Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

History between 1941 and 2012?

There is a bit under the economy section. Should that be moved to the history section and if so what should the subheading be?

Pronunciation

The IPA currently indicates that the last syllable of Rojava is stressed; is that correct? Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Kurdish nouns and names are stressed on the last syllable. CathFR (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkish language names of towns

There appears to be some confusion about edits with respect to Turkish language names of cities and towns.

(1) First of all, ONE name should be given to every town in every language.

(2) With respect to the city of Al-Hasakah, the Turkish language name obviously is Haseke, which is the lemma of the Turkish Wikipedia article on the town. I see no reason why alternative names would be added.

(3) With respect to the town of Kobani, the lemma of the Turkish Wikipedia article on the town is Kobani. For some reason, some editors continue to change this to "Mürşitpınar, Arap Pınar". The first is the name of another town, on the Turkish side of the border. The second has almost no Wikipedia hits, and by multitude less Turkish language Google hits than "Kobani".

So if you want to use other names than the obviously common Turkish language names for those towns, please explain your motivation/reasoning here on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not agree with you. Kobani was never used before 2014, and you can't find the name Kobani in Turkish books or Turkish maps. The Turkish name of Kobani is Arap Pınar or Mürşitpınar and not Kobani. Beshogur (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The criterion is contemporary use. And both the Turkish Wikipedia and Turkish media use "Kobani". I am fully aware that the term "Kobani" was virtually non-existent in Turkish language two years ago (and it will neither show up in books or maps), but today is today and not two years ago. If you want to argue your case, please present arguments for contemporary use. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, here is a quote from the Kobani article: "Kobanî was built between the village of Arap Pinar (Kaniya Ereban) in the east and the village of Mürşitpinar (Kaniya Murshid) in the west" -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any source? Beshogur (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested in the history stuff, look at the sources given in the Kobani article, there appears to be at least one scholarly book about the history of the place. However, for our discussion here this is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is contemporary naming of the town in Turkish language media. So this is what we should argue, not history. I would still wish that you reply to the arguments I made above. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving history stuff to the articles of the cantons?

While there appears agreement in principle that the history part is still somewhat long for the article, almost all of the information left there is quite relevant in the context of Rojava. However, much of it concerns only one particular canton. Wouldn't it be an idea to consider, moving much of that history stuff to the articles of the respective canton concerned (and prominently linking the canton articles at the top of the history section)? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Map

Hi, Someone might want to update the military situation map. It will change significantly soon. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's news for those interested

US, Russia oppose Kurdish autonomy in Syria

US, Russia agree on preserving Syria’s territorial unity, reject Kurdish Rojava project

213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Rojava does not support separatism in the first place so Russia hasn't really changed its stance. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE THE MAP

This map is very old. The SDF now controls Manbij and all the are east of it. Rojava has also expanded south. Please take the Syrian civil war map as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Turkish invasion and the lack of reaction from the west, I guess it's not necessary to add Manbij and the area east of it anymore...--Ermanarich (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to update the map if you can. SDF is there to stay, Turkish forces won't take any land from SDF. If you know someone who can edit to map to the reality, I'd appreciate it. Jewnited (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Turkey will proceed further into territories of Northern Syria to install proper rebels instead of PYD/YPG terrorists and their new front, the SDF. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proper rebels like Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which aim to establish the Sharia law in Syria? The YPG are still not terrorists, even if Turkey and its Propaganda wants everyone to regard them as such. But the fact that Turkey supported al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) and Ahrar al-Sham actively and that they did nothing against the thousands of IS-terrorists, weapons and oil-transporters from IS crossing their border speaks a more than clear language, that Islamism is currently destroying the Turkish democracy.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just like the mentioned groups you dislike, the PYD and its armed wing, YPG, have direct links to the PKK and they all work to kill innocent Turkish and Kurdish civilians who do not agree with their ideologies and goals. They are terrorists. Not calling them as such is a matter of conflict of interest and semantics perhaps. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 constitution, representative assembly for Rojava

Dear user:Dlpkbr, I really very much appreciate your edits to the politics section concerning institutions in Rojava, because sparse information on that in my view is one of the weak points of the otherwise fine article. However, with some details I have an issue.

You write, "establish a Federal Assembly, the Democratic Syrian Assembly" (probably you mean what is usually called "Syrian Democratic Assembly"). I would be happy if things were so easy. However, there are issues.

Actually I have no information that the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" has ever met after their initial meeting, that any of the legislative achievments we attribute to Rojava has been done by it, or that it has named the officials in the box below into their office. Do you have information, or even sources, on any of this? I have some doubt, because your link below them is to the article on the "Syrian Democratic Council", the executive institution which was put in place on that one initial meeting of the Syrian Democratic Assembly I know of.

Another issue is that the article speaks of planned elections. However, the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" is composed of representatives of selected groups of society, not representatives of political parties. Changing it into an assembly of representatives of political parties would be most fundamental. Do you have any information if this is what is planned with respect to "elections in Rojava"?

One more point: Probably all these questions could easily be answered if an English translation of that final draft for the updated 2016 social contract were available. However, this seems to simply not be available. Can you help? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry to take so long to respond.

You write, "establish a Federal Assembly, the Democratic Syrian Assembly" (probably you mean what is usually called "Syrian Democratic Assembly").

Yes, there doesn't seem to be an official English name, which means that it is called various names depending on the translators preferences and the language that is being translated from. I have just changed that section to "Syrian Democratic Assembly" since "Syrian Democratic Assembly"/"Syrian Democratic Council" seem to more common.

Actually I have no information that the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" has ever met after their initial meeting, that any of the legislative achievments we attribute to Rojava has been done by it, or that it has named the officials in the box below into their office. Do you have information, or even sources, on any of this? I have some doubt, because your link below them is to the article on the "Syrian Democratic Council", the executive institution which was put in place on that one initial meeting of the Syrian Democratic Assembly I know of.

From what I understand the 43 member full assembly is meant to meet 3 or 4 times a year, but the 9 member executive Council/Assembly meets monthly (although they seem to have emergency meetings after certain events). The full assembly has a website with some information, but it is only in Arabic. Here is a news report of last month's executive meeting.

Another issue is that the article speaks of planned elections. However, the "Syrian Democratic Assembly" is composed of representatives of selected groups of society, not representatives of political parties. Changing it into an assembly of representatives of political parties would be most fundamental. Do you have any information if this is what is planned with respect to "elections in Rojava"?

There supposedly will be elections around 3 months after the full assembly's next meeting at the end of the year, but that is only if the 2nd draft of the constitution is OKed. The Electoral Commission is supposedly preparing for them and is trying to get international observers into Syria to watch the elections.

One more point: Probably all these questions could easily be answered if an English translation of that final draft for the updated 2016 social contract were available. However, this seems to simply not be available. Can you help?

Unfortunately the only version of the constitution /social contract that I can find is in Arabic. Dlpkbr (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links

The link “A Personal Account of Rojava' - from the Lions Of Rojava website” should be changed. The web page “the Lions Of Rojava” doesn't exist anymore. But exactly the same content is placed in rojavaplan.com website. The title should be “'A Personal Account of Rojava' - from Rojava Plan website” and the right link is now http://rojavaplan.com/join-3-2-personal-account.html

I'd also suggest the highly informative link to the PDF entitled “A mountain river has many bends” http://rojavaplan.com/uploads/amountainriver-web.pdf 89.130.49.225 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

History section

Please kindly do not remove important historical topics from the article. Some editors have moved the relevant stuff to canton articles, but some others like those related to Raqqa and Aleppo cities do not belong to those cantons. Therefore I have re-inserted those information, especially the ones regarding Janbulads and Millis.Vekoler (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rojava is allegedly a polyethnic entity and so, this article isnt meant to be about the Kurds alone. Those historic info about Kurds belong in the Kurds in Syria article not in the new creation called Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Article map and legend: Rojava is a civilian, not a military thing

Whatever map is used to illustrate the article (there appears to be not one perfect solution), neither the map nor its legend should seek to present "Rojava" as a militaty terms concept. As the article elaborates in depth, "Rojava" is all its shades of meaning and definition always is a civilian polity and civilian administration concept. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is a perfect solution (current military map), not what you (and one or two other users) are inventing (maps and names) here and trying to legitimize those names. The maps you are creating and using are of no value and should not be used here. This entity is a result of a military situation, and the territories under control by the different belligerents are changing by the day, if not by the hour. Obviously, the areas claimed by PYD have been expanding everyday, at least under the Turkish intervention, but this is not a reason to put these maps here. The de facto situation is the only thing that counts here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every state and other political entity in the world is "result of a military situation", and if you want to elaborate on Syrian Democratic Forces, you should do it on their article (or on the Rojava conflict article, which is about the emergence of the polity we call Rojava today). Both Rojava in its aspect of as a purely factual phenomenon (see first paragraph of introduction), or in its aspect of NSR as a self-declared federation with a constitution (see second paragraph of introduction), is a civilian polity thing, and does not stand out at more or less "result of a military situation" than other political entities in the world, and definitely not to a degree which would justify an outright denial of its character as a civilian polity, which you appear to try implementing on the infobox. Besides, the infobox of an article should reflect the content of the article, and this article is about Rojava as a civilan polity. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rojava is a civil concept. However, adding a map that unrealistically shows a huge amount of northern Syria as "Rojava", even though they're not under Rojavan control, is simply misleading. Just like the map in the Iraqi Kurdistan page, this map shows the de jure and the de facto situation. Besides, the map you want is imposed on superficial district borders, something that Rojava does not recognize. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reply to me? Then it is a misunderstanding. The map I prefer as the least flawed solution (and will now revert to) is not the one with the district borders, but your map (which I only find flawed with respect to the fact that its border lines are wrong in one section, directly to the north of DeZ, denying the fact that in there actual control is beyond claim; it opens the map to the criticism that it would not properly reflect the de facto situation). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editor abcdef, just once again, here is the "official map of Rojava" as used in the NSR representation offices abroad, and here is the frontlines. The one issue with your map is that it simply does not depict either of them accurately, and in some areas even gets them very much wrong. Other than that flaw, I find the idea behind your map great. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To give an overview over proposed maps to readers who are not familiar with the discussion concerning the infobox map, there are two maps which I would consider generally suitable:

• File:Claimed and de facto territory of Rojava.png
• File:De facto cantons of Rojava.png

There is one map which looks most professional of all, but has major flaws in substance, as pointed out by Editor abcdef above:

• File:Rojava.svg

And there is one map which I do not find suitable at all, because it is a "military map" which does not reflect the topic of this article, namely Rojava as a civic polity phenomenon in its diverse aspects (this map might be suitable to illustrate Rojava conflict however):

• File:Syrian Civil War map.svg

Please feel invited to comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Structure of the introduction

The introduction has by now reached a three-paragraph structure which I find highly appropriate and helpful for the reader. It approaches the topic from three perspectives on "Rojava", all of which are intertwined in the article:

(1) First paragraph is about "Rojava" as a socio-political phenomenon.

(2) Second paragraph is about "Rojava" as a self-declared political entity, the "Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava (NSR)".

(3) Third paragraph is about "Rojava" from an ethno-political perspective.

I would suggest, and recommend, to respect this structure when editing the introduction. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Female role in militias

The picture under the subtitle Militias reads "Female fighters of the YPJ play a significant combat role in Rojava." Really? What percentage of the force is female? Please stop false representation and propaganda for YPG forces. It is not professional and does not fit Wikipedia standards. Just because supposed gender equality is espoused does not mean it is actually implemented in real life, let alone in military forces or militias. -78.171.152.206 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The number usually given is that 40 percent of the overall YPG fighting force are female YPJ, and casualty ratios from combat on average mirror that. There are many good documentaries, and many good articles, for example this BBC piece. If you are interested in the role women have acquired in and after the "Rojava Revolution", I also definitely recommend this Kongreya Star paper. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Map of the area

The map currently used in this article (Claimed_and_de_facto_territory_of_Rojava.png) is outrageous, fake and unacceptable by any means. It keeps expanding and it oviously annexes large parts where there are no kurds at all, annexes even Aleppo city. This article in its current state is a pure blackwashing and PROPAGANDA for the YPG militias. This is Wikipedia, not a Kurdish nationalist site. I suggest a map that shows Kuridsh inhabited areas instead. If this issue is not rsolved due to two or three extreme Kurdish users, then I would request aribitration on this article and every thing related to it (Human rights aricle, canton articles, etc.). You decide. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The map is there because the PYD administration claims it, that's all. This is what the word de jure means and the map in the article Iraqi Kurdistan shows the same thing. Isn't the separation of colours between de jure and de facto enough?

The territory of Rojava has nothing to do with Kurdishness. Tel Abyad isn't Kurdish but is still under the firm control of Rojava. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Being occupied by MILITARY FORCE is one thing, and being part of a political entity is a completely separate thing. Does that make sense to you? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is only one political entity that has control over Rojava and it's called the Syrian Democratic Council, who is the one claiming all of these. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And the political entity you are talking about enjoys recognition by no (ZERO) country or international organization. The areas in your maps are occupied by military force (as part of the Syrian civil war), and the Kurdish militias will be kicked of from those areas. If you want to write on the map "Areas occupied by PYD forces" then that's OK with me, but to invent a name and depict on the entire northern Syria territory, that OR and inventing facts. Until these maps get international recognition, I will be removing them from this and similar articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)