Talk:Syrian Kurdistan

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

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

5. Samer N. Abboud (2015), Syria, Wiley. [8]

   About Kurdistan in general (including Syrian Kurdistan)

6. Güneş Murat Tezcür, ed. (2020), A Century of Kurdish Politics: Citizenship, Statehood and Diplomacy, T&F. [9]
7. Zeynep N. Kaya (2020), Mapping Kurdistan: Territory, Self-Determination and Nationalism, Cambridge. [10]
8. David Romano, Mehmet Gurses, and Michael Gunter (2020), The Kurds in the Middle East: Enduring Problems and New Dynamics, Lexington Books. [11]
9. Sebastian Maisel (2018), The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society, ABC-Clio. [12]
10. Michael Gunter (2018), Routledge Handbook on the Kurds, T&F. [13]
11. Gareth Stansfield, Mohammed Shareef (eds.) (2017), The Kurdish Question Revisited, Oxford. [14]
12. David L. Phillips (2015), The Kurdish Spring: A New Map of the Middle East, Transaction Publishers. [15]
13. Mehrdad Izady (2015, orig. 1992), Kurds: A Concise Handbook, T&F. [16]
14. 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)

Disputed content requires recent scholarship for source

I've added a restriction to the GS banner; any disputed content must be sourced to recent scholarship. —valereee (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

valereee hate to be that guy, but you technically also need to add it into Template:Editnotices/Page/Syrian Kurdistan as well (done in the same way as the talk notice using |restriction1=) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader never with me worry about being that guy. Let me see if I can figure that out lol... —valereee (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, check my work. Also tell me what I should have been aware of to know I needed to do that? —valereee (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Er...that wasn't a demand, I meant it as a request for help, and please add "please and thank you" to the rendering. :) —valereee (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that works. GN mentioned it at WT:GS. It's not properly documented on the WP:GS/SCW page, though it is on other sanction pages (eg WP:GS/COVID19), likely because the GS subpages are an inconsistent mess, but I think it stems from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions: "Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages." imo when in doubt with GS, ignore every GS page and follow WP:AC/DS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, so that's "the page's edit notice" that GN mentioned? God I hate how stupid I'm clearly admitting to being, but how do I even know whether a page has an edit notice, and absent someone helpfully being that guy <g> where do I find it? —valereee (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. If the page doesn't have one, you can create one. If you go to Syrian Kurdistan, click "Edit source" in the top right you'll see a small blue link called "Page notice". Clicking it takes you to the editnotice page. If you click "Edit source" on a page that doesn't have one, for example Syrian Army, you'll still see "Page notice" but it'll be a redlink. Clicking it will take you to the page to create it using the editnotice template ({{Gs/editnotice}}). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader always something new to discover here lol... —valereee (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you unblock Supreme Deliciousness now? Shadow4dark (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd quite like to do that; let's give it a bit to see what the reaction to this is. —valereee (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer an explanation for the move attempt to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria from Syrian Kurdistan during the Siege of Kobane by ISIL (and Turkey). Then SD would have to accept that Turkish and Assad POV are not academic scholarship (not worth to discuss) and also commit not to remove academic scholarship (without foregoing discussion) like they did before the GOLDLOCK was instated.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

—valereee, I guess you haven't seen my reply. So there is now an ANI thread on if you are even allowed to impose such a restriction. Could you also unblock GPinkerton who actually brought in most sources of academic scholarship into the article and is the leading editor of the article? Or could you give at least an explanation for to only allow the ones who have opposed academic scholarship as Kurdish POV, but exclude the one who brought them in?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle, GPinkerton isn't blocked, they have a topic ban. That topic ban wasn't placed by me, and I couldn't remove it without at minimum discussing first with the admin who placed it, and even then there might have to be a discussion, as the topic ban was placed via a discussion among multiple admins. A removal of the topic ban probably requires an appeal at AN, and frankly I'd recommend a good few months of trouble-free editing in other places. FTR, always feel free to ping me when you are looking for me to comment! I never mind being pinged. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

History

Currently, the "History" section spends six paragraphs on pre-modern-Syria, and one paragraph on post-modern-Syria. This is disproportionate. In the "Background" section of Michael Gunter's 2014 book Out of Nowhere, page 7, this is how he introduces the topic of Syrian Kurdistan (I added wikilinks for anyone who is not familiar with the terms):

Although Syria is an ancient land, the modern state only dates from the French mandate established in 1920. The earlier concept of Greater Syria (Bilad al-Sham) had been a much larger one that also included today's Lebanon, Jordan and what was then known as Palestine, which is today's Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Indeed some Arab nationalists would even include modern Iraq so that Greater Syria would denote the united Fertile Crescent. Thus, this study of the Kurds in Syria largely begins with the French mandate as any earlier mention of Syria could easily be misleading. In addition, since there were no separate states of Turkey, Iraq and Syria until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, the Kurds of those future states simply lived in the Ottoman Empire. The concept of the Kurds in Syria could not be meaningful until the French mandate was created and even later, after failed Kurdish uprisings during the 1920s in Turkey forced many Kurds to leave that country for Syria.

Among pan-Kurdish nationalists, Syrian Kurdistan is often referred to as Western Kurdistan or Rojava (the direction of the setting sun). Since this region contains the country's most fertile areas and is also home to most of its oil reserves, the Kurdish-populated areas of Syria are a prize well worth struggling over.

During the past century it might be said that the Kurds in Syria have suffered a form of sequential triple colonialism: first, the Ottoman Empire until 1918; then the French until 1946; and subsequently the Arabs once Syria gained its independence. Furthermore, after it came to power in 1963, the now moribund Baathist party proved even more hostile toward the Kurds...

Gunter then discusses the Kurdish roots in Syria starting with Krak des Chevaliers (Castle of the Kurds) in the Alawite mountains, and the separate and distinct Kurdish areas in Syria: Afrin, Kobani and Jazira (p. 8), before continuing with the history starting with WWI and forward (p. 9 and on).

The current History section has too much pre-20th-century, and too little 20th-century history, for a topic (Syrian Kurdistan) that is a 20th century concept (because modern Syria is a 20th-century concept, not because Kurdistan is a 20th-century concept, as Gunter explains). I plan to revise the history section to re-balance it, by cutting down on the pre-1918 stuff and expanding the post-1918 stuff. I wanted to share this to explain the reasoning for forthcoming edits. Reverts welcome as always. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich: Your removal of French population numbers, immigration from Turkey and Algun information is unjustified and not accepted. It actually contradicts what you say above about importance of focusing on historical background from the 20th century. Why are ethnographic maps and population censuses unneeded in an area to which Kurds lay national claims while numbers (from the 20th century) show otherwise? If you are not using French mandate numbers, then which numbers should we use and believe? French scholarship from the 1950's is very relevant and necessary to this article as this is when Kurdish nationalistic claims started to appear in Syria. Your approach of 2020 snapshot is missing the context and evolution of things, which is misleading (with all due respect), to say the least. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Because they were not sourced to modern scholarship. It's not a 2020 snapshot, it's using modern scholarship. To the extent we include historical figures, they need to be sourced to modern scholarship not historical scholarship. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, according to the newly implanted rule, modern scholarship are only required "For any disputed content", is there a dispute about the french population numbers? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an editor disputes something makes it disputed content. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You will not find copies of original research and census data published earlier in modern scholarship because that's called PLAGIARISM. You might find very brief mentions with no details, such as this Most Syrian Kurds are originally Turkish Kurds who have crossed the border during different events in the 20th century. The details provided in earlier scholarship (such as the quotes from French authors) about mandate-era ethno-social changes happening in Jazira are all important for a claimed cultural/national territory by a specific group of people. Also, you removed the French mandate numbers from Algun's work (2011) under a different pretext. The census numbers you removed show ethnic composition of different parts of Jazira and population evolution with time. There is no justification to removing these numbers, unless one wants to hide the history of the area. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2008 edition (p. 475) says 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 its highest. This demonstrates the importance of citing recent scholarship, as historiography changes; even this source changed slightly over a three-year period, no doubt in response to feedback from the 2005 edition.

The population table I removed here covers 1929-1954, placing WP:UNDUE focus on the post-war period while excluding the 1920s, and it's sourced to the 1956 survey. Similarly, this content I removed cited to a 1953 survey highlights certain post-war years, which is UNDUE. None of it provides the context that modern scholarship provides. (Note that both the source I quoted above, and the 2008 version of the source you quoted, focus on Turkish Kurd migration specifically in the 1920s.)

The whole History section, and really the whole article, is the sum of years of POV battles. It's really noticeable in the way that it talks about certain minor things in great detail, while barely mentioning other major events. Another tell-tale sign is that the article is based almost entirely on dozens of sources, each of which is only cited once. This is a give-away that editors are including sources to make certain points. What everyone should be doing instead is summarizing the best sources available; that means the article will cite multiple sources multiple times, as those are the sources that are summarized.

Anyway, the reason for the removal of those population figures was because they were sourced to 75-year-old surveys. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you feel that a certain area/event is not covered enough, all you have to do is expand it, not remove other info to make everything look balanced. The French articles do talk about multiple aspects, not just immigration, and were providing great context. The evolution of the population is also important to show how this area developed, and how it was affected by events in neighboring Turkey, and how it started to thrive under French mandate. At the end of the day, it's the history section and relevant info might only come from older sources. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Why recent academic sources

This is the opening to Katharina Lange (2018), "Syria", p. 275, in Sebastian Maisel (ed.), The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture, and Society, ABC-Clio (links added):

Over the last five years, with the political shifts in the region, the escalation of war in Syria, and the significant role assumed by Kurdish political actors in these processes, the country's Kurdish population has become the object of considerable interest to researchers, policy makers, and political activists alike. This largely politically motivated interest has already been foreshadowed since the mid-2000s, in particular following the Kurdish uprising in spring 2004. This recent increase in interest contrasts with previous decades of scholarly negligence regarding Syria's Kurdish communities and their areas of residence, especially with regard to more distant historical periods. Even with the incipient development of Kurdish Studies in the 1980s and 1990s, hardly any research has been conducted on this part of Kurdistan, and despite the recently growing scholarly attention to this part of Syrian society and territory, many aspects of the history, sociology, and anthropology of Syria's Kurdish population remain under (or un-)researched until today. Throughout the 20th century many scholars of post-independence Syria assumed that Kurdish speakers residing within the national borders would, over time, assimilate into the Arab majority. For some, this assumption was reinforced with the rise of Arab nationalism as the dominant ideology in Syrian politics since the 1950s and the introduction of political measures aimed at the accelerated Arabization of the Kurdish populated regions. When Syria's Kurds recently became of political interest to observers in the West, it may this have appeared as if they came "out of nowhere" (Gunter, 2014), even though Kurdish communities look back on centuries of historical presence in today's Syria.

On the same page, Lange writes:

Claims about the numbers and the territories historically inhabited by Syria's Kurds are highly politicized, and any figure can only be based on estimates. In the pre-2011 era, no reliable numbers on politically highly sensitive issues such as the demography and geography were published by the Syrian government (no census since the mandate period has provided any data on ethnic identity). After 2012, the dynamics of Syria's unfolding (civil) war have—despite the emergence of Kurdish-dominated administrative structures—not exactly been conducive to any systematic and critical research into the issue. Moreover, during the fighting, population shifts have affected all parts of Syria, including the Kurdish areas, and (forced) migration movements into and out of these areas continue until today.

Lange discusses population estimates by other recent scholars (McDowall, Allsopp). We can cite Lange and the others for population estimates, and everything else. This is a topic where basically all the scholarship is very recent. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good academic source? Syria's Kurds History, Politics and Society - Jordi Tejel, Published by Routledge: "The KDPS continued to promote the teaching of the Kurdish language in Latin characters and to cultivate the nationalist doctrine of the Syrian Kurds, using Kurdish myths (Kawa and "Greater Kurdistan")" [18]. Where in the article do you think we should ad this scholar information that the Kurdish Democratic Progressive Party promoted the "Myth" of "Greater Kurdistan" to Syrian Kurds? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As to me, it could be added that it was the KDP-S (or an at the times influential Kurdish Party) promoted the teaching of the Kurdish language and mythology. Just add it in NPOV way and mention it with context. The Greater Kurdistan Myth is not an invention but together with Kawa a cultural heritage. The teaching of Myths was used often by the Greek philosophers.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

First we should add some content about KDPS, what it was, etc. And as part of that we should include discussion of what KDPS promoted and didn't promote. And when. And why. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about "Syrian Kurdistan" not "KDPS", that's a different Wikipedia article. So the focus here, in this "Kurdistan" article should be on the "Kurdistan" part, and what the academic professor scholar Jordi Tejel said about "Greater Kurdistan" and him identifying it as something. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you seriously just argue that in the article Syrian Kurdistan, we should focus on Kurdistan, and not on the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria? It seems to me the only thing you care about is saying Kurdistan "doesn't exist". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thats not what I said. There should be info about several subjects related to the article including the KDPS. But the focus, should be on the "Kurdistan" part as that is what this article is about. In your comment you only talked about adding info about KDPS, and not the most important part of the quote which was about "Greater Kurdistan" and it being identified as something by the academic professor scholar Jordi Tejel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the focus should not be on the "Kurdistan" part. Syrian Kurdistan, according to the scholars, is not just a part of Kurdistan, nor is it just a part of Syria, it's something else. The focus is on Syrian Kurdistan, not on Syria, not on Kurdistan. We have separate articles about Syria and Kurdistan. Syrian Kurdistan is where the two overlap. In some senses it's part of both, and in some senses it's part of neither. It's a third type of thing altogether. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich: This quote from Lange no reliable numbers on politically highly sensitive issues such as the demography and geography were published by the Syrian government (no census since the mandate period has provided any data on ethnic identity) that you added above shows exactly why the info. you removed from French scholarship is CRUCIAL here. Remember that was repeated in the Algun (2011) work you also removed. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your obsession with these numbers? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, but explicitly; in an article called " ... Kurdistan" it would be very helpful to know how many Kurds (and non-Kurds) are there and how their numbers/proportion evolved over time. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

But we don't need to cite the 75-year-old French source to say how many Kurds and non-Kurds there are. That's what Lange is saying explicitly. We can cite Lange. It's more reliable!

Also, Algun 2011 is a PhD thesis.

I'm sorry but I feel like I'm talking to someone who has never edited Wikipedia before. I'm really losing patience with having to spend my time explaining the very basics of WP:RS. PhD theses, primary sources, and CIA reports, are not RS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is why I am not taking part in these discussions so actively for now. This is also why I have not removed the CIA quote. About the PhD theme we had a long "discussion" as well, in which I alone lost by far by edit war. Only the now topic-banned GPinkerton was able to remove it. I am discussing with Amr Ibn since months, not just one month.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In Syria, the collapse of the Khoybun and the Kurdish Leagues paved the way for the emergence of a new political party, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria (KDPS) in 1957. As in previous organizations, the KDPS’ members were divided regarding the Kurds in Syria and the very idea of Kurdistan. In 1960, at the insistence of Jalal Talabani, member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iraq, the KDPS changed its name to Democratic Party of Kurdistan in Syria. Apparently, some of the founding members of the KDPS were opposed to this change because it could have put them in danger since it implied that the Kurdish enclaves of Northern Syria were also a part of Greater Kurdistan. Therefore, the name change could have led Syrian authorities to think that Kurdish aspirations included the potential annexation of these Syrian territories to form an autonomous or independent Kurdistan (Jemo 1990: 33–34).

On August 5, 1960, the leaders of the executive committee of Aleppo were arrested. The party organization was uncovered and within few days more than 5000 people were taken into custody, while the leaders of the KDPS were accused of separatism and jailed. Eventually, the new party leadership decided to use the original name of the organization. From that moment on, all Kurdish parties limited their political agenda to the Kurdish enclaves in Northern Syria and avoided using the term Kurdistan in their official names. However, Kurdistan as a cultural abstract continued to nourish Kurdish identity in Syria.
— Tejel 2020, pp. 257-258

There's been a lot of attention to Tejel calling "Greater Kurdistan" a "myth" in Tejel 2009 (before the Syrian civil war). I thought I'd share his explanation from Tejel 2020 (both cited in the article) about the use of the term "Kurdistan", or rather why it wasn't used in the past. The suppression of "Kurdistan" is an example of why older sources are not as reliable as newer sources for this topic. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any connection at all between this text and Tejel describing GK being a "Kurdish myth". But I am seeing something else. "new political party, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Syria (KDPS) in 1957. As in previous organizations, the KDPS’ members were divided regarding the Kurds in Syria and the very idea of Kurdistan.".... But according to texts in the article, "Kurdistan" already existed in the 1920s.... how does that make any sense?. How can it have existed in the 1920s if the academic scholar historian Tejel says that in 1957 it was an "idea" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because the idea was older than the political party named after the idea? Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the text I quoted, as of 1957 it was still an idea. But how could it be an idea in 1957 if it is presented in the article right now as being a reality in the 1920s? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Academic scholar information

The historian academic scholar Matthieu Cimino: [19] has written something very important and notable concerning "Syrian Kurdistan"

"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..."

Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State p.19.

How is the best way to incorporate this valuable academic scholar information into the article? Any suggestions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have an academic scholar source, you are free to edit yourself. A Greater Kurdistan myth sourced more directly with Tejel (and not Cimino) already exists at the Etymology section, though. The footnote there pretty elaborate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We should have opinions from different academic scholars, both Tejel and Cimino views are notable and deserves to be included. I was only asking for suggestions for a good text to ad. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Except that's not Cimino's view. Cimino is summarizing Tejel's view. What you're quoting is the introduction to the book. Tejel's view is already in the article. To add Cimino would be like "Cimino says that Tejel says that ... " It's unnecessary and awkward. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right. But reading this quote from this academic scholar. Do you feel that his words are represented in the lead and the rest of the article? The "myths" and "Kurdish territorial imagination". Why is this absent from the lead? ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of academic scholar information

Levivich, why did you remove the academic scholar information that Tejel identified "Greater Kurdistan" as being a "Kurdish myth" that was promoted to Syrian Kurds by the KDPS? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I updated it, and the reason is given in my edit summary. (You should link to diffs so that others will know what edit you are referring to and can judge it for themselves.) Anyway, the article doesn't (yet) even say what KDPS is, and this isn't an article about "Greater Kurdistan". That KDPS promoted pan-Kurdish nationalism, at some points in time but not at others, is important content to add. But just cherry-picking that 12-year-old Tejel quote is not NPOV. Context matters. So I updated it with Tejel 2020 instead of Tejel 2008. BTW I do wish you'd stop single-mindedly focusing on trying to prove that Greater Kurdistan is a myth. This isn't an article about Greatee Kurdistan. There is a lot more work to be done. Why not add some content about Syrian Kurdistan, instead of focusing so much on pan-Kurdish nationalism? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes you did remove it:[20]. The text I added said "Historian Jordi Tejel has identified "Greater Kurdistan" as being a "Kurdish myth" that was promoted to Syrian Kurds by the KDPS".... while the text you changed it into said "Historian Jordi Tejel has described "Greater Kurdistan" as "a powerful amalgam of myths, facts and ambitions". So the information about a "Kurdish myth" being promoted into the minds of Syria's Kurdish population by the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria was completely removed. And instead you added a sentence that frankly, doesn't say anything at all to the reader. The reason you gave was "why tell the reader what Tejel wrote in 2008 when we can tell the reader what Tejel wrote in 2020, after the war)", but your sentence doesn't contradict the text I added. If you wanted to ad that sentence that's up to you, I feel personally that its pointless, but that doesn't give you any right or reason to remove the much more notable and different information that was in the text I added. It says in the lead of the article "one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan"," ... this is the lead you supported. So this information about Greater Kurdistan, Syrian Kurds and the KDPS is highly relevant to the article and belongs here. It doesn't matter if the article doesn't say what the KDPS is, if people want to read more about it, they could click on the link and read more about the KDPS, or you could ad more info about KDPS if you want, no one is stopping you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Levivich clarified the "myth" in Tejel own words and actually improved the info available in the source. That KDP-S is removed has been explained and I can also understand it as it improves the flow of the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The source (p. 92):

Since 1957 the KDPS assumed the function of cultural framing, following the strategic approach of the Badirkhan brothers and of the Khoybun. The KDPS continued to promote the teaching of the Kurdish language in Latin characters and to cultivate the nationalist doctrine of the Syrian Kurds, using the Kurdish myths (Kawa and "Greater Kurdistan"), the martyrs and heroes (Shaykh Sa‘id, Mustafa Barzani), and literary and intellectual figures (Ahmad Khani, the Badirkhan brothers, 'Uthman Sabri, Cigerxwîn).

This is apparently the only time the words "Greater Kurdistan" appear in the entire book (Tejel 2008). This single mention of Greater Kurdistan as an example of a Kurdish myth does not verify the content I removed: Historian Jordi Tejel has identified "Greater Kurdistan" as being a "Kurdish myth" that was promoted to Syrian Kurds by the KDPS, particularly when the same author, 12 years later, wrote an entire book chapter specifically about what he thinks "Greater Kurdistan" is (which is what I replaced the 2008 content with). According to Tejel (2020), Greater Kurdistan is an amalgamation of fact, myth, and hope, and it long predates the KDPS's establishment in 1957 (e.g., Tejel describes maps of Greater Kurdistan from the 19th century), so it's just not accurate to say that Greater Kurdistan is a myth that was promoted by KDPS; that would falsely suggest KDPS invented the myth. What Tejel 2008 is actually saying is that KDSP "assumed the function of cultural framing" by promoting Kurdish language and culture, including Kurdish myths such as Greater Kurdistan. And yes, I do plan on adding more information (a lot more information) about KDPS and other Syrian Kurdish political parties, but there's over a millennia of Syrian Kurdistan history that I'm working on writing first, prior to KDPS's establishment in 1957. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Tejel saying in 2020 that "Greater Kurdistan" is an "amalgamation of fact, myth, and hope" does not contradict him saying in 2008 that it is a "Kurdish myth", He identified "Greater Kurdistan" as a "Myth" in both instances. What is also important in this context is how the idea of "Greater Kurdistan" came into the minds of Syria's Kurds. Who implanted this idea there? The KDPS was involved in this, and you removed this very important information from the article. If you feel the sentence implies that the KDPS invented the myth, then we could change it to: "and that the KDPS was involved in promoting the "Kurdish myth" of Greater Kurdistan to Syrian Kurds." - we can have this sentence after the one you added, so we don't need to remove anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

13th century history?

Levivich, what does the Ayyibid and mamluk 13th century history in Syria have to do with a 20th century concept of Syrian Kurdistan? Your edit The Ayyubids lost Syria to the Mongols in the mid-13th century, who were quickly driven out by the Mamluks after the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260, is clearly WP:UNDUE. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Ayyubids were Kurds who ruled Syria, which I think is relevant to include in the history section of the article Syrian Kurdistan. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

But you deleted historic Ottoman map. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, because, as I said in the edit summary, the map was not from a reliable source. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Levivich, you are copying straight from the sources and pasting it in the article. This is copyright infringement.

You added: "the KDPS promoted teaching Kurdish language using Latin characters, and cultivated Syrian Kurds' nationalist doctrine using Kurdish "myths" such as Kaveh the Blacksmith and "Greater Kurdistan", "martyrs and heroes" such as Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "intellectual and literary figures" such as Ahmad Khani, Celadet and Kamarun Bedirxan, Osman Sabri, and Cigerxwîn."

While the source says: "the KDPS promoted teaching Kurdish language using Latin characters, and cultivated Syrian Kurds' nationalist doctrine using Kurdish "myths" such as Kaveh the Blacksmith and "Greater Kurdistan", "martyrs and heroes" such as Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "intellectual and literary figures" such as Ahmad Khani, Celadet and Kamarun Bedirxan, Osman Sabri, and Cigerxwîn."

Is everything you have added to the article like this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. The source quote is in the footnote. Here is the correct quote from Tejel 2009, p. 86:

• Source: The KDPS continued to promote the teaching of the Kurdish language in Latin characters and to cultivate the nationalist doctrine of the Syrian Kurds, using the Kurdish myths (Kawa and “Greater Kurdistan”), the martyrs and heroes (Shaykh Sa‘id, Mustafa Barzani), and literary and intellectual figures (Ahmad Khani, the Badirkhan brothers, ‘Uthman Sabri, Cigerxwîn).
• Article: According to historian Jordi Tejel, the KDPS promoted teaching Kurdish language using Latin characters, and cultivated Syrian Kurds' nationalist doctrine using Kurdish "myths" such as Kaveh the Blacksmith and "Greater Kurdistan", "martyrs and heroes" such as Sheikh Said and Mustafa Barzani, and "literary and intellectual figures" such as Ahmad Khani, Celadet and Kamarun Bedirxan, Osman Sabri, and Cigerxwîn.

I don't think that's a copyright violation but if consensus is it's too-close paraphrasing, let's revise it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I must have mixed them up when I was copying the text here. But its still to close to the source, so imho its still copyright infringement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)