Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Split article into two articles: Rojava and Democratic Federation of Northern Syria?

Rojava refers to western (or Syrian) Kurdistan, but following territorial expansion, the DFNS as a whole is not considered to be entirely within Kurdistan. Also we rarely see the federation referred to as "Rojava" any longer. In my opinion we should split the article between Rojava, covering the long established Kurdish dominated areas of Syria, and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, which is a de facto polity established in the areas controlled by the YPG and later Syrian Democratic Forces since the beginning of the Syrian civil war. Rob984 (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think this should be renamed "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria". And I agree that the word "Rojava" is not used, referred to, or recognized by any 3rd party or international entity. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support splitting the article. Rojava is no longer used to refer to the territories under SDF control after the SDF expanded into Deir ez-Zor and other Arab-majority areas.--Sakiv (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support splitting DFNS and Rojava into two articles. "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria" or "Northern Syria" is currently used more in the media than "Rojava" to describe the de facto autonomous region. As mentioned before, the two concepts also don't completely overlap anymore. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• SupportWill rename article accordingly based on consensus here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the old name we used to use it here "Syrian Kurdistan" like we do with other Kurdish areas in Iraq, Turkey and Iran, and then have another article about DFNS which claims non Kurdish areas 3bdulelah (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Many people still say Rojava when referring to the DFNS. Charles Essie (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Such a move would be inconsistent and illogical. Creating a seperate Rojava/Syrian Kurdistan page for the history and heritage of the Kurdish settlement in the region would be one thing, but currently DFNS or Northern Syria is the main name used by the DFNS itself and in the media. The main non-Kurdish areas (Raqqa, Manbij, Tabqa, Northern Deir Ezzor) that the SDF control are not officially incorporated into the DFNS anyway. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about creating “a seperate Rojava/Syrian Kurdistan page for the history and heritage of the Kurdish settlement in the region”. Charles Essie (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: That wasn't what I took from 3bdulelah's original post. But if that is what is being argued for, I wouldn't necessarily oppose creating a Syrian Kurdistan article if there is a need/interest for that. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know about 3bdulelah, but that is definitely what I advocate. Charles Essie (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose its not too long that a split is needed and two articles will be harder to maintain especially given how contentious an issue this is. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The contentious nature of the subject matter is part of reason why a split is needed. Syrian Kurdistan and the DFNS are not the same thing. Syrian Kurdistan refers to the Kurdish-majority regions of Syria which only form part of the DFNS. Plus, the DFNS is not a Kurdish polity, it’s a polyethnic federation. Charles Essie (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, I find no 20th-century Gbooks sources using "Rojava" or "Rojavayê Kurdistanê". This is a neologism. Also, when searching <"Western Kurdistan" Syria>, I find only sources relating to the civil war. I think it is too early to separate into two concepts. Any information on Kurdish settlements and history should rather be held at Kurds in Syria, where the terms "Syrian Kurdistan" and "Rojava" could be included at the geography section.--Zoupan 02:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Zoupan. This whole "rojava" term is hoax invented by Kurdish nationalists (including here at Wikipedia and similar websites) and pasted on Syrian land. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The term "Rojava" is widely used in international media, it has several million English language Google hits, among them all qualitiy media across the world. I think that it is right to call this article here DFNS and keep the separate Rojava conflict article for a focus on the social revolution and its political conflicts. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, not least because there is an existing article Rojava conflict. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Map is scandalous

The map used here is scandalous and extends even more than what Kurdish propaganda represents as Kurdish areas in Syria. For example, no Kurds live in Deir ezzor Governorate or Raqqa, except for a few villages west of Tel Abyad. Political entity maps do not change daily based on front lines, so this map should say areas under control by SDF and should not be used to reflect any political entity. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It is not a map of ethnicity (that would have quite a few more colours on it, and be far more contentious). Paragraph 2 of the article explains that "Northern Syria is polyethnic". It's not really a political map either, it shows the extent of NSR (= SDF) control (ie a question of government). But there is quite a risk of Recentism. Batternut (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: I would be completely OK with something showing control of SDF. However, refering to these areas as "Federation Northern Syria" is not accepted, just as I would be opposing to claimning another part of Syria as "Islamic State" or "National Syria Coalition". Refering to military situation (which changes constantly) is one thing and claiming land as a political entity is another. I hope you get my point. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Compare with Transnistria. That article has a map showing the area claimed, administered even as part of Transnistria. It does not mean international or even regional acceptance of the claim. Such maps are useful simply to show the region under discussion. Batternut (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The current map, depicting military frontlines instead of the administrative topic of this article, is indeed scandalous. Reverting to the administrative divisions map. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2018

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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria → Rojava WP:COMMONNAME. Also note that the archives are all at Talk:Rojava/xx. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This discussion was held relatively recently, with the resulting consensus being that "DFNS" is more appropriate since "Rojava" or "Western Kurdistan" is no longer the most common name used in the media for the entity, it does not constitute a name coming from a neutral point of view as well as for the reason that it is no longer used by the entity itself. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• For the time being, I have reunited the archives with the article. Dekimasuよ! 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If the article name was to be altered, it should likely be changed to Northern Syria, as that is the common name for the region itself, while Rojava is mainly used by Kurds to describe the region, similar to how Gozarto is used by Syriacs to describe (a large amount of) the same region. Thespoondragon (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2018 (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.

Correcting the Emblem

Hi Everyone. Can someone please update the emblem to the corrected version I made fixing the alignment issues? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Rojava_-_13-12-17.svg Albert.trosk (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: with no prejudice with regards to a future nomination as consensus can change. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria → Northern and Eastern Syria – In Late 2018-early 2019 the regional administration changed it's name from the DFNS to Self-Adminstration / Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria (see above discussion). The common name for the region itself is Northern and Eastern Syria(with variations in exact grammar)
SA-NES Representation in Benelux ANF News article on the recent Manbij bombing, uses Northern and Eastern Syria search results on ANF for Northern and Eastern Syria Jerusalem Post uses both Northeast Syria and North and East Syria Reuters, both northern and eastern Syria and Northeast Syria (I used both instances mentioning the SA/AA-NES, and referring to it as a geographical area in relation to SDF controlled areas)
This would also include changing mentions of the region in the article to Northern and Eastern Syria/NES or the Autonomous/Self Administration depending on context (see above discussion) Thespündragon 16:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Northeast Syria describes the region where this administration is found, no sources suggest that it is the name of the group and it's WP:SYNTH to assume that newspapers are referring to the group. "Autonomous Administration of North and East of Syria" might be an acceptable new name, but it's likely too soon for that move as well, the sources above say "tentatively known". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I was only suggesting the plain Northeast Syria as there is inconsistency as to whether the official translation is Autonomous Administration or Self-Administration, and North and East Syria (NES) is used by official (SA-NES Belelux Representation Office, "North and East Syria is the northeastern region of Syria") and supporting (ANF News, a pro-KCK news site, "...Turkey is once again threatening Northern and Eastern Syria." , "...hundreds of thousands of people from Afrin and Shehba, Northern and Eastern Syria..." in the latter, Northern and Eastern Syria as a purely geographic designation would be innaccurate, as both are in the northwest of syria) sources. Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria would also be an acceptable name change, though a bit long and clumsy in my opinion. Thespündragon 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "Northern and Eastern Syria", support Rojava or current title, conditional support for "Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria" pending more sources - my apologies for how long that !vote is, but to this day the common name is actually still simply "Rojava", and just saying "Northern and Eastern Syria" implies we're talking more about the region than the entity. If more sources suggest that their official name actually is the AANES now and not the DFNS anymore, I'd be willing to support, but as far as I know that's not confirmed to be the case. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  (Update): I am not at all against "Democratic Federation of Northern Syria", but - as I said in my first comment - "Rojava" never stopped being the WP:COMMONNAME. Seeing that a number of other editors actually agree with my comment that it is the WP:COMMONNAME and therefore would support changing the name back, although I wasn't advocating for changing the name to Rojava at that time, I'll certainly be willing to support a proposal for such a change. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• This "rojava" "name" is an invention of one militia group and has no significant use/acceptance by any international, reputable media outlet or organization/country. I think the best name for the area should be "Kurdish occupied/administered areas in northeastern Syria". We did not create an article for ISIL caliphate land and its administrative divisions/hierarchy. The exact same applies here as this is an interim consequence of the ongoing civil war, and is likely to change pretty soon. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess "Kurdish occupied"... has also no significant use/acceptance by any international, reputable media outlet or organization/country, I have never seen "Kurdish occupied" anywhere, but you are free to show us media outlets we can consider.

Referring to a de facto autonomous region as an occupation by the Kurds unquestionably violates WP:NPOV, so that's off the table. We actually do have articles about ISIL and its territorial claims, so the content of Amr ibn Kulthoum's argument is simply incorrect. Though I'm not advocating for changing the name of the article back to "Rojava", it is true that it remains the WP:COMMONNAME among media outlets. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we wait a little longer to see the result of the negotiations between Damascus and the SDF/TEV-DEM? If they come to an agreement we maybe would have to make a move as well.Lean Anael (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Definately not "Kurdish occupied..." because this government is multi-ethnic. Rojava is a perfectly fine name until and unless something more solid energes as a common or proper name in English. Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It may be best if we can determine a name that can remain regardless of future official name changes. I think a short-form name would be best, rather than a long construction. (ie: SDC administered areas in Northeast Syria) An idea I have is doing something similar to the official 2016 name (DF Rojava-North Syria), with something like a title "Rojava-Northeast Syria". This would be both unambiguous(not being purely geographic), and not give undue weight to the name Rojava, which is officially only used to refer to Kurdish-majority areas. Simply "Rojava" may also work, as it is the most common in western English sources. Thespündragon 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Rojava, per above. It's how our reliable sources primarily refer to the region,[1][2][3] thus its common name. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's best to hold off on a name change for now, until more detail about the nature of the new structure of the region emerges regarding the proper English translation, the nature of the sub-regions and the role of the new "General Assembly of the NES" vs the Syrian Democratic Council. Considering the volatility of the region more changes might also be made relatively soon. Updating the article further to avoid confusion and clarifying that a name change has occurred is entirely ok by me though. I would also oppose renaming the article to Rojava, since this is both not the official name of the region and not the dominant name in the international media when referring to the region any longer, it's often just referred to as the "Kurdish-led" administration in Northeastern Syria. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2019 (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.

Requested move 28 February 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Rojova. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria → Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria – If were going to use the official name of Rojava than we should use the current official name. Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support We should use the official names of places like this one. Macedonia recently changed its name to North Macedonia and that's why we changed the article title to that. I believe this is similar to the Macedonia case. Mstrojny (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Rojava instead, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" is uncommon, unwieldy and hardly recognisable to non-experts. --RJFF (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Agree Move to Rojava instead, per WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike North Macedonia this is not a UN country and the name was not decided by an international agreement. Use the common name and cite the new name as the official name in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, oppose move to Rojava. Rojava is no longer the predominantly common name used for the region in the media. Lack of international recognition is not sufficient as an argument in my view, Nagorno-Karabakh has been renamed to Artsakh here on Wikipedia despite lack of international recognition. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Rojava. Same rationale as a few weeks ago: It's how our reliable sources primarily refer to the region,[4][5][6] and thus its common name. Readers coming to this article are not using either of the titles mentioned in the nom. czar 04:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Rojava, unlikely any of these names are going to catch on until there's some kind of internationally recognised agreement. And in that case the article should be split into two, with one covering the administration and another covering the cultural region of "Rojava", i.e. Western Kurdistan. Rob984 (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Support split. Syrian Kurdistan should not redirect here because it is not synonymous with the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria since the latter does not control all Kurdish lands in Syria and does control lots of non-Kurdish territories. Charles Essie (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposed move (not to Rojava). I got here because I read an Australian news story[7] and sought to read more background on what that report calls "The Autonomous Administration of North East Syria" (only missing "and" from the proposed name). This article says that the proposed name has been the right one since last September. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Split into Syrian Kurdistan(or Rojava) and Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria(or another translation, or a shorter name) this article is specifically about the de-facto autonomous region named AANES/SANES, previously named the DFNS, therefore it should be named the current name of said administration.
  

Rojava (short for Western Kurdistan in Kurdish) or Syrian Kurdistan, is an area considered by Kurdish Nationalists to be one of the four constituent parts of Greater Kurdistan, and we should have an article on this, like we have articles on Iraqi, Iranian, and Turkish Kurdistan.

Naming this article Rojava would be confusing/ambiguous, as Rojava is both used to refer to the SANES, and to the Syrian part of Kurdistan (these two are not the same thing, unlike Iraqi Kurdistan). Possibly have Rojava be a disambiguation page to both of these articles?

-Thespündragon 05:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Rojava instead, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. as others have said. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 18:35, 14 March 2019 (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.

New Administration, "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria"

Apparently the DFNS is being replaced (?) with the Autonomous Admin of N&E Syria(AANES/NES)? It appears that DFNS may have only referred to the areas currently designated a region (as well as Manbij), whereas the regions in the southeast are part of a different structure, and these 2 structures are being unified into AANES. Something like that? I'm not sure what the administration change is officially, but essentially what was previously referred to as the DFNS is now the AANES/NES.
Sources: [8] [9] [10] [11]
So I believe the article should be renamed to either 'Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria' or 'Northern and Eastern Syria' to reflect this administration change. Thespündragon 19:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thespoondragon: Yes, it seems that the new entity has replaced the DFNS. However this is still a relatively new change so at least a week should pass after debate on this page before changes are made. Some questions remain such as the status of the three DFNS regions (Jazira, Euphrates, Afrin) in relation to the affiliated regions/civil councils (Raqqa, Tabqa, Manbij, Deir ez-Zor) - if they're all equal subordinate regions of the new entity or not, as well as regarding the precise English name and abbreviation of the entity. The name in Arabic (الإدارة الذاتية لشمال وشرق سوريا), Kurmanji (Rêveberiya Xweser a Bakur û Rojhilatê Sûriyeyê), Turkish (Kuzey ve Doğu Suriye Özerk Yönetimi) and Syriac (ܡܕܰܒܪܳܢܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܝܳܬ݂ܰܝܬܳܐ ܠܓܰܪܒܝܳܐ ܘܡܰܕܢܚܳܐ ܕܣܘܪܝܰܐ - Mdabronuṯo Yoṯayto l-Garbyo w-Madnḥyo d-Suriya) can be seen on the emblem featured on this page (https://anfdeutsch.com/rojava-syrien/beratungen-der-autonomieverwaltung-zur-aktuellen-situation-8527), however the English name is translated as "Self-Administration in North and East Syria" (http://repsanes.net/) and "Self-Administration of North and East Syria" (http://rojavabenelux.nl) on two official pages with the abbreviation being "SANES", while "Autonomous Administration" might be a more correct translation and is also used on the official ANHA news page and in English-speaking media when referring to the entity. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for more information before renaming the article and such, though maybe we should mention the Admin. change in 'Polity names and translations' or a different section? Thespündragon 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As for which name to use, I think the translation Self-Administration of North and East Syria/SANES is the one we should use, as it is used on official sites, and both translations are used on pro-sdf news sites such as ANF. (plus SANES is a nicer acronym than AANES in my opinion) We could also put in polity names that it is translated as both, like we have on the YPJ and YPG pages. Thespündragon 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I also believe it is best to wait, also because the Syrian government and the SDF have increased cooperation greatly since YPG invited the SAA into Manbij. Who knows, perhaps in short time the region or parts of it will return to the government. LyriaSiders 19:18, 4 January 2019 (CET)

Tagging previous editors of this page: @Applodion: @Jim7049: @Khoshhat: @Purijj: @Editor abcdef: @Cirflow: @2A1ZA: @Nøkkenbuer: @Bobfrombrockley: @Takinginterest01: What do you guys think regarding a potential name change? Which English translation would you be in favor of? AntonSamuel (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe wait a while before changing the article name. SAMES seems to be more officially used so far, but Self is a clunkier translation than Autonomous, so i wouldn't be surprised if latter starts being used more. But maybe edit the lead sooner? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, let's wait a while before changing the name (until more information comes out in terms of the stature of this new administration). Purijj (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Info: Kongreya Star's twitter says that there are 7 regions in the SANES, Afrin, Manbij, Kobani(Euphrates), Jazira, Tabqa, Raqqa, and Deir Ezzor [12], i'm trying to obtain a better source Thespündragon 22:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use the official name and go with it from there Takinginterest01 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede: The Self-Administration of North and East Syria (SANES) (languages bit), commonly referred to as Rojava or Northern and Eastern Syria, is a de facto autonomous region in northeastern Syria. It consists of three self-governing regions, Afrin Region, Jazira Region, and Euphrates Region, and local councils in the Manbij, Tabqa, Raqqa, and Deir Ez-Zor regions. (then the rest of it)
I used SANES as it is the most used on official sites. Thespündragon 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel I believe at this point enough time has passed that we can start converting the articles to the new name. I believe we should use the official translation SANES or "the Self-Administration" when referring to the Administration itself (ie: the SANES has 3 self-governing regions ... ), and using "Northern and Eastern Syria", "Northern Syria", etc when referring to the region (Policing in Northern and Eastern Syria is performed by the Asayish ... ) Thespündragon 20:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
And in the "Politiy names and translations section" we should say something like "there are multiple translations of this into english, including the Self-Administration of North and East Syria, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, among others." Thespündragon 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thespoondragon: While I appreciate that you want to keep the article(s) updated and factually correct which I do too, I'm still not so sure if it's prudent to change them yet, I've been trying to keep track of more publications regarding the issue, but there is still a lack of clear information about the nature of the administration and its sub-regions, such as was provided by the ANHA News agency about the different regions during the elections in Northern Syria. There also seems to be a consensus by the other editors here to hold until more information becomes available. In the mean time, updating some parts of the article describing the name change without moving it could be a good idea. I also think a fitting solution regarding the name would be to rename the article to "Northeast Syria" and specify the exact name "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" or "Self-Administration of North and East Syria" using the "NES" abbreviation, while specifying that "SANES" have also been used by the EU representation offices. I would argue that this is the most prudent solution since "NES", "Northeast Syria" or "North East Syria" are shorter names and abbreviations and they are also the terms employed by organizations connected to the United Nations such as these: https://uncareer.net/search?q=nes+syria https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/operations/whole-of-syria and the "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" and "NES" abbreviation seems to be confirmed by Kongra Star here: https://twitter.com/starcongress/status/1080768956112228352 AntonSamuel (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: (on mobile, fhis may be formatted or typed badly) I agree that moving the article to Northeast Syria/North and East Syria/etc would make the most sense, especially per WP:COMMONNAME, and the rest of your suggestions also make sense. In my prev. post, I was only arguing for editing the name components of the article right now, which you appear to agree with. On an unrelated note, the Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, etc Administrations do not seem to have a corresponding NES Region yet, as the SA-NES Benelux office website only lists the Cizire, Afrin, and Euphrates regions. [13] Thespündragon 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Why has it been renamed to Rojava? Rojava hasn't been the name for ages and it doesn't make sense to use a colloquial Kurdish terminology for an area that is majority Arab (4 million people, only like 1.6/7 of whom are Kurdish). The formal name should be used, aka the DFNS, NES, SANES, or whatever. 2A00:23C4:B12E:D400:83B:113:1AEA:64A0 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Name is OR at best or Biased at worst

Can someone give me one respected media outlet or international body (state, organization) that is using the word rojava for this area? After 2011, Kurdish nationalists invented that word for parts of al-Hasaka Governorate and two other pockets in Aleppo Governorate. However, the use of the name HERE has been rolling to cover 30% of Syria's territory, which is a SCAM and scandal. This page is full of pro-Kurdish propaganda and almost all the claims here are entirely based on that. This page poses a huge credibility test for Wikipedia. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above, there were neutral news agencies provided that used "Rojava" as a term for the de facto autonomous region. I voted against changing back the name, but I understand why "Rojava" would be easier to use since the entity has already changed its name several times so far. Regarding the neutrality of the article, I've been trying to replace blatently non-neutral material and sources, but many remaining sources and some segments are not ideal in terms of neutrality, and the article could use improvement, while still reflecting the facts on the ground of course. So your help with constructive edits that improves the factuality and the neutrality of the article would be welcome. However, adding highly opinionated pro-regime and pro-Turkey sources and viewpoints instead would not be examples of this. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If accusations of demographic changes and ethnic cleansing do not belong under "Demographics section" then where? You insisting on deleting this sourced, important piece of information from the head f the Russian diplomacy shows the biased nature of your edits and the biased nature of this article altogether. It's funny how you talk about pro-regime and pro-opposition as being biased, but the pro-Kurdish militia bullshit that is flooding this article being "not biased" according to you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The main claims in this article (names, human rights) are almost entirely based on PKK/YPG propaganda sources (ARA News, Kurdistan 24, Hawar News, Rudaw, Kurdishquestion, Diclenews.com, etc.). Again, there is a huge credibility issue here, I have tried to makke it a little more neutral in the past but users like you AntonSamuel are edit-warring to keep it this way. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the adoption of the word Rojava is exclusive to pro-YPG/PKK sources. Most international media do not refer to this area as Rojava. This is no different from any other area in Syria, which is called by the name of the war belligerent occupying it. A handful of users here insist on inventing names for this area and/or adopting made-up propaganda names such as rojava. How can the name apply to three enclaves not exceeding 5% of Syria's territory back in 2015 and apply the same name to an area covering 30% of Syria, with a majority of non-Kurdish residents, not now and never in the past? Here is a few examples:

• Bloomberg: "northeastern Syria"
• CNN: "northeastern Syria"
• BBC: "Kurdish Forces", also showing a current map and uses the name Kurdish forces to refer to SDF-controlled areas
• CBC: "northeast Syria"
• Reuters: "autonomous region"
• France24: "northeastern Syria"
• New York Times: "northeast Syria"
• Washington Post: "autonomous Kurdish enclave in Northeast Syria"

None of these media outlets mentions the word "rojava" in these stories. They simply refer to the area by the facts, that is Kurdish-controlled areas, SDF-controlled areas, Kurdish forces, etc. Any serious attempt at fixing the credibility of this article? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I quickly come in with some Ideas and articles of some of the same news agencies you named where they wrote about Rojava. I understand there can be better names, because the region written about here is larger than just Rojava, but the name of the region really changed several times and I also understand that some chose the name Rojava because this is the name most people can associate to something actually written here in the article. People will not google Northeastern Syria but rather Rojava if they search for the region controlled by the SDF.

Following some articles naming Rojava, which in some articles is also referred as an area in Northeastern Syria.

• Bloomberg Rojava
• BBC Rojava
• France24 Rojava
• New York Times Rojava
• CNN Rojava

And here some other rather respected media who write about Rojava as well.

• The New Yorker Rojava
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Rojava
• Neue Zürcher Zeitung Rojava
• Economist Rojava
• Wall Street Jounral Rojava

I agree that an area including not only Rojava but also the Arab, and Christian areas can be named differently. They have their own name which is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" and I guess this would be fair. It seems Anton Samuel could live with it too. But this would be the third name this article has this year...If we change the name of the article away from Rojava, a Name which for many people interested in the region Northern Syria is best known, we should agree on something a clear majority supports so we can keep a name for this article (for more time than just some months). I would not open a new discussion about the name for now and wait some more time (because we had the same discussion already twice this year), but if someone else opens one, I would try to help to come to a good end of this discussion. Best, Lean Anael (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Split Syrian Kurdistan into new article?

Are there any objections to splitting Syrian Kurdistan into a new article, as this article only covers the Northeast Syrian administration rather than the Syrian part of the region Kurdistan. We have articles for Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan as geographic regions, and Iraqi Kurdistan as a geographic region is synonymous with the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, while Syrian Kurdistan does not correctly refer to the Northeast Syrian Autonomous Administration.Thespündragon 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support this. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Thespoondragon:, we could start by copy-pasting this [14] to Syrian Kurdistan. That linked version seem to be the last edit before users turned it into the autonomous region. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I will edit it a bit then implement it to Syrian Kurdistan sometime today hopefully. -Thespündragon 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Human rights violation claims

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Hi again, if there are going to be sections on this page that feature opinionated statments about this political entity, then neither pro-PYD, pro-regime or pro-opposition claims should be solely present without presenting other viewpoints, and if conflicting reports exist among largely neutral international agencies regarding a matter, that should also be clarified in line with WP:NPOV. For example, a while back I added a summary of common criticisms against the entity in the introduction to balance out the arguments that defenders of the region present. Adding a statement about alleged ethnic cleansing without credible differing statements, which do exist, such as those from U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that you removed without an explanation from the Human rights in North and East Syria is quite problematic. So I think some clarification regarding the subject is due if it should be featured on the page and not just on the related Human rights article. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: Please refrain from your disruptive and BIASED behavior. When satellite images and international organizations show and present evidence that villages were razed down to earth, it does not really matter what YPG or Rami Abdulrahman say. Please be objective for once. And this section is about forced demographic changes, so this piece is ought to stay here in the Demographics section where you talk about majority and minorities, because its bigger than just human rights "issues". I hope you get this and do not indulge in edit-warring again. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Again, if there are international organizations on both sides of the argument such as Amnesty International, the UN or SOHR, then both arguments should be presented. What would be biased is to only present one side of the argument. If you want to propose such a section that uses a language that you would agree with, then you're welcome to present a suggestion here on the talk page, however, if you keep on reverting any efforts I make in order to keep the article in line with WP:NPOV, then it is that behavior that would be characterized as disruptive and as edit warring. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I haven't had a chance to look at the edits, but I did protect the article for a few days so that you two (and, hopefully, others) could figure this out here. A broader point: the article should represents the scholarly and mainstream consensus. If that consensus is split, then that should also be mentioned. The question as to whether applying due weight in this instance should be done in a homogeneous way or whether it ought to be split depends on the strength of reliable sources. El_C 19:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for your clarification of what would be appropriate for the article according to Wikipedias guidelines. If you have the time, I would appriciate it if you could take a look at the edits and present your viewpoint regarding the matter as well. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We'll see. For now, my suggestion to you two would be to launch a Request for comment about this question of what should be up there right now and with what sources. You can each submit your own version and phrase the RfC to choose a preference between passage A, passage B, or Other. This will then help bring outside input. Does that makes sense? El_C 20:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

SOHR is not an international organizations on both sides. Its not an organization actually. What is important for Wikipedia as an encycolpedia is what academics and reliable figures say. Sadly, this article was written in the past using partisan sources by very opinionated journalists, and was maintained by editors who showed clear skills when it came to pick the sources that would support only their point of view. Hence, I agree with El_C: it is important to re-write this article by using academic sources, or articles by respected renowned journalists (SOHR isnt one). The words of PYD leaders, or Turkish leaders, or opposition and Syrian government leaders, should be presented properly, as representing not facts, but the opinions of those who said them. Rojava is effectively an abbreviation of Western Kurdistan. Therefore, it is unacceptable that its used for an entity controlling Raqqa and Manbij...etc. I believe it is time for a neutral editor to re-construct this article, and eliminate the propagandist language in it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well the UN has said that there was no ethnic cleansing by the YPG/SDF.. I think this should be included as well if a Lawrow citation of Demographic change by the Kurds is included. And if we are at demographic change the Arabic Belt policy should have a prominent place, too. The Kurds have been displaced with state policies and easily to source laws, while what Lawrow says contradicts the scholarly and mainstream consensus (at least of European universities) that the new administration of Rojava makes a strong effort to give all ethnias same political and juridical rights. I will make an effort to include some academic sources next time the article is liberated to edit in it again. Lean Anael (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lean Anael: @Attar-Aram syria: @El C: @عمرو بن كلثوم: I would appriciate it if other editors would contribute to resolving this issue! Below I've posted my attempt to create a balanced and short section that dealt with the various claims of displacments, feel free to use it as a template and add or remove stuff from it. I think it would be far more appropriate to place in the human rights section rather than the demographics section when dealing with these kinds of claims from different organizations, rather than figures or facts that has to do with the region's ethnolingustic makeup. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, organizations such as Amnesty International and the Middle East Observer as well as Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov have accused SDF forces of committing ethnic cleansing in captured areas with predominantely Arab population such as Tel Abyad. Contrasting with these claims, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has stated that there was "no 'ethnic cleansing' in Tel Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population" and the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry also released a report that stated that the commission "found no evidence to substantiate claims that YPG or SDF forces ever targeted Arab communities on the basis of ethnicity, nor that YPG cantonal authorities systematically sought to change the demographic composition of territories under their control through the commission of violations directed against any particular ethnic group".

References

Request for comment - Human rights violation claims

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be consensus among participants to retain AntonSamuel's 30 June proposal. El_C 18:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Requesting comment on the matter discussed in the section above, about which one of the two alternatives featured below regarding human rights violations claims is the most appropriate (or if a third option is preferable) after suggestion to do so from @El C. Presently the first of the two segments that are posted below is featured on the Rojava page. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The segment added by @عمرو بن كلثوم:

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, many human rights groups, including Amnesty International and international organizations have accused SDF forces of committing ethnic cleansing in Arab areas they were capturing from other war factions. The most recent accusation was made on 8 May 2019 by Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said:

The US attempts to resettle Kurds in the areas where Arab tribes have always lived historically is a very bad process and a direct way to separatism and the breakup of Syria

My (@AntonSamuel) attempt to create a more neutral segment (I also suggested that this information is more suited to the "Human rights" section than in the "Demographics" section):

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, organizations such as Amnesty International and the Middle East Observer as well as Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov have accused SDF forces of committing ethnic cleansing in captured areas with predominantely Arab population such as Tel Abyad. Contrasting with these claims, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has stated that there was "no 'ethnic cleansing' in Tel Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population" and the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry also released a report that stated that the commission "found no evidence to substantiate claims that YPG or SDF forces ever targeted Arab communities on the basis of ethnicity, nor that YPG cantonal authorities systematically sought to change the demographic composition of territories under their control through the commission of violations directed against any particular ethnic group".

References

AntonSamuel (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Overall pretty good, but you shouldn't say 'ethnic cleansing'. Note that Amnesty doesn't use the term, instead describing it as punishment for supporting the Islamic State. I'd describe it that way. Lavrov is obviously an interested party, and the fact that he does use the term is not sufficient. Not sure whether or not it even makes sense to use him at all, in light of Russia's participation in the war.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Forced displacement is the term we should probably use IMO -Thespündragon 03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. 2 is more neutral, giving Lavrov a pull quote is undue in this context. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• @AntonSamuel I applaud your attempt to fix this. In general, it looks like a good start to me, except that you are giving a lot more weight to the debunking of the accusations (three and a half lines, versus one and a half lines for the accusations the accusations). Also, you are using direct quotes from the deniers of the claims but did not directly quote the accusations, which are the subject of this discussion and paragraph. For this, I still feel this is not neutral. The comment from Lavrov is important here because Russia has been mediating between the government and SDF, so they are more balanced than other parties like the US, which are directly supporting SDF and have attacked government forces in the area before. Also, this is the highest international figure to release such statement, hence the weight it should take here. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill @Thespoondragon @Adoring nanny @عمرو بن كلثوم Some time has passed now and no new comments on the matter has been added, so I've reworked my earlier proposal by rewording it, shortening the second part without direct quotes and removed the mentioning of Lavrov that was argued to be undue. If consensus can be reached and there are no additional viewpoints from other editors I suggest the discussion be closed and the current segment on the page be replaced. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

During the ongoing Syrian civil war, organizations such as Amnesty International and the Middle East Observer have accused SDF forces of forcibly displacing inhabitants of captured areas with predominantely Arab population such as Tel Abyad. Contrasting with these claims, the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has refuted claims of ethnic cleansing in Tel Abyad against the Turkmen and Arabic population and the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry also released a report that stated that the commission did not find evidence of the YPG or SDF forces committing ethnic cleansing in order to change the demographic composition of territories under their control.

References

• I think this is a decent paragraph. I would like to clarify that my earlier comment was just opposed to Lavrov getting a pull quote; I'm indifferent, not opposed, to whether his opinion should be presented within the paragraph. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, one additional proposed edit: replace "refute" with "rebut", as the former could be interpreted as meaning that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights's account is the correct one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I like this version.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have two comments/reservations. First, You present the accusations in barely one line, and the denials in three lines, which is unbalanced. Second, the opinion by Lavrov is VERY important because in the past Russia has been a mediator between the Syrian Government and SDF and this shows a new position by Russia, and because being a top official of a very important country involved in Syria warrants a different weight compared to human rights groups/organization/press. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk)

• I appreciate the feedback. Of course, "refuted" may be replaced with "rebutted". Regarding Lavrov, regardless of the importance of Russia's international policy shifts, the claims of a politican, no matter how senior, does not represent a claim that neccesarily is rooted in facts regarding the issue, as can be said for the statments of any politician. The same could example, be said for Trump and his statements about Turkey and the SDF/"the Kurds" that have shifted back and forth quite a bit as well. Those statements may be important and relevant when assessing international politics and the foreign relations of the region and of factions in Syria in general, but not when discussing whether forced displacement/ethnic cleansing has indeed taken place or not, and if so to what extent. It would seem that a majority of the editors participating in this discussion have agreed on this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) The AntonSamuel version is neurtal and WP:DUE we don't have create a WP:FALSEBALANCE --Shrike (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MfD nomination of Portal:Syrian Civil War

Portal:Syrian Civil War has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Syrian Civil War and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Syrian Civil War during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mis-cited Information in Intro Section

"Some of the criticism against the region has included opposition to conscription, and claims of authoritarianism, Kurdification, the imprisonment and harassment of dissidents and journalists, the promotion of a radical anti-capitalist ideology, and influence from the Kurdistan Workers' Party."

This final line in the intro section has 2 sources, yet nothing in these sources indicate anything about "the imprisonment and harassment of dissidents and journalists"; in fact, one of the 2 sources cited is an article from Rudaw (a highly partisan media company from Iraq), complaining about being banned from Rojava in response to several alleged smear campaigns and allegations of 'fake news' from the company. The other source doesn't discuss journalists at all, making this inclusion even more bizarre.

Overall, the portion of this line should be removed, unless I'm missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Oof (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Map of Treaty of Sevres

I have added a map of the Treaty of Sevres, but two users here have removed it, with the first user claiming it is not relevant here. If people here are claiming this is the western part of Kurdistan, and the map I inserted shows a proposed state of Kurdistan, then how is this not relevant here. It just seems some pro-Kurdish users here are cherry-picking and trying to hide any historical facts of the region they are claiming to be part of Kurdistan. This article has VERY SERIOUS credibility issues. If this persists, I will be reporting this and ask for arbitration. Your call. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The map of the Treaty of Sevres would be more fitting on the articles on Kurdish nationalism or the geographic region Kurdistan rather than on the article about a de-facto autonomous region in Syria. If we create a page on the geographic region Syrian Kurdistan, and reliable sources back up its significance, then it may also be included there. -Thespündragon 04:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, people are claiming this area to be part of Kurdistan. This map couldn't be more RELEVANT in this context. Well, at least if users here want to show both sides of the story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any sources describing the importance of the Treaty of Sevres to the Self-Administration of North and East Syria? The borders ascribed to the geographic region Kurdistan are relevant to an article on Kurdistan itself, not to an autonomous region that has some territory that is sometimes described as being part of Kurdistan. -Thespündragon 04:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Remember, the name of this article is rojava, which means in Kurdish western Kurdistan, as the introduction says, right? If this is western Kurdistan, then a map of original Kurdistan won't be relevant here, or you are just trying to hide facts? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Quit it with the bad faith accusations, how old are you? The article's title may be Rojava, but it is clearly articulated within the lede that this article is about the Autonomous Administration which is more often than not simply called Rojava by certain sources. No one, and I literally mean no one is claiming that this article nor the area shown in the article is a part of Kurdistan. The only person that thinks so is you. Either learn to be more objective about events and controversies or get off of Wikipedia, period. Sisuvia (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sisuvia: It seems you are still new around here. Why don't you start by educating yourself about the history of this page and related article to get some background, instead of personal attacks. You may want to start with Rojava#Polity_names_and_translations to see what I am referring to with the map? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: It really is ironic that you would attempt to lecture others and I on neutrality. For one, Rojava in Kurdish means "the West", and is used to refer to the Western Part of Kurdistan by Kurds, yes. However, as I have already explained in my previous input, this article might be named Rojava (which literally just means 'the West'), however, it is definitively explained in the lede that the article is specifically about the Autonomous Administration and not the region of 'Rojava' itself. The name, even if slightly erroneous, is not a necessarily a serious problem as the NES is also commonly referred to simply as Rojava, numerous "respected" news organisations have done this atleast once. Stating the facts, that is that you are acting in bad faith and accusing others of doing the same is not a personal attack. Despite living in Canada, you seem to lack proficiency in the English language. Now that, mate, is a personal attack. Sisuvia (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sisuvia: Hahaha, how funny! Since you are so eloquent in English, I suggest you check the spelling AND grammar of your comment right above. This is the last time I waste my time on you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I do pride myself on my proficiency in the English language. Given that, I am glad to say that the only (possible) mistakes in my previous post were the misplacing of commas. Unlike you, I actually paid attention in my English lessons classes as a child. I'm glad that you've chosen to only attack me in your post without even attempting to defend yourself. That just shows to the rest of the community that you are acting in bad faith with your edits and in accusing other Wikipedians of doing the same. You, my man, are pathetic. It is people like you who ought to be banned permanently from editing on Wikipedia. You should also consider reading Help:Talk pages#Replying to an existing thread as you seem to lack any idea as to how you're supposed to reply to an existing thread. Sisuvia (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Kurdish propaganda

This sentence is in the lead in the "Polity names and translations" section: "Much of northern Syria is considered to be Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎) or Rojava (/ˌroʊʒəˈvɑː/ ROH-zhə-VAH; Kurdish: [roʒɑˈvɑ] "the West")"

It doesn't say who is considering this, it also has an unreliable kurdish source.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, “much of northern Syria is considered to be Rojava” is downright false and the source is not credible. This needs to be removed immediately pending accurate and reliably sourced information. —Al Ameer (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The source is good. It is an academic book used in European universities. Maybe we could adapt the wording, because Rojava is really not so big to be called "Much of Northern Syria". But that there exists a Rojava we can't deny. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How is Hawarnews a good source? It is directly affiliated with SDF. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: In regards to your recent addition of reliability, neutrality and factual accuracy maintenance templates, all but one of them are rather redundant in my view as the article is at large quite well sourced. I am also unable to find any stated facts in the article that are currently being disputed. Your allegations of "Kurdish propaganda" (as far as I know) is in reference to the fact that it previously stated "Much of northern Syria is considered to be Western Kurdistan" which has since been altered to represent reality. I realise that numerous users have cited reliability concerns due to the use of articles originating from news agencies aligned to the Autonomous Administration, since that is the case I would support retaining only the reliability maintenance template. Sisuvia (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

All the tags belong as the entire article is written with largely unreliable Kurdish amateur and propaganda websites. The claim that "Parts of Northern Syria are known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎) or Rojava" is also false. No part of Syria has this name, its a very small minority view, it is not presented as such, it is also not presented as who has these minority views. And concerning the administration this article is about, "Rojava" is not even its name but the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Its an agenda being pushed throughout the article. All the tags belong. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: Look, I'm going to try my best at being patient with you. Parts of Northern Syria IS known as Western Kurdistan. That is an established fact accepted by virtually all academics. Just because no part of Syria has the name "Rojava" officially, does not mean that the term is false. What is considered Rojava Kurdistan has been part of modern-day Syria since before modern-day Syria was established as an entity either under the French or in the form of the Arab Kingdom of Syria under the Hashemites. You also contradict yourself by saying that the existence Rojava as a geographical region is only held by a minority view, whilst then going on to say that the minority does not hold that view. Which one is it? Do the minority hold that view? If that is the case, it needs to be stated, because despite the Kurdish people being a minority in Syria and neighbouring states, they are still a sizable percentage of the overall population, and thus their view of a Rojava Kurdistan existing within Northern Syria ought to be stated. Sisuvia (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Credibility about the geographical extent of this area

Another credibility concern here is the extent of this area. When SDF were advancing, everything they control would automatically be incorporated into this area. For those new to this discussion and topic (most I guess), please see how the so-called "rojava" map kept expanding from 2012, 2014, now (and so many more in between) and including 80-100% Arab areas like Azaz, Tell Abyad, al-Bab, Manbij, Deir Ez-Zor, Raqqa, in addition to almost all Arab towns in Al-Hasakah Governorate. Many Arab demonstrations have come out against SDF rule (military occupation) in those areas, showing that SDF control is no more than another war faction occupying these areas by force. A group of users have successfully kept reverting any attempt at fixing the neutrality and credibility aspects of this article. The Syrian army has redeployed in Manbij, Raqqa, Al-Hasakah, Ain-al-Arab/Kobani (information with reputable sources), among many other places, but users here refuse to take these out of the jurisdiction of AAONES. When I add a map showing the historical Kurdish presence in the area or the Treaty of Sevres map for Kurdistan, they get deleted for "irrelevance". How is this "irrelevant" when "rojava" is claimed to be "Western Kurdistan" (here and elsewhere), and I have an official international treaty map showing NO WESTERN KURDISTAN? BTW, if you don't know, this map is used by nationalist Kurds to push their Kurdistan requests. People in this Talk page say this article is not about Rojava one day, and change their opinion the following day. PYD/PKK websites and "news agencies" can do that, but not here on Wikipedia, well, at least if some credibility still exists. At this point, arbitration is needed for this article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing Kurdistan as a political entity/state and Kurdistan as the geo-cultural region where Kurds form a majority of the population. The area outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres (which, as you know, was never implemented and became obsolete with the Treaty of Lausanne 3 years later) map was the proposed area of a Kurdish political entity. It did not claim that Kurds only formed a majority in the outlined area. This argument is as absurd as pointing to this map and saying the red area is all of Kurdistan and Kurds in Turkey, Iran, and Syria either do not exist or are not part of Kurdistan.

The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria does not claim to be Rojava or Western Kurdistan. This is why I support a renaming and a change in the scope of this article. It's important to note that while the SAA has been deployed to these areas, they have not taken over their administrations; these areas are still politically-controlled by the AANES. Lightspecs (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The Syrian Army's deployment in parts of North and East Syria is due to the fact that the SDF and Syrian Government reached a deal for what is effectively joint-administration, with the SAA being deployed in order to defend those settlements from Turkish incursions whilst still being administered by the political wing of the SDF. Reasons have already been provided as to why users have reverted and undone attempts to remove said areas from being stated as administered by the SDF (which they still are). The Autonomous Administration is not claiming to the Rojava, not since they removed Rojava from their name nearly 3 years ago. Just because the article is named Rojava does not mean that the NES is claiming to be Western Kurdistan. I have already explained this prior, and I will not do it again. Here's a Wikipedia policy that you should probably acquaintance yourself with, WP:COMMONNAME. Using Google Hits results provided by Calthinus, North and East Syria (the proposed move) has only 34,700 hits, AANES (for Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) has only 14,800 hits, whereas Rojava has approximately 11,300,000 hits. It is Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognisable names and as it stands, Rojava is the single most recognisable name for the polity. You want to talk about credibility and how (apparently) Wikipedia has lost that? You can contribute to fixing that problem by following Wikipedia policies. Sisuvia (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Afrin region as a part of Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

Despite the passage of nearly two years since the administration lost control of this region (see Operation Olive Branch) the article still writes it as a part of the region. What is the reason for this? Placed dubious tags on Afrin citations. KasimMejia (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Afrin Region was not disbanded. It still operates in government-held areas north of Aleppo. Here you can read that the YPG was still present in Tell Rifaat which was formally part of Afrin Region's administration. Even Daily Sabah (a pro-Turkish source) wrote this: "The eastern part of Syria's Afrin region is comprised of two districts: Tel Rifaat, currently occupied by the terrorist group, and Azaz, which remains under the control of Syrian opposition forces." - They cannot mean the Afrin District (recognized by the Syrian gov), as it does not include Azaz NOR Tel Rifaat. The Afrin Region of the AANES, however, included parts of Azaz District AND Tel Rifaat District. Applodion (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Article not only talks about the region, it also cites Afrin town and regions other than Tal Rifaat under the control of TFSA as under the control of AANS. This is clearly false so why do you want to keep it that way? They held it once, now they don't. Maybe AANS won't even exist tomorrow and blend in to Syria. Will everything here be written as a historic semi-country then? As if writing about the Byzantine Empire. In the past tense. KasimMejia (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The stuff you flagged either talked about 1) past events, when Afrin town was still under PYD control or 2) events relating to the polity of "Afrin Region" which is not the same as Afrin town. The foundation of the AANES for example took place in late 2018, yet Afrin Region(!) was represented (despite Afrin town being under opposition/Turkish control). We have to talk about "Afrin Region" in the present tense as it still exists, whereas we refer to Afrin town as being under PYD control in the past. Applodion (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)