Jump to content

Talk:Syrian Democratic Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa?

[edit]

According to [1], Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa isn't part of the SDF. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idlib and Aleppo groups

[edit]

I will clean this item because more than half that are listed on that groups are on the thirteen groups signed the founding document!!! That thing has no logic!!! They are not one thing in Idlib and Aleppo and other in the rest of Syria!!!

I´ve had a source to prove that, an interview to Col. Talal Silo, spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces, that spoke with Al-Monitor about the coalition by phone Dec. 10 and 12 and explain: "Fifteen factions did join in Aleppo’s countryside, but nine of those were already key members of our coalition, meaning that only six new factions joined our ranks. We call on all military factions to join us, and we welcome them as partners in the Syrian Democratic Forces, as long as they believe in our goals and aspirations to fight IS."

I have also clean the "Various tribal forces in Aleppo Governorate" and "Regiment 102" because there are no support for the two designations/groups!!!

Best regards --Geosapiens (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well PanchoS were are the "Regiment 102" designation to be correct? I dont find them in any place? Do you? You added Al-Tawhid Brigade were are the support to that add? Because if you read the wikipedia article of that group is said that: "(...)the Ahrar al-Shamal Brigade, was reportedly "superseded" by the Northern Sun Battalion (Shams al-Shamal)." and if that is true ( http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/profile-tajammu-alwiya-fajr-al-hurriya/ ) that is not correct!!! Like the designation of "fifteen rebel groups" if like Col. Talal Silo, spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces explain: "Fifteen factions did join in Aleppo’s countryside, but nine of those were already key members of our coalition, meaning that only six new factions joined our ranks. We call on all military factions to join us, and we welcome them as partners in the Syrian Democratic Forces, as long as they believe in our goals and aspirations to fight IS." is better to write only "rebel groups" no? Or "new six rebel groups"? Best regards--Geosapiens (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I don't exactly get your point. I didn't add the Al-Tawhid Brigade, but linked the Ahrar al-Shamal Brigade, which currently happens to be a redirect only. reportedly "superseded" is far to vague to infer anything. Obviously, Ahrar al-Shamal still exists separately from Shams al-Shamal. --PanchoS (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me PanchoS it´s OK that final edition. Best regards--Geosapiens (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac letters

[edit]

A minor question: has anybody had any luck adding the Syriac name in Syriac letters? --Simha (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syrian Democratic Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Relations with the Syrian Government" Chapter

[edit]

Because this chapter is a bit out of date I will in the next days change it to be up to date with other articles of the Wikipedia that are linked to this article, like Rojava–Syrian government relations. Best regards Geosapiens (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be listed here but rather at the page you linked. The YPG/Asayish forces in al-Qamishli never operated under the SDF and the relations article is a good page to put all these information in. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree with that affirmation, Editor abcdef, that "The YPG/Asayish forces in al-Qamishli never operated under the SDF", it´s simple not true, both the YPG/YPJ and the Asayish only operates inside SDF and under the umbrella of the Syrian Democratic Council, were you have proves of the contrary? They are a cohesive and disciplined militia more than the Syrian Army!!! But agree with put all the information about the chapter "Relations with the Syrian Government" in the main article Rojava–Syrian government relations because is more complete and is not dubious or doubtful!!! Best regards. Geosapiens (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources on Asayish operating under the SDF? Every video of clashes involving the Asayish doesn't show the SDF flag nor does the SDF media mention it. The SDF is an umbrella coalition of allied groups, not a "cohesive and disciplined militia". The SDF doesn't operate in al-Qamishli, but SDF members do, for the same reason that Fatah Halab doesn't operate in Idlib despite that FH members operate in Idlib. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Syrian Democratic Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "vice":

  • From Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War: [2]
  • From Qamishli clashes (April 2016): "Qamishli Ceasefire Gives Kurds More Territory in Northern Syria | VICE News". VICE News. Retrieved 18 May 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Syrian Democratic Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listing militias as allegedly "Kurd" or "Arab" in the box, integrity of meta-groups (re: Jabhat al-Akrad)

[edit]

I have always been highly sceptical with listing militias ethnically as "Kurd" or "Arab" in the box. At least I could change it to "mainly Kurd" and "mainly Arab" some days ago to make it more realistic. However, as I had now added the two most prominent sub-groups of the Army of Revolutionaries (third largest SDF component after YPG/YPJ and Shammer), one co-editor moved Jabhat al-Akrad away from its place up into the "mainly Kurd" section. Technically-ethnically probably correct, I would suggest. However, does it really make sense to follow this ethnic approach in general? Jabhat al-Akrad's sister group in the Army of Revolutionaries, the Northern Sun Battalion, might well be pretty much 50/50 Arab/Kurd. Shouldn't we just further soften these ethnic categorizations, in order to keep the integrity of meta-groups in the presentation intact? What sense does it make to enforce this radical ethnic separation which people on the ground themselves apparently do not make? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SDF allies and opponents

[edit]

I'm a bit confused. Recent reports in media (apologize for not adding any source, but you could find some easily) indicate that Turkish army is now cooperating with the SDF against the YPG. Now, Turkey is counted as the SDF opponent. The YPG is virtually part of the SDF. Also, the SAA (meaning, Syrian government forces) are not mentioned as opponents or allies of the SDF. So, I would thank to anyone who can clarify who are the SDF allies and opponents today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey cooperates with rebel groups such as the Sham Legion against the SDF in Jarabulus and have bombed SDF positions multiple times. The YPG is a firm and dominating member of the YPG. I don't know where did you get the cooperating with the SDF against the YPG from. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutrality flag" by an IP-editor without reason

[edit]

Should this "Neutrality flag" by an IP-editor without reason be removed as abusive? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, since the article contains evidence of POV violations. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that a "Neutrality flag" only makes sense with an elaboration on WHAT EXACTLY the elements alleged to be POV are. Just putting up a flag without any kind of elaboration simply make the process of addressing alleged POV issues in an article impossible. How would one ever remove a flag if no reasons for it being put up are given? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove Removing the "Neutrality flag" now because even now no explanation is given. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly biased in favour of the SDF and needs to be reviewed by persons specialised in the subject. -78.171.211.135 (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When to remove: This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: (...) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
Removing the flag now, please do not put it up again without giving a discernable reason. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reported the abusive "POV" flagging and edit-warring about it by 213.74.186.109. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is possibly using sockpuppets, watch out. --92slim (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you reported your disagreement. Now they will see who's edit warring. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how people see others as they are. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an edit by IP 213.74.186.109 which apparently sought to manipulate how a reader would understand the discussion on this talk page section. Correct chronology of comments now. -- 217.251.99.234 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of the SDF

[edit]

There seem to be serious contradictions regarding the actual strength of the SDF. The SDF-infobox puts their strength at 40.000 (including 30.000 YPG), while the article itself states: "Although estimates of the size of the SDF's component forces vary significantly, their total number at founding may already have been as high as 55,000.[54]" I also remember that someone recently lowered the strength of the SDF from 80.000 down to 40.000, just because that's the number used in the source.

However, if we look at the YPG article, we can see their estimated strength at 50.000. And according to the Infobox of the Syrian civil war, the strength of the YPG/YPJ is roughly 57.000-60.000. The Belligerent section puts the strength of the SDF at 55.000-80.000. (Though it uses the same source as the SDF-infobox)

How can this be possible? As it is right now, it's just plain confusing and misleading information shouldn't be present on Wikipedia. Maybe someone should search for a better source regarding the SDF strength (unless, of course, the strength of the YPG is grossly overstated)79.246.4.219 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a friend of quantifying fighting forces in general, and in particular such militia fighting forces. Just by the (never explicit) definition of what counts as a fighter, such numbers vary by multiples. And these "numbers of fighters" are not of much use anyway, because a bunch of untrained and not much motivated guys given old firearms are in a completely different league than trained units with good arms and high motivation. This obsession with in substance meaningless quantifications, be it of numbers of fighters as here or be it alleged shares of ethnic or religious composition of some area or group, in my humble opinion are a curse on the articles concerned. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Unbalanced" flag?

[edit]

The same IP-editor who has several times put up the "POV" flag which every time was removed because he did not offer any reasoning (see talk page above) has now put up an "unbalanced" flag. Without offering any reasoning. Remove? -- 217.251.99.234 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that after 213.74.186.109 realized that he/she would face an IP block if continuing with abusive "POV" flagging without any stated reason, he/she now tries the same long-term abusive conduct by "unbalanced" flagging without any stated reason. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is obviously unbalanced and carries a heavy pro-Kurdish militia rhetoric: the article reads too much like an advertisement, containing "mission statement"-type claims that are worded and presented as if they were actual facts. Please stop your abusive behavior accusing me of not giving a reason. Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are now for the first time ever making substantial statements. However, the first of them is incomprehensible to me, as I do not see any "pro-Kurdish militia rhetoric" (whatever exactly that is supposed to be) in the article, the term "Kurdish" or ethnic references in general only appear rarely in the article, and where they do, they do so in neutrally mentioning character/background of component groups. As to the second point, which you apparently copied from that other guy/gal in that other discussion, I'd repeat that you should seek to improve formulation of the concrete sentences/paragraphs which you find overly "mission statement" like, or start a descussion on the talk page on how to improve them. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying the YPG are non-Kurdish militia? If so you are either pretending not to know, or you are ignorant of the facts in which case you are not sufficiently knowledgable on the topic and should not be contributing to the article. Perhaps you could show the same sensitivity as you request of others in places such as Talk:Turkish military intervention in Syria. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other than you, I am not entertaining ethnic/racist insinuations at all. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@213.74.186.109 I understand what you are saying, but I only understand it from the perspective of the "Kurdophobic" mainstream media and public opinion in Turkey. Outside of Turkey, this perception simply does not exist. If you think that would be a good idea, then add a section "What its enemies think and say of the SDF" to the article, but there is no way that this entire article is re-written to reflect the Turkish perspective rather than the perspective of the rest of the world on issues. 91.61.71.101 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no personal attacks. I understand you might be upset Mainz 05 beat Darmstadt 98 in the German League. Go red-whites! -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YPG dominates the SDF

[edit]

We should note somewhere in the article that the YPG dominates the SDF. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quote in line with your comment on the YPG's role in the introduction. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: While the paragraph concerned moved from introduction into the body of the article, at this point of time around half the article is concerned with the role of the YPG in the SDF. And in my humble opinion very comprehensive, authentic and sincere so. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Removal of "advertisment" flag unless it gets a talk page point what exactly it shall refer to

[edit]

New flagging without a reasoning by the same IP-user. Now it comes as an "advertisment" flag. And you guess right: No hint whatsoever what element/aspect of the article it is supposed to refer to, so no discussion possible. Dear 213.74.186.109, please add a talk page point what element/aspect of the article it is supposed to refer to, to make a discussion possible, because otherwise this flag must be removed without discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@213.74.186.109 I removed the only element of the article I find arguably "advertisement-like" as well as the flag. Please understand that this article cannot calibrate "balance" around the public opinion and media of Turkey, which has a very unique view on the issues concerned. 91.61.71.101 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 91.61.71.101 (talk), 213.74.186.109 clearly stated "mission statement"-type claims above. Please understand that no article on Wikipedia is subject to any public opinion or media of any country, at least in theory. This is an open encyclopedia. The US also has very unique approaches on this subject that can change over night. Would you like to take the views of Russia, China, or perhaps Iran as your reference point? Let us keep it civil and balanced please. I am reverting your flag removal until 213.74.186.109 and 2A1ZA (talk) agree on a common point. Thank you. -78.171.152.206 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not even aware of any single concrete point that this one flag-making IP-editor disagrees with in the article. To my utmost regret, this IP-editor appears to have no interest whatsoever in a constructive, article-oriented discussion. The only point he/she ever mentioned was a perceived lack of elaboration on the role of the YPG in the SDF, and that point has been very much elaborated since. Nothing on this talk page gives any hint at a reason why this flag should be on the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "advertisement flag: After a week, still no resoning given by the flagging editor what exactly he thinks to be "mission-statement like claims" in the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes claims worded and presented as if they were actual facts. It was pointed out here. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you still do not want to tell us WHICH words or sentences in the article you consider to be "claims worded and presented as if they were actual facts", do you? It is most obvious that you simply want a flag on the article to taint the topic as such, and obstruct any possible discussion about what concrete issue you might have with the text of the article, because that would most clearly end the tainting flag you desire. Your conduct is abusive. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As IP 213.74.186.109 keeps up the abusive flagging and edit warring about it, I have now reported it again and asked for semi-protection of this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 2A1ZA (talk), the whole article reeks of bias. Where do you want me to start? It is not my job to pinpoint what needs to be changed or corrected. You obviously seem to be very interested in the topic and keep contributing here and there. I don't see a lack of effort from your side in arguing with other users and pushing your point of view. Please do your own research and cooperate to fix the article. And please stop making insinuations. It is not professional and is against Wikipedia rules of conduct. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that "the whole article reeks of bias", but that is not the point here anyway. You openly say now that you intentionally abuse an "advertisement" flag to try to taint an article which you find "biased". If you do not want other editors to conclude that you damage Wikipedia with abusive conduct because you simply dislike the topic of an article, you should rally come forward with concrete criticism of elements of the article, rather than going on with edit warring for a flag which you now yourself admit as intentionally abusive. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are definitely taking 213.74.186.109 (talk) out of context and twisting what the user is trying to say. You might pretend not to understand but others clearly understand what's going on. The article is problematic, that is for sure. Your contributions are definitely reeking of bias and a strong POV. Worse than that, you have little respect for the views of others. -78.171.182.10 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have huge respect for the views of others, whenever those views are sincerely communicated. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incessant disruptiver behaviour

[edit]

Hello all, User:2A1ZA is at it again with his incessant abusive behaviour. Please take note. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely partisan agitation article in the Erdogan government mouthpiece Daily Sabah certainly is not a proper source for what the SDF thinks or says, and the paragraph you added is pretty much off-topic for the section in what it says. I will not immediately delete again for now, as I do not share your political activist passion for edit-warring, but I will certainly replace it with a proper encyclopedic paragraph on the ongoing SDF-coalition cooperation in the Raqqa offensive (if not somebody else does before me). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look who's talking... What do you say about the director of Amsterdam-based ANF "news" outlet being arrested in Belgium? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The myth of the PYD as an effective force against Daesh

[edit]

The myth that the PYD is the only force able to effectively deal with Daesh has gone up in smoke as the Turkish Armed Forces has demonstrated it is way more capable of eliminating terrorist targets if the need arises. It is clear now that the PYD is no match for ISIS when it comes to hard battles. The PYD's sole aim is to use American weapons to grab Arab and Turkmen land in northern Syria. This information should replace or be added next to the pertinent paragraphs in the article. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this somewhere else. This article is about the Syrian Democratic Forces and not the "PYD" which is not even an armed group. Also you have provided no sources at all on this topic. Wikipedia is not a place to spread your unsourced political opinions. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Their comments belong here. This is fully justified as the west has an interest in promoting it's allied forces as the "most effective" against daesh despite that literally not being the case.
https://archive.is/qCcFX
https://twitter.com/LARPingFed/status/1635049672955015168?t=5_3XC6CxLfuzVoj3pq3TUw&s=19 2607:9880:4277:FF02:D4FC:13D2:B368:82C7 (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. 2003:77:4F14:1172:1D60:4420:778F:ECFD (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-headings

[edit]

What's wrong with having more sub-headings? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

An user insert this info to article about manpower. I have read the source (Reuters) and there is clearly nothing about "manpower" in the source. Additionally, The Nation is not a proper source (a politically motivated magazine claiming YPG was organized by Qasem Suleimani and Assad "regime"). Can someone fix these edits? 79.137.76.41 (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]
This discussion was started by sockpuppet "Wikisiki999" of "Human like you" evading indef block.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The SDF is seen by Turkey to be affiliated with the PKK and being the Syrian front of the PKK, since the YPG has ties.[1] Arab elements withtin the SDF also refuse to fight against Turkey.[2] Perhaps this info should be added in a subsection under Criticism. Wikisiki999 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to your first day of wikipedia editing Wikisiki999! These claims are only made by Daily Sabah - a propaganda outlet for the Turkish government and the ruling Justice and Development Party and Yeni Şafak a conservative Turkish daily newspaper ... known for its hardline support of president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the AKP. Batternut (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turkey offers US alternative Raqqa plans sans YPG
  2. ^ Arab elements of SDG refusing to fight against Turkey surrender

Orphaned references in Syrian Democratic Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "twitter.com3":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Syrian Democratic Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "assad":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One user deleting much of the component groups from the article

[edit]

The Euphrates Jarabulus Brigades are one of the oldest and most politically prominent militia factions in the SDF.[1] I have no idea why user:Eik Corell seeks to delete them from the list, but I consider it deeply inappropriate to do so. While it is true that there are many additions of component groups to this article which are poorly sourced, a clean-up should be done not bulk but with knowledge and care. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another notable group that user:Eik Corell deleted from the component group list is Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa, a major fighting force which also recently gained international prominence by 18 fighters of theirs being the victim of the friendly fire accident near Tabqa on 11 April. I do really wish that user:Eik Corell would go through his bulk deletions and reverse the inappropriate ones. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up these kinds of articles does sometimes result in too much being removed. I would have no problem with any of these groups being added back as long as they have a proper source and/or their own article. Eik Corell (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of me being a bit upset about this is that some knowledge of the subject matter is helpful in cleaning up articles, like for knowing where to delete and where to put a flag asking for a source. You did delete three of the politically and/or militarily most important SDF component groups (Euphrates Jarabulus Brigades, Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa, Elite Forces) from the list, while leaving many of the actual a-dozen-villagers-with-guns groups (which arguably should not make the list) standing, not even asking for a source. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Editor abcdef, now it is you who deleted two notable SDF component groups from the infobox list, namely Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa and Raqqa Hawks Brigade. Is there a reason why you remove two of the recently most reported groups from the list (in the case of the Raqqa Hawks, this is particularly disturbing to me, as they are prominently featured even in the text body of this article), or was that an unintentional mistake? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? The Raqqa Hawks Brigade is still up there, I only deleted two duplicates of it. You are aware that "Liwa Suqour al-Raqqa" is the same thing as the Raqqa Hawks Brigade right? Editor abcdef (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That version now in that place is my recent edit, but I do see that indeed there was still a mention left after your edit I referred to, and I indeed only now learned that "Liwa Suqour al-Raqqa" appears to be the Arabic original of the English name for the same (meta-)group (the Arabic name version actually only caught my attention some days ago). Sorry for suspecting a mistake on your part in both points. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly kind of disappointing how little proper attention these articles get in the form of quality control. Going through the sources, a vast majority of them are unreliable; Twitter, reddit, blogs, youtube, etc. That's what I try remove from these articles, but I see little effort on anyone else's behalf of trying to do the same. It seems like more seasoned editors have given up trying to keep the crowdsourced sources out because there are so many people constantly adding them and info sourced to them, despite clear rules like WP:RS. Eik Corell (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I agree that the list deserved and still deserves a clean-up with an eye on actual notability. In particular the Shahba region section still lists some groups which have no reference, no Wikipedia article, no Google results, and are known to be at best some dozen villagers from one village with guns. I do admit that I myself may be too hesitant to delete such entries. However, there are other entries of significant groups (like Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa) without good reference or Wikipedia article, who might deserve a citation flag, but not instant deletion. One of the reasons why many knowledgeable editors are careful with deletions is that with respect to several groups (and/or their positioning) there might be disagreements, hard to profoundly discuss with respect to a fluent situation on the ground and scarcity of English language sources. Thus my personal ambitions on this list are much smaller, I am aleady happy if the list has a meaningful sincere structure, if no notable groups get deleted, and if sub-units like the YPG's Anti-Terror-Units do not get incorrectly listed as separate groups. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that, as Editor abcdef has said above, Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa has already an article, in form of "Raqqa Hawks Brigade". Furthermore, even though they are commonly known as "YPG special forces" in the West [3], it is problematic to list the Anti Terror Units (YAT) as YPG subgroup, since they also include female YPJ members. Strictly speaking they are a sub-unit of both YPG as well as YPJ, and serve as SOF for the whole Syrian Democratic Forces. Applodion (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the YPJ is part of the YPG. And the YAT certainly are nothing more than a unit of this militia, not a group to be listed in the infobox of this article. As to the last point, I have never seen any source suggesting that the YAT would "serve as SOF for the whole Syrian Democratic Forces" in the sense of operating outside the chain of command in place for every YPG unit. Does such a source exist? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Who are the Euphrates Jarabulus Brigades?". Hawar News Agency. 22 November 2015.

name

[edit]

Isn't قوات سوريا الديمقراطية properly translate ro "forces of democraric syria"? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned? Adonoto (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction - Discrepancy around proportion of Demographics in the SDF

[edit]

Article has a discrepancy that needs a clearer statement about fact to qualify under Encyclopedia:

"multi-religious alliance of predominantly Kurdish, but also Arab and Assyrian/Syriac militias, as well as some smaller Turkmen, Armenian, Circassian and Chechen groups/participation[81] in the Syrian Civil War .... The SDF is mostly composed of, and militarily led by, the People's Protection Units (YPG), a mostly Kurdish militia .... According to the Pentagon, Kurds made up 40% of the SDF and Arabs 60% in March 2017, although other sources estimate the Arab components of the SDF to be at a significantly lower number"

Please improve quality of the article by resolving this discrepancy or correcting its written convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.10.8 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sipan Hamo

[edit]

Article freshly create. Do someone know where is should appears ? Yug (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private military contractors are not appropriate entries for "allies" or "opponents"

[edit]

Several users, including honorable User:Editor abcdef, keep adding the private military contractor under the name of PMC Wagner as alleged "opponent" of the SDF to the infobox. This is not appropriate. Private military contractors are service companies which provide a military service to a party which pays for it. They are not a party in their own right to a conflict, cannot be listed as "allied" or "opposed" parties. They might be listed among "units involved" in a battle article, but certainly not in the infobox of this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove false citation.

[edit]

The cite note #149 is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Democratic_Forces#cite_note-149

It says that "The SDF release more than 400 Syrian members of ISIS including commanders and more than 120 members of them join the SDF in Deir Ezzor".

However, if you browse the citated source, http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=84789, there is NO mention of such ever happening!

Can somebody approved please remove the false citation and the referencing parts in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.75.1 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Removed. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to add a "suicide bombings" section

[edit]

There is no consensus to add a "suicide bombings" section for simple lack of relevance and due weight (it has neither any significant military relevance nor is it otherwise notable), certainly not with the POV text that this persistently inserted section has, and most certainly not with the insinuation of a relation to the issue of "minors" as it is done now. Please stop edit warring, and remove that subsection, Marjdabi, and argue your case here on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Syrian Democratic Forces

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hrw":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U.S as former ally

[edit]

Just for the record, I saw Trump latest tweets just 1 minute after he posted them. I don't find them saying anything about not being an ally for the SDF. IP has been adding that the US is now a former ally, yet no source for that. The U.S is still an ally with these miltants and still secretly supporting ISIS--SharabSalam (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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

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

Link - https://ctc.usma.edu/the-kurdistan-freedom-falcons-a-profile-of-the-arms-length-proxy-of-the-kurdistan-workers-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insidethelight (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link writes of assumed and believed... And that the attackers received a training between 8 months and two years. This contradicts many, many, many reports of trainings in the YPG. I have only read of such long trainings in articles by Gürcan where he supports the thesis that the YPG trains TAK militants. So this is one report against many. And the article is from Metin Gürcan, who is diplomatically said rather pro-Turkish, cites Gazete Vatan (its about citing like the Bild in Germany or 20min. in Europe) and numerous Turkish and own articles as sources in this article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Source is from 2016 moreover the TAK and PKK are different organizations that split from the PKK, while the PKK are communist the TAK are nationalists and are far more brutal they are not active in the PKK moreover the SDF although arguably does have links to the PKK, such as idealizing Abdullah Öcalan the SDF is not directly linked to PKK and is more solidarity towards the PKK in Turkey then direct links between the two. Vallee01 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda Template in the article

[edit]

I removed the Propaganda template from the Syrian Democratic Forces article because said template is irrelevant and not supposed to be there.

If anyone wants to explain to me why the Propaganda template is there prior to me removing the Propaganda template, I'll listen to what you people and guys will have to say about that matter.

Scarlet Marines (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced article

[edit]

Needs a unbalanced warning template until resolved. I'm adding it. Please neutralize article before removing template. 46.31.118.93 (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? To say it is unbalanced is easy for any article below an GA. I'll remove the template until you explain what is the issue. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is biased on the side of the SDF with its rhetoric. Anyone with some knowledge of the subject can notice it. I thought you were not supposed to remove such templates before discussing it here. Thanks. 46.31.118.93 (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prove it to you. Watch. :)

Be more specific. If you don't start a discussion on an issue that can be addressed, then there is no need for a template.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military necessity

[edit]

There is no military necessity of Arab displacement by SDF, any Syrian will disagree with the UN's findings. This is bad faith. Many syrians were displaced by SDF on unreasonable and bigoted grounds. Not to mention the racist expat card Arabs are required to carry.

https://archive.is/qCcFXhttps://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/01/syrian-kurdish-forces-require-displaced-arabs-obtain-expat-card-remain-their 2607:9880:4277:FF02:D4FC:13D2:B368:82C7 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrians?

[edit]

Mistreatment of Assyrians should be part of it's criticism.

https://twitter.com/AssyriaTV/status/1612229218833768448?t=sHujLs080CR316wrGasnaw&s=19

https://twitter.com/AssyriaTV/status/1610998203758874627?t=OTmS88MM0Spc5nrGTsOvlg&s=19

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396703734400286720/707349521688166501/ace201701.pdf 2607:9880:4277:FF02:D4FC:13D2:B368:82C7 (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a new page for the late August 2023 tribal clashes in Deir ez-Zor

[edit]

Since a few days ago at the time of writing, there has been a wave of clashes between Arabic tribal militias and SDF forces (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/30/several-killed-in-fighting-between-sdf-and-tribesmen-in-eastern-syria). I don't have a good understanding of the situation, but the fightings was apparently sparked by the SDF arresting a militia leader of questionable loyalty for insubordination. Since then, there has been a wave of clashes between rebelling tribal militias and SDF loyalists, and it seems to have killed a minimum of ~22-50+ people. Should we make a separate wikipedia page for these clashes? Randomuser335S (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomuser335S (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

[edit]

@Chafique: To avoid any edit warring, I will start this discussion here. First of all, I have adjusted the intro in an attempt to find a compromise. I have changed the wording to "official military wing of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", a phrase supported by several refs which I added. These refs also include a rage of political views, as enabbaladi.net and the Middle East Institute are both opposed to the SDF and use the description "military wing". Your wording, "occupies North Eastern Syria" is factually wrong, as the SDF was organized by the AANES and thus cannot occupy the AANES.
You also considered "US-backed" very important. Mind you, this was already included in the intro before your change; however, it was in one of the later paragraphes. I agree that it is very important to mention, thus I have moved "The SDF is allied to the United States-led CJTF–OIR international alliance" to the intro's second sentence. It's important to include the CJTF–OIR here, as non-US countries like France and Great Britain have also supported the SDF.
To describe the Syrian government as a "primary opponent of the SDF" is wrong. The SDF and Syrian government often fought together, including against the Islamic State and Turkey.
I hope this helps to outline my reasoning. If you desire further changes, please explain your wishes here and we can work toward further compromise solutions. Applodion (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording, "occupies North Eastern Syria" is factually wrong, as the SDF was organized by the AANES and thus cannot occupy the AANES.
the thing in your logic is that you are dropping that SDF and the region it occupies (AANES) itself is not any official or de jure entity, it is a syrian region occupied by a militia(s) (SDF and its sub militias) just like ISIL was and the other militant groups today are, such as HTS in idlib.
thus I have moved "The SDF is allied to the United States-led CJTF–OIRinternational alliance" to the intro's second sentence. It's important to include the CJTF–OIR here, as non-US countries like France and Great Britain have also supported the SDF.
i think sources agree that its major backer, and perhaps its only significant one, is US. And it is often described as US-backed, so britain or france don’t really make much significance, i would disagree with you here and would suggest going on with the vast majority of reliable sources.also SDF is not part of CJTF–OIR.
To describe the Syrian government as a "primary opponent of the SDF" is wrong. The SDF and Syrian government often fought together, including against the Islamic State and Turkey.
okay i would agree with your point here. Chafique (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AANES is not an occupation, because it is literally locals ruling the territory they were born in. The AANES is a self-declared, unrecognized political entity which has its government and army.
Just because the United States are a major backer does not mean that we should portray the SDF as being only backed by the United States.
As for your new changes: a) The "no statistics" part literally contradicts the cited source which states that there are not exact statistics, but estimated statisics exist and are considered fairly reliable. b) As per the cited sources, not all SDF groups are led by Kurds. There are also Arab, Arab-Kurdish, and Arabized Kurdish leaders. This is supported by many academic sources cited in the article. c) Arab nationalists were involved in the war, including on the rebel and government side (see for example the Arab Nationalist Guard; the Syrian National Council is also described by the book Syrian Civil War: The Essential Reference Guide as "Arab nationalist/Islamist"). Applodion (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise regarding the ethnicity claims / statistics question, I have expanded the article overall and added the concrete sources for Arab majority claims to the intro. Applodion (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AANES is not an occupation, because it is literally locals ruling the territory they were born in. The AANES is a self-declared, unrecognized political entity which has its government and army.
technically the same can be said about HTS and ISIL. But we can skip this for now.
Just because the United States are a major backer does not mean that we should portray the SDF as being only backed by the United States.
US is the most significant, most relevant and notable backer who finance, arm, train SDF and even function as its air forces, nevertheless, i did add below that it is backed by “US and its led coalition in Syria” but you probably didn’t notice. So on what basis exactly did you revert the sourced contents ?
As per the cited sources, not all SDF groups are led by Kurds. There are also Arab, Arab-Kurdish, and Arabized Kurdish leaders. This is supported by many academic sources cited in the article.
there is a consensus among all reliable sources, including academic sources, that SDF is kurdish-led, even if arabs make a large portion or even the majority of the troops/soldiers, and that its backbone is the kurdish YPG militia. Your argument to omit what all reliable sources have consensus about is both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH (since it is your own conclusion that “since much of SDF soldiers are arabs then it is not kurdish-led” which itself contradicts all reliable sources).
Arab nationalists were involved in the war, including on the rebel and government side (see for example the Arab Nationalist Guard; the Syrian National Council
To say that SDF major enemies are “arab nationalists” when referring to a milita that had 1000 fighters and 400 fighters that one of which is notable for being turkish backed and the other is for being secular anti-islamist is a very big stretch, unless you want to refer to the Syrian government which is another story. Chafique (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
technically the same can be said about HTS and ISIL. But we can skip this for now. - Yes, and Wikipedia treats them similarily with IS being described as a proto-state and the HTS-aligned Syrian Salvation Government being described as an "alternate government".
Regarding the United States: The second sentence of the intro literally says " The SDF is allied to and supplied by the United States–led CJTF–OIR international alliance" - this was a change I made in November, based on your criticism. Why exactly should we add the vague "United States-backed" to the first sentence, when the clear description is already given in the second sentence?
there is a consensus among all reliable sources, including academic sources, that SDF is kurdish-led - Not exactly. Also, I never said or believe that "since it is your own conclusion that 'since much of SDF soldiers are arabs then it is not kurdish-led' which itself contradicts all reliable sources". However, is indeed true that most sources describe the SDF as Kurdish-led. For the sake of compromise, I will restore this part.
Regarding Arab nationalist: The pro-Turkish Syrian National Army as well as various jihadist groups have been described as "Arab nationalists" in the past, but I get your point. So, how about "Syrian nationalist and pro-Turkish" instead? Most Syrian nationalists and pro-Turkish groups oppose the SDF, so this would be a more accurate description, right?
Regarding Arab majority: You can't just declare any source unreliable because it states that the SDF is mainly Arab. The same source which says "Statistics regarding the exact gender and ethnic composition of the SDF are unavailable" is directly followed by "However, I have included in the table below estimates based on interviews with numerous SDF officials and other experts" and then provides a representative survey, as was explained in the expansion I added to the article. There are also other sources for an Arab majority or at least parity, such as CNN. Even the anti-SDF dailysabah describes the SDF as "multi-ethnic" and does not claim a Kurdish majority. However, after looking into the issue I have also found this article which notes that the SDF might still be Kurdish-dominated. Thus, I have removed the Arab majority claim from the intro entirely.
Furthermore, I referenced "long-standing consensus" because you are the only person who has tried to change any of this in two years, meaning that most editors are evidently fine with the current version. I could ping several of them, but I really don't want to drag out this discussion. Applodion (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i agree thats much more balanced. I can say we mostly reached consensus here.
I would just comment on:
The second sentence of the intro literally says " The SDF is allied to and supplied by the United States–led CJTF–OIR international alliance"
i suggest that it would be better and applying to WP:COMMONTERM if it was changed to “The SDF is allied to and backed by the United States and its led coalition in Syria” (redirecting to CJTF–OIR). since the term “CJTF–OIR” is mostly unrecognized by common wikipedia reader. What do you think ?
Lastly, i would like to thank you for your interactiveness. Chafique (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this one. "its led coalition in Syria" seems quite vague... "United States–led CJTF–OIR international alliance" includes the largely unknown name "CJTF–OIR" name, yes, but "international alliance" specifies what it is.
How about "United States–led CJTF–OIR military coalition in Syria"? Applodion (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_Democratic_Forces&oldid=1216308668"