Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

Rudaw

I'm not sure whether Rudaw editorial board is considered to be the same standard as big online channels, but there certainly is an editorial board there [1] - which is the key indicator of reliability.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rudaw editorial standards are very bad, and it is basically the propaganda arm of the corrupt nepotistic KRG. Genjix (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Kurds announce autonomy

We can now put a geopolitical entity template here - Kurds announce an autonomous government in Syrian Kurdistan [2].GreyShark (dibra) 22:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Several points.

1. They announced the will do it but have not formed one yet.

2. Flag, national anthem etc. etc. were still not accepted. As far as I understand this authority should draft Constitution which will be than put under referendum and that will approve it. Only there flag and anthem will be finalized. Many Kurdish parties are still loyal to Ala Rengin.EllsworthSK (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. No language has been made official either. We have to wait and see. Chaldean (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Map?

Is there a map of Rojava in Wikipedia. If there isnt, it must be made.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Military map issues

Current military situation in Syria.

  Controlled by the Syrian government

  Controlled by the Kurdish Self-Administration

  Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

  Controlled by other rebels

  Occupied by the Israeli military

There's been some reverts recently regarding the mentioning of Israeli occupation in the legend of the military situation map. See map and legend to right. I feel it belongs in the legend because (1) the map is not solely about the civil war and, more importantly, (2) we should not leave a color unexplained. It's not a political statement to include it; it reflects the current military situations in Syria. If you all feel the Israeli occupation shouldn't even be in the map, that should be discussed on the talk page for the map image or a new image should be chose to replace the map via discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The map should show the only Syrian factions. All sides are some degree of Syrian. Some Kurds want to become autonomous, the FSA and pro-Assad factions are obviously Syrian. This map should show a battle between Syrians, and should not include outside forces unless they have officially declared war against a faction. —SPESH531Other 05:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra and other Jihad's are largely non-Syrians. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any such maps available? Or can you request an edit of this map on its talk page so that it excludes the blue section? Supreme Deliciousness created the map, so maybe it can just be discussed here. I honestly have little interest in this either way, I just really dislike when legend aren't complete (and I've asked the people at Project Map if there are any rules about map legends). Anway, I'll wait for Supreme Deliciousness to reply and let you all work it out. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the original

file has no Israeli occupation on it. —SPESH531Other 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The map shows the current military situation in Syria. it doesn't matter if Israel is or is not a part of the civil war, it is still occupying a part of Syria during the civil war. We can ad another sentence after "Occupied by the Israeli military" explaining that Israel is not fighting in the civil war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We can always change the current military situation in Syria. The purpose for the files are for the Syrian Civil War. —SPESH531Other 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and during the Syrian civil war Israel is still occupying part of Syria, the map shows all groups occupying Syria during the civil war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And besides, where was the consensus to use the map with the Israeli occupation? On the original file, you created the blue Israeli occupation, and then the edit was reverted. Making a new map and replacing it on all the pages was not a consensus made. —SPESH531Other 14:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

According to international law, Golan Heights IS under military occupation by Israel. So, it makes perfect sense to have it included in the map, and in the legend. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Current military situation in Syria.

  Controlled by the Syrian government

  Controlled by the Kurdish Self-Administration

  Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

  Controlled by other rebels

-----------------------------------------------------------

  (under Israeli occupation)

• WP:MAPS comment There is a validity to the argument that the Israeli Golan occupation is part of the military situation. However, the map absolutely misleadingly presents Israel as an active belligerent faction in the conflict. If the Israeli occupation is to be included at all, great emphasis must be placed on that it is not so. A suggestion can be seen with in the box at the right, where the Golan is coloured white, the Israeli legend rewritten and parenthesised with a link to the Golan Heights, and with a separator from the other boxes. Perhaps this can be agreeable to all parties? ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good but we don't need to change the color. It can stay blue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I kind of like the white to separate it from the rest. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The new map is good. I don't mind the white. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I can also support the white map and its text. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - it is obvious that except Supreme Deliciousness, no one here is aware of the previous closure (see this), to use striped coloring on Israeli-controlled Golan Heights in Syrian maps. Syrian Kurdistan talk page is not a proper place to change the previous consensus, especially considering that participants of previous discussion had not been notified (deliberately?). Furthermore, placing the combatant of the Six Day War (Israel) into the maps on Syrian Civil War is obviously WP:OR.GreyShark (dibra) 07:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm continuing and expanding this discussion to the main page of the Syrian Civil War, please discuss it at talk:Syrian Civil War#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps.GreyShark (dibra) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

In this article why not just hide the southern half of Syria and the white box caption as they are irrelevent to the article. Or is that technically difficult? Jzlcdh (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Are there sources (as judged by Wikipedia to be reliable) that notably or at all link the Golan Heights as an issue in the Syrian Civil War?? I personally view the occupation of the Golan heights as being morally wrong but that is just my unrelated opinion. The Syrian Civil War only mentions the Golan heights as a location where "Israel has provided treatment to 750 Syrians" - "750". I see no encyclopaedic justification for highlighting the Golan Heights on Syrian Civil War related maps. This illegal occupation relates to entirely different topics. This is not a !Vote issue. WP:Consensus relates to Wikipedia's goals which primarily involves building an encyclopaedia not the advocation of editor opinion or WP:OR. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is not only about the Syrian Civil War but about the "Current military situation in Syria". Also the Israeli-occupied Golan has been effected by the Syrian Civil War, see: Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War and Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–14). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness So, with regard to which articles are the Golan Heights relevant? (Please ping me on reply). GregKaye ✍♪ 05:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is called File:Syrian civil war 2.png and relates to the Syrian Civil War. The map is not used on either of the articles that you mention. GregKaye ✍♪ 05:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? Here are two different articles about other military conflicts in Syria and they also do not contain any maps:2014 Idlib city raid 2014 Eastern Syria offensive --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So the map, being relevant to the Syrian Civil War, should list participants in the Syrian Civil War. Israel is not a participant in the Syrian Civil War. Its really that simple. GregKaye ✍♪ 14:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The maps caption is "Current military situation in Syria.", so it s not only about the Syrian Civil War, but to show the "Current military situation in Syria" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to mention that user:Supreme Deliciousness has recently been banned from Wikipedia Commons for disruptively promoting his agenda that Israel is a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War and was unblocked only after promising to seize such actions (he had been trying to add "Israel" or "Israeli occupation" in the belligerent section of various Syrian Civil War-related articles for already more than a year). Supreme's currently ongoing edit-warring campaign is clearly undermining his promise in November and following my WP:GS/SCW warning, i'm now considering to have him reported on WP:AE. His current engagement with me, as well as user:Legacypac and content dispute on this with GregKaye and Jzlcdh is just illustrating his inability to gain consensus at main discussion page of the Syrian Civil War (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel). I'm doubtful that this pattern of single-topic editing, active edit-warring despite clear lack of consensus and recently issued bans and warnings will make him last any longer as editor on English wikipedia. Magog described it correctly, by issuing a "last warning" in October on Commons - Supreme is actively progressing on a destructive pathway and i call upon him for perhaps the last time to reconsider before descending into permanent bans.GreyShark (dibra) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I brought this up at the "Kobani Canton" talkpage:[3] How is this not consensus? Are you going to reply to this? You and Lehacypac voted against, and have now resorted to edit warring your pov through Wikipedia against the consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If Supreme forum shops the issue on enough low traffic loosely related articles eventually he will get the result he wants somewhere. His agenda is clear. I'll support any effort to deal with this. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to recuse from any administrative action at this point. So now that I've done so, I might as well freely give my opinion.

Personally, I don't care whether or not it's included. It adds nothing of value either way: it's one of those stupid us-vs-them pieces of thinking that only matters to partisans (cf. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, Northern Ireland flags issue, etc.).

However, I do care that use the same word for all powers. The suggestion above from May has "occupied" (negative connotation) when referring to Israel, but "controlled" (neutral connotation) when referring to other powers, including the universally loathed ISIS. This is a fairly obvious POV-push via WP:COATRACK.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Capital

Is there a source which says that Kobane is the capital of Syrian Kurdistan? According to these sources capital is Qamishli:

• http://basnews.com/en/News/Details/Syrian-Defense-Minister-in-Qamishli--We-won-t-let-anyone-take-Hasakah/21882 ("Qamishli is known as the capital of Syria’s Kurdish area")
• http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/isis-attacks-kurdish-capital.html Help Kurds in Syria (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Kobani is the capital of a canton of Syrian Kurdistan. 70.78.41.231 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Article name should be changed

I propose moving name of this page to Western Kurdistan, as it is more correct depiction of its official name. Opinions? Help Kurds in Syria (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mildly in favour - if no one objects give it a try (on the "more" tab near top right) but make sure there is a redirect from the old name (maybe that happens automatically when you move it) and don't get annoyed if someone reverts it. Jzlcdh (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. the official name is Syria. All the territory is inside Syria, all countries and international bodies recognize the territory as being part of Syria and the administration's own "Charter of the social contract in Rojava (Syria)" [4] carefully does not use the word "Kurdistan" once. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The official name of the governing structure of the region is the Democratic Self-Administration (Kurdish: Rêveberiya Xweseriya Demokratîk, Arabic: الإدارة الذاتية الديمقراطية), which deliberately avoids any connotations of ethnic "property" in line with the guiding philosophy of the governing apparatus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should be called Rojava. Locals call the area Rojava, and that is the administrative name used by the governing apparatus in the region. Syrian Kurdistan is equivalent to North United Kingdom (for Scotland), or Catlonian Spain. The de-facto name of this region is Rojava. Similar to the article on Kosovo, where Serbs objected to the name Kosovo, and object to the article. Now there is a guy here objecting to this article existing, and its name of Rojava (see edit 04:09, 18 January 2015‎). The fact is that this is an article about PYD-led region which calls it Rojava.

The article should be called Rojava, as that is what is is referred to in the foreign press, and what the locals call it. The article is about a region which is under the governance of the PYD, which also refers to the region as Rojava. The only people who object to this are Syrian Arab nationalists who don't live in Rojava, and are against its separatist aspirations. The fact we have articles on Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) and Kosovo (not South Serbia), is precedent that this article should be called Rojava. Genjix (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i was requested to give an opinion here by Genjix. First - i must note that this section is not a formal WP:RM, but a kind of preceding opinion poll. Second, if anyone would like to make an official WP:RM proposal (whether to "Western Kurdistan", "Rojava" or "Democratic Self-Administration") - please do so below, and if we see a consensus within (at least) one week vote - then move will be feasible.GreyShark (dibra) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your guidance. Genjix (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Syrian Kurdistan

Since I'm currently placed under WP:1RR, I have to bring this flag matter to the talk page. SerokKurdi and an editor under the IP 67.225.33.148 have changed the flag in the infobox from the flag of Syrian Kurdistan to the flag of Iraqi Kurdistan . Has there been an announcement on the change of the flag at all? If not, we shouldn't be changing the infobox to show the wrong flag. [Soffredo] 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You've stumbled across what is actually a (depressingly) contentious issue within Kurdish politics. The "flag of Syrian Kurdistan" is the Kurdish flag as created and promoted by the PKK, while the "flag of Iraqi Kurdistan" is the older Kurdish flag generally credited to the early nationalist leader Celadet Bedir Khan [5]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps

Map showing the claimed borders of Western Kurdistan (Rojava)

Map showing de facto cantons of Western Kurdistan (Rojava) in February 2014, as well as territories claimed by Western Kurdistan (Rojava), but not controlled by the Kurds in February 2014

Map showing de facto cantons of Western Kurdistan (Rojava) in February 2014

I see that map which shows claimed borders of Rojava was removed from the article. Why? Article about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has an infobox map which shows “Territories claimed by ISIL”, but in the same time, map which shows “Territories claimed by Syrian Kurdistan” was removed from this article. This is, by all means, fully POV. If readers of Wikipedia are able to see territorial claims of ISIL then why they are not able to see territorial claims of the Kurds? By my opinion, presentation of both these claims would serve informative purpose of Wikipedia.

Now, here are 3 different maps of Rojava: 1. The first one shows territories claimed by Rojava 2. The second one shows both, territories claimed by Rojava, and de facto cantons of Rojava in February 2014 (this is a time after formation of these cantons when they had largest territory) 3. The last one shows only de facto cantons of Rojava in February 2014 So, which of these maps is best to be used in this article? I propose the second one as it contains two informations that are currently missing from the article. Currently, article uses only map of current situation, and readers cannot see either territories claimed by Rojava or territories formerly controlled by Rojava. 92.60.225.16 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And who exactly is "claiming" said borders? Random people passing around woefully inaccurate maps online? Ideologically, the autonomous administration fundamentally rejects the very notion of fixed borders, so this cannot be presented as if it were an official territorial claim. I would vote to not include that map at all anywhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Lothar. These "cartoons" are pathetic, and I don't know how Commons allow this bullshit to be published, and then people claiming those as "maps". For those who know the area, there are no Kurds in Azaz area, or in the immediate vicinity of Aleppo. What the Kurds are calling Syrian Kurdistan is a land of mosaic ethnic composition; Assyrians, Chaldeans (oldest communities in the area), Arabs (2nd oldest), Armenians and Kurds (most recent). Kurds are the majority in some areas because of the massive west-bound immigration of the other communities, not because this is "Kurdistan". Bottom line, these cartoons have no foundation in history or geography (look up Kurdistan maps in the Treaty of Sevres) and definetly have no place in an encyclopedia. The ISIL maps represent the areas they control, and maps of the Syrian conflict do present areas under Kurdish military control. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't really agree with me. My position is based on the ideological basis on which the cantons were founded and the fact that the map is actually and simply not an official claim, while yours seems to be based on just refuting any Kurdish claims to self-determination in the area. This "mosaic" claim depends on which area you're looking at, it's not like in all areas you just see a formless mixture—Efrin, for instance, has been quite solidly Kurdish for centuries. Also, the Assyrians/Syriac communities in Jazira began arriving there in the 1920s & 1930s—same time as Armenians and many but not all Kurds. Most of them are from Tur Abdin (Mardin) area in what is now Turkey while a minority are from the areas of Hakkari and Urmia, and fled to the area as a result of the genocide against them during WWI (some began to move there for economic reasons later on as well). Yes, in centuries long past there were Syriac/Aramaic speakers living there, but they had pretty much abandoned the region by the end of the 1500s due to a combination of invasions, climatic changes, and raiding by nonsedentary Arabs and Kurds—there is no continuous population history of these old groups with the modern population. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My friend, I am not against Kurdish self-determination, or for that purpose self-determination of any group. However, Kurds are claiming that those areas are their land, which is arguable. I don't know what your sources are for what you are saying above, because this is news to me. According to this story, Kurds have cooperated with Ottomans against Christians and were granted their land as a reward.

I quote: "Suryanis began to emigrate from Syria after the Amuda massacre of August 9, 1937. This massacre, carried out by the Kurd Saeed Agha, emptied the city of its Suryani population. In 1941, the Suryanis of Malikiya were subjected to a vicious assault. Even though it failed, fear, anxiety and the immigration of Kurds from Turkey led to Malikiya, Darbasiya and Amuda becoming completely Kurdish. The historically Christian city of Nusaybin had a similar fate after its Christian population left when it was annexed to Turkey. They crossed the border into Syria and settled in Qamishly, which is only a few meters from Nusaybin. Thus Nusaybin became Kurdish and Qamishly became a Suryani Christian city. Things soon changed, however, with the immigration of Kurds beginning in 1926 following the failure of Saeed Ali Naqshbandi in his rebellion against the Turkish authorities at that time."

In addition, I have an influential Kurdish friend in Jinderes (Afrin District) who told me the Kurdish presence in that area is very recent, definitely less than a century old. If you don't want to use Treaty of Sevres maps, then you could probably use CIA maps or a credible historical (1911) map from an established Atlas which shows almost no Kurdish presence in Afrin area.

CIA map of Kurdish-inhabited area

Ethnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor as of early 20th Century

In the current war, PKK militants have controlled in agreement with the Syrian government the Kurdish-inhabited areas, including dozens of Arab villages in al-Malikiyah, al-Yarubiyah, and al-Hasakah districts. Consequently, the so-called "cantons" represent, at best, an exaggerated extent of Kurdish-inhabited areas. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of Kurdish tribes did indeed participate in the WWI Ottoman genocides of Christians in Anatolia—as I already noted, these killings were the original impetus for the emigration of thousands of Syriacs and Armenians from that area and their settlement by French authorities in Jazira. Certain ones did, however, shelter and assist Christians—the Hevêrkan are notable among them, not least for the fact that they later fled to Jazira themselves.

It is true that the Amude massacre changed the demographics of that area. However, it's important to note that not only Kurds, but many Arabs as well participated in the massacre, which occurred in the context of an autonomist movement in Jazira that was led by Syriac and immigrant Kurdish notables. The Kurd and Arab tribes who committed the massacre were anti-autonomist and aligned with the National Bloc, whereas Kurds who supported the autonomy movement even helped Christians fleeing the bloodshed. Anyway, the emigration of Syriacs was even larger in the early post-independence era when nationalist governments instituted land reform policies which were disadvantageous to landowners in the area—the wealthy Asfar and Najjar families of Ras al-Ayn, who had played an enormous role in the modernisation of farming methods along the Khabur, were among the thousands who left during this time.

I have yet to see an ethnic map of Syria that closely matches current or historical reality, whether the CIA's clueless blob or Mehrdad Izady's error-laced crypto-irredentism. As regards Efrin, the estimate your "friend" makes is contradicted by Ottoman (cf. Stefan Winter's Die Kurden Syriens im Spiegel osmanischer Archivquellen) and European sources (e.g.) from past centuries. Do note that the 1911 map that you show does in fact show orange bars denoting Kurdish population in the area northwest of Aleppo.

I am relying on a number of sources that I have read over the past few years. Foremost amongst these, I encourage you to read Seda Altuğ's dissertation entitled Sectarianism in the Syrian Jazira: community, land and violence in the memories of World War I and the French mandate. There are PDF copies of it online, go ahead and search. It is deeply detailed, thoroughly researched, and will surely provide you much better insight into the formation of modern Jazira than whatever you rely on currently. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to determine what this article is about. Is it about an irredentist Kurdish claim of parts of Northern Syria being part of a "greater Kurdistan", a claim that seems to require its supporters to conveniently forget that it is founded on the genocide of the region's original inhabitants? Or is it about something real: the virtually self-governing, self-defending, and de-facto autonomous areas in northern Syria that have formed as a result of the Syrian civil war and whose populations are predominantly Kurdish. I think the article should be about the latter, and the map should be restricted to showing what areas this "interim government" controls, and the place names that are on it, with the exception of Kobane, should be the official Syrian names. (i.e. use the map titled "Map showing de facto cantons of Western Kurdistan (Rojava) in February 2014", but using the official names for the population centers). Maybe also (on the same map?) show the maximum area of territory the "interim government" held before the IS advances. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

History in the geography section

I rewrote the geography section to remove the history but that change and several others were undone.

My text was: "There are three separate cantons: Jazira Canton, Kobanê Canton and Afrin Canton. All are at latitude approximately 36 and a half degrees north, are relatively flat and are bordered by Turkey. Jazira Canton also borders Iraqi Kurdistan to the south-east. Other borders are disputed in the Syrian Civil War."

Further geographical details could be added later in the canton articles.

I think there should not be history in the geography section.

Your views? Jzlcdh (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jzlcdh, I don't mind restructuring the article, but given that there are no known geographical definitions for the area and no borders, then we need to give the reader some information about its extent, as described by third party observers, and put this in context with Kurdistan. Another point, you added this sentence: "... the border crossing of Yaroubiyah is intermittently closed by Iraqi Kurdistan. This is Rabia, Iraq on the Iraqi side, and it's in Ninawa Province, not in Iraqi Kurdistan. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Another point, the population of 4.6 million is simply and mathematically impossible, with all estimates putting the number of Kurds in Syria at 9-12% of the population (~23 million before the war), this figure including Kurds in big cities like Aleppo and Damascus. If you add up all the population in Hasaka, plus Ayn al-Arab plus Afrin, you would barely get 1 million. I'd rather use the estimation from the CIA factbook. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi عمرو بن كلثوم, I certainly agree with you that "we need to give the reader some information about its extent, as described by third party observers". However I am not skilled with graphics and so even if any maps did need changing I would not easily be able to do so. I see that currently there is no geography section so I will add one now. Of course feel free to improve it.

Jzlcdh (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2015

Syrian Kurdistan → Rojava – This article is about a region governed by the PYD, which calls the area Rojava. Foreign press also uses this term, for example [6] (BBC) [7] (Guardian) [8] (Independent) [9] (VICE). Other examples on Wikipedia such as Kosovo (not South Serbia), Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) or Scotland (not Scottish United Kingdom) indicate this article should be called Rojava as per convention. Genjix (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i will add a disputed title header to the main page, and i would like to ask Genjix to invite participants at talk:Kurdistan, talk:Syria, talk:Syrian Civil War and portal talk:Syrian Civil War pages to participate here.GreyShark (dibra) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Users user:Jzlcdh, user:Tiptoethrutheminefield, user:Lothar von Richthofen, user:عمرو بن كلثوم are also welcome to give their remarks (previous discussions on this topic).GreyShark (dibra) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. Genjix (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as it is more common in English media to use Rojava instead of Syrian Kurdistan the request is legitimate.
Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title
--Moplayer (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on that criteria: "Rojava" 881,000 results, "Syrian Kurdistan" 796,000 on Google. I would have expected "Syrian Kurdistan" to get more results due to the terms Syrian and Kurdistan. The only convention I've noticed is that "Rojava" is used for articles more specifically about this region than in the context of Syria as a whole. Also Google aliases "Kurdistan" to "Kurds" and "Kurdish" producing more results. Genjix (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion. I just checked google.co.uk and there are indeed more results for Rojava than Syrian Kurdistan. I see it is called Rojava in "The Guardian" (a quality UK newspaper) and on the BBC. I support this move. Jzlcdh (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put the terms in quotes you get these search results: for "Syrian Kurdistan" -> 127.000, for "Rojava" -> 884.000. The quotes give you the search results containing the exact terms. --Moplayer (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rojava just means Western. It is not really an offensive name to anyone. Is there any reason we should not go with official name? Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment if this is moved, the "Syrian Kurdistan" should become a disambiguation page, since Kurds in Syria covers the traditional geographic extant and history of the region of Kurdistan in Syria -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I was set to oppose per WP:COMMON, but contrary to my expectations, "rojava" actually produces more results than "syrian kurdistan" on Google, which is a quick-and-dirty but fairly reliable metric. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I checked major Canadian media. They rarely use either title - just say Kurds or YPD etc. Syrian Kurdistan is deceptive descriptive (darn spell checker) like Iraqi Kurdistan while Rojava is specific like "Kurdish Autonomous Region' which I was surprised to see is not the title of our article, but a redirect. We do have Kurdistan Regional Government though. Maybe that Iraqi Kurdistan should move too - they have an even more officially recognized Autonomous region then the Syrian Kurds do.Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This(ese) area(s) is clearly not part of Kurdistan according to any respectful map. Also, as Legacy said, there is no official status or recognition for the area, and it's rather a pocket here and a pocket there of PYD-occupied areas, and the whole status with the Syrian government is vague. You can't compare to Scotland or Catalonia, because these two have official status and recognition in their respective countries. The situation here is part of the Syrian Civil War, and the areas are just like any other area of Syria; today controlled by X and tomorrow by Y. I feel it would be best to merge this article with Kurds in Syria, as it used to be. The other option would be to merge it with PYD or even call it PYD-Controlled areas, which is the most common name for the area as Legacy pointed out. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the word Rojava, this is mostly used by blogs and mirror sites, but hardly any reliable source, so I don't really trust google numbers on this. In addition, it might include results talking simply about the word (meaning west in Kurdish), not about the areas subject of this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I said at all. I find all kinds of RS uses of Rojava. It is the English version of the Kurdish word for West, so we are not going to pick up Kurdish language uses, only English language uses referring exactly to this entity, Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Article should be moved to "Kurdish-occupied regions in Syria". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Large history lead

I removed that huge quote which is difficult to read and is already in the Kurdistan article. But it was reverted by another editor. Is there any reason to have such a large history section which dominates the rest of the article? Maybe if the article was bigger it would make sense. Genjix (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Its called by Kurds as Kurdistan, and readers who are interested only in the Syrian parts must be able to know the historic background of this particular area without having to go to the article of Kurdistan. That quote is referenced and on topic, so there is no justification for its deletion. Plus, I find it so weird that those 6 lines dominate the article in your view ! this article is being filled daily with all kinds of info's but this quote is the one that annoy you the most ! .. or maybe you are not annoyed and dont have any agenda and just want the article to look better and in this case I apologize for misunderstanding.

a good compromise is to remove the quote into a note section, but keep the information about Kurdistan Tigris borders, if this is Ok with you and the other editor, then I can do it. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ok, sure. I don't want to remove anything useful. I'm just saying it's long and difficult to read. The language is arcane and old style, and it goes into lots of details that many western readers won't understand (all the old place names in non-standard spellings). If the article were longer, it would make sense to have a bigger history lead. However the purpose of this article is to inform readers about the current situation of how this region is. "Kurds in Syria" is more suitable for in depth history, as this article shouldn't be Kurd specific either. Genjix (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Aram, and I think it is pretty much needed here, especially given the discussion about the name. This area is not a historical part of Kurdistan by any means, and this should be clear. If Kurds live here, so they do in Istanbul, Damascus, Beirut, Adana, etc., and this does not make any of these areas part of Kurdistan. This quote is an important historical reference, and hiding it does not help the reader understand the context of the problem here. I will keep it visible to the reader, not as a note. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Amr, I understand your points but, the note is visible in the article, just not in the history section, and the first sentence of the history section give the summary of the quote which still exist and visible at the end of the article.. please avoid edit warring, and lets keep the things as they are now, a summary of the quote in the beginning of the history section, and the quote itself can be read and unhidden in the notes section at the end of the article.... I will interfere in this no longer, I hope you and the other editor settle this and keep my edit which is a half way between you two, if you choose not to do that, then it concern me no more, I shall interfere in the is article no more--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)