Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 2

Updated map removed from article because of what reason?
All right, I understand that this is kind of sensitive topic, but I absolutely do not see valid reason for this revert performed by user Ism schism:. This is exactly the same map, but updated to situation from june 2015 and also based on very reliable source, which is this map published by European Commission: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIV6zuNWIAARQ5m.jpg:large So, would user Ism schism be so kind to explain why he removed updated infobox map which show situation in June 2015 and returned the old one which show situation in February 2014? I mean, does user Ism schism want to say that recent changes in frontline never happened and that Rojava cantons of Kobane and Jezira are still separated? Sure, new map does not show cantons but it is because there is no source which says what are new borders of these cantons after developments on frontline in June 2015. 217.24.28.60 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I returned the updated map, probably vandalism..--78.0.110.77 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The area of PYD control is not the same as Rojava. The map suggest that they are the same and that is OR and UNDUE. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed ISm schism. PYD is no different from any other faction in the Syrian civil war. The area under their control changes with time, and this does not mean Kurdish areas change accordingly. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Ism schism and Amr ibn Kulthoum, but you are clearly wrong. Firstly, this article defines Rojava as an “de facto autonomous region”, not as some “Kurdish ethnic areas which can change”. Population of this de facto autonomous region includes Kurds, Arabs, Asyrians, etc and it has 3 official languages. So, Rojava is name for this multiethnic region and its administration, not for “Kurdish ethnic areas”. Also, you two should read this article: http://www.kurdishinstitute.be/pyd-leader-ypg-forces-will-hand-over-tel-abyad-city-to-a-civil-administration-2/ It says that in area of Tel Abyad there will be also formed local civil administration and Asayish security force. So, this area is clearly included into “de facto autonomous region” called Rojava. Now Ism schism, would you be so kind to show any source which can confirm your statement that “the area of PYD control is not the same as Rojava“? Do you suggest that PYD forces control some areas where they did not formed local civilian administration and Asayish security (police) force? Is there any source to support such claims? Also, how you define term “Rojava” and how this definition differs from “area of PYD control”? And how exactly is map description undue? Map used same terminology from the intro section of this article: “Rojava or Western Kurdistan is a de facto autonomous region” (article intro) – “De facto borders of Western Kurdistan (Rojava)” (map description). I totally fail to see any difference between the two descriptions. Finally, how borders of Rojava would look according to you? How one map which illustrates article with name “Rojava” should look by your opinion? What borders Rojava would have in that map if not those which depicting areas controlled by PYD forces? 217.24.28.60 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, this claimed name "rojava" has no recognition whatsoever, neither internally by other ethnicities in the area, nor internationally. It's simply PYD. Therefore the article name should be Kurdish enclaves in Syria" or PYD-controoled areas in Syria". The fact that PYD militias control other areas with no or very minor Kurdish population like Tel Abyad does not make these areas Kurdish, and things might change on the ground any time. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does the map have "Western Kurdistan (Rojava)" on the area occupied by kurds? Is this an encyclopedia or Kurdish disinformation propaganda? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This map belong in the Hasaka offensive article or similar articles about the war. This article is about the Kurdish inhabited areas and they do not extend to the regions currently included in this map.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, AAS. This article is about the autonomous region, as the lede states, which pretty much amounts to YPG-held territory. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gob Lofa, you are clearly pushing your POV here and going against consensus. Not every area occupied by PYD militia is so called "Syrian Kurdistan". Tel Abyad has an overwhelmingly Arab and Turkmen majority. It is still occupied by PYD militias thanks to the western alliance. The original map showing 3 separate cantons is the only one acceptable to represent these areas. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So if YPG occupied Raqqa then its going to be Rojava ? what if they arrived at Aleppo ? This article focus on Kurds, all it speaks about is how Kurds arrived, How did some of them (on the instigation of the Ottomans) massacred Assyrians and how were they in return persecuted. So NO, not every place YPG hold is a Rojava. Anyway, we already have a map for the situation that show YPG held areas in Yellow, so why adding another map which show the same places but this time with the false designation western Kurdistan ? is it acknowledged by the international community that this is a Rojava ? if YPG wanted Aleppo in their Rojava and occupied it then this will be given legitimacy in Wikipedia ? Did Wikipedia turned into a place to legitimize whatever YPG claim ? Because this map clearly designate non-Kurdish lands as Western Kurdistan.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Confusing sentence — who did the raid?
I find this sentence confusing: During a raid by the Free Syrian Army, ISIS, the Islamic Front and Jabhat Al-Nusra battalions, fighters killed a Kurdish Yazidi man in Al-Asadia who refused to convert to Islam. Who commited the raid, and who did the killing? A common raid by Free Syrian Army, ISIS, the Islamic Front and Jabhat Al-Nusra battalions? That would be odd. --Gerrit CUTEDH 23:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

KurdWatch
Kurdwatch is an anti-PYD and PKK progaganda, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.99.21 (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Source
The New York Times Magazine posted a very long article about Rojava. This is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/a-dream-of-utopia-in-hell.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.5.180.159 (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source used in too many sections
The Kurdwatch is unofficial human right organization, it is not recognized by Syria and Iraq. Also, it's highly criticized by local forces. I asked other users in chatroom(help): is it right to use the Kurdwatch news as a source and they answered absolutely no. The Kurdwatch says: (http://www.kurdwatch.org/?cid=179&z=en) ''This website has been created with the greatest possible care. Nevertheless we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information contained therein. We are excluded from liability for damages that directly or indirectly result from the use of this website, provided that the damage is neither intentional nor the result of gross negligence. The European Center for Kurdish Studies assumes no responsibility for the content of third-party sites referenced on this website.''

I request the right to change the following sections due to their unreliable source: (1) Remove reference 81. and replace "Some sources have accused YPG for human rights abuses which have been taken place in areas under their control." with "YPG has been accused of human rights abuses by some sources"

(2) Delete these sentences--> A report by Kurdish human rights organization KurdWatch have said that YPG demanded residents of Arab villages around the Jabal ʿAbdulʿaziz (Çiyayê Kezwan) leave their villages in fears of the ISIL could count on support from the Arab population,[88] and burning houses of Arab villagers in Qamishli area in revenge for the YPG‑fighters killed at this location.[89]

(3) Deleting all this section:

''Forcible fighter recruitment allegations[edit] The HRW has claimed that several incidents of forcible recruitment, including 16-year-old boys, have happened in by YPG forces.[94] Unofficial human rights organization Kurdwatch claimed that the latest of these events happened in Afrin District during which approximately two hundred young men were forcibly recruited.[95] In a previous incident on 12 June 2015, Christian men in Qamishli resisted a forcible kidnapping attempt for recruitment in PYD militia. The situation escalated further with the arrival of vehicles of the regime-affiliated Christian Sootoro militia and one YPG fighter was reportedly seriously injured.[96] In another incident, a 14-year-old girl was forcibly recruited.[97] Local Kurdish residents in Amuda had rallied against forcible recruitment of minors.[98]''

Reference 94 doesn't mention anything about forcible recruitment. And all other claims are linked to Kurdwatch.

(4) Delete these claims, they are using Kurdwatch ''According to unofficial Human Rights organization Kurdwatch several incidents allegedly involved assassination, violence, torture, or expulsion of political opponents of PYD militias. In one incident, the Asayiş, the security service of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), expelled two Yekîtî (rival Kurdish party) members from their homes in Rumaylan.[100]'' Ferakp (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I asked other users in chatroom(help)".. Can you give the link to this help ? I should say that Kurdwatch is no different from the Syria observatory. If Kurdwatch material will be deleted then so will be the SOHR material
 * As for deletions, there are (better source needed) templates and (unreliable source) templates. They should be added to give other users the chance to provide better sources. Immediate deletion is for unsourced materials.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help/clickthrough is the place I asked them. And Kurdwatch and SOHR are totally different organizations. SOHR reports are used in Reuters, BBC and other big newspapers and TV channels but Kurdwatch is not even recognized and their reports are not investigated at all (not mentioned). As I showed, Kurdwatch says that their reports are not reliable. Claims that are used in this article are so drastic that they should be deleted or proved with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow,this isnt the place to go when you want to descredit a source specially that there is no archive to prove your words. You should go here Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * on another note, I do admire Kurdwatch for declaring that it cant always guarantee the truth ! A clarity that SOHR didnt have the guts to follow. Anyway, once Kurdwatch is ruled unreliable in the noticeboard then you can demand for other sources to be provided and wait a litte before deleting to give others the chance to provide other sources if they exist.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's give them 3-7 days, I will add to places where reliable source is needed. I will slowly delete them if someone doesn't replace sources. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You cant give any days. It isnt up to you and anything you delete will be restored. There is a reason for the (?) at the end of the . Take Kurdwatch to the noticeboard. Until then, its reliable.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I added unreliable source tags and mentioned about Kurdwatch in noticeboard. Waiting their answer. I added unreliable source tags so maybe someone who read it could find better source.Ferakp (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Claims that the source doesnt include the info when they do
Forcible recruitment :
 * 1-Human Rights Watch compiled a list of 59 children, 10 of them under 15, who were allegedly recruited by or volunteered for YPG or YPJ forces
 * 2-In some cases, the groups enlisted children without their parents’ consent
 * “My daughter went to school and was taken from there by a group of YPJ,” a father of a 14-year-old girl near Qamishli said. “We knew nothing about her until a YPJ commander called and informed us that she had joined YPJ.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Execution: -The killing of a civilian was documented in Idlib in shelling and one in Al-Hassaka executed at the hands of Kurdish militias.

Torture: -[https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/syria-abuses-kurdish-run-enclaves In some cases, judges have apparently convicted people based only on their confessions, and disregarded complaints of abuse during interrogation. Some detainees told Human Rights Watch that the security forces had beaten them in custody and were never held to account]


 * As long as source doesn't mention forcible recruitment, you can't use it as source. Forcible recruitment is not used in source, you can't decide it yourself by collecting some sentences and deciding it was forced recruitment. Your change will be canceled, until we decide it here.


 * Execution
 * Source mention that they have been told that civilian was executed by Kurdish militias, but they doesn't mention YPG, PYD or any details which Kurdish militia? There is dozens of Kurdish militias.


 * The killing of a civilian was documented in Idlib in shelling and one in Al-Hassaka executed at the hands of Kurdish militias.


 * Torture
 * HRW doesn't mention about torturing, they only say they have been told that they are beaten. HRW doesn't blame security forces from torturing. You again try to decide "torturing" by collecting some sentences from source. I will undo your change until we talk here and we call other ones to help deciding it. Ferakp (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you serious !!!!! I mean like really serious ??!!!!!!!!
 * First, you deleted without using the talk page. The rule is that you keep the status-quo until reaching a consensus so it is your edits who gets reverted not the other way around
 * Second : "Kurdish militias". Can you mention any militia other than the YPG?
 * recruiting minors without the approval of their parents isnt a forcible recruitment in your mind ?!!!! A minor cant decide for himself. recruiting him and taking him from school is called forcible.
 * You dont think that beating is torture ??? Seriously ?? and for god sake read the source. They are directly blaming the so called security forces. So stop trying to play on words. Beating and killing under beating is torture. Its called "equivalents". Torture=beating=abuse
 * So, again, delete the sourced material and it will be a vandalism and as usual, (if you are marzvi you know what will happen). However, you can change the word "torture" with the sentence "abuse and beating by the security" if it makes you feel better (smh)
 * Note, if you are Marzvi and associates (and Im not accusing but simply giving a scenario), arent you tired of this whitewashing the crimes of YPG ?? how many blocks does it take to understand that it wont go your way ?. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I deleted only one part where was used the source which didn't mention anything about forcible recruitment. I added unreliable source tag and if source doesn't mention, is it still right to mention it here and use that source as a "reliable source"?

Kurdis miltias: Jabhat al-Akrad, Yekîtî Party, PKK etc.. read more here--> List of Armed Groups in the Syrian civil war

If the source doesn't mention that they are torturing DIRECTLY then you can't say it is torturing. Read other HRW reports, they directly accuse them of torturing and say they have evidences. HRW doesn't say they have tortured, they just have been told that some of them have been beaten. You must understand that collecting some sentences and deciding something negative by yourself is not allowed. Wikipedia is neutral and source has to mention exactly the same thing you are writing here. I don't care is it abuse and beating by the security or torturing, I wan't write here what is exactly mentioned in the source and I don't want to decide myself or by someone else. I don't "whitewash" the crimes of YPG but it seems that you are trying( I am not accusing) to ruin reputation of Rojava, YPG and other Kurdish pages, you are collecting unreliable sources, pick some sentences from them and then decide yourself the most possible negative allegations that you can write here. I will check one by one your changes. I will change them, not going to delete until someone decide is Kurdwatch reliable. I mentioned my changes here, but you don't mention them, you are just changing them and adding some unreliable source that don't even mention the things you wrote.. If you really have to write bad things about the Kurds and their organizations, you can use facebook or twitter. Wikipedia is bad please for spreading propaganda. Ferakp (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * HRW isnt a reliable source for you ?
 * In Hasaka there is only YPG militia. They arent saying Kurdish Militia in Idlib
 * I prefer "beating and abuse and killed under beating"... It sound much better than torture. Recruiting minors without telling their parents is also much more juicy than forcible recruitment, so go ahead. (Didnt you notice that I down played the severity of those crimes by using the words torture and forcible instead of mentioning the whole shameful story ??)
 * I have this article on my watch page because Wikipedia isnt a place for propaganda. I edit wikipedia for history. I focus on ancient history as it is obvious by my contributions but this page turned into a YPG forum and thats why I put it on my watch list.
 * There is a difference between Kurds and YPG. Exposing YPG doesnt mean saying bad things about Kurds.
 * Your answer gave me what I need to know about who you are. As usual, you know the end of this. Thanks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

--

HRW isnt a reliable source for you ? <-- Did I say so? When and where? I am not going to change them, I will check them one by one but not today. Check my history and you will find that I have found claims and allegations that even experienced Wikipedia users couldn't believe, until I proved with reliable sources. I don't care is YPG good or bad, truth is important. I am programmer, I focus on Machine learning :) I respect you and your work but you are too negative in editing this page. Actually after I read your answers I know what kind of man you are. I know the end of this. Thanks for your time. Ferakp (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

--

By the way, there is 4 different militia in Al-Hasakah, Read sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are 4 in Hasaka and only one is Kurdish.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you want to whitewash Arab history?
Arabs were active and actually they were who conducted most of attacks in Northern Syria. You need copy of this book also :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL. What Northern Syria Ferakp !! the Genocide happened in Anatolia (Hakkari) and Urmia. There was no massacres or villages in Northern Syria. Seems that you need to study about the Assyrian Genocide.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As a Syrian, I wouldnt care about Arabs. However, since you dont have a copy of that book and you got the reference from the Assyrian Genocide article, then you probably need to notice that the Arabs didnt participate in the Massacres or ethnic cleansing. They did, however, attacked the escapees to loot them but only after the Massacres were done. Thats why I changed your edit cause the Arabs didnt participate in the genocide.. they just looted the survivors who were driven to their lands by Turks, Kurds and some Persians. So, Arabs werent a factor in the demographic change and thats why its irrelevant to mention them as they didnt kick anyone from his home in Anatolia and hence, had no effect on the demographic change which is the focus of that section.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Give me your email address and I will send you copy of that book. I have access to Ebrary. Yes, Arabs participated in the Massacre and and also in ethnic cleansing. I can find you dozens of sources. http://www.aina.org/articles/amitaatt.htm

Truth is that the Kurds, Arabs and Persians participated in Assryrian genocide but their role was not significant. The Turks were the architectures both in Assyrian and Armenian Genocides. In many old books(1960-1998) role of the Kurds, Arabs and Persians are highlighted and it is because Turks tried all possible methods to reduce their role in Genocides. It was part of their psychological warfare in 70's. The Kurds, Azeris and Arabs were involved in Armenian Genocide. I don't remember name of the book but if you want I can try to search it and send you(in french). It is from 1999 and tells that role of Kurds, Arabs and Azeris is not significant in Armenian genocide. Ferakp (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend you Ferakp not to use such sites
 * Truth is : yes, Bedouins attacked Survivors (its a tradition for them). But, where the Assyrians came from, Arabs didnt exist. Our subject is the role of Arabs in driving Assyrians to Syria. Obviously, since they werent the ones who attacked the Assyrian villages then they had no share in the demographic change.
 * To be short : Some Arabs profited from the catastrophe and are part of the criminals. But, when it comes to the article of Rojava, then this is irrelevant. Arabs didnt drive the Assyrians to Syria because they didnt remove them from their homes which are Kurdish areas. The Kurds are mentioned in relation to the massacres because of their role in driving the Assyrians from their original homes. Arabs simply didnt have a role in that. They had a role in the killing but not in the demographic change.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking at the beginning. The problem is that Genocide and "massacres" with their details were already mentioned before I started to edit and the role of "Kurds" were highlighted behind words and sentences. Who ever wrote it first did it because he wanted to ruin the reputation of Rojava and give negative aspect. As long as Genocide is mentioned in article, I see reason to add role of all. We can try to change the article so that only demographic changes are mentioned. Genocide and other massacre details belong to their articles, no need to duplication. Open new section in Talk page of article, we can talk there.Ferakp (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The genocide
I agree that the article use the genocide to condemn the Kurds in general. This should change

On the other hand, the section try to explain the demographic changes. We need to give a reason for the arrival of Syriacs. This happened because of the genocide and sadly, the part of the genocide that drove the Syriacs out was the work of Ottomans and some Kurdish allies

I dont think that Arabs tribes would have not participated in kicking Syriacs from their home but they simply didnt live where the Syriacs used to live and thats why their role in the demographic change is non-existent The section focus on the demographic change not the genocide in itself.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest:
 * The demographics of Northern Syria saw a huge shift in the early part of the 20th century due to Assyrian Genocide. The Turks, some Kurd and Persian tribes cooperated in the massacres against Assyrian Christians in Turkey.[27][28] During World War I Turkey conducted ethnic cleansing of its Christian populations and it is believed that also the Kurds were responsible for the atrocities committed against Assyrians during World War I.[29][30] Many Assyrians fled to Syria during the Assyrian genocide and settled mainly in the Jazira area.[31][32][33]


 * I removed this part: Kurdish tribes attacked and sacked Assyrian and Armenian villages in Albaq District immediately to the north of Hakkari mountains, killing large numbers of villagers.[31] because the Turks, Kurds, Chechens, Azeris and Circassians attacked Assyrians and Armenians.
 * This part has nothing to add to demographic change, Albaq distric is one of the areas where Assyrians were forced to leave. Also, I have sources that show the Turked were involved in Albaq offensive also.


 * The last sentence is almost duplicate and I changed it.
 * If we use The Turks, some Kurd and Persian tribes cooperated in the massacres against Assyrian Christians in Turkey. then Arab participation is not needed. I didn't mention Armenian genocide because the Arabs participated in Armenian Genocide.
 * The third sentence is unreliable even source mention so because I can add 4-5 source which is against the claim that the Kurds were mostly responsible for the committed atrocities. However, it is still clear that the Kurds were also responsible.


 * This is what I suggest, otherwise I will have to add all details about demographic change and mention all sides including Arabs, Chechens and Circassians. What you think? Ferakp (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is reasonable and I wont oppose it. Wait 24 hours to give others a chance to read this so you dont get involved in Edit wars. Also, use "Ottoman empire". Turkey didnt exist back then and cant be mentioned as the state that committed those genocides.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Accept. Ferakp (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Human rights section is transferred
New article has been made, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_in_Rojava. Human Rights section will be completely transferred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_in_Rojava. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Severe
The sever is mentioned in connection with Syria. mentioning it without indicating its connection to Syria is pointless. The source literally mention that it didnt include Syrian lands. So no need to erase what the source say and add a sentence that suit whatever other editors feels comfortable about. This is the source A Modern History of the Kurds: Third Edition.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not much point saying it didn't include any part of Syria in Kurdistan when it didn't include anywhere in Kurdistan. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The treaty promised lands for the Kurds to become a Kurdish state. Those lands are considered by the Kurds as parts of Kurdistan. So severe did include parts of Kurdistan.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rojava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to https://books.google.com/books?id=K3monyE4CVQC&pg=PA271&dq=assyrian+genocide+by+kurds+in+syria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BS1kVLqiGcOsyATv34DoCA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Amuda&f=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Rojava Boundary
Here is a reliable map of Rojava's claimed borders, based on an actual map image in the YPG's embassy in Moscow. Perhaps we should create a "claimed territory" map for Rojava, based on the linked map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Citations for Government Type
 Shawn.carrie (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)  

The infobox section "Government Type" cites a few sources (copied below) which I find somewhat questionable. They provide links to information about what Democratic Confederalism is (for which purpose there is a page), but they do not necessarily attribute source material that speak to whether the actual form of government is, in fact, one of democratic confederalism.

I normally wouldn't raise a question so nitpicky, but given the developing nature of the current events I think it is worthy of further consideration.

I would certainly be interested to see a section discussing the actual practice of democratic confederalism in Rojava, citing sources – however, I feel that the first three reference links actually serve more to describe democratic confederalism than to function as citations, which should cite facts that attest that such a form of government is in fact the one practiced in Rojava. The fourth reference link is a news article from 2007; not applicable due to obsolescence.

Democratic confederalist

Democratic confederalist

Hope to see more discussion on this!

Fork
See Talk:Federation of Northern Syria.--Z oupan 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Anthem: Ey Rekip
Ey Rekip isn't the official anthem of Federation of Northern Syria. Therefore i removed the anthem. Beshogur (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate, unreliable source and book.
This statement is duplicate: At the onset of the 20th century, Kurds cooperated with Ottoman authorities in the massacres against Armenian and Assyrian Christians in Upper Mesopotamia. It is already mentioned above. Kurds were responsible for most of the atrocities against Assyrians, and Kurdish expansion happened at the expense of Assyrians. First source of this statement is not working and another source is unreliable. The book (the second source) is unreliable because according to other sources the Kurds weren't mainly responsible for Assyrian genocide. Also, Assyrian Genocide article is against this statement with its sources. Here is source which is used as reliable source in Assyrian Genocide article and which is against the statement above. ''Syriacs began to immigrate from Syria after the Amuda massacre of August 9, 1937. This massacre, carried out by the Kurd Saeed Agha, emptied the city of its Syriac population, and the town became completely Kurdish'' Blogspot is used as source. It's absolutely unreliable source. Also, the second source which Arabic newspaper is unreliable. According to the newspaper's article it is pan-Arab newspaper (biased). I don't think newspaper with pan-Arab ideology could be accepted as a reliable source.. You need reliable and very strong source for this claim: ''In 1941, the Assyrian community of al-Malikiyah was subjected to a vicious assault. Even though the assault failed, Assyrians were terrorized and left in large numbers, and the immigration of Kurds from Turkey to the area have resulted in a Kurdish majority in Amuda, al-Malikiyah, and al-Darbasiyah.'' Source wasn't added for this claim. Removing those all and also some sections of this article is totally disaster, it's totally blackwashed.Ferakp (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Article is blackwashed.
This statement is copied from Human rights in Rojava article for blackwashing.

''During the Syrian Civil War, PYD were accused of ethnic cleansing and war crimes against Arab and Turkmen communities. Multiple sources have accused PYD for human rights abuses which have been taken place in areas under their control. The allegations include kidnappings of suspected persons, executions, torture,  ethnic cleansing, and expulsion. ''

It is already in its own article Human rights in Rojava. Removing it. Ferakp (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does it have its own article? Merge that article into this one.--Z oupan 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We separated because it's too big for the original article. It's too big as a section. It is getting more and more details everyday, keeping it here would be not a good idea, especially when it had "reliability" problems because sources which were used were not reliable and we had to also mention and describe those sources. Ferakp (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

List of population centres controlled by Rojava
In the article there is a list of cities and towns supposedly "controlled by Rojava". Among other it includes two major population centers in northern Syria with Al-Hasakah and Al-Qamishli. This statement is false as control in both cities is divided between other factors, including the Syrian government and Assyrian militias. Hence, they are not solely "controlled by Rojava". I haven't looked into other towns on the list, but these two stand out as the only two with over 100,000 inhabitants. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Ratipok, and the Syrian government has rejected this confederation. In addition, many other cities like Tel Rifat and Shaddadi are 100% and are occupied by Kurdish military militias against the will of their residents. This does not make them part of this "entity". The situation is moving on the ground everyday and you cannot just consider any part of Syria occupied by Kurdish militias part of this area. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone complete the Syriac names of the towns? Only few of the articles themselves contain them, and all towns in Jazira Canton definitely have not only Assyrian population but also well established Syriac names (many of them are founded by Assyrians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.22.19 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-historical revionism inserted by user Ferakp
I've removed the statement once again about that "Persian tribes" assisted the Ottomans and Kurds in the slaughter of the Assyrians during the Assyrian Genocide that was once again inserted by user Ferakp. This way it is put here is WP:OR and a violation of RS. The author, R.S Stafford, who he uses as his "legitimitation", has no degrees in history or even related fields and is therefore absolutely no authority. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not merged - after a period of 4 weeks, having no support with any valid reason for the proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 13:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Against This article should not be merged with Rojava article. It was transferred to its own article because 1. It was too big article for Rojava's article. More details are continuously added and it will be soon impossible to merge with Rojava's article. 2. It contains a lot of information and sources which might be unreliable and which need to be explained and described with more details. Explaining all those details and things won't look good in Rojava's article. 3. Articles of all countries and some autonomous areas are using same structure as Rojava. Human rights and the article itself are separated when the human rights section is too big for the original article. Ferakp (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Against. Its big enough for its own article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It is not big enough for its own article. Read Content forking.--Z oupan 15:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You read it. this isnt a fork as its not duplicated in both articles. The article on human rights should stay and a small summary added to Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether you merge or not, some significant level of detail should also be present here. Otherwise, the article is depicting the area as Utopia, ignoring the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no ethnic cleansing. I wonder, where did you get your information. If you are one of those users who is going to show Turkish and Arab newspapers as sources, I tell you know that majority of them are not reliable and biased. If you are going to bring Amnesty International, I would like you know that Amnesty International is not accusing YPG of ethnic cleansing. "Ethnic cleansing" is not mentioned in single page of Amnesty's report. Ferakp (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course Kurdish websites and blogs are the most reliable ones, right? How about Human Rights Watch? BTW, Kurwatch (which is Kurdish human rights NGO) specializes in documenting violations by all parties. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Against The human rights discussion is very contentious and highly politicised. A balanced view requires so much text and annotations that it will never fit the Rojava article. It is better to have a short paragraph at the Rojava page announcing the concerns, and then to point to the separate page for the details.Grieg2 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Autonomy Flop
"The international community is slowly facing the fact that Turkey has been right about the PYD leadership all along," a senior government official said. "They have been pursuing a secret agenda under the pretext of fighting DAESH." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Demographics of Rojava
I made a small edit to the demographics for Rojava, concerning the share of the population the major ethnic groups make up. Originally, the article stated that the Kurds made up 40% of the population in Rojava. I took a look at the source provided, and it stated that Kurds made up between 25-30% of the total population. After taking into account the breakdown of the population as shown by region within Rojava, I got the following numbers: While the changes I made are minor, I feel that the more accurate numbers from the information provided by the source should be used. Vivaporius (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Arabs: 64.8%
 * Kurds: 28.6%
 * Assyrians: 3.53%
 * Other: 3.07%


 * Your changes were reverted. Both sources you use are biased. The first one call the YPG as a terrorist organization (biased) and another one is anti-Kurdish newspaper . The newest source I added is against your source. Asharqalarabi is biased newspaper, not independent and reliable at all, not even close. Ferakp (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Good job Vivaporius. I think these numbers are reasonable, and in the absence of any other numbers, these are the ones that should be used. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ethnic supremacist POV warring should have no place in this great article, and these childish fights about numbers pulled out of the ass should end. There is no serious guessing at this point of time, accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.22.19 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Quantitative claims are nonsense at this point of time. Next to the fact that Syria never had official statistics on ethnic identity anyway, it is unclear what territory such claims refer to, and nobody has any serious guess who exactly those maybe 4.6 million peiople who are currently estimated to live in Rojava are. xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.22.19 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If we have contradicting claims of the numbers we should either let the numbers away or simply write "between 25 and 40%". In fact, antikurdish newspapers aren't really a good source for the numbers. Furthermore we shouldn't forget that the civil war may have inflicted major changes to the population.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree and that's why I added some details that half of people are internal refugees.Ferakp (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is under attack of Arab nationalists
Following statements were removed:

'' During the ongoing war in syira, Kurdish YPG forces have razed entire villages after capturing them from Islamic State and expulsed their Arab population. Residents alleged that YPG fighters had ordered them to leave, threatening them with air strikes if they failed to comply. ''


 * Neither the source nor the original Amnesty report don't mention that they have "expulled" their Arab population. Another problem, it doesn't not belong to there, it belongs to the YPG article. The third reason is that Amnesty talks about a few thousands people and has nothing to do with demographics or "ethnic cleansing". It is about punishment.


 * Population number were removed. This is last time, I will explain. The next time you will be reported. You don't use the talk page. Sahipkiran and its article is clearly written using anti-Kurdish view. Also, it's not a reliable source, just random website which publish Islamic stuff. The second source, asharqalarabi.org.uk is not even close to be a reliable source, the source of population numbers is "National Rally for Arab youth ". Well, I don't think such organization is a good to provide numbers. I added Kurdish sources and you can clearly read that they are "strictly" against your sources. There is one administration, which is called Rojava and I used their numbers. Ferakp (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this Arab supremacist vandalism in this article by user is over now. Anyway, it was the last push I needed to create a Wikipedia account and contribute to the Wikipedia project, so there is something good in what happened, too. 2A1ZA (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are warmly welcomed to Wikipedia. I also registered because I found so many wrong information. Well, I have neutralized and edited thousands of articles. I have never ever seen such systematic vandalism. There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I've seen dozens of times, where they have clearly cooperated and the vast majority of their edits were related to the Kurdish articles and black washing. Again, welcome to the Wikipedia.Ferakp (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Dissolve the waterhead in history stuff
This article has a waterhead in history stuff, much of it pretty unrelated to what we know as "Rojava" today. That should be radically shortened, content should be moved to Kurds in Syria, some of it might be moved to the concrete topic sections of the article. I'll see if I can do a bit of the latter, but generally I think those who wrote it should do. 2A1ZA (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Another issue is that there is quite some information in diverse sections that was true in 2012, 2013 or 2014 but is outdated now, in particular there are many references to "Kurdish" bodies which are now transformed into or succeeded by non-ethnic Rojava bodies. Somebody who is really up-to-date in Rojava constitution should go through the diverse sections, update details and where appropriate move the outdated information to the history section. 2A1ZA (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Map used here
The map used here claiming border of this entity has no basis nor regcgnition. It's sinply a pure scam. Widepedia is becoming a protected tribune for Kurdish propaganda and unfounded claims. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

-

On the issue of maps for the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava:

(1) While military control situation maps do make sense, it also makes sense to have maps in the article that demonstrate administrative control and administrative claims by the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava. The matter of "no recognition" of such administrative control or claims by whom ever is no argument against the informative value of a map that demonstrates administrative control and administrative claims. Such maps should be in the article.

(2) However, details are a challenge, in various aspects.


 * (a) On the issue of borders of administrative claims for the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava, the only sincere source can be official publications from that administration, and the maps in the diplomatic representation offices abroad. The map currently in use for example erroneously suggests a claim for administration of the southern tip of Hasakah province, which simply does not exist in the official sources.


 * (b) The administration of the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava has stated numerous times that they would aim to extend the federal model beyond "Rojava", for all of Syria. A big congress has been held last year for exactly this purpose. The SDF and the SDC exist for exactly this purpose. Maps should not make the mistake to claim that "where ever SDF militias are in control, there is Rojava". The SDF does, and will, occupy areas which are not claimed by anyone under the label "Rojava" by anyone. The map currently in use however appears to suggest such erroneous claim.

Let us just do these maps professionally and in good faith. It is quite an interesting challenge for the Wikipedia to do this in a sincere, transparent and well-sourced way. Bullshit of propaganda accusations should have no place and should not be nurtured. --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the official map of territorial claims in the representation office of the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava in Moscow: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ca2LgnLW0AAfhRf.jpg Here is the photo from the office in Berlin: https://i.redditmedia.com/bwuWy-7GbzDJ7tiNsairVwqSIoSaMq1ZjdunRlLWej4.jpg --- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quasi "official map of Rojava", edmaps.com has transferred the picture from the Moscow representation office on a map: http://edmaps.com/html/rojava_syria_kurdistan_march_2.html --- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

-


 * The problem is, nobody recognizes the territorial claims and what's wrong with a map showing different colours for de facto and de jure territory like the one in the Iraqi Kurdistan infobox? Editor abcdef (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In my view, it would be perfect to have such a map. Please note that in the map you refer to, every variant of borders is based on a sourced reasoning and explanation. However, in the map currently used here, there are "borders of Rojava" which apparently are just the fantasy of its creator. 2A1ZA (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

-


 * 2A1ZA, the map you are referring to from PYD offices does not prove anything. Anyone can claim anything. When did Tell Rifaat have any Kurds living there? Is there any Kurds living in Latakia governorate, as your PYD office maps show. These maps require the largest ethnic cleansing since WWII to happen in northern Syria for this entity to become geographically continuous. Now, extending the federal model over the entire Syrian territory would be a different topic, and of course won't be called 'Rojava'. We are talking about the Kurdish administration area map here, which is restricted to al-Hasaka, Ain al-Arab and Afrin. All other areas added to the map are areas inhabited almost purely by Arabs and were captured by military force supported by US and Russian air forces, and in many cases are still scenes of military action and change hands constantly. To conclude, the map should refer to areas of military control, not to political entities. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Tell Rifaat doesn't have a Kurdish majority, but there are definitely Kurds living there. And yes, there are Kurds in Latakia governorate: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Ethnic_Detailed_lg.png What you maybe haven't understood yet: The Rojava administration doesn't aim to be a Kurdish-only area and there won't be ethnic cleansing due to that.


 * To the political situation it's to be said that it's more or less the same case as it is with the Republic of Nagorno-Karabach. It has no international recognition, but there is still controlled as well as claimed territory. That you obviously have some problems with the Kurds as a people doesn't change that fact. In Rojava, there is controlled as well as claimed territory and it's right to show this in a map what's controlled and claimed by this semi-autonomous movement.


 * I still don't like the currently map used here. The design looks good, no question, but it doesn't completely show which areas are really claimed or controlled by the YPG/SDF--Ermanarich (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "2A1ZA, the map you are referring to from PYD offices does not prove anything. Anyone can claim anything." --> Exactly, anyone can claim anything. And this particular map proves this particular claim. And depicting this particular claim (however audacious and outrageous you might politically find it) is the point of such map. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Making the "Human rights in Rojava" article quality
At the moment, the "Human rights in Rojava" article is extremely low quality. There are some issues related with that in other articles. These are the changes I suggest to make:

(1) Giving the Human rights in Rojava article a "Historic Background" part, where much of the text on oppression of ethnic Kurdish people in the region under the Baath-Regime, which currently is in the "Modern History" section of the Rojava article, is moved; only an overview with some outstanding examples on the matter is left back there (and of course a prominent link to the Human rights in Rojava article given).

(2) Giving the Human rights in Rojava article a "During the Syrian Civil War" part, where civil war related human rights agendas and issues from any party find a place.

(3) Finally giving the Human rights in Rojava article a "Rojava administration" part, where first the human rights related themes of the Rojava model of governance are elaborated and then issues.

Posting this on the talk page of both Rojava and Human rights in Rojava articles.

Suggestions, anyone? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Justice System
Dear Diannaa, as we appear to have a different legal opinion on the borders of copyright in this case, and the question of accuracy in the background as well, here is another suggestion from me for a formulation the "Justice System" paragraph; is that fine with you?

The new justice systems in Rojava reflects the revolutionary concept of Democratic Confederalism. Its first communal level are the Peace and Consensus Committees. They resolve cases on the basis of consensus and their structure is dual, with general committees responsible for conflicts and crimes and women’s commissions for cases of patriarchal violence, forced marriage, plural marriage and related. The second level are the People’s Courts, its seven member judges (who do not have to be jurists) are nominated by the Justice Councils (or by anyone) and elected by the People’s Councils at the regional level. Every party to a decision of a People’s Court can appeal to the judges (who must be jurists) of an Appeals Court, of which there are four. Last resort is one Regional Court for all of Rojava. The seven judges of the Constitutional Court decide only on compatibility of acts of government and legal proceedings with the social contract, the constitution of Rojava.

Cheers, 2A1ZA (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suggested wording still has too much overlap with the source article. Here's how I would fix it:

— Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Baath policy of removing Kurds for Arabs from the region
Hello GeneralizationsAreBad, I see that you removed the complete section concerning the Baath policy of population change, removing Kurds for Arabs, from the history section, for "copyright reasons".


 * However, policies to change the demographic composition of the area by population change were also implemented. In 1962 the Syrian authorities in Hasaka randomly stripped tens of thousands of Kurdish families (more than 120,000 Kurds ) of their Syrian nationality. In 1973 in the province of Hasaka, the Syrian authorities confiscated an area of fertile agricultural land owned and cultivated by tens of thousands of Kurdish citizens and gave it to Arab families brought in from the provinces of Aleppo and Ar-Raqqa. The National Leadership Bureau of the ruling Baath Party issued orders to establish 41 settlement centers in these areas, in order to change the demographic composition of these areas by evicting and displacing the Kurdish inhabitants. In 2007, Syrian authorities in the Agricultural Association in Malikiyah, Hasaka province, signed contracts granting 150 Arab families from the Shaddadi region, Hasaka province, about six thousand square kilometers in Malikiyah. At the same time, it evicted tens of thousands of Kurdish people from these villages, and forced them to move to other areas inside and outside of Syria in search of a decent living.

While I do not know and do not research now in how far there is a copyright issue, I only shortened that text from the earlier much longer version some days ago, I definitely think that the topic deserves mentioning in the article, and sources deserve being cited. As you appear interested in the topic, couldn't you write a paragraph about it? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC
 * Sure, I'd be interested in writing up a bit about the Syrian ethnic displacement. Thank you for offering :) I'll see what I can find. The sources are good as they are, the only concern was that the paragraph as written was either directly copied or very closely paraphrased from the sources, which is not allowed as per WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO. GABgab 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

French secularity
"French secularity (French: laïcité, pronounced ) is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs, especially the prohibition of religious influence in the determination of state policies; it is also the absence of government involvement in religious affairs, especially the prohibition of government influence in the determination of religion. French secularism has a long history but the current regime is based on the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. Dictionaries ordinarily translate laïcité as secularity or secularism (the latter being the political system), although it is sometimes rendered in English as laicity or laicism by its opponents. While the term was first used with this meaning in 1871 in the dispute over the removal of religious teachers and instruction from elementary schools, the word laïcité dates to 1842.
 * laïcité:

In its strict and official acceptance, it is the principle of separation of church (or religion) and state. Etymologically, laïcité is a noun formed by adding the suffix -ité (English -ity, Latin -itās) to the Latin adjective lāicus, loanword from the Greek λᾱϊκός (lāïkós "of the people", "layman"), the adjective from λᾱός (lāós "people")."

"The separation of church and state is a concept defining the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. It may refer to creating a secular state, with or without explicit reference to such separation, or to changing an existing relationship of church involvement in a state (disestablishment).
 * separation of church and state:

Although the concept of separation has been adopted in a number of countries, there are varying degrees of separation depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper relationship between religion and politics. While a country's policy may be to have a definite distinction between church and state bodies, there may be an "arm's length distance" relationship in which the two entities interact as independent organizations. A similar but typically stricter principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.

The degree of separation varies from total separation mandated by a constitution, as in India and Singapore, to an official religion with total prohibition of the practice of any other religion, as in the Maldives."

So which of these describes the distancing of the relationship between organized religion and the nation state of Rojava? Ogress 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever these Wikipedia articles say, "church" is generally perveived as a specifically Christian concept, while "laicism" is a term that encompasses diverse religions, as demonstrated by the fact that it is most common in "Christian" France (where it gained promonence during the French revolution) and in "Muslim" Turkey (as one of the pillars of Kemalism). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Naming of languages
There is an eternal issue of naming the languages. I strongly recommend to stay with was the use for some months now:

Kurdish and Arabic are used without addition concerning the regional dislect. The one place where to elaborate is the "languages and scripts" section.

For the language of Assyrians, Syriac-Aramaic is used, because it is the broadest term for this naming issue here, which for reasons I do not fully understand appears to invite extreme political emotions in some people.

And more than anything else, terminology should be uniform across the article.

If you do not agree, please discuss here instead of changing.-- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is bad because they do not speak Syriac, they speak Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. It's like claiming the French speak Latin. They speak Northern Kurdish and stating it should not be an issue; if it is, we have to write "the Kurdish languages" because they are separate languages. Also, the nationalistic statements on the page about the languages are not necessary or appropriate. Ogress 09:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Ogress
 * (1) This "Syriac" versus "Aramaic" issue is not my field of expertise, so I do not care about the result. However, I do know that some people who work on this article insist on "Syriac" while others insist on "Aramaic". The compromise was Syriac-Aramaic. I do not see much sense in breaking this compromise now.
 * (2) The Arab dialect most spoken in Rojava is "North Mesopotamian Arabic" and the Kurdish dialect most spoken there is "Kurmanji Kurdish". However, it makes very much sense to simply use Kurdish and Arabic in the article.
 * This ethnic and nationalist supremacist POV by many on the subject is a curse on the article (I fully agree that "nationalistic statements on the page about the languages are not necessary or appropriate"). Your POV obviously is neither Kurdish nor Assyrian, probably Turkish or Arabic, I do not care, but this very good article should not be vandalized by POV. If you feel underlying links to other Wikipedia articles could be optimized, then do it, but leave these namings of the lanuages uniform and non-discriminatory.
 * And I do not see any reason why you deleted all explanations on the families on languages. Please do not vandalize them again. Thanks. --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic article you linked. It states that
 * Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is closely related to Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, both evolving from the same distinct Syriac dialect which evolved in Assyria[7] between the 5th century BC and 1st century AD.[8] There is also some Akkadian vocabulary and influence in the language. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is written from right to left, and it uses the Madnhāyā version of the Syriac alphabet.[9][10] Speakers of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo are ethnic Assyrians and are descendants of the ancient Assyrian inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia.[11][12][13][14][15] Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the largest speaking Neo-Aramaic group (232,000 speakers), which follows Chaldean Neo-Aramaic (206,000 speakers) and Turoyo (112,000 speakers).
 * So obviosly "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" is just a subset of that language spoken in Rojava, and a broader term like "Syriac-Aramaic" is appropriate. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you commented here when you immediately ran for administrator intervention. First, my perspective is "I am a Wikipedia editor who happens to be a linguist", not "I have a particular nationalist dog in this fight". Second, you are wrong. Syriac is like 2000 years old and dates from the period of Jesus (although Syriac is an Eastern Aramaic language while Jesus spoke a Western Aramaic language called "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic"). Calling the modern spoken language "Syriac" is ridiculous; it's Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Calling it "Aramaic" is wrong, like saying the English speak "Germanic". Calling is Syriac is wrong, like saying the the English speak "Saxon". More specifically, Syriac-Aramaic is saying they speak "Old English-Germanic". It's just flat-out wrong and it's 100% nationalism and we have zero reason to stand for providing patently incorrect information. Third, I think you are confusing "the term for the Assyrian people" drama with "the language spoken". There's an entire article on names used by various factions of the Assyrians/Syriacs/Aramaics/Arameans; that's not the same as the language in question. Ogress 10:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked for administrator intervention only after you still went on making changes to the article while we were talking here. And once again, this "Syriac" versus "Aramaic" thing is my least concern (at least the naming in the box as an official language could be decided by the respective official act of government in Rojava). Neither is my main concern that you insist on the wrong naming of the script as "Arabic alphabet" instead of the correct "Arabic abjad". My main concerns are:
 * (1) The non-uniform naming of languages concerned within the article which you started.
 * (2) The discriminatory treatment you give to the language of Arabic and its dialect of North Mesopotamian Arabic on the one hand and the language of Kurdish and its dialect of Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji) on the other hand.
 * (3) The fact that you did without any reason delete the explanatory sentences to the languages in the "Languages and Scripts" section. By the way, exactly that would be the place to elaborate on Syriac-Aramaic, if you would have a sincere interest in the article, rather than pushing your political POV. --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First, we were not talking here; you just reverted my edit and then made this edit stating, "The Rojava I like to work on out of academic/professional interest in the topic incites much political emotions by many users. While in the past these things could somehow be solved, User:Ogress now persistently reverts the article to his particular POV, irrespective of discussion on the talk page. I never needed administrator help before on editing, what can I do?" You reverted my edits and I reverted them back. That does not make me "persistently revert[ing]" to "his [sic] point of view".
 * Second, I DO NOT HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA. I have specified this multiple times. Your accusations are insulting. Your discussion of this page is that of someone possessively owning it. Your only edits are to pages about Rojava; if anyone has a point of view issue, it's you. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw that the article on Assyrians in Syria says "they are a Syriac speaking community". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

--- First preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

Among the three official languages in Rojava, for language one and two the naming issue (outside of the language section) appears to be resolved. These names are by all representatives of Rojava, by all English media, and by an extremely overwhelming majority of internet users called Kurdish and Arabic. The alternative suggestion of calling language number one "Northern Kurdish" is not supported by any statement from a Rojava official, not supported by any English media article, and while the combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results on Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has only 2 results. There was no argument whatsoever brought against this. I will therefore now take care that outside the language section, the names "Kurdish" and "Arabic" for these languages are uniformly used throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC) --- Second preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (here: naming scripts)

There appears to be consensus that the script for Arabic language shall be named Arabic alphabet (abjad). There was no objection to this suggestion. I will implement it now and delete the request for comment on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC) --- Third preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

There appears to be consensus that how ever the language of Assyrians shall be named in the article, one name for it shall be used uniformly throughout the article (outside of elaboration in the language section). While implementation must wait until a decision on the name to be used, I will now delete the request for comment from a style perspective on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) --- Fourth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (outside of elaboration in the language section)

In all other Wikipedia articles on the Assyrian people, their language(s) is/are referred to as "Syriac" or "Syriac-Aramaic". No other Wikipedia article claims that the Assyrian people, in general or specifically in Rojava, would speak the language/dialect Assyrian Neo-Aramaic thereof to the exclusion of others. While such a claim was made here, no source for this claim could be provided. Therefore, the name for the langusge number three in Rojava (outside of the language section) must be reverted to Syriac-Aramaic. I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC) --- Fifth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (presentation in the language section)

After lengthy discussion, there appears a consensus or at least a broad majority to use this presentation of languages in Rojava in the languages section:
 * (1) Kurdish (in Northern Kurdish dialect), ...''
 * (2) Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, in writing Modern Standard Arabic), ...''
 * (3) Syriac-Aramaic (in the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and the Turoyo variety), ...
 * (4) Turkish (in Syrian Turkmen dialect), ...''

I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC) --- Reminder: All article-links behind "Syriac-Aramaic" now correctly refer to Eastern Aramaic languages, not incorrectly to Syriac language as they did before the big discussion on naming languages. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)