syria". But that there exists a Rojava we can't deny. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is Hawarnews a good source? It is directly affiliated with SDF. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: In regards to your recent addition of reliability, neutrality and factual accuracy maintenance templates, all but one of them are rather redundant in my view as the article is at large quite well sourced. I am also unable to find any stated facts in the article that are currently being disputed. Your allegations of "Kurdish propaganda" (as far as I know) is in reference to the fact that it previously stated "Much of northern Syria is considered to be Western Kurdistan" which has since been altered to represent reality. I realise that numerous users have cited reliability concerns due to the use of articles originating from news agencies aligned to the Autonomous Administration, since that is the case I would support retaining only the reliability maintenance template. Sisuvia (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the tags belong as the entire article is written with largely unreliable Kurdish amateur and propaganda websites. The claim that "Parts of Northern Syria are known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎) or Rojava" is also false. No part of Syria has this name, its a very small minority view, it is not presented as such, it is also not presented as who has these minority views. And concerning the administration this article is about, "Rojava" is not even its name but the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Its an agenda being pushed throughout the article. All the tags belong. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Supreme Deliciousness: Look, I'm going to try my best at being patient with you. Parts of Northern Syria IS known as Western Kurdistan. That is an established fact accepted by virtually all academics. Just because no part of Syria has the name "Rojava" officially, does not mean that the term is false. What is considered Rojava Kurdistan has been part of modern-day Syria since before modern-day Syria was established as an entity either under the French or in the form of the Arab Kingdom of Syria under the Hashemites. You also contradict yourself by saying that the existence Rojava as a geographical region is only held by a minority view, whilst then going on to say that the minority does not hold that view. Which one is it? Do the minority hold that view? If that is the case, it needs to be stated, because despite the Kurdish people being a minority in Syria and neighbouring states, they are still a sizable percentage of the overall population, and thus their view of a Rojava Kurdistan existing within Northern Syria ought to be stated. Sisuvia (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility about the geographical extent of this area

Another credibility concern here is the extent of this area. When SDF were advancing, everything they control would automatically be incorporated into this area. For those new to this discussion and topic (most I guess), please see how the so-called "rojava" map kept expanding from 2012, 2014, now (and so many more in between) and including 80-100% Arab areas like Azaz, Tell Abyad, al-Bab, Manbij, Deir Ez-Zor, Raqqa, in addition to almost all Arab towns in Al-Hasakah Governorate. Many Arab demonstrations have come out against SDF rule (military occupation) in those areas, showing that SDF control is no more than another war faction occupying these areas by force. A group of users have successfully kept reverting any attempt at fixing the neutrality and credibility aspects of this article. The Syrian army has redeployed in Manbij, Raqqa, Al-Hasakah, Ain-al-Arab/Kobani (information with reputable sources), among many other places, but users here refuse to take these out of the jurisdiction of AAONES. When I add a map showing the historical Kurdish presence in the area or the Treaty of Sevres map for Kurdistan, they get deleted for "irrelevance". How is this "irrelevant" when "rojava" is claimed to be "Western Kurdistan" (here and elsewhere), and I have an official international treaty map showing NO WESTERN KURDISTAN? BTW, if you don't know, this map is used by nationalist Kurds to push their Kurdistan requests. People in this Talk page say this article is not about Rojava one day, and change their opinion the following day. PYD/PKK websites and "news agencies" can do that, but not here on Wikipedia, well, at least if some credibility still exists. At this point, arbitration is needed for this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Kurdistan as a political entity/state and Kurdistan as the geo-cultural region where Kurds form a majority of the population. The area outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres (which, as you know, was never implemented and became obsolete with the Treaty of Lausanne 3 years later) map was the proposed area of a Kurdish political entity. It did not claim that Kurds only formed a majority in the outlined area. This argument is as absurd as pointing to this map and saying the red area is all of Kurdistan and Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Syria either do not exist or are not part of Kurdistan.
The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria does not claim to be Rojava or Western Kurdistan. This is why I support a renaming and a change in the scope of this article. It's important to note that while the SAA has been deployed to these areas, they have not taken over their administrations; these areas are still politically-controlled by the AANES. Lightspecs (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian Army's deployment in parts of North and East Syria is due to the fact that the SDF and Syrian Government reached a deal for what is effectively joint-administration, with the SAA being deployed in order to defend those settlements from Turkish incursions whilst still being administered by the political wing of the SDF. Reasons have already been provided as to why users have reverted and undone attempts to remove said areas from being stated as administered by the SDF (which they still are). The Autonomous Administration is not claiming to the Rojava, not since they removed Rojava from their name nearly 3 years ago. Just because the article is named Rojava does not mean that the NES is claiming to be Western Kurdistan. I have already explained this prior, and I will not do it again. Here's a Wikipedia policy that you should probably acquaintance yourself with, WP:COMMONNAME. Using Google Hits results provided by Calthinus, North and East Syria (the proposed move) has only 34,700 hits, AANES (for Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) has only 14,800 hits, whereas Rojava has approximately 11,300,000 hits. It is Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognisable names and as it stands, Rojava is the single most recognisable name for the polity. You want to talk about credibility and how (apparently) Wikipedia has lost that? You can contribute to fixing that problem by following Wikipedia policies. Sisuvia (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afrin region as a part of Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

Despite the passage of nearly two years since the administration lost control of this region (see Operation Olive Branch) the article still writes it as a part of the region. What is the reason for this? Placed dubious tags on Afrin citations. KasimMejia (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afrin Region was not disbanded. It still operates in government-held areas north of Aleppo. Here you can read that the YPG was still present in Tell Rifaat which was formally part of Afrin Region's administration. Even Daily Sabah (a pro-Turkish source) wrote this: "The eastern part of Syria's Afrin region is comprised of two districts: Tel Rifaat, currently occupied by the terrorist group, and Azaz, which remains under the control of Syrian opposition forces." - They cannot mean the Afrin District (recognized by the Syrian gov), as it does not include Azaz NOR Tel Rifaat. The Afrin Region of the AANES, however, included parts of Azaz District AND Tel Rifaat District. Applodion (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article not only talks about the region, it also cites Afrin town and regions other than Tal Rifaat under the control of TFSA as under the control of AANS. This is clearly false so why do you want to keep it that way? They held it once, now they don't. Maybe AANS won't even exist tomorrow and blend in to Syria. Will everything here be written as a historic semi-country then? As if writing about the Byzantine Empire. In the past tense. KasimMejia (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff you flagged either talked about 1) past events, when Afrin town was still under PYD control or 2) events relating to the polity of "Afrin Region" which is not the same as Afrin town. The foundation of the AANES for example took place in late 2018, yet Afrin Region(!) was represented (despite Afrin town being under opposition/Turkish control). We have to talk about "Afrin Region" in the present tense as it still exists, whereas we refer to Afrin town as being under PYD control in the past. Applodion (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits made in the context of the Turkish Syria offensive

Tagging recent editors: @KasimMejia: @Corriebertus: @عمرو بن كلثوم: @Sisuvia: @Supreme Deliciousness: @Paradise Chronicle: @Lightspecs: @Applodion: @Semsûrî: @Thespoondragon: There have recently been a lot of edits made to the page in the context of the Turkish Syria offensive. While I think that there could be numerous improvements to the article in order to improve its neutrality and to ensure it's based on facts as much as possible - the article will not be improved by additions such as rephrasing sections to an "Appearance of Autonomy", or WP:UNDUE pushing of the opinions of individual politicians such as Erdogan, Assad, Trump and so on, as well as removing information about the functioning of the region's administration and organization that doesn't contain any opinionated elements solely because the sources used are relatively pro-YPG/SDF sources such as ANF, Rudaw or Hawar News. These edits do not help in balancing the article, but only adds non-neutral elements from "the other side" of the argument, leaving the article a mess. There have been many arguments about these issues on the talk page previously, and the standing WP:CON policy of Wikipedia stands - removing or heavily altering major chunks of basic information requires debate and consensus on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of the recent changes worsened the article's quality, and appear to push certain agendas. See this edit. Information was removed as OR, even though it was cited to sources. In fact, to dispute the regions' existence is like disputing that the sky is blue. They exist/existed, period. Other changes I agree with, such as the removal of twitter/wordpress-cited information. I think that we should integrate more information from reliable books and scientific journals into the article. These tend to be less sensationalistic and biased than the average news piece. Applodion (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KasimMejia: Hello, KasimMejia. I feel that your recent edits did not improve the lede much, and were more akin to tag bombing everything, even if the additional references were added because users (including you) demanded more proof for certain claims. IMO, there were no excessive citations. Also, I do not understand the "third party" tag for Dicle News Agency. They support the AANES, but how are they a part of it? Anyway, Kurdistan24 is 100% independent from the AANES, so that was definietely not tagged correctly. I agree with warscapes possibly being dubious, though they appear to publish an official magazine. Anyway, to adress your concerns, I have added further academic references. Applodion (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want so many citations, just one "neutral" or "3rd party" should be enough. Also how do you know that dicle news and Kurdistan24 and not a part of Rojava? You already said that they supported it. We need more neutral sources, and must have them in sections that writes positive facts about the region, otherwise its self praising. KasimMejia (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to apply the "third party" tag you have to prove that close connections exist. For example, Kurdistan24 is based in Iraq and has also been critical of the PYD; in addition, its reporters (such as Wilgenburg) are independent. Just because a news group supports someone does not mean that they cooperate with them; otherwise, most of western media would be currently under Kurdish control. In addition, it is wrong to assume that only "neutral" sources can be used for articles - in fact, propaganda outlets sometimes provide valuable information. Applodion (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, looking at the "Education, media, and culture" section, it seems like the used sources are mostly non-connected to the PYD and co. Hawar and ANF are associated with the PYD and PKK, but Kurdistan24, ARA News, Monitor, Middle East Eye, Syrian Observer, Rudaw, AINA, Yahoo, Enab Baladi, etc. are not. Applodion (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: Please replace the ((Third-party|date=October 2019)) tag at the top of the page. Issues with neutrality of the sources still exist throughout the page. And even more so at Education, media, and culture section. KasimMejia (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tag at the top of the page was about factual accuracy. This is not an issue here, however, as the infos in this article are not per se incorrect (all of it is referenced). At worst, it is biased - and for that we have a separate tag. Again, I would like to ask you to refrain from tag bombing. How about you search for reliable sources yourself and add them? That would improve the article's quality much more than throwing tags around. Applodion (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: I'm not telling you to restore factual accuracy tag, I'm once again asking you to restore the ((Third-party|date=October 2019)) third party tag. So can you restore it? The article is written with non 3rd party sources and you have removed this template without addressing the issues. KasimMejia (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
? I did not remove a Third-party tag from the top of the article without adressing the issue. Where I removed it in the lede, I added more references... Applodion (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: How did you added more references when you removed it here without adding a single reference[49] and summary saying: "(incorrect tag. Most of the sources for this section are, in fact, not associated with the PYD & co)". They may not be associated with PYD & co but they are all Kurdish sources, hence non neutral towards a part of Kurdistan. Please restore it or explain how you believe they are neutral. KasimMejia (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KasimMejia: I was talking about the lede, not the lower section, as you were asking about the "top" of the article. In regard to the "Education, media, and culture" section, I have explained my reasoning above - simply put, just because a source is Kurdish (and ARA News, Monitor, Middle East Eye, Syrian Observer, AINA, Yahoo, Enab Baladi are not) does not mean it violates Third Party rules. The KNC is Kurdish, but it hates the PYD. Kurdish fighters are among the pro-Turkish forces. "Kurds" does not equal PYD & PKK. Applodion (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: Having one anti-PYD Kurdish source does not make all the Kurdish sources neutral against PYD. The sources in education section are Hawar, ANNA, ANF, New Compass, and a site called Kurdish Question. Are all non third party sources related to Kurdistan. You have removed the third party template saying they are neutral. Well I disagree. The sources are plain and simple Kurdish and are the majority of the sources in West Kurdistan article. I will wait for another reply for you, I hope you self revert and place the template back. KasimMejia (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KasimMejia: You do not understand what I am saying. 1st of all, most sources in this section are not connected to the PYD, and several are anti-PYD or at least ambiguous (Enab Baladi is anti-PYD, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, Monitor, Middle East Eye, and Syrian Observer are ambiguous). Therefore, there cannot be a large-scale Third Party-violation - because the third party tag warrants that the references are directly connected to the topic. This only applies in case of Hawar and ANF (New Compass, and Kurdish Question do not seem to have a connection to the PYD), and even their usage does not automatically equal any violation. 2nd: "sources related to Kurdistan" does not make any sense, because this article is not about Kurdistan. It is about a polity in Syria governed by the PYD. A source can be Kurdish and have nothing to do with the PYD - Kurdistan24 and Rudaw, for example, are Iraqi Kurdish news sites. They do not have any connection with the PYD. As result, their use does not violate third party rules. 3rd: This is NOT about neutrality, and I never claimed that these sources were neutral. I only said that they do not violate third party rules. (Third-party|date=October 2019)) is simply the wrong tag. We could flag the section for POV issues, but not for Third party issues. Applodion (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: Template:Third-party states Article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. The sources in this article are in fact Kurdish and too closely associated with the subject, and not neutral, as the template states. Don't see what's hard to understand here. KasimMejia (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KasimMejia: Why do you insist that Kurdish = PYD? Why is it so difficult to understand that Kurdish sources do not per se violate third-party rules? Look, I will try to get some more sources, but your position is honestly problematic - You argue that all sources related to a whole ethnic group (!) are non-useable. That would be like claiming that we cannot cite Voice of America for any issue related to the United States because is is American. Can you see why this might be unrealistic? Applodion (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I can't, first of all this is not a PYD article, it is Rojava article, you yourself stated that this region is Kurdish 2 days ago and insisted that the Kurdish name Rojava remains as it is. Rojava is 1 of 4 countries where Kurds want a country. So I assume Kurds will not be neutral toward their own country and are not a third party source toward their own people, this is basic logic. And unlike Americans they don't have a country and will support the independence fight of their people. This discussion after your past response has turned into a circle. I won't reply after this because I believe you understand my argument. I will appreciate you placing the 3rd party back to the top, since the issues have not been resolved. KasimMejia (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KasimMejia: What? Perhaps you didn't notice, but I have not voted in the discussion. I am neutral on the article's name. I have never, at no point, claimed that the region is Kurdish - because it isn't. It is polyethnic.
"Rojava is 1 of 4 countries where Kurds want a country" - This is disputed. Many locals do indeed want this, but the PYD-led administration does not. Many Kurds, such as those aligned with the opposition are completely opposed to independence. And Iraqi Kurds also have differing views on Syrian Kurdish independence. Lots and lots of Turkish Kurds supported Erdogan and are opposed to the Pyd & PKK. One has to remember that "the Kurds" are not one bloc, but many sub-groups with differing interests. As result, your logic is simply wrong - "Kurds will not be neutral toward their own country and are not a third party source" just does not match reality.
Anyway, I have begun adding more references. Feel free to add more yourself. Applodion (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I though you supported the name Rojava since you added a citation there yesterday[50], looks like I should've checked first before writing that. Nevertheless the article still has a lot of non 3rd party sources and the template should be placed. You seem to be well informed in Kurdish topics so I assume you can do a better job at it then me. The non 3rd party sources I'm referring to are at least ANF, ANHA and ANA. Those are basically official PYD PKK media. So unless those are taken out 3rd party template should be placed, as for Kurdistan24 I assume they'd have a bias towards another Kurdish semi state and not be neutral. Nevertheless the ANF ANHA ANA should be addressed no matter what. Or just install the template back. KasimMejia (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that too many pro-PYD & pro-PKK sources are used in the article, but I do not think that we have to replace them all. Many of them state mostly uncontroversial stuff such as information on the constitution and laws. As you might see, I have already added more sources to the section and will try to find more stuff to reduce any possible bias. Thereby, the section should become neutral enough. Applodion (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes the stuff like gender equality they shouldn't be used due to bias. As well as other information that tends to promote the semi state. In the education and media section those sources are extensively used, raising doubts on the truthfulness of having so much diversity, secularism and education. Heck makes it seems as if Rojava is comparable to Switzerland in terms of humans rights. Even in the lede these information are pushed at everyones face. Feel like the ideology that they promote is displayed as actually in effect. Similar to how communism claims to be an utopia in theory while its the worst dystopia in fact out there. They should be taken out the lede to promote neutrality. KasimMejia (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way: ARA is probably not connected to the PYD. It was partially based in the Netherlands, and was supported by the Dutch Free Press Unlimited group. Applodion (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, many of the non-Kurdish sources here are unreliable. With my wee eye I spy Sputnik, a slick and internet-savvy outlet of Kremlin propaganda [51] and the "spawn point" of viral disinformation in certain recent Western elections and referendums from the US to Catalonia. Iraqi News doesn't even have veritable journalistic credentials. Middle East Eye is a mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood as per the analysts. As-Safir is a "Syrian government backed newspaper". Need I continue? If we are going to clean out dubious Kurdish sources, it would be rather unbalanced if we left any of these standing.--Calthinus (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The regions ideals placed in the lede.

Diversity, secular polity, direct democratic ambitions, gender equality, environmental sustainability, pluralistic tolerance for religious, cultural and political diversity. All these ideals are placed into lede like they are in effect in the region raising doubts verifiability and neutrality. The region may in fact support these ideals, does that mean they are all in fact in effect? So much in effect that we write these all in the lede? I propose that these ideals are taken out of the lede and placed elsewhere in the article to make this article some what more neutral. The current lede makes Rojava appear more developed than say, Switzerland. Also remind you communism is also in theory a utopia where in reality it is the worst dystopia. KasimMejia (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The communism comparison is kind of rhetorical. We go by policy and RS on Wikipedia. Well, to be fair, this might fall slightly afoul of POV but as long as they are portrayed as ideals and not reality (unless RS back this -- they might, who knows) this is in line with our policies -- just as they would be for communism, in fact.--Calthinus (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to nor think its POV to display the ideals. Do however think that it's POV that these are all listed in the lede. What's your though? KasimMejia (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more an issue of weight than being there at all, imo.--Calthinus (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the autonomous administration's ideals in the lede is hardly a POV. It is clearly phrased as 'ideals' and not the absolute reality on the ground in areas controlled by the administration. Criticisms of authoritarianism and Kurdification which are presented alongside them pretty much balances it out, in my opinion. Sisuvia (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It is clearly phrased as 'ideals'" It's not. KasimMejia (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The supporters of the region argue that it is..." Honestly, it sound pretty clear to me. Applodion (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Seconded :) Sisuvia (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the segment is relatively balanced and clear in specifying that the positive aspects of the regions are what its supporters believe as well as ambitions, it may benefit from some slight rephrasing and I wouldn't necessarily think that moving the entire segment (both praise from supporters/positive aspectts and criticism) to the Politics section would be problematic. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non 3rd party sources

@Applodion: There needs to be consensus to take a tag out rather than a consensus to place it. You cannot deny the issues, say there is no consensus and take a maintenance template out that is supposed to address the issues. Your diff: [52] KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KasimMejia: Look, we discussed this extensively above, and both myself as well as Calthinus were critical of your view on the matter. The tag requires that the article "may rely excessively" on non-third-party sources. "excessively" is important. I would disagree that the use of Hawar/ANHA and ANF is excessive or used for especially contentious stuff; mostly they are used for election results, and info on laws and official statements. Note that I did NOT remove the "listed sources may not be reliable" tag. Improvements have to be made, but to flag the entire article as third-party-rule violating is excessive. Applodion (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do understand your concerns. I have said myself that too many pro-PYD sources are probably used as well as other fringe references, as Calthinus pointed out. To improve these references takes time (and I only have so much), but I do not think that the article is in such horrible shape as to warrant the third party tag. Perhaps you could also look for more reliable sources to add to the article? Applodion (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still far from neutral. We still have not agreed on the name for the article. The tags need to stay there. I will try to contribute next week. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manbij status

According to the new Turkey/Russia and Syria/SDF/Russia agreements, Manbij has been fully restored under Syrian government control. See this map from RT indicating this. Sorry I couldn't find the same map on English. This warrants updating the control status of the city/area and removing this area from SDF/AAONES jurisdiction. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the map in Russian from Newsweek. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original research for name applied to 30% of Syria

@El C: No one refers to this area (~30% of Syria area) as rojava. Users claiming this are simply pushing POV or doing original research. They are simply being more loyal than the king, as even Kurdish nationalist parties do not call this huge area rojava. See the difference between "rojava" as claimed by PYD and current territory under SDF control, which is the subject of this article. Here are some quick examples of serious, MAINSTREAM media outlets (not ARA News, Rudaw, Hawar, etc.) currently adopting the name "Northeastern Syria":

  • CNN: [53]
  • Washington Post: [54]
  • New York Times: [55]
  • Business Insider: [56]
  • Al-Jazeera English [57]
  • Wall Street Journal [58]
  • Financial Times [59] (used Northeast Syria)
  • The Telegraph: [60] (used Northeast Syria)
  • PBS: [61]
  • France24: [62]
  • BBC: [63] (used Northeast Syria)
  • LA Times [64]
  • CBC: [65]

User @SharabSalam: provided more examples. If they happen to use rojava, that would be the exception. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot launch another move request right after the last one closed. El_C 03:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The move request has already been defeated and your points demolished. Quit it. Sisuvia (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amr ibn Kulthoum, respectfully, there have been three move discussions this year (all but one you've been involved in), all of which stemmed from the fact that the polity now refers to itself as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. The result of all three discussions is twofold: 1) there is no consensus to move the page to either the long-form AANES name or the short-form NES name and 2) the consensus is that "Rojava" is still the WP:COMMONNAME according to reliable secondary sources. It can take some time for the common name to change. While some moves such as Republic of Macedonia -> North Macedonia were very speedy due to how reliable sources immediately started using the new name, other moves such as Astana -> Nursultan were a little slower, Swaziland -> Eswatini much slower, and Czech Republic -> Czechia never happened at all. The most recent discussion here just closed with a consensus not to move to the NES name. Please do not cast aspersions or assume bad faith by declaring that editors that disagreed with you are POV-pushers. The results of the three move discussions were produced through policy-based arguments, not through editors "being more loyal than the king." I would not recommend that you start the exact same discussion again with the same proposed name this quickly; even though you are not alone in believing that the current title isn't ideal, it's better to come up with a new proposal if the last one couldn't get a consensus. Proposing the same thing immediately after a discussion closed with a consensus against said proposal doesn't look good, especially when considering that you (whether intentionally or not) engaged in canvassing during that discussion. In other words, please don't WP:REHASH and please don't accuse others of malice. Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 07:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting the article's lead sentence

Western (books and) news media tend to present Rojava as "de facto/semi-autonomous"—though most of them seem to have been either written before the recent Turkish invasion or to present that autonomy as something that existed in the past. Anyway, we should beware, not to present any Western view on a political (controversial) issue as absolute truth. Do or did powers like Assad, Erdogan, Putin, China(Xi Jinping), ever agree to that notion of 'de facto autonomy' of Rojava? As long as we apparently have no knowledge within Wikipedia of their views on Rojava, I presume it appropriate to expressly present that 'de facto autonomy' as merely a (Kurdish and) Western view, in the lead section of our article. Anyway, while our article is not about an administration but about a region, I've removed the previous lead sentence as off-topic, replacing it with an on-topic statement – leading logically to some grammatical adjustments in the rest of the lead section. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change as the words purportedly just don't really fit here and there are multiple sources talking about the "de-facto autonomy" and we have a whole section explaining it. BeŻet (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really reacting on my arguments. I don't deny there are sources saying 'de facto autonomous' -- in fact I've myself (re-)inserted four such sources. My argument is that those sources are exclusively Western or Kurdish -- hence 'purportedly', for arguments given above. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rojava's autonomy is not something subject to Western, Eastern, Southern or Northern viewpoints. It is a de facto autonomous region and fits the criterion for it to be stated as such. "is a subdivision or dependent territory of a country that has a degree of self-governance, or autonomy, from an external authority.", per the autonomous administrative division Wikipage. Granted, I do not oppose the current wording which includes sources that refer to the region as both semi-autonomous and de facto autonomous. The official name for the polity per the polity itself is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", not "North and East Syria". The name within the infobox should be reverted. You also didn't bother to change the translations of that name in Kurdish, Arabic, Syriac and Turkish. The name of the region and polity in the lede should also be altered. "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also called North and East Syria or Rojava," would simply make more sense in my view. The sub-regions of the region are also not "allegedly" self-governing. They are self-governing and none of the three sources state otherwise, if I am not mistaken. No, the region did not gain it's "alleged" de facto autonomy, they did gain its de facto autonomy. Likewise, the de facto autonomous region is not purportedly autonomous, it is autonomous. Sisuvia (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that are your opinions. (Unfortunately,) Wikipedia articles are based only on so-called reliable sources, which don't include Wiki editors-as-person. The point of my edit was, that the sources saying 'de facto autonomous' are all either Western or Kurdish, hence 'purportedly' for the further arguments I've given above, 13:28. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, your changes go against reliable sources. This was discussed numerous times, and your additions are, even if you claim otherwise, OR. Numerous reliable scholars and journalists from all around the world describe the region as autonomous. Applodion (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense: my rewritten lead is fully based on given ref sources, not OR. I'm saying now for the fourth time, that I agree that many scholars etc. call it autonomous, my only point is that they so far are all Western or Kurdish, which leads to the 'purportedly' for the further arguments I've given above, 13:28, which as yet no one has addressed nor retorted. By the way, how autonomous can you be with Russian, Turkish, Syrian tanks in your streets? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. So by your logic, only your hand-picked sources can be trusted on matters in regards to Syria? What kind of reasoning is that? In addition, the cited sources describe this polity as proto-state and autonomous region, so how is your "rewritten lead [...] fully based on given ref sources"? You even added the sentence "In October 2019, Turkey invaded the region, which made both the present and the future status of the region uncertain" which was correctly flagged as complete OR. Applodion (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, you broke 1RR. Applodion (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sue me, then--this remark of yours is fully out of line in this Talk section. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only opinions I articulated are as to how the lede should be written in regards to the region's name. The fact that both the region and its sub-regions are de facto autonomous and self-governing is . . . fact. Simply because sources are of Western origin, assuming you mean based in the 'West', does not discredit them. Outright bias towards a single side discredits them. Not being reliable discredits them. Using supposedly, allegedly and purportedly when stating that the region is indeed autonomous and self-governing is simply nonsensical. Either it is or it isn't, as simple as that. Sisuvia (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't discredit any source. 'De facto autonomous' is a fact according to Western/Kurdish sources, which is exactly what my rewritten lead says and respects. (And 'de facto' is also a fact according to you, which unfortunately does not matter much for the article, see above.) By the way, how autonomous can you be with Russian, Turkish, Syrian tanks in your streets? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Abkhazia exists, one can be a fully functioning state even though one is under de facto occupation/protection. The military presence of another country does not neccessarily impact the ability of a polity to function. Applodion (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that you don't discredit any sources yourself. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that statement was considering my previous post had nothing to do with your answer. On the contrary, the de facto autonomy of the Autonomous Administration is not a fact according to me, it's according to reliable secondary sources that pertain to the subject matter. The fact that Russian, Turkish and Syrian tanks are within the borders of the Autonomous Administration does not diminish nor invalidate its autonomy. That is absolutely nonsensical. Sisuvia (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An 'Administration' is a 'region'? ……

I can't believe I'm reading this (as lead sentence): "The .. Administration … is a … region". Wikipedia wants me to believe that an 'Administration' is a 'region'? Do we really want Wikipedia to tell the world that a region is equivalent to the group or organisation (government, Administration) that is governing it? Or that a region exists that has confusingly been named an "Administration"? And by whom may it purportedly have been named like that, by serious books (Allsopp&vW 2019, Zabad 2017) published in "New York City" etc.!? I'm sure a lot of strange things happen in NY City, but I'm not yet prepared to believe serious books have been published there saying that an 'Administration is a region'. Can the editor(s) responsible for this very improbable statement – lately editor BeŻet – give an exact citation as corroboration? "Administration … is a … region" is about as weird as saying: "The Macron Administration is a country in western Europe", "the Xi Administration is a country in Asia". --Corriebertus (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a country is named "Adiministration", then yes, it would be called so on Wikipedia. See Commandery (China) as example. Applodion (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allsopp & Wilgenburg state on page 89: "The system which, in this book, is commonly referred to as the DAAs – and was declared in January 2014 - has been referred to by the PYD as the 'Interim Transitional Administration' (in 2013) and as the Democratic Self-Rule Administration-Rojava. The areas under its governance have been called 'Western Kurdistan', 'the Autonomous Regions', 'Rojava', Federal Northern Syria, [...] In September 2018 the form of governance reverted to self-administration when a Self-Administration in Northern and Eastern Syria was formed [...]"; they clearly state that the "areas" are called by the various "official" names of the administration + various nicknames. Anyway, as I said above, what matters here is the official name of a polity, not whether the name makes any sense. A country can be called "democratic republic" even if it is a quasi-monarchic dictatorship (see North Korea). This aljazeera article directly states " the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava". Applodion (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove a lot of content from this article soon

So that the article be about Rojava not North and East Syria as there is no reliable source that says Rojava = North and East Syria. Please provide reliable sources that says Rojava (West Kurdistan) = North and East Syria or say goodbye to the original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you guys few hours so that you have time to see my post. Then I will delete the original research content.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, you will be reverted. Almost all of this article is properly cited, even if some of the sources are not the best. Mass deletions do not solve any problems, especially if they are driven by POV motives. Simply put, the given references do state that the current administration (the AANES) has been referred to as Rojava in the past, and is still occasionally called by this name. For example, Lister says that "On 19 July the PYD formally announced that it had written a constitution for an autonomous Syrian Kurdish region to be known as West Kurdistan." Applodion (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Ehem. This aljazeera article directly states "the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava". At least google this before throwing tags around. Applodion (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion, that is not a solid source I have literally spend days searching for sources and all I found was this al-Jazeera (which is known for being state-owned by Qatar) source. They probably got mislead by the Wikipedia page since it is only them who said that. There is no other reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Xinhua does so too. See here. The Economist also equals the two, saying "In September they replaced the name Rojava with the more inclusive, but wordy, “autonomous administration of north and east Syria” (NES)". In addition, there are literally hundreds of left-wing publications ("Rojava, or the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria") which describe it similarily. Applodion (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion, The Lister source does not mention the North and East Syria as the West Kurdistan, the PYD in 2013 way before there was an "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" which is not mentioned by the source. Let me tell you what the Lister source was talking about. It was talking about the region that is called "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" not the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria"--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lister & Wilbenburg were used as sources for the use of "Rojava" per se. I added the Jazeera source to prove that the name is still used as equivalent to the present NES. Applodion (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion, You have broke the 1rr, self-revert please.-SharabSalam (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, done. Could you please restore the old link? The new one is broken, the book seems to have been deleted on archive.org as copyright violation. Applodion (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link works fine. I think you didn't copy the link accurately because there is a dot at the end. try again.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I need you to relax. No need for rush. I believe there is something very wrong in this article and that it confuses the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" later was known as Rojava(West Kurdistan) and the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". These two should not be confused with each other.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The entire issue is moot anyway. "Also known as" does not imply that both names are used in an official capacity at the same time. The Northeast is, simply put, still often called "Rojava". As the AANES governs the area, they are stated to be the same. It really does not matter whether this is correct or anything. People do it, and that suffices. People still call Eswatini "Swaziland", even though the old name was quasi-denounced by the locals. Applodion (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rojava has never been used as a reference to North East Syria ecept in the Al-Jazeera report which is updates which could be mislead by Wikipedia. Historically speaking, the first thing that was established was the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" this later was changed to Rojava which is what the Lister source talks about. Then the name was dropped. Years later, a COMPLETELY different entity was established called "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" which the overwhelming sources use the term "North and East Syria to reference to.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion I need a solid source that says that Rojava has been used to refer to "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" other than Al-Jazeera report which is the only source that says this and could has been misled by Wikipedia. The Lister source proved to be original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I provided more sources above. Also, it is false that the AANES is completely different from the previous administrations. Allsopp & Wilgenburg directly state that all these different names refer to the same polity. Applodion (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion, you have only provided the al-jazreeza report (which is an update and could be misled by wikipedia). The other sources do not support your claim and they are all original research. This only shows that you have got no source and that this article needs to be written.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: I literally listed other sources above (see Xinhua or The Progressive)! Also, just google " Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" with "Rojava" and you get almost ten thousand hits! The Economist states "In September they replaced the name Rojava with the more inclusive, but wordy, “autonomous administration of north and east Syria” (NES)", directly implicating that they are one and the same entity. Look, I am honestly sure that we are really not on the same page here. We talk past each other. I am 100% sure that it is not original research, and you think it is. I am currently really tired of this discussion. Could we please wait with any further actions (including mass deletion) until other users have voiced their opinion? I also want to say that I am sorry if I am too aggressive in this discussion. I am just feeling a bit strained, so no offense meant to you. Applodion (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion, thanks for providing these sources, I have to say that I really believed that there was an original research or sort of distortion . I have no political opinion about this conflict but I felt that there were editors who are making things up. I will read more about this and see. Obviously, I am not going to remove any content now. I was proven wrong.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam's request and comment is 100% right. Even the most ultra-nationalist Kurds don't say Raqqa or Deir-ez-Zor are part of their claimed rojava. They are 100% inhabited by Arabs since ever. I have provided maps before I do this again here. No respected source says Kurds used to live in Raqqa. The Economist piece is an oinion stiry and full of BS. Look at the CIA, BBC maps. These are the claimed "rojava" cantons of rojava when it was announced by PYD, and the areas they kept conquering using military power with US help were not even inhabited by Kurds. As per the majoriy of users voting earlier on the move requests: rojava ≠ AAOENS. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion Congrats on finding something that says the two are synonymous. Now how about bringing me a credible map that says so? How about the millions of articles that call this area simply "northeastern Syria" or simply Kurdish authority(ies). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before. It does not matter whether it is correct to say that Rojava and AANES are the same. It can be completely false - yet we still have to mention it because many people do equal the two. Not to mention that Rojava as ethnic, geographic idea of a "western Kurdistan" is not the same as Rojava, the proto-state. Simply put, this article is about a polity which gave itself various names over time, and one of them (Rojava) stuck so well that it is still applied to this polity regardless (and despite) of old connotations. I do not want to imply that all of northeastern Syria is Kurdish - I said several time that the region is multiethnic. The problem is that a Kurdish name - Rojava - is currently used to refer to the polity which controls northern Syria. To take a comparison - the Holy Roman Empire was neither "Holy", nor "Roman", nor an "Empire" from the 16th century. Regardless, people continued to call it the "Holy Roman Empire" until its dissolution, and historians still use the name. Factual correctness is secondary in these matters. Applodion (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@عمرو بن كلثوم: By the way, here are some maps which label (almost) the entire region "Rojava": Economist, Tagesspiegel, and Washington Institute (the small upper map, red area), Zeit. Zeit and Tagesspiegel are German newspapers, but one can see the label on their maps. Applodion (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add in the lede paragraph that Rojava Kurdish name is used to a region in northern Syria only not Deir-ez-Zor or Raqqa in the lede paragraph as there is no culture, Historical or ethnical relationship between Kurds and these areas in Syria. I found some credible sources for this. I will share them later.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will also try to create an article called Rojava (region)(just like we have an article called Syria (region) which would end this dispute and we can add a tag (not to be confused with Rojava (region)).--SharabSalam (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point, friend. It doesn't matter if the areas of Deir-ez Zor and Raqqa has no cultural, historical or ethnic connection with the Kurdish people, because the name 'Rojava' is used to refer to the whole Autonomous Administration informally, regardless if certain portions of it have any Kurdish presence. The application of the name informally over the whole of the NES does not imply nor assert in anyway that the autonomous polity is wholly Kurdish, that is a fallacious argument. The creation of a separate Rojava article about Western/Syrian Kurdistan would be welcomed. Sisuvia (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. I get it. I will try to solve this issue once and for all by creating a separated Rojava (region) article and I think Rojava region includes parts of Turkey so this article would be helpful. We should probably say in the lede paragraph "it is known by the former name of the 'Democratic Federation of Northern Syria', Rojava". Agree? Since this is what the sources say.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, it seems that you don't. First of, no Rojava as sub-region of the larger geo-cultural Greater Kurdistan does not include Turkey. Greater Kurdistan is divided into four parts, Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian (more commonly known as Rojava) Kurdistan. The creation of a separate page for Rojava as a geographical region which the Kurdish people inhabit does not change the fact that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, shortened to simply NES, is also commonly known as Rojava. It is important to distinguish between two different uses of the name Rojava. One, Rojava meaning the geo-cultural region in Syria which is part of Greater Kurdistan. Two, Rojava as used to refer to the NES. Now according to Wikipedia policy regarding names of articles, we use the most common name out there. (WP:COMMONNAME) Rojava happens to be the most common name that is used to refer to the NES, no matter how hard individuals such as Amr tries to discredit that reality by linking news sources that refer to the NES as 'northeastern Syria' or 'Kurdish Syria'. That fact is proven in the previous move discussion which you can read. Sisuvia (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little patronising. I don't think we need to continue this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's meant to be directed at me, maybe don't view everything that explains a situation to you as patronising and attempt to shut down a discussion with that accusation. Lastly, if you seek to go ahead with your creation of a separate article for Rojava as a geo-cultural region, I welcome it. However, any attempts to remove the name 'Rojava' from this article and others related to it will be reverted. I can ensure you that. Sisuvia (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, I already said I was proven wrong and that I am not going to remove anything. You still barking about that?. --SharabSalam (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is essentially a request for a reopening of the debate regarding the name change (which I was in favor of but was voted down), please check the guidelines of WP:THREEOUTCOMES in relation to the older name change debate - multiple sources were provided in defense of keeping the name "Rojava" and how the name was used for the de facto autonomous region. Stating that you are "going to remove a lot of content from this article soon" and that you will "give you guys few hours so that you have time to see my post" is not an acceptable attitude to have on Wikipedia with regards to WP:CON and contentious issues. Regarding the creation of a "Syrian Kurdistan" in line with the previous version before the Syrian Civil War - that would be another debate that has already been raised on this talk page (#Split Syrian Kurdistan into new article?) without any significant opposition. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a request for a reopening of a debate. You should be thankful I posted in the talk page before doing any edit. Instead I am getting bad faith from you. Again you should probably thank me.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Thank you for what would essentially be a vandalisation of this entire article? You're amusing. Had you removed what you erroneously viewed to be OR and etc. your edit would've been reverted regardless and the possibility of a ban could've also been entertained by the Wikipedia administration. Sisuvia (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, removing original research is not vandalism. It is the exact opposite, but I didnt ask thanks for that. I asked for thanks for being here first. All I am getting is hostile responses. You are welcome! --SharabSalam (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Indeed, removing OR isn't vandalism. However, what you would've removed were what YOU viewed to be OR, and as I said in the very reply that you responded to, what you viewed as OR wasn't actually OR. Learn to read more intently. You don't deserve appreciation for starting a pointless talk section and then asking for said appreciation for consulting the frequent editors of this article first before your planned edit, which is what you should do in the first place. Sisuvia (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, it was an original research before I came. For example, Lister never mentioned AANES so he didnt explicitly say that it is known as Rojava. That was original research. If there was a fair-minded guy he would give me credit for that. You apparently dont even know what an original research is in the first place.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Ha ha, yes one instance of original research. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you intended, as this talk section's title says, to I quote, "remove a lot of content". I'll just end this reply with that, and let you contemplate. Sisuvia (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of content should be removed because there was no source mentioning the AANES as Rojava, therefore, the content about AANES was original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A decision was made, your viewpoint did not "win" the RfC, and Applodion has indeed graciously provided a source. "Yolo", as they say, don't waste your life beating a dead horse, move on already.--Calthinus (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section

I'm going to put aside the fact that you seemingly don't grasp the point I'm trying to make for now. There were and I'm rather certain that there still are sources that state the AANES was and also known as Rojava. You're free to prove me wrong on that if you are able to as I am not completely sure. I will also be reverting your latest edit to the lede as it is completely unnecessary and a source that states that the NES is also known as Rojava (and only that) is provided. Sisuvia (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sisuvia, all other sources state that it was the name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. It is extremely needed to explain what the origin of the name is.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Yes, the previous name of this autonomous administration was the 'Democratic Federation of Northern Syria'. That is explained and stated in Rojava#Polity names and translations rendering your inclusion of 'DFNS' in the lede completely pointless. The "source" of the name Rojava, is that is what you were referring to when talking about the "origin of the name", is also explained in the same section. I've also checked the Lister source and unfortunately I have found no mention of either 'Rojava' nor 'Democratic Federation of Northern Syria'. If you have, kindly provide the evidence in the form of a screenshot. Sisuvia (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name was the former official name of Northern Syria. That needs to be in the lede. The Lister source doesn't mention Rojava because it is not a well-known name but West Kurdistan see above argument which is why there is that note in the source. In 2013 there was only Northern Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it needed to be in the lede, it would've been included hundreds of edits prior. The former names of the region are clearly articulated in Rojava#Polity names and translations. Stop ignoring that. Only the official name and the name which is used to refer to the region, Rojava are necessary to be included in the lede. As for your newly added source, it is completely unnecessary and pointless. Rojava as the official name for the autonomous region may no longer be in use by the administration itself, but it is there because it is the most common name that is used to refer to the region as a whole. Remove it and the rest of your edit to the lede. Sisuvia (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the name was the former official name of North Syria, that needs to be mentioned.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging recent contributors here, @Applodion: @KasimMejia: @AntonSamuel:. This individual refuses revert his edits (which in my opinion are disruptive, if anything) to the lede. Input would be appreciated. Sisuvia (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: I thought that we had talked about this. The name "Rojava" is still used, not just in the context of its past official title. I support a revert to the original wording. Applodion (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of God, I am not saying that it is not still used but that was the former official name. To avoid mixing between the Rojava as a region and as a political entity. --SharabSalam (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was and still isn't any confusion nor mixing between Rojava as used to refer to the autonomous administration and Rojava Kurdistan as a geographical region. The fact that Rojava is used separately from Rojava Kurdistan to refer to the autonomous administration is detailed in the source by Allsop & Wilgenburg and is recognised by virtually all editors of the page, with few exceptions present, and readers alike if I may be so bold as to claim as such. Sisuvia (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the problem with adding the fact that it was the former official name of Northern Syria?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained this just a couple of replies ago, it is completely unnecessary. Every single previous name is mentioned in the article itself. If it were important enough to be added in the lede, it would've been. Sisuvia (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely necessary, things that are in the lead section should be in body of the article. An important note like that should be mentioned in the lead section. You saying unnecessary is subjective argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I also don't see why it is neccessary. We usually don't explain in the lede why something is named the way it is - we simply say which names are commonly used. The explanation is provided in the etymology section (here: "Polity names and translations"). Applodion (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is no doubt it is necessary to mention that so that there is no confusion between the region and the political name and the "known as" name.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: for the hundredth and also the last time, no one, absolutely no one was ever confused about the naming of the autonomous administration. You say necessary, yet I can guarantee you more editors than just me and Appolodion would disagree. Revert your edits, they're not needed and no matter what poor defense you put up, they will remain unnecessary and pointless. Sisuvia (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, putting "Rojava" like that alone without context is going to confuse the reader. No one care if editors are not confused. We need to clarify what sources say. It is a sourced factual content. Why are you arguing about removing it?--SharabSalam (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Seeing as I never mentioned that editors wouldn't be confused, try again. The original lede which stated "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria also known by the name Rojava" makes just about 100% more sense than the current lede. Readers don't even need to read past the first sentence of the entire article and they would know CLEARLY, that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is also referred to as Rojava. It is as bloody simple as that. There is absolutely no confusion about the previous lede. Regardless, if said readers bothered to read further than the bloody lede, which most readers that actually give a flying thought about the subject matter would, they would know the source of the term Rojava which is apparently what you're so worried about. No, the former name of the autonomous administration does not need to be in the lede. No, readers have not and will not be confused. Revert your edits. Sisuvia (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, The sources themselves say that. The lead is absolutely fine and more clear now than before. Rojava (as a region) is a very tiny small part of Northeast Syria. There is no way saying "Rojava" alone is clear. That's utterly false. The lede should summaries these key points that are mentioned in the body.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: I'm not afraid to admit my patience with you is simply non-existent at this point and what I view to be your extraordinary ability to be oblivious, utterly maddening. But I will try my best and be as civil as is humanly possible for me. Yes, Rojava as a geo-cultural region is but one relatively small part of the northern and eastern geographical parts of Syria as a whole. However, it is well established, and I have explained this to you before so don't act dumb, that when using the term Rojava there are two meanings. One use is to refer to Rojava Kurdistan, also known as Syrian Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan . The other is to refer to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. It is clearly stated in Rojava#Polity names and translations the origin of Rojava and it's use by the administration in its prior names. There is a clear distinction in the article between Rojava as a geo-cultural region and as the unofficial name for the autonomous administration. Your contribution is absolutely unnecessary, and I sincerely hope that is the last time I have to say so. The original lede was very bloody clear and bloody fine. If there was a problem with it, countless other editors that are FAR more able than you and me would've changed it, would've raised it as a legitimate problem. But no, they didn't because the lede was fine as it was, because the supposed confusion is only found on your part. Neither does the source you added, or others add weight to the argument in your favour. The naming of this article and that of the Autonomous Administration had already been previously dealt with. Revert your edits. Sisuvia (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, first of all I have been civil and polite during this discussion or at least I am trying. I believe you need to be more patient and that you have to calm down. Try taking a deep breath while forgetting about this issue.
We almost agree on everything, I agree that when using the term Rojava there are two meanings. One use is to refer to Rojava Kurdistan, also known as Syrian Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan . The other is to refer to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. You said "It is clearly stated in 'Rojava#Polity names and translations the origin of Rojava' and it's use by the administration in its prior names. " that is true but the lead section is what is seen firstly by a reader. Readers don't usually go down and read everything, they often just read the lead section which should be a summary of the body of the article and it should make ambiguous terms like Rojava more clear.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: If we went by your logic, we should accordingly fit every single detail in the article in the lede since that's what the readers will read first. Your logic in regards to this matter is faulty and holds no water. You claim readers don't usually go down and read everything as if it were a fact. I believe that other editors and I would benefit from evidence in the form of statistics that prove your claim. No matter how hard you try and portray the name Rojava as an ambiguous word, it won't work because one the origins of the name Rojava and the reasoning as to why it was used less frequently and eventually dropped altogether by the autonomous administration. Two, it is clearly written in a way (also known by the name of Rojava) as to make it clear that the Autonomous Administration is not the geo-cultural region of Rojava. Rather, it is simply what it is also known as in name. Stating that the name Rojava is also what the Autonomous Administration is referred to does not convey any ambiguity, at the very least from my view and I believe other editors would also agree. I would also like you to find me one instance of a reader getting confused about whether or not the Autonomous Administration as a political entity is a separate from Rojava Kurdistan as a geo-cultural region.
P.S, I would like to apologise for my previous hostile attitude. I will admit that I am not someone that has a lot of patience. Will work on that. Sisuvia (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, that is not my logic. That is common sense. We wouldn't let an ambiguous term in the lead section without explaining it. You said it is unnecessary yet you also said that the term has two meanings. What if a reader thought that this is the geographical-cultural area of Rojava? Don't you think that we should make it clear for them that this is not the geo-cultural term which is much smaller comparing to the AANES?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: If it were common sense other editors would be agreeing with you, unless you mean to say you're the only one with common sense? The odds that a reader would mistake this page for the geo-cultural region of Rojava Kurdistan are literally astronomical. Want to know why? Because it is clearly stated in the previous lede that the Autonomous Administration is also referred to as Rojava. In no way within the English language can that possibly give the idea that the Autonomous Administration is the same as Rojava Kurdistan. Stating that "something" is also referred to by another name does not mean that, and definitely does not convey the idea that said something is what the other name is. Neither does your new lede make it any clearly, if anything it makes it even more confusing. "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known by the former name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Rojava" One, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria are the same thing, that's a fact that you CAN NOT deny. Therefore the old name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Rojava is also the old name of the Autonomous Administration. That means your edit is literally redundant, stop trying to dispute that point. The other editor that was also involved in this little debate agrees with me. It's 2 to 1, you're in the minority, unfortunately for you. I'll throw in a little statistical fact for you here. The average reader that visits Wikipedia stays on for an average of 4 minutes. I don't know about you, but for most people I know four minutes would be enough to read at the very least 35% of the article. That includes Rojava#Polity names and translations Sisuvia (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, you are very mistaken. Just because there are two like-minded editors disputing with me, doesn't mean I am not applying common sense or that you are not, it means you might be mistaken. The other editor also doesn't actually support what you are saying. The difference between the the Democratic federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is like the difference between between the first and the second Saudi kingdom. It is a past establishment with different geography and the name Rojava was an official name of that establishment which was only Northern Syria. The term is ambiguous and has to be clerified in the lead section..it does not matter whether the average reader stays 4 mins in this article, ambiguous terms should be clerified. All of your argument sounds like I just don't like it. You have presented no real objective argument, instead, you have admitted that it is an ambiguous term and you don't want it to be clerified in the lede???--SharabSalam (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: The other editor actualy supports reverting to the previous lede, which is the main point really. The difference between the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syriais not as drastic as the First and Second Saudi State. That's a false equivalency. The Emirate Diriyah and the Emirate of Nejd were two related states but certainly not the same, which is what the DFNS and NES are, the same. There was a 6-year interregnum between the end and establishment of the respective states which saw an Egyptian occupation. No need to mention the fact that Diriyah was literally toppled and Nejd a completely new state. The only connections between them are the Wahhabi doctrine, style of government (Imamate) and leaders of the same bloodline. Whereas the difference between the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is literally a number words in the constitution and a name change. It's also interesting that you would use the First and Second Saudi States as examples for you argument. Don't you think that if the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria was actually as different as the two Saudi states were, there'd be a separate article for the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria exclusively? Really makes you think, doesn't it? This alone renders your whole argument essentially moot. Yes, in this specific debate it is a matter of whether the reader stays and reads an article for an average of 4 minutes, because you yourself used an argument about how readers usually only read the lede, meaning they only stay on pages for a very short period of time, which is of course an unverified statement that you have been unable or refuse to provide evidence to support. It's also amusing that you would allege I have no real objective argument. Rojava is not an ambiguous term, not in this context, and I believe I have stated that more than once throughout the course of this frankly idiotic debate. The term Rojava is clearly stated as an alternative name also used to refer to the autonomous region. That in no way implies that said autonomous region is the same as the geo-cultural location of Rojava Kurdistan. The grammar previously used in the lede is incredibly clear and is able to be understood by anyone with even the fluency of an 8 year old child. Fluency in the English language, anyways. Sisuvia (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sisuvia you have totally misunderstood what I meant by the first and the second Saudi states. The geographical area of the previous establishment( Democratic federation of Northern Syria) was controling a small area which was officially called Rojava which is what the sources next to the paragraph say. The term "Rojava" in reference to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is ambiguous and you, yourself, said that it is ambiguous instead you want the reader to be misled if he is just going to read the lead section? Is that what you want? The reader would think this is Rojava as the region. The current lede totally make it clear that the name was the previous official name of the democratic federation of Northern Syria. Rojava as an official name was just few for a small period of time and then there were more lands they took and then they changed the name to Northern Syria (doesn't have to have its own article especially that the AANES is a developed entity from it) and then there were more lands they took and then they changed the name to North and East Syria. Here is the problem you want to make North and East Syria region = Rojava region. This is what the previous lede suggest. Which is why I said that the AANES is known by the previous name of the democratic federation of Northern Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find the founding of this entire thread disruptive and demonstrative of WP:OWN. You discuss controversial things. You don't give people a few hours to see it before you impose your will.--Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus, what? I came here because I saw a huge part of original research and I have all the right to remove original research. I didnt remove but instead I came here to ask you guys for explanation until the original research was solved by Applodion who added non-original research sources-direct sources that explicitly say it as it is. You need to look at Sisuvia who is shouting REVERT YOUR EDIT and down there saying he is going to ask an admin like if the admin is going to block me because I disagree with him.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Unfortunately, my detailed response which probably numbered around 800 words or so was . . . lost because the Google Chrome tab for Wikipedia reloaded itself. I literally do not have any motivation to rewrite what is essentially an entire essay so I will just write a relatively short response. Indeed I misunderstood what you were trying to convey when you used the first and second Saudi states as an example in favour of your argument. I previously wrote something rather detailed and long about how your example is nevertheless still wrong, but of course as that was lost I'll just offer you a short recap. The first and second Saudi states are different, they are separate because one was founded as the successor to the other. There is a reason one is referred to as the first and the other the second. Because Nejd was founded to succeed Diriyah and was not founded as a continuation of the same state. That is what makes them separate entities. Unlike with the subject of the article, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria was not founded to be the successor of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. On the contrary and as I have argued for far too many times, it is the continuation of the DFNS. Your idea that the DFNS and the NES are two completely separate entities like the first and second Saudi state are is horribly misguided. You want to use historical examples to add weight to your argument? I can do the same, take the Ottoman Empire as an example. The empire, which is officially called the "Exalted Ottoman State" in Ottoman Turkish wasn't founded as the "Exalted Ottoman State". It was founded as the Beylik of Osmanoğulları, a minuscule little state when compared to the Ottoman Empire at its largest extent in the 15th century. (Here is the map of the Anatolian Beyliks, you can find the Ottoman Beylik at the top-right area bordering with the Byzantines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beylicats_d%u2019Anatolie_vers_1330-en.svg. You can find the Ottoman Empire at its largest extent in this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OttomanEmpireMain.png) Yet, despite the increase in territory held and the change of name from "Beylik of Osmanoğulları" to the "Exalted Ottoman State", the two are still essentially the same entity only that they were in different periods of development. This is unlike the first and second Saudi states which were separate from each other. Likewise, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria are the same thing and not as you view them to be, separate entities. Moving on to your other arguments, no. Readers will not be misled by the previous lede because it is made abundantly clear with very understandable and basic grammar that the Autonomous Administration is also referred to as Rojava. That does not mean nor in any way convey the idea that the two are the same thing. No one is contending that Rojava was the official name for only a period of time, but that's not even the point nor is it relevant to the argument. We are not discussing whether or not Rojava was a historical name used by the administration, nor how long it was used for. I'll be brutally frank with you, this confusion which the previous lede supposedly conveyed, something which only you raised a problem about for that particular reason is resultant from the fact that you are not fluent in the English language. I don't mean that in an offensive way, nor is it meant to be a personal attack. I recognise that your edit was done in good faith, I seriously do. However, it is simply that your lack of fluency happens to be the source of this problem. The previous lede was phrased in a particular way, in simple yet clear grammar as to ensure that there would be no confusion. This is the last time I will be asking you this, revert your edits. If you refuse to do so, I will be seeking intervention from the Wikipedia administration to settle this issue once and for all. I don't mean that in a threatening way, it's simply that this has gone on for long enough. Sisuvia (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, I am not going to read all of this off-topic thing see WP:EXHAUST . At the end of the day, you said when using the term Rojava there are two meanings. One use is to refer to Rojava Kurdistan, also known as Syrian Kurdistan and Western Kurdistan . The other is to refer to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. and that means the term is ambiguous which means we have to clarify it in the lede paragraph. I honestly dont know your problem with that except saying that it is already clarified in the body which is sort of not knowing what the lead section is all about. It should summaries all key points in the article and should clerify ambiguous terms. I dont think you have said any thing objective against this except that you just dont like it. Calling admins for a dispute? What?--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: One, it's not off-topic, I'm literally countering your points and expressing my own. If that's off-topic, virtually all your interactions with me are essentially off-topic. Rojava within this context is not at all an ambiguous term, and I have explained that multiple times, there is absolutely no need for clarification. The fact that you can even claim that I have stated noting objective and that my only point is about how I simply don't like your edit, and to continue to act as if you're in the right says a lot more about you than it does about me. Calling for admins to resolve a dispute also doesn't mean that they're going to block you, as you had claimed above. Calling in an admin to resolve the dispute means just that, to resolve a dispute. It's a clear and straightforward statement, much like the lede prior to your edits. This just reinforces my point that this whole problem is the result of your lack of fluency in English, seriously. Sisuvia (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have to read 4000 bits comment. I dont want to waste my brain cells on reading a comment that can be summarized. Let see, if I said for example: Levant also known as Syria. the term is ambiguous and we have to clarify it in the lede. It is not clarified in the context of the previous lede , it was simply saying that Autonomous Administration of Syria is the Rojava without clarifying that it is not the Rojava region that is inhabited by Kurds.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: I honestly have no idea how many times I have to repeat this, but the lede was not in any way saying that the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is Rojava. It stated that the Autonomous Administration was also referred to as Rojava. That is completely different from stating that the Autonomous Administration is Rojava! Don't play the "ambiguous term" card here either, because the lede stating that the Autonomous Administration is also referred to as Rojava is not ambiguous in any way whatseoever! The meaning is absolutely crystal clear! You are literally the only person that holds that viewpoint out of all other frequent editors here, you are in the minority, your edit to the lede is not necessary, and in my personal opinion frankly unwelcome. Your analogy with the Levant and Syria is also completely moot, the Levant article specifically states "historical region of Syria" because it is equating the geographical location of the Levant to that of historical Syria. That is completely different and your inability to realise that again only reinforces my earlier point. Sisuvia (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sisuvia, the term is still ambiguous whether it is "is" or "also referred to as", it is still not clarifying which Rojava we are referring to. Honestly, you can ask an admin to participate. I just dont think an admin would not allow a clarification of an ambiguous term in the lead just because it is mentioned in the body of the article. I dont think I would want to waste more time with this discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also admins are just like any editor here except that they have the ability to block an editor etc. I dont know why you would ask an admin to participate. Why dont you ask someone who holds the pending changes reviewer permission instead?.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: the lede paragraph

Should the lede paragraph be:

  • A:

    The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known by the former name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, Rojava,[a]

  • B

    The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known as Rojava,[b]

  • C: Another suggestion
--SharabSalam (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ The name "Rojava" ("The West") was initially used by the region's PYD-led government, before its usage was dropped in 2016.[1][2][3] Since then, the name is still used by some locals and international observers.[4][5]
  2. ^ The name "Rojava" ("The West") was initially used by the region's PYD-led government, before its usage was dropped in 2016.[1][2][6] Since then, the name is still used by some locals and international observers.[4][5]

References

  1. ^ a b Lister (2015), p. 154.
  2. ^ a b Allsopp & van Wilgenburg (2019), p. 89.
  3. ^ https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/51940fb9-3aff-4e51-bcf8-b1629af00299/-rojava--no-longer-exists---northern-syria--adopted-instead-
  4. ^ a b "Turkey's military operation in Syria: All the latest updates". al Jazeera. 14 October 2019. Retrieved 29 October 2019.
  5. ^ a b "The Communist volunteers fighting the Turkish invasion of Syria". Morning Star. 31 October 2019. Retrieved 1 November 2019.
  6. ^ https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/51940fb9-3aff-4e51-bcf8-b1629af00299/-rojava--no-longer-exists---northern-syria--adopted-instead-

Survey

  • A The sources in there are all about the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Rojava is an ambiguous term, it can mean the Kurdish region which is very small comparing to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. According to the article when the Kurdish-led government expanded it changed its name from Rojava to "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" after that it expanded further and the name was changed to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. However, the term Rojava was still used among some locals and some sources. The term Rojava can also mean "West Kurdistan" which is a small area in Northern Syria. If we say that Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is known as Rojava we risk confusing the reader of what Rojava we are referring to is. Is North and East Syria, West Kurdistan? of course not! Therefore I worded it to make it clear that, Rojava was the former name of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. Somehow this is not agreed by some editors for subjective reasons like, "that it is already explained in the body of the article and that it is not necessary to put it in the lede. I believe we need to make ambiguous terms clear in the lead section.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go with A, for now until something better emerges. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Option B - This was discussed above by myself and several other editors, and I stand by my opinion that a simple "also known as" or something equivalent along with a note for further clarity sufficies. While I understand the concern that confusion might arise due to the name "Rojava", this does not change the fact that the current polity in northern Syria (the AANES) is nicknamed "Rojava" in many sources, regardless of historical connotations with this term. The name "Rojava" is not just applied to the polity because it was formerly included in one of its official titles; it has become a quick shorthand for many, and has become closely associated with the polity itself. For example, many leftists are non-nationalistic but still use the "Rojava" name - not because they consider northern Syria Kurdish, but because they associated "Rojava" with the current polity that follows partially anarchistic-communist ideals. Anyone who wants to be informed why and how the AANES came to be known as "Rojava" can read the etymology section, just like in any other article. Applodion (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, option A is flatly false, as it is not actually "known" by that name. --Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Limiting results to the past year and filtering out Wikipedia and its mirrors, the string "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" has only 1500 results.[66]. This is small, especially compared to symmetrically filtered results on the entity when called Rojava, which yields 2,180,000 results, i.e. a factor of over 1,000 between them. It is simply false to say that the "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" is a name in English that Rojava is actually known by.--Calthinus (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend Option B or something similar to it, "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" is not the common name of the de facto autonomous region and the lead becomes pretty cluttered and unclear with that name featured there as well. It and other terms that were used and that are used for the region are also already featured in the pop up text featured in the lead and in the polity names section. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. WP:Disambiguation is not the purpose of lead sentences.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C. The article was started(4Oct2012) as an article about a region called Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan. That are both Kurdish nationalist namings of a geographical area(4Oct2012). It is one of the four parts of 'Kurdistan' or Greater Kurdistan which ofcourse is also a Kurd.nationalist naming, and which region(Kurdistan) is roughly defined, as Wikipedia rightly states. This logically implies that also Syrian Kurdistan (the part of Kurdistan that was 'parachuted' into the state of Syria, in one of the peace conferences after World War I), is only roughly defined.
Since 'Western Kurdistan' translates into Kurdish language as Rojavayê Kurdistan, which was/is also commonly referred to as simply Rojava(said Wikipedia on 2Dec2013,with a ref source), Wiki at some point decided to title this article 'Rovaja', which logically, just as on 4Oct2012, still means nothing else than a roughly defined part of Syria.
Within that 'rough' region, as of 2012, Kurdish (military) control arose, and in Nov2013 even a de facto government was declared—for areas Afrin, Kobane and Jazira(Wiki version 2Dec2013). These three areas probably lie within Rovaja, but should NEVER in Wikipedia be identified with Rovaja. The de facto declared (autonomous) government will probably have enlarged their territory, perhaps even have lost parts of it, buth regardless of which territory they (claim to) govern (at some moment), they should NEVER in Wikipedia be identified with the roughly defined 'Rovaja'. A government is not a (rough) region.
Therefore, the lead (first two sentences) should be restored, into something like: Rovaja, or Syrian Kurdistan, or Western Kurdistan, is a roughly defined region in northeastern Syria …. Since 2012/2013, parts or all of this region are being governed by self-proclaimed autonomous Administrations or governments. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria are essentially the same thing. One is the former name of the other, meaning Rojava is also the former name of the Autonomous Administration. Thus making Option A completely nonsensical. Neither did the lede prior to your edit use "also known as", rather it was "also known by the name" and before that "sometime referred to by the name". If anything we should be using "also referred to as" or "also referred to by the name" to make it even more clear that the NES is referred to as by the name of Rojava. Not that it is the geo-cultural region of Rojava Kurdistan itself, which is what this editor is so obsessed about as if it wasn't already clear before. Sisuvia (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

عمرو بن كلثوم, Do you have another proposal? I tried to only mention what the sources next to the lede paragraph say. Do you have another option that will also reflect what sources say?.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

KasimMejia, could you please prove to us that there are photos of regions that are outside the adminstration control? I am a bit confused because of the title misleading term. Also what are the non neutral wording in the article. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: I think he meant that because territories like Ras al-Ayn are now under Turkish/FSA control, their photos (such as the church in the religion section) should no longer be featured in the article. This makes little sense, however, as such photos are meant to show certain features at certain points in history, i.e. Christians live in northern Syria, and the photo of a church in Ras al-Ayn sowcased an example of Christian architecture in northern Syria. He also claimed that "bombarded" is a POV word which I honestly don't understand (by the way, KasimMejia claimed that Battle of Raqqa (2017) is written in a pro-SDF language, yet it features quotes like this: 'the situation for the besieged populace was "beyond catastrophic, I can't describe the situation as anything besides hellish. People are just waiting for their turn to die." ' How this this pro-sdf?) Applodion (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it make little sense? The article is about the "region". What's the point of displaying areas outside of it. An comparison, is Aleppo city included in article Syrian Opposition, they did control half of it for 4 years. The word bombarded is POV, the word airstrikes should be used which is neutral. KasimMejia (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think photographs of areas not presently under the control of the SDF should be neccesarily removed, as due to the civil war, territorial control is constantly in flux. Either replacing the photo with another equivalent photo (a photo of, let's say, a church, in a different area under the Admin's control), or addding in something like "under SDF control until –Month– 20XX", "not currently under Administration control as a result of –Relevant offensive name–" etc to the caption, would work far better in my opinion than simply removing the photographs. -Thespündragon 01:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This information needs to be added, particularly in the light of the vigorous support given to it by several western countries and media outlets. This was published by no less a source than the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

The third wave of attacks by the TAK has seen a growing operational connection to the Kurdish Rojava, with the attacks being planned and prepared in the Kurdish majority cantons in northern Syria. The perpetrators involved in the February 17 and March 13 Ankara attacks as well as the April 27 Bursa attacks received military training in camps in northern Syria for lengths of time spanning eight months to two years and participated in clashes in that area. For instance, Abdulbaki Somer, the perpetrator of the February 17 Ankara attack, spent 10 years in northern Iraq and Turkey before joining the TAK in 2014. Later that year he moved to northern Syria and joined the YPG for a year and a half. He then assumed the identity of Syrian refugee Salih Neccar and “legally” entered Turkey in July 2015, thus erasing his incriminating record in Turkey and arming himself with a new identity. After returning to Turkey he kept a low profile and did not even contact members of his own family. Cagla Demir, the female suicide bomber who carried out the March 13 Ankara attack, and Eser Cali, the female suicide bomber who carried out the April 27 Bursa attack, each spent more than six months in Syria

Link - https://ctc.usma.edu/the-kurdistan-freedom-falcons-a-profile-of-the-arms-length-proxy-of-the-kurdistan-workers-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insidethelight (talk • contribs) 02:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures or reference to areas not under SDF control anymore

There are pictures and reference to areas not under SDF control anymore, which need to be updated. Also, claiming that Halabiye is part of rojava where it is 99% Arab just adds to the severe credibility issues in this article. You can keep reverting any attempts to solve these issues, but that will only worsen the credibility of this page and implicated users. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we remove all images and references to said areas? They were part of this region in the past, and the images showcase that. Furthermore, the images in the geography section are not supposed to provide any claims on territorial control, but to give readers an impression on northeastern Syria's geography - and all these territories, Rojava or not, are still part of Syria anyway. Applodion (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum that there is no point in including these pictures of formerly controlled. By that logic Syrian Rebels should be shown as controlling half of Aleppo still. 171.97.79.145 (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument simply makes no sense whatsoever, and completely misses the point of the problem. Aleppo's history section shows images when the city was partially held by rebels, and when it was under Ottoman rule, and so on... Images do not imply current control. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Aleppo article and Syrian Rebel/Rojava articles are not the same thing buddy. 171.97.79.145 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who used it as comparison... And your argument still does not make sense. Why should we use different standards in relation to images for different articles when these images are used for the same purpose? Applodion (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument does make sense since there is consensus which you disagree with. I'm not gonna repeat my argument in a circle. 171.97.79.145 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Which consensus? The consensus of yourself and Amr ibn Kulthoum? That makes two, and - oh no - myself and Lightspecs are also two! Which means that there is no censensus for removing the images. Also, consensus or not, your arguments make no logical sense. My argument is simple: The images give readers an idea of northeastern Syria's history and geography. That is their purpose, therefor they are here. You think that they imply current ownership, without properly explaining why or how - and no, the mere existence of an image does not automatically say "these lands belong to XYZ". Applodion (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the inclusion of the non controlled locations due to having no connection to the region. This is Wikipedia, not imaginationland. 183.89.13.86 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria&oldid=929699843"