Wikipedia

Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 6

< Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Applodion in topic An 'Administration' is a 'region'? ……
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Recent edits made in the context of the Turkish Syria offensive

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

Tagging recent editors: @KasimMejia: @Corriebertus: @عمرو بن كلثوم: @Sisuvia: @Supreme Deliciousness: @Paradise Chronicle: @Lightspecs: @Applodion: @Semsûrî: @Thespoondragon: There have recently been a lot of edits made to the page in the context of the Turkish Syria offensive. While I think that there could be numerous improvements to the article in order to improve its neutrality and to ensure it's based on facts as much as possible - the article will not be improved by additions such as rephrasing sections to an "Appearance of Autonomy", or WP:UNDUE pushing of the opinions of individual politicians such as Erdogan, Assad, Trump and so on, as well as removing information about the functioning of the region's administration and organization that doesn't contain any opinionated elements solely because the sources used are relatively pro-YPG/SDF sources such as ANF, Rudaw or Hawar News. These edits do not help in balancing the article, but only adds non-neutral elements from "the other side" of the argument, leaving the article a mess. There have been many arguments about these issues on the talk page previously, and the standing WP:CON policy of Wikipedia stands - removing or heavily altering major chunks of basic information requires debate and consensus on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the recent changes worsened the article's quality, and appear to push certain agendas. See this edit. Information was removed as OR, even though it was cited to sources. In fact, to dispute the regions' existence is like disputing that the sky is blue. They exist/existed, period. Other changes I agree with, such as the removal of twitter/wordpress-cited information. I think that we should integrate more information from reliable books and scientific journals into the article. These tend to be less sensationalistic and biased than the average news piece. Applodion (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: Hello, KasimMejia. I feel that your recent edits did not improve the lede much, and were more akin to tag bombing everything, even if the additional references were added because users (including you) demanded more proof for certain claims. IMO, there were no excessive citations. Also, I do not understand the "third party" tag for Dicle News Agency. They support the AANES, but how are they a part of it? Anyway, Kurdistan24 is 100% independent from the AANES, so that was definietely not tagged correctly. I agree with warscapes possibly being dubious, though they appear to publish an official magazine. Anyway, to adress your concerns, I have added further academic references. Applodion (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want so many citations, just one "neutral" or "3rd party" should be enough. Also how do you know that dicle news and Kurdistan24 and not a part of Rojava? You already said that they supported it. We need more neutral sources, and must have them in sections that writes positive facts about the region, otherwise its self praising. KasimMejia (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want to apply the "third party" tag you have to prove that close connections exist. For example, Kurdistan24 is based in Iraq and has also been critical of the PYD; in addition, its reporters (such as Wilgenburg) are independent. Just because a news group supports someone does not mean that they cooperate with them; otherwise, most of western media would be currently under Kurdish control. In addition, it is wrong to assume that only "neutral" sources can be used for articles - in fact, propaganda outlets sometimes provide valuable information. Applodion (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
In fact, looking at the "Education, media, and culture" section, it seems like the used sources are mostly non-connected to the PYD and co. Hawar and ANF are associated with the PYD and PKK, but Kurdistan24, ARA News, Monitor, Middle East Eye, Syrian Observer, Rudaw, AINA, Yahoo, Enab Baladi, etc. are not. Applodion (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Applodion: Please replace the ((Third-party|date=October 2019)) tag at the top of the page. Issues with neutrality of the sources still exist throughout the page. And even more so at Education, media, and culture section. KasimMejia (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The tag at the top of the page was about factual accuracy. This is not an issue here, however, as the infos in this article are not per se incorrect (all of it is referenced). At worst, it is biased - and for that we have a separate tag. Again, I would like to ask you to refrain from tag bombing. How about you search for reliable sources yourself and add them? That would improve the article's quality much more than throwing tags around. Applodion (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Applodion: I'm not telling you to restore factual accuracy tag, I'm once again asking you to restore the ((Third-party|date=October 2019)) third party tag. So can you restore it? The article is written with non 3rd party sources and you have removed this template without addressing the issues. KasimMejia (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
? I did not remove a Third-party tag from the top of the article without adressing the issue. Where I removed it in the lede, I added more references... Applodion (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Applodion: How did you added more references when you removed it here without adding a single reference[1] and summary saying: "(incorrect tag. Most of the sources for this section are, in fact, not associated with the PYD & co)". They may not be associated with PYD & co but they are all Kurdish sources, hence non neutral towards a part of Kurdistan. Please restore it or explain how you believe they are neutral. KasimMejia (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: I was talking about the lede, not the lower section, as you were asking about the "top" of the article. In regard to the "Education, media, and culture" section, I have explained my reasoning above - simply put, just because a source is Kurdish (and ARA News, Monitor, Middle East Eye, Syrian Observer, AINA, Yahoo, Enab Baladi are not) does not mean it violates Third Party rules. The KNC is Kurdish, but it hates the PYD. Kurdish fighters are among the pro-Turkish forces. "Kurds" does not equal PYD & PKK. Applodion (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Applodion: Having one anti-PYD Kurdish source does not make all the Kurdish sources neutral against PYD. The sources in education section are Hawar, ANNA, ANF, New Compass, and a site called Kurdish Question. Are all non third party sources related to Kurdistan. You have removed the third party template saying they are neutral. Well I disagree. The sources are plain and simple Kurdish and are the majority of the sources in West Kurdistan article. I will wait for another reply for you, I hope you self revert and place the template back. KasimMejia (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: You do not understand what I am saying. 1st of all, most sources in this section are not connected to the PYD, and several are anti-PYD or at least ambiguous (Enab Baladi is anti-PYD, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, Monitor, Middle East Eye, and Syrian Observer are ambiguous). Therefore, there cannot be a large-scale Third Party-violation - because the third party tag warrants that the references are directly connected to the topic. This only applies in case of Hawar and ANF (New Compass, and Kurdish Question do not seem to have a connection to the PYD), and even their usage does not automatically equal any violation. 2nd: "sources related to Kurdistan" does not make any sense, because this article is not about Kurdistan. It is about a polity in Syria governed by the PYD. A source can be Kurdish and have nothing to do with the PYD - Kurdistan24 and Rudaw, for example, are Iraqi Kurdish news sites. They do not have any connection with the PYD. As result, their use does not violate third party rules. 3rd: This is NOT about neutrality, and I never claimed that these sources were neutral. I only said that they do not violate third party rules. (Third-party|date=October 2019)) is simply the wrong tag. We could flag the section for POV issues, but not for Third party issues. Applodion (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@Applodion: Template:Third-party states Article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. The sources in this article are in fact Kurdish and too closely associated with the subject, and not neutral, as the template states. Don't see what's hard to understand here. KasimMejia (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: Why do you insist that Kurdish = PYD? Why is it so difficult to understand that Kurdish sources do not per se violate third-party rules? Look, I will try to get some more sources, but your position is honestly problematic - You argue that all sources related to a whole ethnic group (!) are non-useable. That would be like claiming that we cannot cite Voice of America for any issue related to the United States because is is American. Can you see why this might be unrealistic? Applodion (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
No I can't, first of all this is not a PYD article, it is Rojava article, you yourself stated that this region is Kurdish 2 days ago and insisted that the Kurdish name Rojava remains as it is. Rojava is 1 of 4 countries where Kurds want a country. So I assume Kurds will not be neutral toward their own country and are not a third party source toward their own people, this is basic logic. And unlike Americans they don't have a country and will support the independence fight of their people. This discussion after your past response has turned into a circle. I won't reply after this because I believe you understand my argument. I will appreciate you placing the 3rd party back to the top, since the issues have not been resolved. KasimMejia (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@KasimMejia: What? Perhaps you didn't notice, but I have not voted in the discussion. I am neutral on the article's name. I have never, at no point, claimed that the region is Kurdish - because it isn't. It is polyethnic.
"Rojava is 1 of 4 countries where Kurds want a country" - This is disputed. Many locals do indeed want this, but the PYD-led administration does not. Many Kurds, such as those aligned with the opposition are completely opposed to independence. And Iraqi Kurds also have differing views on Syrian Kurdish independence. Lots and lots of Turkish Kurds supported Erdogan and are opposed to the Pyd & PKK. One has to remember that "the Kurds" are not one bloc, but many sub-groups with differing interests. As result, your logic is simply wrong - "Kurds will not be neutral toward their own country and are not a third party source" just does not match reality.
Anyway, I have begun adding more references. Feel free to add more yourself. Applodion (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I though you supported the name Rojava since you added a citation there yesterday[2], looks like I should've checked first before writing that. Nevertheless the article still has a lot of non 3rd party sources and the template should be placed. You seem to be well informed in Kurdish topics so I assume you can do a better job at it then me. The non 3rd party sources I'm referring to are at least ANF, ANHA and ANA. Those are basically official PYD PKK media. So unless those are taken out 3rd party template should be placed, as for Kurdistan24 I assume they'd have a bias towards another Kurdish semi state and not be neutral. Nevertheless the ANF ANHA ANA should be addressed no matter what. Or just install the template back. KasimMejia (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that too many pro-PYD & pro-PKK sources are used in the article, but I do not think that we have to replace them all. Many of them state mostly uncontroversial stuff such as information on the constitution and laws. As you might see, I have already added more sources to the section and will try to find more stuff to reduce any possible bias. Thereby, the section should become neutral enough. Applodion (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
When it comes the stuff like gender equality they shouldn't be used due to bias. As well as other information that tends to promote the semi state. In the education and media section those sources are extensively used, raising doubts on the truthfulness of having so much diversity, secularism and education. Heck makes it seems as if Rojava is comparable to Switzerland in terms of humans rights. Even in the lede these information are pushed at everyones face. Feel like the ideology that they promote is displayed as actually in effect. Similar to how communism claims to be an utopia in theory while its the worst dystopia in fact out there. They should be taken out the lede to promote neutrality. KasimMejia (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way: ARA is probably not connected to the PYD. It was partially based in the Netherlands, and was supported by the Dutch Free Press Unlimited group. Applodion (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the non-Kurdish sources here are unreliable. With my wee eye I spy Sputnik, a slick and internet-savvy outlet of Kremlin propaganda [3] and the "spawn point" of viral disinformation in certain recent Western elections and referendums from the US to Catalonia. Iraqi News doesn't even have veritable journalistic credentials. Middle East Eye is a mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood as per the analysts. As-Safir is a "Syrian government backed newspaper". Need I continue? If we are going to clean out dubious Kurdish sources, it would be rather unbalanced if we left any of these standing.--Calthinus (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The regions ideals placed in the lede.

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Diversity, secular polity, direct democratic ambitions, gender equality, environmental sustainability, pluralistic tolerance for religious, cultural and political diversity. All these ideals are placed into lede like they are in effect in the region raising doubts verifiability and neutrality. The region may in fact support these ideals, does that mean they are all in fact in effect? So much in effect that we write these all in the lede? I propose that these ideals are taken out of the lede and placed elsewhere in the article to make this article some what more neutral. The current lede makes Rojava appear more developed than say, Switzerland. Also remind you communism is also in theory a utopia where in reality it is the worst dystopia. KasimMejia (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The communism comparison is kind of rhetorical. We go by policy and RS on Wikipedia. Well, to be fair, this might fall slightly afoul of POV but as long as they are portrayed as ideals and not reality (unless RS back this -- they might, who knows) this is in line with our policies -- just as they would be for communism, in fact.--Calthinus (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not opposed to nor think its POV to display the ideals. Do however think that it's POV that these are all listed in the lede. What's your though? KasimMejia (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Probably more an issue of weight than being there at all, imo.--Calthinus (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Listing the autonomous administration's ideals in the lede is hardly a POV. It is clearly phrased as 'ideals' and not the absolute reality on the ground in areas controlled by the administration. Criticisms of authoritarianism and Kurdification which are presented alongside them pretty much balances it out, in my opinion. Sisuvia (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"It is clearly phrased as 'ideals'" It's not. KasimMejia (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"The supporters of the region argue that it is..." Honestly, it sound pretty clear to me. Applodion (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
^Seconded :) Sisuvia (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

While I think the segment is relatively balanced and clear in specifying that the positive aspects of the regions are what its supporters believe as well as ambitions, it may benefit from some slight rephrasing and I wouldn't necessarily think that moving the entire segment (both praise from supporters/positive aspectts and criticism) to the Politics section would be problematic. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago64 comments25 people in discussion
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I'm not sure why this RM was relisted, as there is sufficient participation here thus far. That isn't the issue. The issue is that consensus among participants has failed to emerge, and that does not seem likely to change by relisting. As for the arguments: both sides invoked either COMMONNAME or the number of Google hits into the crux of their arguments, often. Which is all well and good, but that internal contradiction was, in the end, left unresolved. Other, more opinion-based exclamations which did not seem to be grounded in policy were generally discounted. No, not all arguments were weighed equally in this closure. Perhaps there is a compromise to be had here per Rob984, for example, although I admit to not fully grasping their proposal. I note that I do see several editors who I am well aware are highly knowledgeable about this part of the world and its history positioned opposite to one another — on a personal note, I found that most confusing. Finally, canvassing was factored into (was a factor in) this evaluation. El_C 04:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


Rojava → North and East Syria – Propose move from Rojava to North and East Syria, due to concerns that the name "Rojava" doesn't properly reflect the non-Kurdish inhabitants of the region. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's the reason why the government no longer calls itself Rojava (I believe as early as 2015), since they've dropped Kurdish nationalism. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I would move it to "Northeastern Syria" or "East of Euphrates". The entire part of northern Syria to the west of Euphrates is not under SDF control, therefore "North" is not exactly correct. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It's just the shorten form of the official title "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
There are no "kurdish areas" in Syria, they are Kurdish-occupied. Also, Kurds in Syria article already exists.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Not sure what information is being brought forward that wasn't considered in the last move. This article is about Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan), as its administration and the region are synonymous. What is the benefit of forking "Rojava" from "North and East Syria" as proposed above? What sections would be included/excluded from the split? czar 00:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    It's not a Kurdish administration though. That's why the administration officially dropped "Rojava" from its title in December 2016. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    Geographically, Syrian Kurdistan and the territory controlled by the Aut. Administration are entirely different. Syrian Kurdistan, a map of which can be seen here, only refers to the far northern regions where there are significant Kurdish populations. However, the territory controlled by the Syrian Democratic Council, seen here in green, does not line up with the territory known as Syrian Kurdistan. Adding in the Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch zones occupied by Turkey, which are considered by the SDC righfully part of their administration, Syrian Kurdistan only covers the regions of Afrin, Manbij, Euphrates-Kobane, and Gozarto-Jazira. So geographically the terminology does not align. The terminology also does not align based on demographics, while no census has been conducted on the region as a whole, a survey of its military, the Syrian Democratic Forces, estimated that the SDF was 50-70% Arab, and within the survey ~69% of correspondents were Arabs. Compare this to the approximated 30-50% of Kurds and 17% of correspondents being Kurdish. (see survey here). -Thespündragon 04:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Demographics are irrelevant. Rojava is the correct name in English. Google makes this very obvious [4] -- for Rojava; which is much more common than "North and East Syria" [5] let alone that word soup Autonomous Admini... WP:COMMONNAME is not optional.--Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move. Rojava is a reference to Kurdistan and this entity expanded way beyond the Kurdish inhabited regions, hence, the scope of theis article is way bigger than the three Kurdish inhabited regions.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move I support the move, however, I feel that either the prefixes of 'Autonomous Administration of' or 'Administration of' North and East Syria should be included in the name as it is de facto a distinct political entity separated from the "rest" of Syria. Naming the article sans a prefix would just cause confusion, from my point of view. Sisuvia (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose move Given the recent input by other Wikipedians which shows that Rojava overwhelmingly outnumbers other names, including the official Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria for the de facto autonomous government, and WP:COMMONNAME, I now oppose the proposed move. Sisuvia (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose' The adminstation's name and other geographical terms aren't recognisable and unambigious. Media and such refer to 'Rojova' . Previously I've suggested a split between the long-standing Kurdish-majority region of Rojova and the current much larger administrative territory. I still see this as the best solution but I don't think 'Rojova' becomming a redirect is fesible as a first step, since this could allow for the removal of information of the well-established Kurdish region. We dont even know if 'North and East Syria' will be an accurate description in a few months. Turkey plans on taking practically all of the Kurdish-majority areas, which means long standing 'Rojova' will not even be under its current admnstration, but rather TFSA/'Syrian Interim Government'. Rob984 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move Which credible media organizations refer to practically the entire northeastern quadrant (and beyond) of Syria as Rojava? Rudaw and Democracy Now!? Even organizations that typically refer to the much smaller, majority-Kurdish-inhabited northeastern corner of Syria (around Qamishli and perhaps the Kobane/Ayn al-Arab enclave) are certainly not of the caliber of credible media organizations such as the BBC, CNN, AP, Al Jazeera, NY Times, etc. It's very much a polemical term that means, in effect, "western Kurdistan" and the scope of this article is not limited to that particular geographical space. Furthermore, the unrecognized, semi-autonomous administration that currently controls this wide region do not refer to it as Rojava. What's making us cling on to this name then? Al Ameer (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move A few years ago the correct name would have been "Rojava" - that is, however, not the case today. HistoryofIran (talk)
When was the correct name for northeast Syria "Rojava" ? Who recognized this as the official name for the region? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The de facto autonomous administration officially referred to itself as "Rojava" from March to December 2016. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
They officaly call themselves Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, not "Rojava". So Rojava is indeed a fake name.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose move -- It doesn't matter what it calls itself. In the English language, the name Rojava has been established, and it has stuck [6]. The nauseating word soup of "Autonomous Administration of (take a breath) North and East Syria" is about one thousandth as commonly used -- as google reveals [7]. As for "North and East Syria" this is semiotically problematic as much of North Syria and much of East Syria are not included; furthermore, this too is dwarfed by "Rojava" in English language usage [8]. Our policies i.e. WP:COMMONNAME are clear -- we must use Rojava. Our job is not to change the English language --Calthinus (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record here, these links point to opinion pieces (such as an NY Times opinion piece) or websites and news sites that are not really mainstream (Green Left Weekly, Democracy Now!, Rudaw, Socialist Alliance, The Canary, Slate, Jacobin Magazine, etc.) so the claim that Rojava is the term commonly used in the English language is a bit misleading. The NY Times generally does not refer to "Rojava", nor does CNN, the BBC, WPost, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, the AP, AFP, or other mass English-language media that are relatively neutral on this subject. Nor does the self-declared autonomous administration in this area call itself Rojava, so what am I missing? Al Ameer (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move The term "North East Syria" or NE Syria is used by the UN, US, EU, the mainstream Western media and the administration on the ground itself to refer to the region. So despite any problematic aspects regarding the current conflict and chaos within the region - I would support this move. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

GHits Google hit results provided by Calthinus (search language: English, Wikipedia filtered out, etc -- North and East Syria -- 34,700 hits [[9]]; Rojava -- 11,300,000 hits [[10]]; AANES [11] only 14,800. --Calthinus (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Google books results: Rojava 10,300 results [[12]], North and East Syria only 625. --Calthinus (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The official name used by the kurdish administration is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", the person that started this RfC wanted it to fail.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want it to fail, what sort of accusation is that? Please refer to the fact that NES is the official abbreviation and we have articles such as Symbols of North and East Syria. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 11:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
1: Please refrain from making accusations about people, it seems evident that Nice4What made the proposal in good faith.
2: North and East Syria, or the alternative translation Northern and Eastern Syria, is in use by pro-SDF/C media as a short-form name for the territories under the Administration's control. Here are some examples of this usage: Hawar News Agency ([13], [14], [15]) Firat News Agency ([16], [17], [18], [19]). -Thespündragon 14:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, I feel that the person that started this RfC did it in a bad way so that it wouldn't be moved, he himself opposes the move and suggest a move to "North and East Syria", this article is about the political administration, so instead it should be discussed if it should be moved to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I am fine to go by the number of google hits. This gives "Northeastern Syria" 30,700,000 hits here, three times your rojava hits. Let's prove that we are not cherry picking.

Here are some quick examples of MAINSTREAM media outlets (not ARA News, Rudaw, Hawar, etc.) currently adopting the name "Northeastern Syria":

  • CNN: [20]
  • Washington Post: [21]
  • New York Times: [22]
  • Business Insider: [23]
  • Al-Jazeera English [24]
  • Wall Street Journal [25]
  • Financial Times [26] (used Northeast Syria)
  • The Telegraph: [27] (used Northeast Syria)
  • PBS: [28]
  • France24: [29]
  • BBC: [30] (used Northeast Syria)
  • LA Times [31]
  • CBC: [32]

I can keep going with the list. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, you managed to find a single usage by some sources. Google has already revealed the overall pattern. --Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Support move, Rojava means "West" in Kurdish. Isn't this area to be supporsed north of Syria? It is. Beshogur (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS Beshogur was canvassed here by Amr ibn Kulthoum, who notified [[33]] him and KasimMejia. [[34]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems you didn't read the WP:Canvas policy. Here is an Excerp fron WP:Canvass:

" On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

  • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
  • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
  • Editors known for expertise in the field
  • Editors who have asked to be kept informed".

Back to our topic now, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)•

Nope, WP:VOTESTACK under WP:CANVAS : Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion ... Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.. KasimMejia and Beshogur have already demonstrated aversion to the term Rojava on other talk pages, so their viewpoints are not mysterious -- for example here we have Beshogur arguing in favor of the Turkish gov't terminology, "Operation Peace Spring", in a move discussion you were also present in. But it's curious. Why did you notify these two editors, and not others who participated, like BobNesh, Jtbobwaysf, etc? Therefore it falls under WP:VOTESTACK, which mandates Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances.. --Calthinus (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Support move Since the Operation Peace Spring began the areas under this regions control is about %80 Arab and %20 Kurdish yet we are calling it a Kurdish name? I find this racist towards the local Arabs. Also Rojava is the non official name of the region so why is it included in the first place? KasimMejia (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Because of kurdish propaganda and pov pushers with an agenda.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS KasimMejia was canvassed here by Amr ibn Kulthoum, who notified [[35]] him and Beshogur. [[36]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps the best option would be not to use either official names such as AANES or contentious titles such as "Rojava", but instead turn to titles employed by academics? "Democratic Autonomous Administration" is a name used by some experts, such as Allsopp & van Wilgenburg and the Omran Center in an attempt to stay neutral and objective. Applodion (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I think this would be a step towards improving the credibility and neutrality of this page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Applodion Google info on academic usage. "Rojava -Wikipedia" : has 1810 results. '"North and East Syria" -Wikipedia' : has a miniscule yield of 25 results. AANES returns results based on the surname Aanes even when we had Syria to the search we cannot find the acronym. "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", a hilariously miniscule 8 results [37]. What news media, what common people, and what academia all use is incredibly clear.--Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I am fully aware that the other names are much more common, even in academic circles (note that I said "some experts"). My proposal was simply an attempt to offer a possible alternative. :-) Applodion (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a fair point but given the discrepancy I'm not even sure that the alternatives would be recognized as the same entity. --Calthinus (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Applodion (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
To go by user Calthinus I have run Google Scholar for academic usage. "Northeastern Syria -Wikipedia" : has 2580 results.
  • To compare apples to apples, I only included results for '"Northeastern Syria" -Wikipedia' since 2011, when the word rojava appeared: [38] since 2011 = 1350 results.
  • "North eastern Syria - Wikipedia"' [39] since 2011 = 631.
  • "Northeast Syria - Wikipedia"' [40] since 2011 = 828.
  • "North east Syria - Wikipedia"' [41] since 2011 = 316.
    • Obviously putting the results from the above (since 2011) together (as they are simply variations of the same name) we get 3125 results, way exceeding academic hits for rojava (1810). Northeastern Syria is obviously the name we should be adopting for this article. We can add the pre-fix "Administration of" to that too. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
.... and most of these do not refer to the political entity Rojava (i.e. that administered by the AANES), but simply to a part of Syria. I.e., totally irrelevant to our conversation. --Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Calthinus there is no political entity called "Rojava". It is "North Syria"[42] (not even the eastern of Syria is part of Rojava). You are totally unaware of this.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You know what? You are totally missing the point on this page subject and move request. The rojava you are talking about existed back in 2012-2014 with the territory that you can see here. Since then, things have changed quite a bit, resulting in the administration dropping the name rojava and adopting AAONES. I understand that most users here get this, but since you're a new comer to this page you seem to miss it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@عمرو بن كلثوم: || If you must know, @Calthinus: has been editing pages related to Syria and the Syrian civil war since at least 2012. So you might want to retract that statement. Anyways, it would seem that despite innumerable back-and-forth 'discussions' here on the talk page, you are the one that is totally missing the point. Yes, Rojava as the official name for the de facto autonomous polity located in North and Eastern Syria is no longer used by that polity itself. However, that name has since been set in stone, in the sense that it is now ubiquitous and widely used by a great many people to refer to that polity, including both academics to commoners. Following Wikipedia policy which has been linked to you twice prior, we have to use Rojava as the name for this article. Sisuvia (talk)
  • Support move, I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum. The name Rojava is not used anymore since 28 December, 2016[43] and its borders are totally different so the argument about google hits doesn't make any sense. It is like arguing that google shows more results to "Republic of Macedonia" than "Republic of North Macedonia" further more the term Rojava refers to a region with totally different borders. Examining reliable sources:
The United Nations in its recent reports about the current crisis use the term "north east Syria"!.[44][45][46][47]
As well as, save the children [48]
The Guardian [49][50] use the term "north-eastern Syria" and "north-east Syria".
CNBC In its call for mobilization, the local Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria,
Middle East Eye: Berivan Xalid, the co-chair of the executive council of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria
BBC: A US pullout from north-east Syria has set Turkish and Kurdish fighters ...
Financial Times Turkish ground troops have stepped up their offensive against Kurdish forces in north-eastern Syria...
New York Post The local Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria
Haaretz in its live updates about the current crisis use the term northeastern Syria 23 times.
Associated Press ... without electricity or in open fields in Kurdish-run areas around northeast Syria.
I can bring much more sources for this but I think these are enough. The question is why do we have an article called Rojava conflict. I am unable to figure out why is it called Rojava when all reliable sources refers to the region as North East Syria? I watch news everyday, I have never heard of Rojava; hence, I don't even know how to pronounce it.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The subject of the article is not Rojava and reliable sources as I presented above use"North East Syria" when talking about the subject of this article. Further more, the name Rojava is no longer used to refer to "Northern Syria" Rojava is now called "Northern Syria"[51] and both are not the subject of this article that includes Eastern Syria. The subject of this article is Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC) 
Ironically this is proving my point. Many of the sources you and Amr are using are not actually referring to the same entity as Rojava. Northeast Syria simply refers to the northeast of Syria -- whether or not the area is currently or was ever part of Rojava.
Most of Amr's results actually have nothing to do with Rojava. Result number one of his triumphantly proclaimed 2500 results list is... a 2010 (Rojava did not exist then) paper on "urbanism and cultural landscapes". Result number two: a 1997 paper on archaeoecology on the northeast of Syria. Number 3 -- on petroleum on the northeast of Syria and Iraq, again cannot be about Rojava since it is from 1974.
Actually, the overwhelming majority of the sources of his result list have nothing to do with the entity of Rojava -- and you actually have to put effort into finding anything even remotely related to Rojava in that list, which he disingenuously presented as representing usage referring to the same entity as Rojava.
His other strategy, which you have replicated, is finding single instances where media has used "northeastern Syria" or some variant thereof -- however this is also disingenuous for two reasons. The first is that it obfuscates the overall trend, which I already demonstrated with Google results. The second-- many of these, too, do not necessarily refer to Rojava. Kurdish/Rojavan forces have clashed with Syrian or Turkish or Turkish allied forces in regions that have never been under the jurisdiction of Rojava.
Lastly, the argument that "the government calls itself this so we should too" does not hold water. This is not what we do on Wikipedia. The Czech Republic's government would like us to call it Czechia. After many long fights over the issue, Wikipedia returned to its policy -- WP:COMMONNAME, which mandates the use of the Czech Republic, regardless of what its government would like. --Calthinus (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, The name Rojava is a widely used and is a common name not only in English but also in Kurdish and Arabic. Except for some hardliners in parts of Turkey and Iran, it is used by people and media all over the world. There are tonnes of examples online, which are coming from different political backgrounds: Aljazeera, BBC, CBC, Fox and so on. Plus, the proposed name is quite vague and can cause confusion. It is like referring to a region like New England as North East US! So, I am afraid it is against the Wikipedia's policy on article names. Pirehelo (talk) 04:48, 23 October 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.

Non 3rd party sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

@Applodion: There needs to be consensus to take a tag out rather than a consensus to place it. You cannot deny the issues, say there is no consensus and take a maintenance template out that is supposed to address the issues. Your diff: [52] KasimMejia (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@KasimMejia: Look, we discussed this extensively above, and both myself as well as Calthinus were critical of your view on the matter. The tag requires that the article "may rely excessively" on non-third-party sources. "excessively" is important. I would disagree that the use of Hawar/ANHA and ANF is excessive or used for especially contentious stuff; mostly they are used for election results, and info on laws and official statements. Note that I did NOT remove the "listed sources may not be reliable" tag. Improvements have to be made, but to flag the entire article as third-party-rule violating is excessive. Applodion (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I do understand your concerns. I have said myself that too many pro-PYD sources are probably used as well as other fringe references, as Calthinus pointed out. To improve these references takes time (and I only have so much), but I do not think that the article is in such horrible shape as to warrant the third party tag. Perhaps you could also look for more reliable sources to add to the article? Applodion (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The article is still far from neutral. We still have not agreed on the name for the article. The tags need to stay there. I will try to contribute next week. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Manbij status

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

According to the new Turkey/Russia and Syria/SDF/Russia agreements, Manbij has been fully restored under Syrian government control. See this map from RT indicating this. Sorry I couldn't find the same map on English. This warrants updating the control status of the city/area and removing this area from SDF/AAONES jurisdiction. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Just found the map in Russian from Newsweek. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Original research for name applied to 30% of Syria

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

@El C: No one refers to this area (~30% of Syria area) as rojava. Users claiming this are simply pushing POV or doing original research. They are simply being more loyal than the king, as even Kurdish nationalist parties do not call this huge area rojava. See the difference between "rojava" as claimed by PYD and current territory under SDF control, which is the subject of this article. Here are some quick examples of serious, MAINSTREAM media outlets (not ARA News, Rudaw, Hawar, etc.) currently adopting the name "Northeastern Syria":

  • CNN: [53]
  • Washington Post: [54]
  • New York Times: [55]
  • Business Insider: [56]
  • Al-Jazeera English [57]
  • Wall Street Journal [58]
  • Financial Times [59] (used Northeast Syria)
  • The Telegraph: [60] (used Northeast Syria)
  • PBS: [61]
  • France24: [62]
  • BBC: [63] (used Northeast Syria)
  • LA Times [64]
  • CBC: [65]

User @SharabSalam: provided more examples. If they happen to use rojava, that would be the exception. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You cannot launch another move request right after the last one closed. El_C 03:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The move request has already been defeated and your points demolished. Quit it. Sisuvia (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Amr ibn Kulthoum, respectfully, there have been three move discussions this year (all but one you've been involved in), all of which stemmed from the fact that the polity now refers to itself as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. The result of all three discussions is twofold: 1) there is no consensus to move the page to either the long-form AANES name or the short-form NES name and 2) the consensus is that "Rojava" is still the WP:COMMONNAME according to reliable secondary sources. It can take some time for the common name to change. While some moves such as Republic of Macedonia -> North Macedonia were very speedy due to how reliable sources immediately started using the new name, other moves such as Astana -> Nursultan were a little slower, Swaziland -> Eswatini much slower, and Czech Republic -> Czechia never happened at all. The most recent discussion here just closed with a consensus not to move to the NES name. Please do not cast aspersions or assume bad faith by declaring that editors that disagreed with you are POV-pushers. The results of the three move discussions were produced through policy-based arguments, not through editors "being more loyal than the king." I would not recommend that you start the exact same discussion again with the same proposed name this quickly; even though you are not alone in believing that the current title isn't ideal, it's better to come up with a new proposal if the last one couldn't get a consensus. Proposing the same thing immediately after a discussion closed with a consensus against said proposal doesn't look good, especially when considering that you (whether intentionally or not) engaged in canvassing during that discussion. In other words, please don't WP:REHASH and please don't accuse others of malice. Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 07:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Correcting the article's lead sentence

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Western (books and) news media tend to present Rojava as "de facto/semi-autonomous"—though most of them seem to have been either written before the recent Turkish invasion or to present that autonomy as something that existed in the past. Anyway, we should beware, not to present any Western view on a political (controversial) issue as absolute truth. Do or did powers like Assad, Erdogan, Putin, China(Xi Jinping), ever agree to that notion of 'de facto autonomy' of Rojava? As long as we apparently have no knowledge within Wikipedia of their views on Rojava, I presume it appropriate to expressly present that 'de facto autonomy' as merely a (Kurdish and) Western view, in the lead section of our article. Anyway, while our article is not about an administration but about a region, I've removed the previous lead sentence as off-topic, replacing it with an on-topic statement – leading logically to some grammatical adjustments in the rest of the lead section. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your change as the words purportedly just don't really fit here and there are multiple sources talking about the "de-facto autonomy" and we have a whole section explaining it. BeŻet (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You're not really reacting on my arguments. I don't deny there are sources saying 'de facto autonomous' -- in fact I've myself (re-)inserted four such sources. My argument is that those sources are exclusively Western or Kurdish -- hence 'purportedly', for arguments given above. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Rojava's autonomy is not something subject to Western, Eastern, Southern or Northern viewpoints. It is a de facto autonomous region and fits the criterion for it to be stated as such. "is a subdivision or dependent territory of a country that has a degree of self-governance, or autonomy, from an external authority.", per the autonomous administrative division Wikipage. Granted, I do not oppose the current wording which includes sources that refer to the region as both semi-autonomous and de facto autonomous. The official name for the polity per the polity itself is "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", not "North and East Syria". The name within the infobox should be reverted. You also didn't bother to change the translations of that name in Kurdish, Arabic, Syriac and Turkish. The name of the region and polity in the lede should also be altered. "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also called North and East Syria or Rojava," would simply make more sense in my view. The sub-regions of the region are also not "allegedly" self-governing. They are self-governing and none of the three sources state otherwise, if I am not mistaken. No, the region did not gain it's "alleged" de facto autonomy, they did gain its de facto autonomy. Likewise, the de facto autonomous region is not purportedly autonomous, it is autonomous. Sisuvia (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that are your opinions. (Unfortunately,) Wikipedia articles are based only on so-called reliable sources, which don't include Wiki editors-as-person. The point of my edit was, that the sources saying 'de facto autonomous' are all either Western or Kurdish, hence 'purportedly' for the further arguments I've given above, 13:28. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, your changes go against reliable sources. This was discussed numerous times, and your additions are, even if you claim otherwise, OR. Numerous reliable scholars and journalists from all around the world describe the region as autonomous. Applodion (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense: my rewritten lead is fully based on given ref sources, not OR. I'm saying now for the fourth time, that I agree that many scholars etc. call it autonomous, my only point is that they so far are all Western or Kurdish, which leads to the 'purportedly' for the further arguments I've given above, 13:28, which as yet no one has addressed nor retorted. By the way, how autonomous can you be with Russian, Turkish, Syrian tanks in your streets? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Aha. So by your logic, only your hand-picked sources can be trusted on matters in regards to Syria? What kind of reasoning is that? In addition, the cited sources describe this polity as proto-state and autonomous region, so how is your "rewritten lead [...] fully based on given ref sources"? You even added the sentence "In October 2019, Turkey invaded the region, which made both the present and the future status of the region uncertain" which was correctly flagged as complete OR. Applodion (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
And by the way, you broke 1RR. Applodion (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Sue me, then--this remark of yours is fully out of line in this Talk section. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The only opinions I articulated are as to how the lede should be written in regards to the region's name. The fact that both the region and its sub-regions are de facto autonomous and self-governing is . . . fact. Simply because sources are of Western origin, assuming you mean based in the 'West', does not discredit them. Outright bias towards a single side discredits them. Not being reliable discredits them. Using supposedly, allegedly and purportedly when stating that the region is indeed autonomous and self-governing is simply nonsensical. Either it is or it isn't, as simple as that. Sisuvia (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't discredit any source. 'De facto autonomous' is a fact according to Western/Kurdish sources, which is exactly what my rewritten lead says and respects. (And 'de facto' is also a fact according to you, which unfortunately does not matter much for the article, see above.) By the way, how autonomous can you be with Russian, Turkish, Syrian tanks in your streets? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Considering that Abkhazia exists, one can be a fully functioning state even though one is under de facto occupation/protection. The military presence of another country does not neccessarily impact the ability of a polity to function. Applodion (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Good to know that you don't discredit any sources yourself. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that statement was considering my previous post had nothing to do with your answer. On the contrary, the de facto autonomy of the Autonomous Administration is not a fact according to me, it's according to reliable secondary sources that pertain to the subject matter. The fact that Russian, Turkish and Syrian tanks are within the borders of the Autonomous Administration does not diminish nor invalidate its autonomy. That is absolutely nonsensical. Sisuvia (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

An 'Administration' is a 'region'? ……

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I can't believe I'm reading this (as lead sentence): "The .. Administration … is a … region". Wikipedia wants me to believe that an 'Administration' is a 'region'? Do we really want Wikipedia to tell the world that a region is equivalent to the group or organisation (government, Administration) that is governing it? Or that a region exists that has confusingly been named an "Administration"? And by whom may it purportedly have been named like that, by serious books (Allsopp&vW 2019, Zabad 2017) published in "New York City" etc.!? I'm sure a lot of strange things happen in NY City, but I'm not yet prepared to believe serious books have been published there saying that an 'Administration is a region'. Can the editor(s) responsible for this very improbable statement – lately editor BeŻet – give an exact citation as corroboration? "Administration … is a … region" is about as weird as saying: "The Macron Administration is a country in western Europe", "the Xi Administration is a country in Asia". --Corriebertus (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If a country is named "Adiministration", then yes, it would be called so on Wikipedia. See Commandery (China) as example. Applodion (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Allsopp & Wilgenburg state on page 89: "The system which, in this book, is commonly referred to as the DAAs – and was declared in January 2014 - has been referred to by the PYD as the 'Interim Transitional Administration' (in 2013) and as the Democratic Self-Rule Administration-Rojava. The areas under its governance have been called 'Western Kurdistan', 'the Autonomous Regions', 'Rojava', Federal Northern Syria, [...] In September 2018 the form of governance reverted to self-administration when a Self-Administration in Northern and Eastern Syria was formed [...]"; they clearly state that the "areas" are called by the various "official" names of the administration + various nicknames. Anyway, as I said above, what matters here is the official name of a polity, not whether the name makes any sense. A country can be called "democratic republic" even if it is a quasi-monarchic dictatorship (see North Korea). This aljazeera article directly states " the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava". Applodion (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria/Archive_6&oldid=966972807"