Talk:Syrian Kurdistan

Compromise time?

I hope that now, the editors, from both camps, have come to the conclusion that a compromise should be reached. Those who refuse the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, based on historic arguments , are not Nazis!(yes, this is not a historic cultural region, and no source till now has been able to prove otherwise i.e. these regions were considered part of Kurdistan by lets say Western travellers of the 18th and 19th centuries, or Ottoman historians.. etc). Those editors who wish to see an unqualified usage of the term Syrian Kurdistan are also not zealot nationalists. I would say that both camps deserve a voice. So, please vote on this formula, and please keep in mind that no one party will overcome the other! This is not how things go here. I suggest retaining the second (with reservations concerning that Kurds have been the majority since official records began, which is not what the French records show) and third paragraphs GP wrote in a section earlier, and I changed the first one (and it will be sourced using the same sources I used in the rfc):

Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), is an area of three Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria. The concept of a Syrian Kurdistan gained prominence during the Syrian Civil War, as, before the war, Syrian Kurdish political factions usually chose to remain within a Syrian national framework. On the other hand, the Syrian government, and most Sunni Arabs of Syria, are opposed to the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan.

Please give me your thoughts, and don’t focus on me. Try to accommodate your "opponents" instead of aiming at total victory, which neither parties will attain. Sad that Im talking about fights and victories, but this is what this page turned to. Ofcourse, compromise isnt the way to go when it comes to delivering an accurate information, but in this case it is, as the truth lies in the middle.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• It would help if you sources existed for these claims. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. GPinkerton (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources are in the rfc Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Support_A. I will add them if this formula finds consensus, otherwise, I wont do the effort. P.S, the view of the rest of Syria is not minority, and the mainstream scholarship do not deny that the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan is not universally accepted. Anyway, these discussion have expired. We conducted them earlier, a lot. I’m looking here for a middle way, and I hope that what happened earlier have shown that its only the middle way that will work.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Even the whole of Syria is a tiny minority compared with the reliable sources of the English-speaking world. There is no reason to privilege some conjectural Syrian attitude to geography; this is the English language Wikipedia and takes a global perspective. GPinkerton (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

When it come to geography, most English academic sources will call those regions northern Syria, not Kurdistan. I will argue no further, as I meant to have some sort of compromise, which I see will not happen here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram Syria, what do you think about the current first line "Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." why does it need to be changed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Compromise is why it should be changed, but maybe I made a mistake, as no editor is willing to let go and everyone wants to force their version on everyone.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, your version says that the name of kurdish-inhabited areas in Syria is "Syrian Kurdistan". We all now very well that is not the areas real name. And it can not be presented as such. It can be presented as a kurdish belief only. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, per MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should define the subject of the article. It explicitly advises against using phrases like 'refers to', because we need to define the subject rather than the subject's name. Given that WP:INVOLVED explicitly allows me to suggest possible wording, I would suggest that this might be better phrased along the lines of 'Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan... ...is an area of Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria.' Note please that I am not advocating for the specifics of that definition - it's the semantics I'm aiming at. The subject of the article is not a noun phrase, it's a geographic region (whether or not it is contested).

I have no comment on the rest of your proposal at present. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit. I edited my paragraph and inserted your wording.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I further object based on the fact that two out of three sentences are both irrelevant and untrue. The concept of a Syrian Kurdistan gained prominence during the Syrian Civil War is incorrect, as many sources has already been adduced for the region's prominence in the 1920s, when Syrian Kurdistan was established by the Mandatory borders. GPinkerton (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

So no compromise. Lets see if a consensus will emerge when the other editors comment.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd further suggest that, if the content in the body of the article is contested, that should be agreed upon before discussing the lead (which merely summarises that content). We're doing this in the wrong order. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We need to decide the scope of this article, and Fiveby summarized the issues with the scope.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there something you'd like to add to the article body? GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

On the proposed edit: Which notable Kurdish faction involved in the Syrian Civil War (like PYD) has advocated for the creation of Syrian Kurdistan that was not part of a Syrian national Framework? The PYD has declared numerous times that the area it governed is a part of Syria. To this I agree though:Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), is an area of three Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria.

Nothing about the "Syrian national framework" is really relevant here, and neither is the politics. This is just geography. Syrian Kurdistan does need advocates for its creation, it was created a century ago by the establishment of the border. The PYD has nothing to do with anything, and in any case the Kurds are reliably said to prefer "western" and not "Syrian" as the name. GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Then also as the threads name is compromise time: Can we agree to edit ourselves and replace/exchange the two three words we don't like instead of just reverting edits of several hundreds/thousands bytes? I mean that we just revert for a word or two, edits of more than 100 bytes is not really helpful, specially in a contested and protected article like this one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

PC: Im using Appolodion's words when it comes to the Syrian framework. Kurdistan as a term does not merely have a cultural meaning, but a political one as well. Therefore, calling for a Kurdistan will indicate aspirations of independence, a Kurdish nation...etc The term itself, the land of the Kurds, indicates that other ethnicities are guests there, or migrants. Hence, the wording: Syrian framework. Ofcourse, everything can be agreed on, as long as both point of views are represented. You agreed to the first part, which satesfy one party, so what about the other?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What Applodion[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=988424466&oldid=988173771&diffmode=source wrote] about the Syrian Framework was not in the lead and also mentioned that the idea of independence stemmed from before the Syrian Civil War if you refer to this version. I don't know which notable Kurdish party during the Syrian Civil War advocated for the creation of such a political entity. Of course, Kurdish was allowed to be taught in schools and used as an official regional language but this is about Governance (in Syria) and not about a creation of an independent Syrian Kurdistan. How about: Syrian Kurdistan, also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), is an area of (three) Kurdish-inhabited regions in Northern Syria. The Syrian government, and most Sunni Arabs of Syria, are opposed to the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan.

The authoritative dictionary definition I have quoted above mentions no such definition and we should be using reliable sources, so there's no need to worry about that idea, especially as "Kurdistan" has been used in English for 500 years. GPinkerton (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not about an area in Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated to contrary. GPinkerton (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen it. Can you show me it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In the Oxford English Dictionary's 3rd edition, from 2018, Kurdistan is defined as the following:

Kurdistan, n. (Kurdish Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'), the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people, now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The place name is attested in English contexts from at least the 16th cent. (initially as Curdistan).

GPinkerton (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice the following: "the name of any of various (current or historical) regions" "now chiefly located in" this doesnt proof that areas in Syria has been part of Kurdistan for 500 years.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? We know already the Kurds have lived there for centuries. What does it matter? The name Syrian Kurdistan is only relevant after the area became part of modern Syria 100 years ago. It's been part of Kurdistan far longer. GPinkerton (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I care. The Oxford source did not confirm what you claimed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, and it has refuted your claims. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". Here where sourcing fails. No contemporary account, from before the establishment of Syria, of a traveller, a historian..etc mentions this. No account says: I travelled to Ras al-ayn, in Kurdistan. No account says: the Shammar graze their herds in Kurdistan near Jaghjagh, or that Jarablus is in Kurdistan. If that will be available, where those Syrian regions are specifically mentioned, then things will change here, at least for me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See: argumentum ex silentio. What is the relevance of this? What sources say this is part of Syria in those days? It's usually described as just "Kurdistan" and "Upper Mesopotamia", north Jazira, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked for a source for your assertion that "It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". You used this as an argument, so you need to prove it. Where were these regions described as Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria, as you claimed?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I gave you a source and I have proven it. We know the Kurds have lived in the now-Syrian Jazira for centuries, we know they were elsewhere in the Khabour and Jagh Jagh and Euphrates valleys in the 17th century in what is now Syria, and we know that since the 16th century the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people is Kurdistan. GPinkerton (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually you didnt give me. What you are doing is original research, a synth. You are making your own conclusions here. If no source mentions these regions as part of Kurdistan, which is a historic region many ancient travelers and historians described, then you cant say these regions are Kurdistan. Kurds live in many places, and not all of them are Kurdistan.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is an acknowledged fact that reliable sources treat the area as Syrian Kurdistan. You say: Kurdistan, which is a historic region many ancient travelers and historians described and the Oxford English Dictionary agrees, saying this region is: now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. So there is no need to continue disputing this fact. GPinkerton (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". This is a claim unsourced, which you made based on original research. If you wish not to continue, Im happy to do so, but when making any historic claims, then please make sure to source them properly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I can only repeat that what you are saying is incorrect and I have provided ample sources for this. GPinkerton (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"It's been part of Kurdistan far longer". The only sources that can support this are those that mentions it directly.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside that incorrect claim, you have not explained what relevance you imagine that is. In order of Kurdistan to be divided between the four modern states, it is necessarily the case that the part of Kurdistan now called Syrian Kurdistan must have existed beforehand. It did not simply spring up out of the ground the day the French arrived, so unless you're arguing that's what happened there's really no reason to continue discussion on this point. We know there were plenty of Kurdish majority regions in Syria long before WWI, and we know Kurds have referred to Kurdistan since the 17th century as extending from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, so there is really no point in continuing to quibble on this issue. GPinkerton (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Imagine? Restrain yourself and dont go into that road again. I am not imagining anything. When you claim something, provide evidence for it that is not your own logical conlusions that may not be logical for someone else. Not every place Kurds migrate to or inhabit becomes a Kurdistan. Just stick to source and do not use any original research.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The source says historical Kurdistan is part in Syria. Nothing further needs discussion. There is no OR besides arguing with the dictionary. GPinkerton (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was about a claim you made (the regions are part of Kurdistan long before Syria) based on your own conclusions. Its over now. As for "historical Kurdistan" being part in Syria, Im sure any reliable source claiming this will have a historical document cited to prove the claim, otherwise, that source will be unreliable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think the OED is unreliable I am afraid you will not find support for that view and it will be fruitless to pursue it further. It is a reliable source and it says Kurdistan is part in Syria. QED. GPinkerton (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont think. I know how academic works are done, so even the OED, if not basing their claims on evidence, can be discredited. Even great scholars lose their reputation when they make claims that cant be proven. I just need the evidence for claims: if it does not exist, then the claim is false.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, Kurdistan today exists, but "historical" needs historic evidence, and this is what we were discussing. I believe we are done if evidence cannot be provided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As I say, the evidence has been provided. We are done. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And as I say, no evidence have been provided, only conclusions based on original research.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• As the first sentence to this article, I like Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, are the Kurdish-inhabited regions of Northern Syria. I don't think "three" is important enough of a detail to include in the first sentence but "...are three Kurdish-inhabited regions..." also works for me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: "Syrian Kurdistan ... are ..."? The grammar is wrong. Also why capitalize "northern"? GPinkerton (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem for me Levivich. But what about the rest. This article will not know peace if every editor insist on having it his way. As I expected, pro-Kurdistan editors (I dont mean you) are happy with the first sentence and dont want the rest, and I believe the anti-Kurdistan will do the opposite. So how will this article ever develop?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have opinions about the rest, too, but I wonder if we can first come to consensus on the first sentence and proceed from there. Personally, I like this latest version (below) better than either what's in the article currently, or any of the choices in the open RFC above. What about: Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, is the Kurdish-inhabited region of northern Syria.? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is factually incorrect, the name of the Kurdish-inhabited region of northern Syria is not "Syrian Kurdistan", no part of Syria has this name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, fine with me, as long as the contested nature of this region will be illuminated in the first paragraph as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be fine Alright except possibly change "region" to "area" or "territory", otherwise OK; though I think the second sentence should begin as I proposed in the section above. I think that does a good job of explaining the basics of the geography and after saying its the Kurdish bit of Syria we should say its the Syrian bit of Kurdistan, and explain what that means. The articles United States Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands deal with it a similar way; both say they are part of the Virgin Islands and both mentions the other in the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no "Kurdish bit of Syria" that would imply that it belongs to kurds. There are only kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've demonstrated before that it implies no such thing and the reliable sources do not support this claim. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Atta, GP and SD for weighing in on my suggestions. @عمرو بن كلثوم, HistoryofIran, Thepharoah17, and Paradise Chronicle: as editors who have !voted in the RFC about the lead sentence, would you mind giving me your opinion about whether this first sentence is better or worse than the options in the RFC: Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, is the Kurdish-inhabited area of northern Syria. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The current first line is the the most neutral and accurate and better represents the factual situation. "Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." It doesn't need to be changed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As SD says, it took us weeks to reach the first line in the current version (developed mostly by Applodion following intesive discussions on the Talk page) to reflect the current status of the term, used by some although most sources/media outlets use "Kurdish-inhabited region(s) in Syria". The difference between here and Iraqi/Iranian or Turkish Kurdistan is that the overwhelming majority there is Kurdish. While here it is not and has never been (See statistics from French mandate authorities) despite having some very small pockets (i.e. cluster of villages) such as Ain al-Arab or Kurd Dagh having an overwhelming Kurdish majority. How big is the area or the population? Does that justify saying this is a Syrian Kurdistan? To be concise, I am fine with the wording that Applodion had introduced, that you can see in this version. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking only from the perspective of compliance with the MOS, it does need to be changed. The current sentence fails to define the subject - '...is regarded by some...' is descriptive, not definitive. We need to define what the subject is in the first sentence - we can mention in later sentences that the land, or indeed the existence of the place as an entity, is contested - but the first sentence needs to set out in simple English what/where we're talking about. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reading the sentence: "regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria." - the subject is clear: This is an area that some people believe is "Syrian Kurdistan".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Grammatically-speaking, the problem with any lead sentence like X is regarded by some as Y... is that it implies X is regarded by others as Z. In the current lead sentence, "X" is "Syrian Kurdistan", and "Y" is "the part of Kurdistan in Syria", but there is no Z. There is no one who thinks "Syrian Kurdistan" is, say, the part of Kurdistan in Turkey, or that "Syrian Kurdistan" refers to the southwestern part of Syria, or that it's a type of sandwich or something. Some people might say "Syrian Kurdistan" doesn't exist at all, or should be called by a different name, but no one thinks the two words "Syrian Kurdistan" might refer to anything other than the parts of northern Syria where Kurds live. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. GPinkerton (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I agree to your version. And there was no consensus as Amr Ibn claimes, but the RfC was opened on the 12 November 2020 [1] after GPinkerton brought in the many sources for an existence of a Syrian Kurdistan at the NPOV noticeboard on the 10 November 2020.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Levivich: first for taking the initiative to help with this article. I am fine with the sentence if we precede it by "According to Kurdish nationalists" (or something along these lines) and be more specific about the extent (per I.C. Vanly here or David McDowall here, page 466). According to Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'‎), often shortened to Rojava, refers to three non-contiguous Kurdish-inhabited areas of northern Syria. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is clearly untrue that Syrian Kurdistan is used "According to Kurdish nationalists". They don't call any part of Kurdistan "Syrian"; why would they? Reliable sources however, all treat Syrian Kurdistan as the normal English name for the place, as they have done for many decades. GPinkerton (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, respectfully, I don't think that this is a reasonable suggestion. It has already been shown that the term is used in mainstream academic sources, its use is clearly not entirely restricted to Kurdish Nationalists. That is not to say that we cannot/should not discuss the dispute over the region in the article, but to say in the definitive first sentence of the lead that its use is restricted in this way seems unsupportable. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Then the current wording works, "is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria" (or something like that). The problem with the suggested wording is that it presents this name as a fact, when it is very clearly contested. Again, according to google search, "Kurdish region in Syria" is WAY more commonly used than "Syrian Kurdistan", especially when it comes to international credible sources (organizations, media outlets, etc.), rather than opinion monographs and nationalist websites. As other users have pointed out, there is hardly any credible map (outside the Kurdish claims) that says Syrian Kurdistan on it. When you have Abdullah Ocalan, the Kurdish historical leader, Jalal Talabani and Masud Barazani denying the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, I think that has a considerable weight that cannot be ignored in the lead. Jordi Tejel says: Therefore, as David McDowall asserts, the Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani (PUK), Abdullah Ocalan (PKK), and probably Masud Barzani (KDP) either denied the legitimacy of a Syrian Kurdish movement or dismissed it as a small-scale movement that distracted from the "real struggle" for Kurdistan (McDowall 1998: 69-70

I hate to repeat myself, but you have prominent authors such as the Kurdish activist Vanly (mentioned above by Fiveby) and David McDowall who have talked about Kurdish areas (or communities) in Syria, but not Syrian Kurdistan. As Fiveby mentioned above, the wording here has to be careful as not to present that this ethnically and culturally mixed area is not presented here from a Kurdish nationalist standpoint. If you still want to do so, then make it clear that this is the angle we are writing from. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No it does not work because it does not met the criteria of WP:FIRST and is deeply WP:UNDUE as has already been explained. The point about David McDowall is a regrettable logical fallacy, once again, of argumentum ex silentio, and failing the test of logic, ought never to be considered in deliberation. Jordi Tejel repeatedly uses the term "Syrian Kurdistan" and the idea that anything quoted above is of any relevance or of WP:DUE importance or even interpreted correctly is wholly wrong. Ocalan, a person from Turkish Kurdistan, has repeatedly referred to the existence of a "Western Kurdistan", and the quotation of what he once told a Syrian journalist while a refugee in Syria more than four decades ago cannot be interpreted as a statement about reality. Given that Mehrdad Izady has been rejected as an authority for the climate of northern eastern Syria, because editors decided he was too Kurdish nationalist, that Abdullah Öcalan should now be cited as an authoritative source about far more controversial matters is really quite a surprise and to my mind quite unjeustifiable! GPinkerton (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Elapsed time does not change historical facts, whether they are 5 years old or a century old. I never said that Ocalan is a neutral person, he certainly is not. But when you have three prominent Kurdish nationalists (THREE, not only Ocalan) denying the idea of a Syrian Kurdistan, then saying there is a Syrian Kurdistan would sound like "More royal than the king". Trying to interpret "why X said this" and "why Y thinks that" is WP:OR. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I'd like to draw your attention to two comments made above by Fiveby who was not part of the dispute. The comments here and here summarize the situation we are dealing with. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We know why Ocalan said that, and to whom, and why. It is all explained in the article you keep quoting from and is utterly inconsequential to the purposes of an encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What else should be in the lead?

Thanks again to everyone for chiming in about the proposed first sentences in the section above. I also wanted to gather opinions about what else should be in the lead beyond the first sentence. Below is a list of topics I think should be covered in the lead, in roughly the order I think they should be addressed. I think all of these items could be summarized in the first paragraph, or they could take up multiple paragraphs, but at this point I'm thinking more about what should be included, without worrying about exactly how to phrase it or how much space to spend on each item. I'm sure I've missed some important items, but here is my list:

1. Geographic description in relation to Syria (e.g., consists of three discontinuous areas on the northern border of Syria, and maybe the names/locations/descriptions of each of those three areas)
2. Geographic description in relation to Kurdistan (e.g. it's a "Lesser Kurdistan", brief description of the other Kurdistans)
3. That its boundaries are disputed and not clearly defined
4. Geographic size estimate (sq km)
5. Population size estimate and demographics (e.g. ethnicies, religions)
6. Government
7. Economy
8. History of the place
9. History of the name or concept "Syrian Kurdistan"
10. A summary of the controversy surrounding the name/concept of "Syrian Kurdisan"

I would be interested to hear what everyone else would put on their list and in what order. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I believe you did a great job. For me, I think it is important for the first paragraph to have these elements, in order: 1-3-2-9-10- and then it does not matter which paragraph: 4-5-6-7-8. The important thing is not being biased to one pov. So sentences to avoid are, for example, "Syrian Kurdistan was split from Turkish Kurdistan", as if the regions in Syria were acknowledged as regions of Kurdistan prior to WWI and that this was a given fact. Ofcourse, such sentence will be no problem, but only if a contemporary source can be provided, dating to that period, mentioning the partition of Kurdistan between Turkey and France, when that partition happened. Anything else will be original research or modern scholarship that may be affected by current politics instead of historic realities.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The fact Kurdistan was divided between four states is undeniable and already well-established. Any suggestion that all academia may be affected by current politics instead of historic realities is a suggestion that would be WP:PROFRINGE the idea that we need to resort to WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY is incorrect. It is a given fact that regions in Syria and Turkey were considered Kurdistan prior to WWI, and this has already been proven numerous times, and not one iota of evidence has ben advanced in favour of the postulated contrary view. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Can you just leave my opinion alone? You dont have to reply to everything. There are no given facts without sources. Anything else would be simply OR. If its a given fact, then it can be proven by contemporary evidence.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• 2,1,3, to begin with, including a rough description of its relation to real-world concepts like rivers and mountains. (As I have suggested in the section above.) Very soon is required a mention of the Partition of the Ottoman Empire, the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon, and the Treaty of Ankara (1921) which separated Syrian Kurdistan from Turkish Kurdistan; probably less significant is the border with Iraqi Kurdistan. Facts and figures of size and (pre-war) population can come second-last; 21st-century politics and post-2011 developments last. GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Gpinkerton, your comment about "which separated Syrian Kurdistan from Turkish Kurdistan" in regards to history, Ottoman Empire, French Mandate is not following real historical events. We already discussed this before. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly true that you has said so before, though it is also true that nothing has been advanced in evidence of this claim. Other, more reliable sources take the opposite view, and none differ in this respect of reporting these basic historical facts.

Hassanpour, Amir (2005), Shelton, Dinah L. (ed.), "Kurds", Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 632–637, retrieved 2020-11-30, The majority live in Kurdistan, a borderless homeland whose territory is divided among the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. … The dismantling of the Ottoman empire in World War I led to the division of its Kurdish region and the incorporation of that territory into the newly created states of Iraq (under British occupation and mandate, 1918–1932), Syria (under French occupation and mandate, 1918–1946), and Turkey (Republic of Turkey since 1923). The formation of these modern nation-states entailed the forced assimilation of the Kurds into the official or dominant national languages and cultures: Turkish (Turkey), Persian (Iran), and Arabic (Syria, and, in a more limited scope, Iraq).

GPinkerton (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"division of its Kurdish region" not "Syrian Kurdistan". Also, Amir Hassanpour is a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Kurdistan, a borderless homeland whose territory is divided among the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Are you going to claim the Oxford English Dictionary which says exactly the same thing, is also a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov? GPinkerton (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In history no one has ever talked about a "Syrian Kurdistan". In modern times, some kurds, but also a few others that follow the kurdish pov have started to use the phrase, but as other sources show, its not an official name and it is very disputed, and therfor must be presented as disputed terminology throughout this article and wikipedia in general.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe such proposals contravene both WP:GEVAL and WP:COMMONNAME. The lead sentence already states that it is not always called Syrian Kurdistan and gives two alternatives, less used: "Western Kurdistan" and "Rojava". No more coverage of this so-called "dispute" is either necessary or important. GPinkerton (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's more than "a few others that follow the kurdish pov" who use the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" to refer to those areas of northern Syria. Usage of the term increased significantly since the civil war but even before that, Google NGrams shows the phrase used in English since mid-20th century (although of course I agree that mid-20th century is "modern"). Google Scholar has 978 hits for "Syrian Kurdistan", but only 47 before 2010. There's no disputing that the phrase was in use before the war, but there's also no disputing that the phrase has become much more prevalent since the war. IMO that's not surprising and is basically explained by the rise of AANES. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And besides that, Google Ngrams also shows "Kurdistan syrien" dates from the time of the French Mandate, at the latest. GPinkerton (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, as a policy point, the simple fact an academic is Kurdish does not make their pov a Kurdish pov. Macmillan Reference is a reputable publisher. It's fine to say an assertion should be attributed, but not to say it shouldn't be included simply because the author was Kurdish. —valereee (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed illustration

I propose the following be added to the article. (The free use means it's needs to be added or will be deleted and is not even be allowed on the talk page.) This image: File:Kurdistan_on_the_1945_San_Francisco_Conference_map,_the_1946_Rizgari_United_Nations_memorandum_map,_and_the_1947_Cairo_map.png with the following caption: Maps of Kurdistan drawn in the 1940s, showing various definitions of Syrian Kurdistan. Top: map presented at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in 1945; Centre: map from the Rizgari Party's memorandum to the United Nations in 1946; Bottom: map drawn in Cairo in 1947. All are reproduced from O'Shea, Maria T. (2004). Trapped Between the Map and Reality: Geography and Perceptions of Kurdistan. New York and London: Routledge. pp. 151, 154. ISBN 978-0-415-94766-4.

These maps have very vague "sources". 1. Who at the San Francisco Conference conference made it? 2. "drawn in Cairo in 1947" By whom? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See the book. GPinkerton (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I cant access the book.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

According to O'Shea, they are from: 1.) Nikitine, Basile, Les Kurdes. Étude Sociologique et Historique (Impremerie Nationale, Libraire Klincksieck, Paris 1956), p. 205. "No further details available"; 2.) Rizgari Party map presented to the American Legation in Baghdad to be forwarded to the United Nations Organization in 1946; and 3.) "Notes Concerning the Map of Kurdistan (Elias Modern Press, Cairo 1947) "Unknown authors" . GPinkerton (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem with it, as long as every map is ascribed to who made it, so that we dont have to open the book, but in the caption itself it should be clear who made it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Attar-Aram syria, so long as the map source is properly cited and is verifiable, I don't see an issue with it being included in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Jurisdicta, that ping broke. You have to get the username exactly correct, then also sign, all in the same post. You can't go back and fix it but instead if you break it, must start fresh with a new ping and signature. There's a script you can install at User:Enterprisey/reply-link that will help with this. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, thank you for bringing this to my attention, I appreciate it. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would count as fair use unless there was sourced commentary in the body about the maps themselves. I don't think we can "fair use" a map just for the purpose of showing where a place is/was; we'd have to be talking about the map itself in the article. But that issue aside, because the image is tagged as fair use and is too big, a bot will come along and reduce the file size, and I think at that point the image will be too small to be readable and thus won't be useful at all. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just popping in with my NFCC hat on to say that you can justify a non-free image if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Whether this particular map can meet this criteria, I am unsure. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite:, Levivich perhaps you can advise on whether the file needs to be fair use at all? The maps themselves are from the 1940s, but are reproduced from a book from this century. There is information about the maps in the book, so that can be used, and as for "omission would be detrimental to that understanding", I think it is essential that contemporary images showing Kurdistan extending into French Syria are included, since it has previously been denied that such a concept existed prior to the late 20th century, or even prior to the civil war, so obviously some doubts exist which could easily be settled by a look at these three images. GPinkerton (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  @GPinkerton: I'm not sure if these maps are public domain or otherwise covered by copyright (that is, if they need to be fair use at all); it would depend in the first place on exactly where, when, and how they were published. If they were first published in the 1940s in the US with a valid copyright statement, I believe they would still be in copyright and thus they'd have to be fair use. However, at least one of them is a UN map, and I have no idea about the copyright status of UN works. As yet another layer of complication, I'm unclear about whether the maps were entirely created in the 1940s, or did the authors of the map take a pre-existing map and shade in the areas of Kurdistan on it? Because if they took a public domain map and shaded in parts of it, that's probably not copyrightable. Sorry, I have more questions than answers when it comes to the copyright status of these maps!

  Maps are certainly key to this article, though Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• What about a newly drawn map, faithfully representing the outlines on one of the older maps, uploaded to Commons as "attributed as 'after unknown authors'" cited to the Elias Modern Press source or whoever? —valereee (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Certainly that would be ideal; there are quite a few such maps in that book and all would be useful in Wikipedia, particularly these three historical ones. I'm not the one to deal with .svg editing or anything though! GPinkerton (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, yes, unfortunately neither am I. Perhaps someone here has the skills/tools? Or I think sometime in the past I've seen some sort of "ask for maps here" noticeboard. —valereee (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

17th floor, third door on the left passed the vending machines: Wikipedia:Requested pictures Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I added a request at the top but I'm not sure it's done right. GPinkerton (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks right to me but then I don't think I've ever used that template. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, (Mae West voice): you really know your way around this place. —valereee (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Kurdistan"

The article Kurdistan defines "Kurdistan" in the lead sentence as a roughly defined geo-cultural territory in Western Asia wherein the Kurdish people form a prominent majority population and the Kurdish culture, languages, and national identity have historically been based. Does anyone object to using that phrasing in this article, or this altered form: a roughly-defined geo-cultural area in Western Asia inhabited by Kurds? Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem with having that quote about an area in Syria is that other sources show that to be heavily disputed, specially in regards to "historically been based". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, would adding that it's disputed make it work for you? Something like "a roughly defined geo-cultural territory in Western Asia wherein the Kurdish people form a prominent majority population and the Kurdish culture, languages, and national identity are prominent; the historical implications are disputed." Implications isn't the right word, and that puts prominent in there twice, but I haven't had enough coffee yet. —valereee (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the current lead is good and does not need to be changed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

My support you have for such phrases. I have started a similar discussion called What reliable source opposes that there exists a Syrian Kurdistan. Maybe the discussion there can give you some insights what the possible answers could be.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, as you say, Kurdistan is "roughly defined", meaning every map will be different, different in space and time. The Treaty of Sevres map shows the proposed state of Kurdistan by the WWI allies. The demographics in Kurdistan have dramatically shifted/still shifting. See this book for a description of Diyarbakir province in the late 19th century. It talks about the demographic distribution of the across the different areas of the province My point is that that city (and province to a great extent), now considered by some as the capital of Kurdistan, had a three way population split, Armenians, Kurds and Arabs. One has to be careful when describing a specific geographical area from an ethnic standpoint (sorry, I might be echoing Fiveby here). Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That it is about a geo-cultural region and not! of a political entity like the Kurdistan Eyalet or a hypothetical Kurdistan as portrayed in the Treaty of Sevres. This I tried to explain several times already arguing that -stan after Kurdi = Kurdistan simply denotes that it is the "land of Kurds". Lets just go with the hundreds (English, French etc.) of sources that describe a division of Kurdistan into 4 different countries out of which Syrian Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan arose.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, The Treaty of Sevres's Kurdish state was not a representation of Kurdistan but just the part of Turkish Kurdistan that would not be part of the big Armenian state that also never eventually existed. There is no relevance to Syrian Kurdistan because it was projected to be under French control just as Iraqi Kurdistan was under British, as eventually happened. East Kurdistan, being already part of Iran and no part of the partition of the Ottoman Empire, it also nowhere mentioned by the Sevres Treaty, which has, ultimately, very little to do with this subject. GPinkerton (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, the Treaty of Sevres didn't talk about a a Syrian Kurdistan because there was no such thing. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, Indeed, in those days it was just West Kurdistan. There was no Syria either. GPinkerton (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Per the text you added, West Kurdistan refers to Diyrabakir. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, Not true. The source (and the text I added) says Diyarbakir is in West Kurdistan. The idea "West Kurdistan" could ever be a synonym for a single city is logically impossible as well as linguistically and geographically absurd. GPinkerton (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Again asking for opinions, this time about this formulation:

1. Before the Syrian Civil War, "West Kurdistan", "Western Kurdistan", and "Rojava Kurdistanê‎" (lit. "Kurdistan where the sun sets"), shortened to "Rojava", referred to the western part of Kurdistan (a Kurdish-inhabited area in central Asia), including Kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria ("Syrian Kurdistan") as well as the western part of Kurdish-inhabited areas of Turkey ("Turkish Kurdistan"), as shown (roughly) on this map (originally published in 1993).
2. Since the Syrian Civil War, "West Kurdistan", "Western Kurdistan", "Rojava Kurdistanê‎", and "Rojava" refer to Kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria ("Syrian Kurdistan") (and not to Turkish Kurdistan) as shown (roughly) on these Syrian Kurdistan maps at Commons, including AANES as shown (roughly) on the lead map at that article.

I'm not proposing this for the lead, just wondering if editors agree or disagree that this is an accurate summary of what the RS say. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, according to historical sources. "Western kurdistan" is not in Syria. See this text in the article: "The late 19th-century Chambers's Encyclopaedia referred to "west Kurdistan" as bordering Iran in its entry on that country.[19] A German gymnasium text book from Sorau (modern Żary) describes Diyarbakır as being "on the upper Tigris, in West Kurdistan"." So referring to an area in Syria as "Western Kurdistan" has no historical basis and is a newly invented idea held by some people.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I think the "West" nomenclature is a confusing and imprecise distraction. I'm not wholly sure the map in 1.) is representative of the same divisions; I think the seven principal divisions there are linguistic boundaries distinct from the fourfold geopolitical division referred to in most of the literature. And, no the meaning of Syrian Kurdistan and "Western Kurdistan" has not changed since the previous century, except as to be interchangeable with the Kurdish-led administration of the area emerging since 2011. GPinkerton (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Meaning, at all times, "Rojava" referred to Kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria, and not any areas of Turkey? Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I can't answer on the usage in Kurdish in particular, but certainly "Western Kurdistan" has been synonymous with Syrian Kurdistan in English long before the war. The source above refers to our meaning of the names on p. 200 as the three fragments of Kurdistan along Syria's northern and northeastern borders with Turkey and Iraq and as "Syrian Kurdistan" on p. 17; I think the "western Kurdistan" Izady refers to is a different one which is off-topic and possibly his own classification. (But does include both Diyarbakir and Syrian Kurdistan!) GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, what do you make of Ismet Cheriff Vanly, writing in 1993 (pp. 139-140), describing Iraqi Kurdistan: Kurdistan in Iraq is often referred to as Southern Kurdistan but in fact it occupies a more or less central position in the Kurdish territories. It is the link between what is variously known as Turkish, Northern or Western Kurdistan to the north and north-west, and so-called Eastern or Iranian Kurdistan to the east and south-east, and it also borders on the mainly Kurdish areas of the Syrian Jezireh. Vanly also seems to be referring to Turkish Kurdistan as part of Western Kurdistan? Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, technically that book is from the 1970s, the English translation was from the 1990s. On the face of it, it adds to the case that the "western" label is confusing and much more ambiguous that the "Syrian" option. It's also certainly true that most of Syrian Kurdistan is contiguous with the Turkish side so it would make sense that culturally it would be lumped together as one. (See my comments in the section below regarding Bin Xhet and Ser Xhet.) GPinkerton (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, the text you just quoted above clarifies exactly what we are advocating here. There are Kurdistan parts in Iraq, Turkey and Iran, but in Syria they are refered to "Kurdish-inhabited areas". Per Fiveby, saying Kurdish-inhabited areas in Syria has many ethno-nationalistic implications. The situation in Syria is and has always been different the the other three countries. Western Kurdistan is around Diyarbakir in Turkey. In Syria on the eve of WWI there was not enough Kurds to justify the use of Syrian Kurdistan, per Vanly above. Remember this is another Kurdish activist, same as Izady, and the maps presented by Izady go against all other ethnographic maps of the area (mostly British) or French mandate demographic description/statistics. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, No, there are contiguous "Kurdish-inhabited areas" in four states, and the areas in Syria are called "Syrian Kurdistan". GPinkerton (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"-stan"

That -stan denotes a land and Kurdi before -stan gives Kurdistan I have tried to explain several times. More descriptive 5 times between the 13 and 25 of November. You can review the diffs here,

[here],

here,

here,

here on the 23rd and 25th November 2020, I added the comment that I haven't received an answer yet on this, and this stood this way. I am actually still waiting for an argument which refutes this -stan argument. Can I assume there is no opposition to this then on the Syrian Kurdistan article talk page and Kurdistan was therefore divided between Syrian, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran giving way to Syrian Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan which is actually described in multiple academic sources on the topic.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, we are going around in circles and I am really fatigued of this right now. In 1939 the french census of the Jazira region showed the bulk of the population being Arabs/Assyrians/Armenians and a minority being Kurds. We have several sources describing how kurds came in waves after waves from Turkey to Syria. We have several sources saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is not real. How can Wikipedia then possibly claim that in the 1920s a "Syrian kurdistan" existed in Syria that was divided? This claim is only a belief held by some people. This is a kurdish narrative that some people go along with. And other do not. It is not a historical fact. It is highly disputed, and it must therefor be presented as a disputed belief in the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That Kurd Dagh is Kurdish since centuries and not only after the French Mandate and that Bohtan span over parts of Northern Syria is stated here in the discussion it is so stated also in their respective articles. The Barazi Tribal confederation who wanted an autonomy for the Kurdish region around Jarabulus in Syria was also Kurdish. This denial comes from SD, who wanted to move the article Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied Regions in Syria in the midst of a the Siege of Kobane by ISIL (also known as ISIS) The Kurds have mainly (I don't know of any battle the YPG or SDF had against non-Jihadist factions in which they captured localities) captured localities from Jihadists and ISIS and haven't attacked the Syrian Governments positions which holds significant and tolerated enclaves within the Autonomous Administration. Call this attempted Move the POV you like, but sources for this can mainly be found in ISIS and other Jihadi outlets or Assadist or Turkish state propaganda.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I am glad that you are tired of repeating this incorrect claim. We have already seen that it is contradicted by the reliable sources, so repeating it further is unlikely to be fruitful. We have already read that The northeastern corner of Syria ... has been Kurdish majority since official records began in the last century. (O’Leary, op. cit.) so unsourced claims to the contrary like these are not going to be considered, as it has already been proved it was a malicious fiction dreamt up by Arab nationalists to claim that there is no such thing as Syrian Kurdistan. As we have read, Kurds have been inhabiting northern Syria for centuries but their numbers were increased even more by refugees from the various wars waged against them in Turkey, this situation regarding the Turkish origin of some Syrian Kurds provided the Syrian rationale for the disenfranchisement of many of these Kurds in modern Syria, which began with the French mandate under the League of Nations following the First World War and the removal of the short-lived rule of Faisal as king. After much acrimony, a French-Turkish agreement arbitrarily made the Baghdad railway line that ran between Mosul in Iraq and Aleppo in Syria the present border between most of Turkey and Syria after it crossed the Iraqi-Syrian boundary. Indeed even today many Kurds in Turkey and Syria who live on either side of the border do not refer to themselves as coming from those states. Rather, for the Kurds of Turkey, Syria is Bin Xhet (below the line), and for the Kurds of Syria, Turkey is Ser Xhet (above the line). and The situation regarding the Turkish origin of some of the Syrian Kurds described in Chapter 1 provided the Syrian government’s rationale for the disenfranchisement of many of these Kurds in modern Syria. Never mind the fact that before the Sykes-Picot Agreement artificially separated the Kurds of the Ottoman Empire into three separate states after the First World War (Turkey, Iraq and Syria) all of these Kurds had lived within a single border. Gunter, Michael (2014). Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War. London: C. Hurst and Co. pp. 9, 19. ISBN 978-1-84904-531-5. GPinkerton (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Source for that kurds were a minority in 1939 French census is CADN, Cabinet Politique, Box 505, no. 204/DJ, from the High Commissariat de la République Française en Syrie et au Liban, Délégation de la Haute Djézireh to Monsieur le LT. Colonel Inspecteur Délégué, 8 February 1939 and can be accesed in Algun, S., 2011. Sectarianism in the Syrian Jazira: Community, land and violence in the memories of World War I and the French mandate (1915- 1939). Ph.D. Dissertation. Universiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands. Page 11 Link --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, actually the source says the opposite, so your comment is wholly mistaken. The totals are actually given on page 12. They state:

• Kurds: 53,315
• Kurdo-Christians: 2,181
• Yazidis: 1,602
• Arabs: 29,769
• Christians: 27,316
• Armenians: 4,200
• Assyrians: 8,767

As can clearly be seen, the Kurds (even when counted separately to Yazidis and "Kurdo-Christians") are by far the majority in the area, almost twice the size of any other surveyed group. It's obviously not necessary to discuss this irrelevant point any further, since it is clear that the claim: kurds were a minority in 1939 French census is both completely wrong and refuted utterly by the source alleged to support the claim. GPinkerton (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Kurds/Kurdo-Christian: 53.315 + 2181= 55,496 kurds. Arabs/Nomads/Christian/Armenian/Assyrian: 29.769 + 25.000 + 27.316 + 4200 + 8767 = 95.052 Non-kurds (Did not ad 1602 Yeezidis to either side as their origin is disputed). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, Correct. As you can see, the Kurds are a clear majority. GPinkerton (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-kurds are the majority.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, "non-Kurds" is not a demographic. Kurds are the majority.

majority, n.
Being greater; the greater part.
- OED

Adding up all the minorities does not make the minorities a majority. The "greater part" of the population were Kurds, just as all the reliable sources say. GPinkerton (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In 1939 kurds were the largest minority but they were not the majority. The majority, the greater part were Non-kurds. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, that's not how the word majority works. What you describe as "largest minority", without any group larger than itself, is in fact the majority, being the "greater part" of the population. QED. GPinkerton (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, actually that would be the "plurality". —valereee (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

>50% is a majority. If there are three or more groups, one can instead have a plurality. 50% Kurds, if they're the largest of three or more groups, would form a plurality and are not correctly called a majority. —valereee (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, No, that's a false dichotomy. A plurality is a kind of majority. e.g. Hilary Clinton won the majority of votes in the 2016 US presidential election: 48.2%. This kind of majority is called a plurality. Majority ≠ ≥50%. GPinkerton (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton: Majority, second paragraph of lead. —valereee (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SD, if you check the demographic info of each district (also on page 12) and not just the whole Governorate the Kurds are a large majority of almost 100% in at least two of the 4 districts.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee yes they are a plurality in the whole Governorate, but they have near 100% majority of 2 of the 4 districts in the table. I assume that there are other localities in the region that would be similarly populated by Kurds to come to the 55.000+ Kurds in the Governorate displayed in the table. Also look at the CIA report of 1948 which includes a CIA Kurdistan map on page 17. Syrian Kurdistan covers most of the northern strip of the Syrian Turkish border and is quite different as the CIA map of 2002.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, yes, I was just discussing terminology, not the content. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton HEre is a more neutral account about northern Syria and Kurds, compared to the POV sources you cite. This is again, ANOTHER evidence about the origin of Kurds in northeastern Syria from a declassified CIA report in 1948.

The Kurds constitute a relatively small minority in Syria and Lebanon. Kurdish communities of long standing are located in the Kurd Dagh area of northwestern Syria, but the largest concentration is in the Jazirah section of northeastern Syria, where a considerable number of Kurdish immigrants settled after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Small but politically active Kurdish communities exist in Damascus and Beirut.

The Kurds, along with other minorities, are accorded equal rights and privileges with the majority groups in Syria and Lebanon. They have parliamentary representation and generally concede that they have received fair treatment in such matters as road-building, construction of schools, and administration of justice. Nevertheless, many of them feel that their integrity as a group is in jeopardy. This feeling is most noticeable in Beirut and Damascus, which have become centers of Kurdish nationalist propaganda, and among the non-native immigrant Kurds, who have retained their traditional hatred of alien domination. The immigrant group has provided most of the leaders of the Syrian and Lebanese Kurds, notably the Badr Khan family, Dr. Ahmad Nazif, and Hassan Hajo Agha.

The intensive Kurdish immigration continued after the mandate authorities left. David McDowall states the following: Arab nationalists had good reason to be paranoid about internal and external enemies. Nowhere was the Syrian Arab cause less assured than in the north where so many non-Arab communities lived, particularly in al-Hasaka governorate. The population had grown rapidly, and it was the growth since 1945 that gave cause for Arab concern. In its own words, the government believed that 'At the beginning of 1945, the Kurds began to infiltrate into al-Hasakeh governorate. They came singly and in groups from neighbouring countries, especially Turkey, crossing illegally along the border from Ras al'Ain to al-Malikiyya. Gradually and illegally, they settled down in the region along the border in major population centres such as Dirbasiyya, Amuda and Malikiyya. Many of these Kurds were able to register themselves illegally in the Syrian civil registers. They were also able to obtain Syrian identity cards through a variety of means, with the help of their relatives and members if their tribes. They did so with the intent of settling down and acquiring property, especially after the issue of the agricultural reform law, so as to benefit from land redistribution.' Official figures available in 1961 showed that in a mere seven year period, between 1954 and 1961, the population of al-Hasakah governorate had increased from 240,000 to 305,000, an increase of 27 per cent which could not possibly be explained merely by natural increase. The government was sufficiently worried by the apparent influx that it carried out a sample census in June 1962 which indicated the real population was probably closer to 340,000. Although these figures may have been exaggerated, they were credible given the actual circumstances. From being lawless and virtually empty prior to 1914, the Jazira had proved to be astonishingly fertile once order was imposed by the French mandate and farming undertaken by the largely Kurdish population.... A strong suspicion that many migrants were entering Syria was inevitable. In Turkey the rapid mechanisation of farming had created huge unemployment and massive labour migration from the 1950s onwards. The fertile but not yet cultivated lands of northern Jazira must have been a strong enticement and the affected frontier was too long feasibly to police it.

In addition to McDowall (1998), McDowall (2004), de Vaumas, Gibert and Fevret, Sykes map (1907) (and many more) this should conclude our discussion about the origins of Kurds in northeastern Syria (i.e. the majority of them (if not all) immigrated from Turkey). When you claim these areas are "part of Kurdistan", what does that make of the native population (majority) living on their lands before Kurds arrived? Trespassers? Does that sound fair to you? Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Amr ibn Kulthoum, thank you for bringing this important and valuable information about kurds infiltrating from turkey into Syria. This must be added into the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, certainly it belongs in the article, although definitely not with the ridiculous misinterpretation that it proves the Ba'athist lie that the Kurds were not a majority in Syrian Kurdistan. It does not, and indeed the fact that even after all this discussion no source has bee produced which states what you have claimed speaks volumes about the credibility of this long-debunked and nationalistic claim. GPinkerton (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, You appear to be labouring under the false impression the wall of text you have posted above supports your claim that the majority of them (if not all) immigrated from Turkey, a claim which is rejected by reliable sources which all state was a lie invented by the racist Syrian government. It does not. I do not see why you keep referring to Sykes; he states quite unambiguously that Deir az-Zor was majority Kurdish in 1907. The idea Kurds are not native to Syria is malicious lie and it is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it as though it could be countenanced as anything more than ahistorical propaganda. The phrasing the non-native immigrant Kurds clearly differentiates these Kurds from the Kurds native to the area, as do all the otehr sources, a fact which it is impossible to hand-wave away with the ludicrous claim that they are just the POV sources you cite. Please find some actual source that states what you claim, or give up claiming it. Please. GPinkerton (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your words such as a lie invented by racist Syrian government. and The idea Kurds are not native to Syria is malicious lie do not help and are aggressive/rude. Which one of my sources is a Syrian or even an Arab source? All sources are French or British and are reporting on the French mandate era using French statistics. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, I'll ask you to start learning to write short. I know that's difficult, especially when as I assume you aren't writing in your first language. No one wants to read more than a few sentences, and many won't bother to read it at all if it's longer than it needs to be. Draft your argument, then go back and edit mercilessly, removing everything that isn't absolutely crucial to making your primary point. It takes a lot longer to write short, but it's a critical skill in persuading other editors. —valereee (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, since I used quotes, I didn't want to take things out of context, but bolded the most important stuff. This is why my quotes were long, sorry. Now, I hope an admin will be dealing with the renewed personal attacks and aggressive language from GPinkerton addressed at Supreme Deliciousness at myself (or anyone who disagrees with them):

• ridiculous misinterpretation that it proves the Ba'athist lie
• malicious lie and it is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it
• You appear to be labouring under the false impression the wall of text you have posted

Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, I do get that. It's tempting to write more, in order to be very clear. But it's counterproductive, and it's actually considered perfectly reasonable for editors, who are all volunteers, to ignore walls of text as time-wasters. You can collapse the extra stuff that you feel is needed to provide background; that way people who want to can get your reasoning. But if you don't make your main points in a few sentences, few people will want to spend the time. —valereee (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Best sources for this article

I looked for book-length scholarship by academic publishers from the last five years or so, and this is what I came up with:

About Syrian Kurdistan in particular

1. Matthieu Cimino (2020), Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State, Springer. [2]
2. Harriet Allsopp & Wladimir van Wilgenburg (2019), The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Bloomsbury. [3]
3. Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, Nir T. Boms & Sareta Ashraph, eds. (2019), The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality, Cambridge. [4]
4. Brendan O'Leary (2018), The Kurds, the Four Wolves, and the Great Powers, The Journal of Politics. [5] PDF — not a book, but a book review of:
   1. Harriet Allsopp (2016), The Kurds of Syria: Political Parties and Identity in the Middle East, Bloomsbury. [6]
   2. Michael Gunter (2014), Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War, Hurst. [7]
   3. Michael Gunter (2017), The Kurds: A Modern History, Markus Wiener Publishers. [8] (O'Leary reviewed the 2016 ed.)

   (And four other books about Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.)

5. Samer N. Abboud (2015), Syria, Wiley. [9]

   About Kurdistan in general (including Syrian Kurdistan)

6. Güneş Murat Tezcür, ed. (2020), A Century of Kurdish Politics: Citizenship, Statehood and Diplomacy, T&F. [10]
7. Zeynep N. Kaya (2020), Mapping Kurdistan: Territory, Self-Determination and Nationalism, Cambridge. [11]
8. David Romano, Mehmet Gurses, and Michael Gunter (2020), The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, Lexington Books. [12]
9. Sebastian Maisel (2018), The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society, ABC-Clio. [13]
10. Michael Gunter (2018), Routledge Handbook on the Kurds, T&F. [14]
11. David L. Phillips (2015), The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the Middle East, Transaction Publishers. [15]
12. Mehrdad Izady (2015, orig. 1992), Kurds: A Concise Handbook, T&F. [16]
13. David McDowall (April 2021, 2004, orig 1996), A Modern History of the Kurds, Bloomsbury. [17]

Anything missing from this list? Anything that should be removed from the list? Some but not all of these are already in the article (or in related articles). Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this sources. Merdad Izady has strong opponents, and even the climate info from him is seen as unreliable and is blamed to come from a nationalist. I don't share this view, but it will be difficult to source anything with him.

Others I would also recommend are:

1. Jordi Tejell: Syria's Kurds: History, Politics and Society

1. Jordi Tejel: Le mouvement kurde de Turquie en exil: continuités et discontinuités du nationalisme kurde sous le mandat français en Syrie et au Liban (1925-1946)

1. Roger Lescot is also good. His books you can read online hereParadise Chronicle (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Also add Robert Lowe "The Emergence of Western Kurdistan and the Future of Syria" in D. Romano et al. (eds.), Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East (2014). As for Izady (aside from the academic criticism), it is not as simple as climate. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

extended discussion

[Izady] is treating the climate of Afrin as related to the climate of Zagros and not Aleppo. So, that deleted section is clearly used to push one POV and not the other: a greater Kurdistan taken by other countries. So nothing innocent in Izady's work. Now, can we agree on one thing: if these Kurdish inhabited regions are part of historical Kurdistan, then a historical source predating the establishment of Syria should be presented? If the criteria is: wherever Kurds live is a Kurdistan, then we will have Kurdistan in Damascus and Berlin. If Syria took parts of Kurdistan when it was established, then it is necessary to prove that these parts, all of them, were part of the historical region of Kurdistan before Syria took it (or France, whatever)- (even if they became parts of historical Kurdistan in 1900 is fine! just a historical source please, any!- ofcourse we are not talking if Kurds considered these regions parts of Kurdistan, because then we can also consider Cyprus part of Syria because Syrian nationalists claims it to be such).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC) The former edit could be removed for WP:NOTFORUM. If you can source a Kurdistan in Damascus and Berlin, ask at the talk pages there and present your ideas there. We are here at the Syrian Kurdistan article and have numerous sources for a Syrian Kurdistan. This doesn't mean it is a recognized country. But Kurds in Syria did not just come out of nowhere and the Kurds in Syria are also not due to mere coincidence living adjacent to Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan. The historical Kurdistan argument has been discussed for weeks and the Kurd Dagh and Bohtan arguments against this were long ago presented. Fact is, there exists a Kurdish population in Syria adjacent to other parts of Kurdistan and in numerous sources it is known as Syrian Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) So you have no source. What you wrote is your own logical conclusion not supported by sources. It is my right to ask you to present your sources when you claim this is part of historical Kurdistan, so this isnt a forum indeed and my arguments are legetimate. If Kurdistan exist in Syria today, for which you are bringing sources, then this doesnt mean it existed before Syria was established. Some Kurdish nomads expanding from their homeland doesnt make the new regions a Kurdistan. Please present historic evidence and spare us the conclusions. If this is part of historical Kurdistan, then how hard it is to find a traveler or historian from the 19th century writing that he visited Afrin in Kurdistan? Cant this be found? then dont argue that this is part of the historical homeland of the Kurds.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC) If you are not satisfied with the sources provided for a "historic" Syrian Kurdistan, what can we do? A Syrian KurdistaN is shown in numerous sources, and we ought to go by them. Wikipedia is not Aramattarpedia, it is an encyclopedia in which the info provided has to be sourced if contested. And there exist numerous sources for a Syrian Kurdistan. If you claim that if a source focuses on or about a Syrian Kurdistan, it means there exists no Syrian Kurdistan it is rather an WP:OR.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Are you heading in the direction of GP where you attack other editors? Its simple: historic means historical sources to support historicality. You have failed to provide this. All your sources do not confirm that before the establishment of Syria these regions were part of the historical cultural region of Kurdistan. Your inability to find historic sources is not on me to blame. So speak about Kurdistan as much as you want, but dont entertain ideas of historical native homelands without historical sources. NONE of the sources you provided contain a single cited historic document mentioning those regions as part of Kurdistan. Zero. Again, nomads migrate (in the case of Jazira), but it doesnt make the new regions part of a historic homeland. If you write that in 1918 Kurdistan was split by Syria and others, then provide a contemporary source to prove that in 1918 these regions were part of Kurdistan. Again, I know it is frustrating to you, but you cant defend your claims without adequate secondary sources based on actual primary sources (thats the first thing you learn when you start a research in academia).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I am tired of recurring discussions whether a Syrian Kurdistan exists or not, while actually having a Wikipedia article Syrian Kurdistan with numerous academic sources actually showing and mentioning a Syrian Kurdistan. That there is an opposition to the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan belongs into a specific section but not into the lead as all what can be put there for a denial is OR. I call for an admin to craft an NPOV lead according to WP:Lead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) It exist today: I was not arguing about this, but about the notion that it is the historic land of Kurds annexed by Syria, for which you were not able to provide a single historic source. As for the opposition, this will be decided by consensus, but thanks for expressing your opinion.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I forgot to put Cimino 2020 on my list, so I added it. Also, I added O'Leary even though it isn't a book, because it's a book review by a reputable scholar in a reputable journal. (Are there any other recent book reviews like it?) Re: the above, Tejel, Lescot, and Lowe I think are all reputable scholars as well and their works are usable. However, given the changes "on the ground", I think we should really lean on very recent scholarship: 2019-2020 preferably, post-2016 second choice, post-2011 third choice, and only use pre-war as necessary to fill in gaps. So I think, for example, for Tejel's views about Syrian Kurdistan, it's better to rely more on Tejel 2020 (in Cimino 2020) than Tejel 2009, although Tejel 2009 could be used to fill in gaps of material not covered by more recent sources. For this reason, even O'Leary's book review I think should be considered "second choice", because it was written in 2018 and reviews books written in 2016 or earlier. We want to tell our readers what Syrian Kurdistan is today, according to scholars. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to vote here, but if the sources here presented are included in the article I agree.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

table to allow editors to assess sources as acceptable or not?

assessing sources

source	Username 1	username 2	username 3
Harriet Allsopp & Wladimir van Wilgenburg (2019), The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Bloomsbury. [18]	Yes	Maybe	No
Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, Nir T. Boms & Sareta Ashraph, eds. (2019), The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality, Cambridge. [19]
Samer N. Abboud (2015), Syria, Wiley. [20]

Dec 12 lead paragraph draft

Without cites, links, formatting, etc.:

Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. It is the Syrian part of Kurdistan, a roughly-defined Kurdish-inhabited area spanning several sovereign states in Central Asia. Originally a collection of medieval principalities, Kurdistan was part of the Ottoman Empire until it was partitioned by the Allied Powers following World War I. The three enclaves were placed in the French Mandate for Syria, while the rest of Kurdistan was divided between what became the modern states of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, among others. Syrian Kurdistan is thus sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. "Kurdistan where the sun sets"), one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Bakurê Kurdistanê‎, 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Başûrê Kurdistanê‎, 'Southern Kurdistan').

Thoughts? I don't think it's particularly well written, but I'm mostly curious if it has all the right parts in the right order with the right terminology. Is it complete (for a first paragraph)? Is it neutral? Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No it is not the right terminology. The suggested text is presenting "Syrian Kurdistan" as being a real name for an area in Syria, which it isn't. The text is also claiming that before WW1 there was a "Kurdistan" that was divided and placed within Syria, which is also historically inaccurate. Current lead is better where "Syrian Kurdistan" is presented as a pov from some people which is the accurate situation and terminology.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe-Can this be verified? I mean the historical part? The principalities constituting Kordistan and conquered by Selim I did not include these Syrian regions. This paragraph is inaccurate as it gives the impression that these regions are part of historical Kurdistan, but no historical source supports this. Also, no comtemporary source from 1918 mentions that these regions are part of the Kurdistan partitioned between allies. What are these information based on? I would be okay with it if this historical background that does not apply to Syrian Kurdistan is removed. This is not part of the historical Kurdistan, yet it is Kurdistan today as a result of several demographic and military and political changes. Its better not to mix history with modern developments. I would make it the following:

Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), as one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdish: Başûrê Kurdistanê, lit. 'Southern Kurdistan').

I hope both parties can see the compromise in my wording: it present Syrian Kurdistan as existing, without qualification, but does not go into the wild historical accounts of Kurdish nationalists that have no support in actual HISTORICAL sources. If everyone can give up a little, we can bring peace to this article (and ourselves).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria, your suggestion is not good because it presents "Syrian Kurdistan" as a real entity in Syria, instead as a pov. Also, kurdish nationalists have different vies of what is "Syrian kurdistan" and they include larger parts of Syria, not just 3 enclaves. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness: it is a real thing, and thats a reality. It was established by the Kurds, so it exist now. Presenting it as a Kurdish POV while Kurds are in control of the land isnt realistic. We cant keep fighting here forever!--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What was "established by the kurds" ? The kurds who are currently controlling the area call it the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both Levivich and Attar Aram syria for the drafts. @Levivich, I'd leave the historical part out of the lead and insert it in another specific historical section/paragraph. For now, I would just focus on "what it is" in the lead. I support Attar Aram syrias version. Let's find peace for the article and ourselves.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would we ad a historically inaccurate text in another specific historical section? Wouldn't it just be better if we don't include the inaccurate text in the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, that makes sense. Attar-Aram's version looks good to me. Thanks! I still think the lead needs to explain what "Kurdistan" is (specifically, that it isn't a sovereign state), but that can be done later in the lead section (in a different paragraph), and we can defer the discussion of history until then. @Attar-Aram syria: I hope you don't mind, I added some markup to your draft so we can see what it will look like "live". The only thing I didn't link was Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira. I'm not sure what to link it to. I think it should be linked to the region articles (e.g. Afrin Region) but something tells me not everyone would agree with that :-) (If we don't reach consensus on a link target, then let's just leave it unlinked for now?) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich and Paradise Chronicle. Im fine with any historic background as long as sound secondary sources based on historical primary sources support it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll have to dig into sources to discuss the history formulation. One other thing: should we strike the word "as" in the sentence: "Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), as one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans""? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Attar and Levivich for your attempts. However, with all due respect, I think the current lead, developed by Applodion after discussions on the Talk page, better describes the issue at hand. It is not a universally accepted terms. I can come up with hundreds of sources that refer to the area by "Kurdish-inhabited region in Syria". Simply presenting the area as "Syrian Kurdistan" means that the majority of the population, which are non-Kurdish, are living on the land of Kurds, not on their own land. This is simply "adopting" the narrative of the Kurdish nationalists. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The way I read both mine and Attar's revision, they say that Syrian Kurdistan is part of Syria (a sovereign state), and part of Kurdistan (a geographic area, but not a sovereign state). So I don't think anyone reading that would think that Syrian Kurdistan is land that legally belongs to the Kurds, as opposed to land that legally belongs to Syria where Kurds live. ("Land of the Kurds" could mean either Kurdish-owned or Kurdish-inhabited.) That said, would it change your mind if the paragraph was more explicit that Syria is a sovereign state and Kurdistan is not? (This is the reason I had included some sentences about history in my original draft: to explain that Kurdistan is not a sovereign state. I wonder if a second paragraph about history would make the first paragraph clearer, as it were.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Syrian Kurdistan" or "kurdistan" does not exist in Syria as a factual entity, it is only a disputed belief held by some people, and therefor it must be presented as such.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "factual entity". "Syrian Kurdistan" isn't a belief, it's a place. It's not an imaginary or fictional place like Atlantis: Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira are real places on Earth. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, can you see page 19 of this introduction to a recent work by Jordi Tejel? Unfortunately i don't have access to the full chapter. It is a fluid concept, as a place it is ill-defined and it is and has been a belief. Can you really not see how simplistic it is to assert 'Syrian Kurdistan' is a 'place', 'region', or 'area' while ignoring the implications? It's a term that has meant different things at different times, and has different meanings for different people. It is both a real place and it does not exist depending on the context. What it most certainly is not is Afrin, Kobani, and Jazira. fiveby(zero) 23:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on p. 19 Cimino summarizes the argument made by Tejel in Chapter 11 of that book. I think it's very important to see the context and not, as it were, "cherry pick" quotes. So here are some long-ish quotes:

From p. 19 (linked above), Cimino's introduction:

... In The complex and dynamic relationship of Syria's Kurds with Syrian borders: Continuities and changes (Chapter 11), Jordi Tejel questions the discourses and spatial representations of "Greater Kurdistan": How was this notion created? What is the spatial ideology carried by the PYD in Syria? Are the Syrian Kurds working to restore "historical" Kurdish territory and, more specifically, do they envisage secession from Syria? By relying on unpublished maps and school books, dating from the sixteenth century to the present day, Tejel demonstrates that the Kurdish territorial imagination, comprising myths, mobilizing stories and political ambitions, is relatively plastic and fluctuating. Recently established, "Rojava" (Syrian Kurdistan) is part of a mythology of pan-Kurdish unity which does not constitute a political objective for the Syrian Kurds in itself, but is rather a "cultural abstract". For the author, "like Arab nationalists in Syria, the Kurdish movement has produced a political discourse that combines pan-Kurdist references intertwined with local patriotism and limited territorial claims".

Yet the author shows that this imagined community is nevertheless very well documented: from the Sharafnama map of 1596 (which displays "extreme expansionist tendencies, in particular to the south") to the Paris conference in 1919, where the Kurdish representative submitted Kurdish territorial claims, the representation of "Greater Kurdistan" is diverse and heterogeneous and is altered according to political contexts and the audiences for which it is intended. After the mandate period ... [it goes on to describe Tejel's chapter].

We should also look at what Tejel writes in Chapter 11.

On p. 243, Tejel introduces his chapter by writing: However, the tensions between the two de fact Kurdish autonomous territories controlled by two competing Kurdish movements since 2011 (Rojava or Western Kurdistan in Northern Syria and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Northern Iraq)...

On p. 244:

... I shall analyze the maps as well as school textbooks elaborated during the French Mandate and in the post-2011 context ... I shall argue that Kurdish populations and local political actors have developed a complex and dynamic relationship with the Syrian-Turkish and Syrian-Iraqi borders. Like Arab nationalists in Syria, the Kurdish movement has produced a political discourse that combines pan-Kurdish references intertwined with local patriotism and limited territorial claims. The map of Greater Kurdistan reproduced in different formats (including textbooks) definitely forges a sense of common Kurdish identity beyond international borders and Kurdish nationalism. It offers a 'historic territory' which, in turn, implies a narrative of conquest, defense, liberation and loss in which certain 'Others' play a role. In this respect, it is difficult to separate the feelings of national identity and geopolitical visions. Nevertheless, I shall demonstrate that Greater Kurdistan does not constitute an actual political goal for Syria's Kurds. It provides a cultural abstract that supports local political claims and strategies without questioning Syria's borders.

On p. 250 Tejel writes: ... while some visual representations remain relatively constant (Greater Kurdistan), others such as "Syrian Kurdistan," "Rojava" have varied over the time due to new developments and shifting power dynamics on the ground.

And on p. 261 he describes the depiction of Kurdistan and Rojava in PYD textbooks:

PYD-sponsored textbooks portray Kurdistan as an ancient country and nation ... Terms with pan-Kurdish connotations are used, such as Northern or Bakur (Eastern Turkey), Southern or Bashur (Northern Iraq), Eastern or Rojhilat (North-Eastern Iran) and Western Kurdistan or Rojava (Northern Syria) ... Unsurprisingly, Kurdistan's boundaries in Syria are more generous and suggest a territorial (and ethnic) continuity between the three traditional Kurdish enclaves in Northern Syria (Kurd Dagh, Kobane and the Upper Jazira), as opposed to the maps produced in the 1930s and 1940s ... in Rojava's textbooks towns such as Afrin and Qamishli deserve as much attention as larger cities (Erbil, Urfa, Diyarbakir) in Iraq and Turkey. Interestingly, while Western and Kurdish media outlets refer to Rojava as a precise de facto autonomous region, in Rojava's textbooks there is no map representing this region in detail ...

Tejel is making the argument that Syrian Kurdistan as Rojava or "Western Kurdistan", i.e. Syrian Kurdistan as part of a "Greater Kurdistan", is a construct, recently popularized, but not actually a political goal for (all of? most of?) Syria's Kurds. Tejel argues, basically, that Syrian Kurds want a Syrian Kurdistan that is part of Syria. I think this view should be included in the article. I don't think we should say it in wikivoice; it should be attributed to Tejel. Cimino expressly attributes these views to Tejel, after all.

(Note, BTW, the prominence of the French Mandate and 2011 as two important points in time for Syrian Kurdistan. Our lead should mention those as well.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, speaking as an administrator trying to keep an eye on this discussion, that is POV-pushing, which is disruptive. —valereee (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Really? So its not pov-pushing presenting a highly controversial and disputed nationalist claim with zero historical evidence as a real location in Syria and presenting this as an indisputable fact? Valereee, if I'm not mistaken you said before you didn't have any knowledge in the subject, so you can not possibly know what is pov and what is not pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I don't need to have knowledge of the subject in order to recognize statements like "Syrian Kurdistan" or "kurdistan" does not exist in Syria as a factual entity, it is only a disputed belief held by some people, and therefor it must be presented as such and Can you really not see how simplistic it is to assert 'Syrian Kurdistan' is a 'place', 'region', or 'area' while ignoring the implications? are POV-pushing. —valereee (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There has been plenty of sources brought up here that shows my comment to be correct, including by Öcalan himself. But to disregard all of this and only to present the kurdish nationalist narrativ without historical evidence and to present this as an undisputable truth, thats how things should be done? How is that neutral? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

SD, I'm not going to get into content, here. What I am telling you is that arguing Syrian Kurdistan simply does not exist because some people dispute the fact is POV-pushing. It's fine to argue that we must include the fact its very existence is disputed if we can find sources the consensus find reliable who are saying that. But arguing that because some dispute it, it must be presented as a "belief" rather than a place is pushing one POV over another. Wherever you are right now is a place, and if enough RS are calling that place by a name -- even if that name isn't an official government designation -- we will have an article on it and call it by that name, even if you don't like it. If you push hard enough to try to argue that's not its name, we will consider that POV-pushing, and we will find that disruptive. —valereee (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Then, that goes both ways, so lets say: "arguing Syrian Kurdistan simply does exist because some people claims it does is POV-pushing. It's fine to argue that we must include the fact its very existence is claimed if we can find sources"... I support having both views inside the article, the current lead is neutral and does that.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that the article shouldn't include discussion of dispute. What I'm seeing is argument over how to present it, at what length, and where. I can tell you that if most recent independent scholarly works are referring to something as a place, it's a place. The person you want to be discussing this with is Levivich, who seems to be providing lots of evidence below. What I am telling you is that if you keep insisting none of recent scholarship proves anything, then you are simply here to POV push. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness from my perspective you and Valereee are talking past each other with different concepts of place. We have articles for Iparralde and Hegoalde, North and South Basque Country. These have a great deal of history and you can draw boundaries around them that pretty much everyone would accept. We sort of have an article for Serbian lands, there's are great deal history here, used in context to describe various medieval states. In the '90s this term was used in a much different manner. As you can see from it's actual location and the talk page EN really does not like saying 'Serbian lands', SR more comfortable with it. There's quite a bit of disagreement over some boundaries, you couldn't draw a border that everyone would accept. Maritime Serbia (sr:Српско приморје) is a place, because enough people call it a place, even though most people would say Dalmatia or Upper Dalmatia (it should probably be a redirect because there is not much for content, but it's still a place). We don't need an accepted boundary or any official recognition, we would still talk about Cajun Country regardless of whether the Louisiana Legislature officially recognized 'Acadiana'. All of these are places, because enough people think of them as places. For Syrian Kurdistan, no one can really draw a good boundary, there is not so much history as some other ethnic regions, there are a number of issues with the name which require explanation and careful editing, not the ham-fisted approach above. I understand what you mean when you say it doesn't exist, and that a whole lot of people living in what some here want to say outright is Syrian Kurdistan would not agree, but it is still a place because enough people think of it and write about it as a place. fiveby(zero) 14:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby I understand what you are saying, but I think the current lead is really good and represents both povs, and the new suggested leads only represents one side. We can ad more info to the lead but I don't think anything in the lead should be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Term vs. place? In wiki voice, Iranian Kurdistan is an 'unofficial name', Iraqi Kurdistan is a 'part of Kurdistan', Turkish Kurdistan is a 'term', Syrian Kurdistan is now a 'term' but proposed to be a 'Kurdish-inhabited area', French Basque Country is a 'region', Southern Basque Country a 'term'. fiveby(zero) 15:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks to be some degree of how well the boundary can be drawn and how closely it matches some formal place as to whether WP calls it a term/name vs. place/region. I don't know if that is intentional or if that is a good approach or not. fiveby(zero) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Thanks for taking the effort and time to get these quotes from Tejel. As you implied, Tejel represented the Kurdish POV in this "Syrian Kurdistan" concept, which is what we/I have been talking about all the time, i.e., the concept of "Syrian Kurdistan" is a Kurdish irredentist/nationalist imagination (regardless of their political ambition within vs. w/o Syria) pushed forward especially during the Syria civil war power vacuum and the rise of PYD and its military militia (YPG/SDF). As Tejel and many others (McDowall, Balanche, etc.) say rightly, there are Kurdish pockets in Syria, where in a cluster of villages Kurds represent the majority, but never at the level of a province, for example. This is a big difference b/w Kurdish areas in Syria (or "Kurdish enclaves in Northern Syria" as Tejel calls them) and Kurdistan. The main flagrant different is that Kurds are not the majority outside separate clusters of villages, as you said before: Afrin, Kobani, northeastern part of upper Jazira (al-Hasakah Governorate). The second big difference is that most of the Kurdish population here immigrated from Turkey (as discussed elsewhere on this Talk page), according to French mandate statistics and reports, not Syrian, not Baathist, not Arab nationalist, not ISIS, etc. as two users here have falsely claimed before. The third and most important difference, is that there is no historical account that says these enclaves used to be part of a Kurdistan. I echo the concerns of user:Fiveby, that although the term might sound normal, innocent, etc., however, it is charged with political meanings and ambitions that are widespread on Kurdish propaganda websites and repeating this here as if it is neutral would be misleading and wrong, to say the least. Besides some books that use the term and mostly present the Kurdish POV, it's hard to find other third party sources that use the term (e.g., news outlets, states, international organizations, international political figure, etc.). To summarize, it's fine to have the term but we should make it clear that it is mostly used from a Kurdish nationalist POV (which is somewhat implied in the current lead) , and retroactively in most cases. To be followed. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, Wikipedia doesn't actually care whether any term is politically charged. We don't care where or with whom the term originated, or whether the people originating it had a political agenda. What we care about is what term the preponderance of recent independent scholarship is using. —valereee (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We should care a great deal when a term is politically charged, where and with whom the term originated, and about the political agenda, because all that needs to be explained for the reader. fiveby(zero) 15:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with Fiveby. Presenting something the is the pure imagination of nationalist claims as an undisputed facts has no place on an encyclopedia. Again, it's fine with me to use the term, and Levivich is showing enough notability for the term, but most of the quotes above, if not all, come from pro-Kurdish authors, so the context is even more important than the term itself, especially if we take into account that most Syrian Kurds originated in Turkey.

{{tq|The majority of the Kurds in Syria are originally Turkish Kurds, who left Turkey in the 1920s in order to escape the harsh repression of the Kurds in that country. These Kurds were later joined in Syria by a new large group that drifted out of Turkey throughout the interwar period during which the Turkish campaign to assimilate its Kurdish population was at it highest.

• BBC: Kurdish region. On our way to Qamishli, the largest Kurdish city in northern Syria, we see a US military convoy escorted by fighter jets heading east towards the Iraqi border. They are leaving the Kurdish region.
• Reuters: Border between Iraqi Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdish region closed...
• NYT: A recent trip by a reporter through the Kurdish area of Syria revealed ...
• WP: The Kurdish area of Syria is relatively secure ...
• WSJ: The Kurdish region of Syria ...
• Al-Jazeera: Kurdish areas of Syria ...

I realize there could be other names (e.g., "east of Euphrates" getting >115,000 hits). Given these results, I think we should have a discussion about the common name for the area per WP:COMMONNAME. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Google results or "hits" are unreliable for the reasons explained in WP:HITS (those numbers of results at the top of the search results page are not accurate). Popular press is OK to cite for breaking news, but it's not as reliable as scholarship (and really not very reliable at all); because scholarship is available for this topic, we should use scholarship and not news outlets. Specifically, modern scholarship, i.e. post-2011, the newer, the better. Ultimately, this article should be summarizing what scholars say about the topic in 2020. So I have no problem with a discussion about common name, this article title, or even a broader discussion about how all of these related articles are titled and arranged, but I think all content discussions around this topic should be based on modern scholarship first and older scholarship second. Top-level news (like you've listed: BBC, NYT, etc.) should only be used for any recent events not yet covered by scholarship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you please focus on topic. The constant change of direction and inability to come to an end of at least one the discussions begun since the lock of the page is confusing for us and probably also for the not so much involved admins who are the only ones who can edit the page now and of which we probably have lost Girth Summit. We (at least I) would all like to get to an end of the dispute and the page was created only a few months ago by an other Admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, are you replying to Levivich? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References