Talk:Human rights in the AANES/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Making the "Human rights in Rojava" article quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

This article looks like a propaganda written article by YPG. While the original version was meant to talk about the atrocities and ethnic cleansing committed by YPG, now that section with the intensivie editing of user 2A1ZA has shrinked to a very small section at the very bottom. This article needs to be completely rewritten or deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about "Human rights in Rojava", not about blackwashing or whitewashing any particular party or institution. It is absurd to demand deleting an article because it does not suit a particular agenda. If you have concrete suggestions how to improve the article, please name them or do it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If there is no other argument against the neutrality of the article other than "I wanted this to be an article dedicated to blackwashing the YPG, and this is not what it is now", then in my humble opinion this "neutrality disputed" flag is simply abuse und should be removed without further discussion. By the way, the People's Protection Units (YPG) have an article of their own, if you think there should be more elaboration concerning that institution. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As there still has not a single substantial argument been brought for that "neutrality flag" after a week, I remove it now as abusive. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Terminology: "has", "reportedly has", "allegedly has"

There appears some confusion with at least one editor as to when describe a human rights violating event as having happened, as having "reportedly" happened, or as having "allegedly" happened. So let me just clarify the obvious:

If an event is either published by the perpetrators themselves (e.g. ISIL), or established in an inpartial and credible formal procedure (e.g. UN institutions), or not contested to have happened by the suggested perpetrators, it can be reported as having happened.

If it is strongly denied that an event has happened as suggested by the suggested perpetrators, and the evidence available is not highly conclusive, it has "allegedly" happened.

In between is "reportedly" happened. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification (since you are our authority).

Most of the things attributed to the opposition are not published or confirmed by the alleged perpetrators. They are only accusations by Kurdish militias. For you, those terrorists do no crimes ! even when we have satellite images of destroyed villages which came to be destroyed after being occupied by YPG, you still insist its an allegation cause a YPG terrorist officer deny them.

You always "neutralize" things by making them allegations against YPG and real events against its opponents.

The crimes attributed to the opposition are no more of facts than the crimes attributed to YPG. same standard.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop these personal attacks on other editors, they are boring. I am working on a NPOV article, where the same criteria apply to every faction. Please argue on substance in the talk page in this spirit. And in concrete, when Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki or the Sultan Murad Division proudly publish documentation of war crimes they committed, this must be presented in a different way as when allegations against the YPG are strongly denied by them, with inconclusive evidence. And no, satellite images demonstrating that a certain village suffered much destruction between 2014 and 2015 is not conclusive evidence that the YPG committed war crimes there. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion about the satellite images, however, UN disagree with you and with YPG that they are not enough. The village became destroyed only after the YPG terrorists occupied it.

Nazis denied the holocaust, but its no allegation that they did it. Proofs for YPG crimes are more than enough for it to not be an allegation, yet your NPOV editing style seems to always portray those crimes as allegation, not once in your mind did the YPG committed anything ferakp.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Those satellite images were in an Amnesty International report of 2015, and the issue is elaborated in the article at length. And nobody ever even alleged that the YPG would have killed the inhabitants of that village. It is highly contentious how the destruction of those houses came about. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no one said that the people of the village were killed, but the village was leveled up and its not an allegation that it happened while YPG controlled it. For you, on the other hand, its always an allegation. This village was destroyed as part of the YPG expelling policy to kurdify the land.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "YPG expelling policy", and no serious source ever claimed such a thing. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Serious !!! you consider Rodauw and Aranews to be serious, but so are al-jazeera and al-arabeya and they both talked about those crimes. Most importantly, there are the people filmed crying about the destruction of their homes that you give zero shit about (since you are so NPOV).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the media you mentioned, I do not consider Rudaw an unbiased source, it is strongly affiliated with the Iraqi Kurdistan Barzani government, just like Al-Jazeera is strongly affiliated with the Al-Thain government of Qatar. I try to avoid both where ever I can. However, ARA news is a professional source working with journalistic standards, and Al-Arabyia is at least trying to be. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Territorial scope of "Rojava" for the purposes of this article

There appears to be some confusion with at least on editor concerning the territorial scope of "Rojava" for the purposes of this article.

As "Rojava" is not a territory with formally defined borders, this article just as aby other article on Wikipedia dealing with "Rojava", simply uses the territory claimed to be "Rojava" by the de facto institutions of that de facto federation. There is a map in "official" use by those institutions, well publicised inter alia in all the representative offices of the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava abroad, and what is "Rojava" in that map is within the scope of this article. Any other territorial definition would be nakedly POV. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Really ? ISIL is claiming the whole moslim world and on its maps, they control areas not under their actual control and never were. Does it mean that what happens in those non-ISIL areas concern ISIL?.

According to a map by those hallucinating dreamers, even part of the Syrian coast is part of their "rojava", are you gonna start writing about what happens in Kessab because the mighty rojava empire claim it ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As to our case at hand, the blatant war crime which the Sultan Murad Division committed in Jarabulus (and proudly published pictures of it themselves), it happened in a territory which is officially claimed by Rojava institutions, the victims were official armed forces of Rojava institutions, and it is celebrated by its perpetrators as being directed against Rojava institutions. It is plain absurd and obviously POV to wish to delete that information from the article. Please abstain from such behavior, or we will have to seek protection of the article against your edits. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what we will seek to protect is wikipedia against a sockpuppet (that is you). You are an internet warrior with heavy pro- YPG POV. You are Ferakp, and you are that IP blocked a long time ago who claimed to be a german and said that he wont allow Halabja to happen again. You always whitewash YPG, so its you who should be isolated from those articles.

Again, Jarablus and Kessab are being claimed by the rojava empire, it doesnt mean they are part of it. those violations against YPG militia happened in Syria not in rojava and they belong in the syria civil war violations article, not here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to correct your territorial claim, the "official" map of Rojava, which you correctly linked as far as I can see, does not include any part of "the Syrian coast". (Edit, clarification: The town of Kessab is not claimed to be part of Rojava on that "official" map.)

And please stop these absurd "sockpuppet" allegations against anyone who disagrees with you, that kind of behavior violates Wikipedia rules of conduct as well. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OH yeah, you are right, weird, they always had the dream of reaching the sea. Again, they cant have a legal claim to anything any more than ISIL can. their map include Nubul, Al-zahraa, Haritan, Hayan...etc This doesnt mean you will write about violations in those places.

As for suckpuppet, I already have my evidence, you can see it in my sandbox. Im just not willing to throw you out wikipedia, cant you realize that I just want you to stop being such a militant guy ! I just need to find that funny note from your IP when you said that you wont allow halabja to happen again and my case will be complete.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not know or care who "had the dream of reaching the sea", but the "official" map of Rojava territory by Rojava institutions does not include any coastline, and for the purposes of our issue at hand, dreams by whom ever are irrelevant.

Next time you make one of those absurd "sockpuppet" allegations made up by you, I will start a formal wikipedia sanctioning procedure against you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Start it now, this will push me into starting the suckpuppet investigation which we both know will lead to your block.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As some editors appear unfamiliar with the concept of Rojava and the territorial scope of "Rojava" for the purposes of this article, please familiarize yourself with the fact that the only non-arbitrary geographic area to use is the "official" map of Rojava which is inter alia used and displayed in all representation offices abroad of the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Too far- specially al-Bab

Who are you to talk with such authority about what a "Rojava" is !!!! There is no "official" anything and no claims, no more than the claims of ISIL and the official ISIL maps. You have no consensus of a "rojava". An RFC is needed cause you know no boundary. User talk:2A1ZA, stop mentioning anything that didnt happen in a YPG controlled area. Al-bab is not part of those areas nor part of the funny "shahba region". If "Rojava" claimed Damascus then what ? are you gonna mention the chemical attacks as if they happened in your precious "rojava"?

What are you doing ? first adding a rojava category to a neighborhood of aleppo !!! Now mentioning anything that happened in territories not controlled by the ypg, just because they claim it (or whatever fancy words you like to use for those militias). Stop saying polyethnic, "Rojava" means west, west Kurdistan (meaning the land of Kurds). A Kurdish name, with Kurdish fighters as a backbone, and occupying territories by means of military force with no invitation form the locals... that's just Kurdish militias not a polyethnic anything

Rojava is what the YPG and its camouflages control, not what they claim. We dont care what ISIL claims and nor will we care about YPG and its claims. They have no "diplomatic" anything. Stop creating a state out of a militia.

One last thing, if you will call the Al-Bab incident "a rojava affair" then you better bring a reliable source calling al-bab "rojava". You seems to be totally out of the concept of sources. It is not you who decide that a region is in "rojava" or not, its the sources (and Ara, Rudaw..etc are not such a sources). How the hell can you even think of mentioning this incident which happened in 2012 !! before those wretched militia ever had the courage to dream of such a huge area to control or claim !

Stop this behavior and this weird fetish with Kurdish nationalism. BTW, your idea about the scope of "rojava" is refused and if you dont like it, well, the only thing you can do is an Rfc.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use the "official map" for Rojava area, everything else is arbitrary POV

I just saw FSA war crimes deleted by Attar-Aram syria because allegedly out of area for this article. Wikipedia does not work that way of arbitrary POV definition ("Rojava is what the YPG and its camouflages control") of basic concepts for the purpose of whatever political activist agenda. And please consider that this article here in general uses the "official map" concept of Rojava for the area covered here. Actually a large part of this article concerns a time before "the YPG and its camouflages" even existed, and of those parts who cover a time after "the YPG and its camouflages" existed are completely unrelated to it. If you want to talk exclusively about "the YPG", please use the YPG article. -- 91.61.68.107 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is the map everyone uses for area called "Rojava", as does the Rojava article, and Al-Bab is clearly included. -- 91.61.68.107 (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL, whose everybody (you and your friends?) !!! this is a YPG map. Official maps are made by recognized entities, not by militias. So yes, Al-Bab is clearly included in the YPG imaginary map, but this has no importance. Now, bring some real sources mentioning this accident as happened in "Rojava". BTW, this article uses those funny cartoons because of you and your friends insisting on using them. Those crimes were committed in Al-Bab, Aleppo governorate, Syria. Not "Rojava".

Let me make it closer to your mind: If YPG claimed Damascus, you and your friends are not gonna jump here and mention accidents that happened in Damascus. When your "rojava" gets some kind of recognition and clear borders, you can come and mention the accidents inside such borders.

Now, stop talking about POV and stuff, it doesnt suit you. And, this article shouldn't mention anything that happened before the YPG and its arms, but the zealot behavior of the famous NPOV editor made it the way it is.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Boring

I have to study, I dont have the time for this, so bring back the jarablus part (its not part of rojava but since it pleases you). However, any violations ascribed to the opposition are just allegations unless the accused party admitted, or stop adding the word allegation to every single YPG crime.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

YPG terrorists denying their crimes

Whats with that section about the YPG crimes where the paragraph containing bunch of militia leaders denying their crimes is bigger that the paragraph mentioning those crimes !!

Yeah, we get it, the YPG wont admit to anything they have done, but the Syrian government denies any violations, and that is not mentioned in its section. Why this undue weight (which is inserted by our famous "NPOV" editor) ?. Isn't it enough to mention that the YPG is denying !! should every little lie about the denying of those crimes be written ! COME ON

This paragraph should be reduced, if no cooperation from the side of the "NPOV" editor is shown then I will ask for an rfc.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have information and sources about Syrian government replies concerning allegations against them, why don't you just add that to the respective section(s) of the article? I am sure everyone would appreciate that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually I would be quite interested in reading the Syrian government perspective/communication on some of the stuff in this article. If you have sources and quotes, please put them up. However, in any case, this highly partisan language of "terrorists" and "crimes" should not only have no place in the article, but also is inappropriate on the talk page, in my view. -- 87.185.91.105 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That was not my main point. The main one was why is the denying section bigger than the crimes section ! I will reduce this ridiculous section. What next ? are you gonna include the opinions of villagers and taxi drivers ? isnt redur and saleh and michael enough for you? You have explained the opinions of those deniers more than the details of the crimes !!! Ofcourse, in the Rojava article you cut the history section claiming it was too big (this led to the summarizing of the crimes committed in world war I and deletion of some historic fact about demography which suited perfectly with some funny claims about historic land) but here, you inflate the section about the deniers !!!! Sooooo NPOV, Im overwhelmed byt the NPOV methodology.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

-Comment: You said that summarizing the deniers ruin the balance !!! For every one sentence of accusation there should be three for denying ?? is this how the article become balanced for you, your NPOV highness ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

-Comment 2:Let me be clear, if you will inflate the article with those deniers, I will inflate it with the words of accusers to achieve balance. You get it ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Attar-Aram syria, the problem with your edits in that YPG section is that they remove substance of statements and distort statements. I now made the third paragraph 189 words, exactly the same as the second paragraph, without removing substance or distorting statements. Please leave this compromise. And the fact that someone disagrees with your view does not make him a "denier". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

-Comment 3: I left my note 10 days ago and you didnt respond until two days ago. Since you insist on this huge paragraph for the deniers, then I will add the words of accusers like mechel kilo and others. If you try to delete them, I will delete the deniers again. BTW, I will add Erdogan's accusations as well. I just dont get why should all those statements be there !! how passionate are you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not look at any article in Wikipedia I contribute to every day. On substance: In that YPG section, there is one paragraph on accusations of 189 words, one paragraph on replies of 189 words, both quoting parties immediately concerned and well reputed experts, and that looks pretty fine and fair to me. If you think that either can be improved without distorting the quantitative balance, of course you are free to do that. However, this article is about facts, not about political games. So I think a person like Erdogan or any other politician with an obvious agenda is not a good source to quote. For this reason, such is not done in any other section of the article either (any section could be inflated to infinity by quoting political opponents of the party concerned). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You have a watch list Im sure. Erdogan is as connected with Agenda as is Salih Musalam. Again who told you that every accusation should have a deny section with the same amount of words ? You dont want Gunter and rami to be gone, then have fun with erdogan and kilani.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You made persistent complaints that the paragraph of replies would be longer that the paragraph of accusations. So I shortened the former to the same 189 words as the latter (without removing substance of statements or distorting statements, as your edits did). And while of course the paragraphs do not have to have the same number of words, they should aim at an appropriate balance towards each other, as well as towards the other sections of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

-Note: What is your concept of balance ? should we write thousands of pages listing the Nazis denying their crimes for every accusation against them ? Where do you get those ideas ?? By your logic we should also have new paragraphs for the syrian government and its supporters denying everything they've done !! Who told you that the response to an accusation should have the exact same number of words !!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nazi crimes are a scientifically well researched and established fact. The "crimes of the YPG" you allege are not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No one studied Halabja. Its just a peshmerga claim then.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I neither know nor care about "Halabja", please stay with the topic of this article and section here. And matter of fact is that the term "ethnic cleansing" does not appear with respect to the YPG even once in any of the human rights organisations' reports, and that every single individual accusation of misconduct is rejected with substantial arguments. There is no basis for the kind of "blackwashing" you want to do with respect to the YPG in a Wikipedia article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The only washing is the white washing you are doing your "NPOV" highness. When ben-laden was fighting russia, he was called a freedom fighter by western organisations. ethnic cleansing appeared in many sources that are not western. The west doesnt have a monopoly on truth and values and if western sources dont mention a crime of a militia that is in an allegiance with the west, then this doesnt mean the crime didnt happen.

note: "substantial arguments" for you are dirty lies for me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

See this report. It might help wakening you conscious. 40 thousands people are living in tents overlooking their homes on the other side of the rivers because the YPG wont allow them to return--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Attar-Aram syria, an encyclopedia is not about deciding between competing claims of comparable substance as to what the truth is, but about presenting them in a NPOV manner. Of course you are free to be convinced that one claim is the truth and the other claim is a lie. But the article must and will present them both in an unbiased manner. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok dear 2A1ZA, now it satisfy you and the people that have your claims and it satisfy me and the people who have my claims. You want NPOV then stop pushing the pro-YPG while hiding the anti-YPG views. Gunter = Kilani. Musalam = Erdogan. I read that you wont be a staunch supporter of YPG if you see that they are ethnic lunatics. So again, See this report, it might open your eyes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot read Arabic (and nor can most of the other users of the English Wikipedia), it make no sense to link Arabic sources. If you have quality English language sources that return of outbound refugees to Rojava is a problem, you might make a section in the article about it (could make "refugees" a headline, and "inbound" (already existing) and "outbound" sub-headlines. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have written a featured article and used an Arabic language source. It is perfectly fine here on English wikipedia. I dont have the time or will to create those sections. Do you know what I really want ? I want to take Rojava and everything about it out of my watch list and focus on the articles about ancient history which is why I joined Wikipedia. But I cant do this because of many editors so passionate in a romantic way toward Rojava that they will make the article reflect Rojava as a utupia. If real NPOV editors started editing those articles, then I would be comfortable to take them off my watch list.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As you say you agree with me that edit-warring about Rojava articles is not a good idea, why don't you just join efforts to overcome that? You complain that other users would allegedly paint "Rojava as a utupia", yet you probably are fully aware that your edits in this article appear for many readers as led by the desire to paint Rojava as a "hell on earth". The whole idea of filling this article with opportunistic quotes from politicians with an anti-Rojava agenda does nothing but incite edit-warring, and I have no doubt that you are intelligent enough to be aware of that. Why don't you just make a real effort at that good faith NPOV discussion and editing style, which you refer to? "Declaring edit-war" on this article does not do any good, it only makes good people waste their time and lose passion for Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I will make that one section for refugee issues, instead of spreading information over the article. -- 87.185.91.105 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Who liberated the regime prisons in Hasakah and Qamishli?

As there seems to be some obsession with inserting "YPG" at any opportunity, please let me underline that the act of liberating the three regime prisons in Hasakah and Qamishli, which have been liberated and subsequently closed down by Rojava administration and security forces, can not be attributed to the YPG. The prison in Qamishli and the central prison in Hasakah were liberated by Asayish units, possibly with some contribution by HXP units, but no contribution at all by YPG units. Only the juvenile prison in Hasakah (apparently non-operational at the time of its liberation, and which never was in the hands of ISIL, by the way, despite persistent editing to the contrary) was mainly liberated by YPG units, possibly with some contribution by HXP units. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, set your facts straight, the prisons in Hasakah and Qamishli were illegally occupied by a rebellious militia backed by foreigners. Those prisons were not liberated, a militia cant liberate something from a legitimate government.

Second, the juvenile prison changed hand from ISIL occupation to YPG occupation as it was the YPG that fought in 2015. In 2016, it was the illegal QSD who occupied the prisons. "Rojava" is not recognized and has no authorities, no more than ISIL that is. It is not up to you to treat it like a country. BTW, those outlaws should get out of those state owned properties or the Syrian army will liberate them one day at a high cost for the illegal militias.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hasakah juvenile prison was held by regime forces during the entire battle, increasingly isolated and desperate. There are some different versions on what exactly happened around the time when Rojava militias finally fought their way through ISIL lines to capture the building (and save the regime forces trapped there), but at best ISIL controlled parts of the building for some hours. And no, "SDF/QSD" had no role whatsoever in the liberation of the Qamishli prison from the regime, please look it up if you have doubts. ... Anyway, you are free to hold the personal opinion that Assad is "legitimate". I am free to hold the personal opinion that he is not. The international community is free to consider the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces the legitimate government of all of Syria, which I am free to find absurd (and maybe so do you). But the article has to be NPOV and neutral in its language. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, treating an unrecognized entity as a legitimate one is not "NPOV". Rojava has no authorities unless it become a region (like in iraq) or a federal state (like Bavaria). So, just like we say the Syrian army did something, you will say YPG and QSD when indicating a military operation. As for legitimacy, the international community does not recognize the coalition as the legitimate government, the government of Bashar still have the seat at the UN. Once "Rojava" achieve such a thing, then you can treat it as legitimate. PS. most sources mention YPG and QSD not "Rojava authorities".

As for whom fought, you have the battles articles to blame, cause the one about Hasaka 2015 claims that YPG took the prison directly from ISIS.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you are free to find personally "legitimate" or "illegitimate", "recognize" or "not recognize" whatever you want, but the article has to be NPOV and neutral in its language. And unless there is a reason to seek to attribute acts of a political authority to specific executive units, for example when focussing on details of a battle, the proper general form is to use general terms like "security forces of XY" or "military of XY" or "militias of XY". But even if you disagree and think that executive units involved in acts must always be described in detail (I know that military nerds hold such opinions), it must be done correctly. So the liberation of the prison in Qamishli and the central prison of Hasakah might be attributed to "Asayish", and the liberation of the juvenile prison in Hasakah might be attributed to "YPG, Syriac Military Council and Al-Sanadid Forces" (in fact as to my knowledge, the units reaching that building from the west were YPG, the units reaching the prison from the east were Al-Sanadid). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV =/= your POV. You seems to mix between the two. Anyway, most of our sources mention QSD or YPG (or Asayish if you like) when talking about the illegetamate takeover of the Syrian state property by the outlaws, not "Rojava" "authorities" (they have no authorities, its like saying the ISIL authorities)... And now you will try to find a source that mention Rojava authorities, but then I will get ten that mention QSD and YPG.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

YPG and Asayish are two completely different things, please read the respective Wikipedia articles at least. You cannot use the terms interchangably. And while I am sure that there is not a single serious (or even not serious) source which would incorrectly attribute the liberation of the Qamishli prison or of the Hasakah central prison to "SDF" (why do you persistently use the "QSD" abbreviation, which is not common in the English Wikipedia or English media?), the liberation of the Hasakah juvenile prison took place before the SDF was even founded. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know that QSD didnt participate in the Juvenile operation. I use QSD cause Im used to it. Legitimacy isnt decided by our opinions, definitely not yours, but by the international community (and the government is the one with a UN representation not "Rojava" or the coalition). If Asayish illegally occupied the Qamishli, feel free to replace QSD with Asayiesh outlaws.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not look at the article after my last edit, and I do not plan to. If you made edits which made the article factually incorrect, please correct them yourself. And once again, questions of how ever perceived "legitimacy" are completely irrelevant in our issue at hand. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Our issue is treating the Syrian hand of the terrorist PKK as a legitimate government, calling its illegal takeover of state property as liberation. Legitimacy is very important when you will treat an illegitimate entity as a legitimate government. They are a militia, treated in media as such, by government as such and they will be treated here as such cause Wikipedia isnt a place for enthusiastic activists who invest feelings in ideas and dont really care about reality. If there are mistakes, I will repair them.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You know that I did not use the term "liberation" in the article, as my language when editing an article is always neutral. And I would very much appreciate if yours were such, too. I strongly disagree with your idea that Wikipedia articles should make a value judgement on "the legitimacy" of various parties in the Syrian Civil War and then in a discriminating manner should use either respectful or pejorative language towards them. I would however appreciate very much if everyone would adhere to your very different later statement that Wikipedia articles are not a place to express political activist feelings. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

-Anyway, its standard to mention the party which conducted a military operation. We write that the American army occupied Iraq, the Syrian army liberated Palmyra and in the case of the illegitimate entity named by its owners "Rojava", its the YPG that took over the juvenile prison, and the QSD that occupied (illegally) the Syrian state prisons. So you are definitely not gonna start a new trend by treating every separatist unrecognized joke (like "Rojava") as a state.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Attack on this article by FSA political activists who seek to intimidate other editors and arbitrarily delete content

Stop insulting other editors. Stop threatening other editors. Stop harassing other editors. Stop slandering other editors. Stop deleting content for the sole reason that it does not suit the political narrative which you seek to push. Return to good Wikipedia policies and practices, like civil conduct and language towards other editors, like no obviously controversial deletions without prior seeking consent for them on the talk page, and so on. Do not push your political activism to the point where administrators must step in. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The only political activist is you and your friends creating fake entities. Those accidents happened in al-Bab, not under the control of YPG and you have no sources that say that those accidents happened in your rojavan empire. Please bring just one source connecting al-Bab accident to your rojava. Until then, you are inserting info that has nothing to do with this article.

No one is intimidating you, a quick user check will reveal who you are. You definitely know how to work on Wikipedia considering that this is your 7th edit !! this is always an indication of a blocked user (and I know how to end this).

As for controversy, the mentioning of this accident here is a controversial move that happened without using the talk page, so its only normal for it to be reverted. The al-Bab accident belong in FSA article, not here. Again, if YPG claimed Damascus, this will have no effect here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please try to open yourself for the idea that this Rojava empire conspiracy stuff might be in your head, and that the conspiracy might not exist. I have no personal sympathy for anything associated with the term Rojava. I kindly ask you to stop insinuating that I were part of any conspiracy associated with the term Rojava, because I am not. I kindly ask you to discuss the article instead of trying to intimidate editors who think that FSA war crimes in the area deserve a place in the article just like with any other faction. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, no one is intimidating you, but it took me a month to learn how to work in Wikipedia, yet you come directly to this article and already know how to edit war...etc. This is a blocked user behavior.

Obviously I was being sarcastic about the empire. Users who think that FSA crimes deserve a place should also bring reliable sources connecting this crime to rojava. Those areas were never under the control of QSD militias and so, even if PYD claims them, what happened in them do not concern "rojava".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You have several times threatend to have me "blocked", you just above here called me "fake identity", insinuated I were a "blocked user", you are all the time try to associate me with sinister "friends" or whatever. I kindly ask you to stop this. And on substance, I do not care about "QSD militias" and neither is our editing conflict about that, this is about you persistently deleting a paragraph on FSA war crimes in the area. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thos crimes belong in FSA or Aleppo governorate articles as they didnt happen in Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This article has violations of all factions in the area. As far as I can see, quite all of them are mentioned in the articles of the factions themselves as well. What exactly is it that makes you think that FSA war crimes should not be mentioned here too, in addition to their own article, just as with all other factions? 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Cause this area isnt part of YPG controlled places.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If "happening in an YPG controlled place" would be a necessary condition to mention a war crime in this article (which appears a rather absurd/invented concept to me anyway), then violations of anyone other than YPG would have to be deleted from the article. Why do you selectively delete war crimes committed by the FSA in the area? Your own argument does not justify your actions. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not the brightest arent you ? A militia cant demand lands and you cant mention crimes that happened in Al-Bab in an article about "rojava" just because this rojava claims the land without having controlled it ever !!! What if rojava claimed Damascus, or Moscow !!! are you gonna jump here and list the crimes of Stalin cause rojava might claim Siberia ?

You have no source saying that those lands are part of "rojava" or that the crime happened in "rojava". Rojava and its caretakers has nothing to do with al-Bab. Those crimes arent being deleted from wikipedia but from an article about something called "rojava" cause the crimes didnt happen in rojava. Al-Bab is not in "rojava" !! how hard is this to understand ? Plus, no source can support you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This article obviously uses the term Rojava simply to describe a huge area in northern Syria. More than half the article is about stuff which has no relation at all to "controlled by the YPG" which you want to make your criteria here. So once more my question: Considering your argument, why do you not try to delete anything unrelated to the YPG (more than half the article), but rather selectively delete a paragraph on FSA war crimes? 91.61.68.107 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request concerning chapter "3.3.1 Hosting inbound refugees" (probably uncontroversial)

Add at the end of the existing paragraph of the sub-chapter "3.3.1 Hosting inbound refugees":

In an October 2016 report from the region, U.S. academic Si Sheppard described about Iraqi refugees fleeing the Battle of Mosul that "the lucky ones have found an unlikely haven in neighboring Syria, a place hardly synonymous with physical well-being in the popular imagination. But there is one pocket of the country where the desperate and dispossessed are still welcome. This is Rojava, where the Kurds have established a relative oasis of security and opportunity in a desert of anarchy and oppression."

Add a new paragraph at the end of the sub-chapter "3.3.1 Hosting inbound refugees":

In Afrin Canton with a population of 172,095 according to the 2004 Syrian census alone, according to a June 2016 estimate from the International Middle East Peace Research Center about 316,000 displaced Syrians of Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen ethnicity have found a safe haven.

2A1ZA (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Done no opposition from other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for Edit request concerning chapter "2.2 Syrian opposition militias"

Add/insert a new paragraph after the existing first paragraph of the sub-chapter "2.2 Syrian opposition militias":

In August 2012, a series of three videos surfaced showing executions of Syrian government associated prisoners, apparently by rebel forces, in northern Aleppo province, Rojava's Shahba region. In one video, six postal workers were being thrown off the main postal building in Al-Bab to their deaths, purportedly by Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, and in another video a man's throat was savagely cut. This led to a first major media discussion about the nature of the Syrian opposition and in particular the FSA. A Turkey-based FSA commander was quoted with the comment that "the brutality of the Syrian government forces had triggered some rebels to take the law into their own hands, carrying out rights violations."

See talk page above for discussion. When reading this discussion, which appears to be the reason for the lockdown of the article and should thus be resolved, I see no conclusive argument why this paragraph should not be added.

2A1ZA (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You still insist on this !! The conclusive argument you are not seeing is that this incident have nothing to do with rojava. You cant say it happened in the so called shahba region cause that region didn't exist back then and cause that region never included the involved areas in this accident regardless of what the ypg militia and its puppets claim.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If it helps to leave that "Shahba region" half sentence away (not necessary for the point, so discussion about that can be avoided), fine with me. The request then would be:

In August 2012, a series of three videos surfaced showing executions of Syrian government associated prisoners, apparently by rebel forces, in northern Aleppo province. In one video, six postal workers were being thrown off the main postal building in Al-Bab to their deaths, purportedly by Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, and in another video a man's throat was savagely cut. This led to a first major media discussion about the nature of the Syrian opposition and in particular the FSA. A Turkey-based FSA commander was quoted with the comment that "the brutality of the Syrian government forces had triggered some rebels to take the law into their own hands, carrying out rights violations."

Do we have consensus now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No we dont

Is rojava a historic region with known areas? No.

Does the territorial claims of Rojava get any legal recognition ? No.

Have Rojava in the past had any control over those regions where the crime happened ? No.

So, what in Flying Spaghetti Monster's name is your argument to mention this crime in this article ?

Your answer will be: Rojava claim them....

but who care ?

If China claimed Cambodia, you wont list the crimes of khmer rouge in an article about human rights in china.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you are aware that this entire article obviously is based on the concept of a region in Northern Syria which it calls "Rojava", and this article in encylopedic form documents and presents the human rights situation in that area. I fully understand that you oppose the concept on which this article is based in general. However, do you have an argument why this particular paragraph should not be included, as opposed to all other paragraphs in the article? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"concept of a region in northern syria which it calls rojava". Well, this region do not include al-bab. Thats why this particular paragraph dont belong here as it didnt happen in this so called region. You will not give the claims of th YPG legitimacy on Wikipedia. This region has no legal basis and its claims are even weaker. This is getting out of control. You cant just use the geographic claim of a militia and give them an existence. Al-bab isnt in rojava, no media source treat it that way, no government do, and no facts on the ground support that notion. At least have a source connecting this crime to your rojava. All other paragraphs concerns accidents that happened in regions that at least came under the illegal occupation of the yog mercenaries but al-bab never had this fate and the accident didnt even involve anyone related to ypg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There is one, and only one, clear definition what "Rojava" as a region is for the purposes of this article, namely the official map which the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava displays inter alia in all of its official representation offices abroad. Every other definition is simply arbitrary and grossly POV. I do not understand what definition of "Rojava" as a territory you use to find the existing paragraphs in the article legitimate but not the one here requested to include, however I do not see how it could be anything else than arbitrary and grossly POV. Anyway, it clearly does not fit the article to claim that "YPG had control over the place at the time" were a necessary condition for documenting an event in this article, as you somehow appear to suggest, because this here is not an article about "the YPG", which has its own article. I would also like to point out that almost all of the first and second of the three sections of this article cover events that took place before "the YPG" was ever founded and/or in places which "the YPG" never or at least at the time had no presence. This is not a working argument to refuse inclusion of this requested paragraph. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no only one definition. This so called definition is yours and yours alone and no one care for it. This hilarious map is no more official than the maps of ISIL. Rojava is just the civil face of a militia and what this militia claims as land will remain unimportant until it gets some recognition from the international community. So, take your official map out of here. As for other paragraphs, i read them, they all concerns areas under or have been under control of ypg. Any of them out of this criteria should be deleted. You added those paragraphs with no right. They should have been in the kurds of syria article since they talk mainly about kurds, yet you shoved them here and since you are so persistent and pushy, no one wanted to deal with your attitude and no one deleted them. Rojava appeared in 2012 and this article should start at 2012. Again, bring any source connecting rojava to albab crime, otherwise you will be pushing a POV.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, this official map of Rojava (the only non-arbitrary definition of "Rojava" as a region) has nothing to do with me as a person and is not "mine", I just give you links on a Wikipedia talk page. And your claims concerning the existing article are simply not true. The entire first of the three sections of the article covers acts/events in the Rojava region (see official map) before the YPG was ever founded, and the entire second of the three sections of the article with the sole exception of the YPG-subsection covers acts/events in the Rojava region (see official map) where the YPG never or at the time had no presence. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Omg this is long. There is no rojava before the ypg. It has never existed before the ypg and it was you who introduced those paragraphs and you should have been stopped but no one had the patience to deal with you. As for the funny map, does any international organization use it? Does it have any recognition ?... the answer to both questions is no.. so this map is the arbitrary act of ypg and from now on, anything you write that its source doesnt mention rojava will be deleted cause you are way out of the source policy. When you have a neutral reliable source saying al-bab crime happened in rojava then come back and add this paragraph. I think we need an arbitration committee here to delete anything that doesnt mention rojava cause you inserted many many things with no sources that mention this illegal entity.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask you a simple, illustrative question: Compared to the entire ISIL section of the article, what is the reason in your opinion why this requested paragraph should be treated differently and not included? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Simple answer is : all those regions did came under the illegal control of YPG and its umbrella.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So your position on criteria is, when "the YPG" comes to have a presence in a place, then and only then retroactively all human rights violations that happened there any time earlier by any parties can be included in this article? Is that meant to be a serious position? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

the serious position that will repair all the mess and heavy affiliated pov that you created is in the new section i started at the end of this page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Btw, soon i will have an rfc about those paragraphs cause they dont belong here in an article about an invented entity that appeared in 2012.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So you generously agree for now that according to the criteria of the article as it exists, this requested paragraph should be included, and we have consensus? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious !!! NO. Did you really saw a consensus from my last note about deleting more paragraphs !!!. This article has criteria made by you and its time for it to change and be more realistic--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If you agree to an RFC about general criteria, should not the article at any given time be fair according to coherent criteria, which necessarily means including this requested paragraph for now, as you appear to admit? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing will make this paragraph necessary. It didnt happen in rojava and there is no criteria in this article cause it was written by you and you were undisturbed to avoid headaches but you went too far. BRING SOME SOURCES CONNECTING AL-BAB CRIME WITH ROJAVA.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article was not "written by me", my main contribution to this article was to arrange elements written by other editors. Anyway, everything you write on this talk page now pretty openly admits that according to the criteria of the article as it exists, the edit request which is our topic here should be granted. I do not understand why you nevertheless still declare to object to consensus for now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you removed them from other articles then started inflating. My mistake. Now, again, this article has no criteria, what you put as a criteria was just your own actions that you had no consensus for. I dont know where did you see any confessions by me -_- . What you will see on the article of Rojava is constant fighting about what is a Rojava, then the human rights section became its own article then you came and brought misplaced paragraphs that shouldnt have been brought.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

After you pretty openly admitted that according to the criteria of the article as it exists, the edit request which is our topic here should be granted, you now try to start a process to change the criteria (which is a legitimate thing, although I disagree in substance). But de lege lata according to your own comments, the request should be granted. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dude, it doesnt work like this -_- I only indicated that you acted freely and believe your acts to be the criteria. Criteria are made by consensus not by your will. I made it clear that only your will was running here and that no criterea. Even if you kept writing from now till morning that I agreed to your criteria, you still have no consensus (what a childish behavior, you just want to get what you want.) Now, there is something more important than criteria, its called sources; do you have one connecting al-Bab with rojava ? No ?? then stop. The process I started is to establish criteria, not to Change a non existing one.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You basically admitted that the requested paragraph is no more or no less related to the region than the existing elements of the second section of this article, my question if your last argumentative refuge was supposed to be serious was implicitly answered to the negative. Sure I take note and respect that you object to consensus without an argument that relates to the existing article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Omg its like when trump started to shout: puppet, no you are the puppet, you are the puppet. This existing article became the way it is not because of a criterea but because you missused it and people didnt have the patience for you and when one of them do, then you cant shout : criterea. Thats what i was trying to make you understand to no avail.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The scope and structure of this article as it is existed for many months before you came along and were established well within Wikipedia policies and good practices. Of course you can seek consensus to change the scope and structure of this article as it is (I object to such change, see the respective section you created now on the talk page), but what you cannot do is in the meantime to sabotage and obstruct the article and its updating and improvement within existing scope and structure. You are in your latest edit here formally announcing that you will disruptively delete further edits in line with the scope and structure of this article as it exists, I call on you to cease and desist and be aware that such conduct might earn you a permanent ban on Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you gonna copy this everywhere ? Wikipedia dont care for your opinion, scopes are decided by sources. Do you have any ? No ? then bye.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

comment: I will leave you now, I must sleep and wake up early cause i dont live inside the internet, and expressing my passionate political stances, pushing them desperately, creating account after account, using different IPs and agreeing with others to help me support my edits, and existing all over the debating sites ISNT the only thing I have in life. Continue soon. (you dont have a consensus, even if you wrote that I admitted a 100 times like bart simpson- AND please remember the source, no source connecting the crime to rojava means that you cant insert the paragraph).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Quote: "expressing my passionate political stances, pushing them desperately, creating account after account, using different IPs and agreeing with others to help me support my edits, and existing all over the debating sites ISNT the only thing I have in life" -> Not sure if this is meant as an admission on your part or as a slanderous ad hominem attack against me, but in either case you do yourself no favor. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Note, do you know why no one stopped you when you started treating this article as if it is talking about a historic region ? its because of your militant relentless behavior aiming to get what you want that makes editors avoid headaches and avoid dealing with you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

-> To the Admin the good news that with the edit of deleting the word "Rojava" from the headline of section 2 (which is formally requested below), there appears consensus for this edit here (and a solution to all other issues as well) now. And please remember to use the second version of the above edit request, without the words "Rojava's Shahba region". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

->To the Admins: nothing was solved and i have no idea where did 2A1Z got this idea !!!

User 2A1Z: sorry, but less than one day without an answer doesnt mean a consensus. I am busy in real life and this paragraph will never make its way to this article as it didnt happen in rojava. This article is titled human rights in rojava and this imply that anything mentioned here happened in rojava making your suggestion invalid.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)  Administrator note I have disabled the request due to lack of consensus. Feel free to continue the discussion though — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request concerning chapter "2.1 Syrian Government" (probably uncontroversial)

In the last paragraph of sub-chapter "2.1 Syrian Government", the Syrian Democratic Forces are mentioned and internally linked twice, however using the uncommon (in English) abbreviation "QSD". I request to have the first mention completely linked as Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the second mention using the then explicitly introduced, common abbreviation SDF.

2A1ZA (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Rojava, a new concept from 2012- preparation for an rfc

The entity named rojava was created by militias with kurdish background as a frame to rule kurdish inhabitant regions and then it started to occupy non-kurdish lands as well. This region is not historic and is not recognized and its a completely new concept that emerged in 2012. Hence, this article should only focus on events that took place starting from this date or at most, the beginning of the civil war/ provided that the events happened after the YPG or its umbrella took control of a certain region. In its current form, it give the impression that we are dealing with a historic region that has long been around which is not true.

Sadly, the article is practically under constant surveillance of very passionate editors who completely ignore the sourcing policy and insert information that do not mention the word Rojava and inflate the article beyond its scope. "Rojava" should have a clear definition in Wikipedia and this doesnt include what the militia considers its rightful land. Hence, no incident not related to Rojava should be mentioned here and this "Rojava" should be decided according to reliable neutral sources, not the maps of the creators of this unrecognized entity who can claim any land they want on paper.

I ask interested editors to engage in the discussion and if no result was reached, then and rfc or an arbitration committee will be needed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the article is fine as it is. The third section covers human rights developments under the civil administration of the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava (since 2014), the second section covers human rights issues in the geographic region during the Syrian Civil War (since 2011), and the first section provides the immediately related historic context within the geographic region for those later developments. I see no serious argument why to tear these highly intertwined sections apart into different articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Dear Attar-Aram syria (talk), the scope and structure of this article as it is existed for many months before you came along and were established well within Wikipedia policies and good practices. Of course you can seek consensus to change the scope and structure of this article as it is (I object to such change, see above), but what you cannot do is in the meantime to sabotage and obstruct the article and its updating and improvement within existing scope and structure. You are in your latest edit here formally announcing that you will disruptively delete further edits in line with the scope and structure of this article as it exists, I call on you to cease and desist and be aware that such conduct might earn you a permanent ban on Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This article was created after a discussion with me, so it was you who came and vandalized it with your partisan involvement and POV pushing. In the mean time, I can repair the unsourced POV pushing. Just because it existed in a very wrong way doesnt mean that this should be maintained. Again, do you have sources ? cause if an article existed for 10 years, it can be deleted if it doesnt have sources. I will delete anything unsourced, whether you liked it or not, and no matter what are your arguments, nothing in wikipedia can be maintained without sources and your sources must mention Rojava. So, your objections are pointless, cause its the sources that talks in Wikipedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The scope and structure of the article as it exists were established well in line with Wikipedia policies and practices from early June 2016 (see first talk page entry ever, and related edits), and your request to change that scope and structure dates from 26 October 2016. If you systematically sabotage and obstruct work on the article as it exists, as you announce, without prior seeking and finding consensus to radically change that scope and structure (and in consequence delete most of the content), this clearly constitutes disruptive conduct. Do not do it, in the interest of Wikipedia and in your own interest. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You cant establish a scope without sources. How many times should I elaborate on this?. In wikipedia, no source = no edits. So, no matter what scope you think this article has, you need a source that mention your Rojava in connection to a certain incident. So, the only clear thing is you not understanding Wikipedia. I will delete anything that has no reliable source connecting an event to Rojava cause this article is about Rojava and your sources needs to talk about such entity. It is absolutely encouraged in Wikipedia to stick to sources in contrast to opinions and arbitary established scopes. You dont like it ? go to admins and tell them : I (2A1ZA) established a scope for an article without sources and an editor will delete any non sourced material. See what they will tell you and who is going to be the disruptive editor. Take your scope with you, it doesnt belong here. Sources belong here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense. Facts needs sources, and the relevance of a particular fact for a a particular Wikipedia article is established by the scope of the article, not by the source for the fact. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, scopes are decided also by sources. There is no relevance to Rojava of a certain incident in a certain area unless this area was part of Rojava and you have sources supporting you. Please read Wikipedia policies, any unsourced material, specially with controversial topics, can and will be deleted. Be my guest, make my day, and go to admins, cause its time for you to stop.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Wherever a "historic background" section exists on a Wikipedia article on whatever polity, quite necessarily the sources for facts in that section do not mention such later polity, because neither do they know at the time that it would come about, nor that someone would then wish to write a Wikipedia article about it. The relevance of such facts for a particular Wikipedia article is simply established or not established by the scope of the article. And I end this discussion now, because I am absolutely sure that you are aware that your "argument" now is completely invalid. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

historic background about historic regions that gained its independence is on thing, and what you are doing is another. This Rojava has no historic or official existence, so, you cant give a historic background based on the territorial claims of the YPG militia (and its hilarious "official" maps.. lol a militia has an official map). The events after 2012 happened after the declaration of Rojava, so they are not a historic background and dont concern this region unless the sources mentioned it. Try to insert non sourced material and you will be a vandal. Remember, this article is under the sanctions now, any POV pushing and unsourced material will be heavily dealt with.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Correcting a formality: The (de facto existing and flourishing) Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava (NSR) was formally declared on 17 March 2016, not in 2012. Before 17 March 2016, the term "Rojava" was used rather informally. I really recommend that you give the Rojava and Rojava conflict articles a read. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I read those articles ofcourse, and while looking away from your edits and only reading the useful ones, and being a real Syrian my self and not just an ultra left religiously biased (most of ISIL victims are sunnis) foreign zealot activist, I know what Im talking about. Before YPG occupied the Northern Syrian regions, a Rojava wasnt a term in used. This Rojava came to life in 2012, before its funny formal declaration.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: User talk:2A1ZA, please make my day, go to the admins and say that you are creating a POV region and you have no sources and tell them that I will delete anything that doesnt have a source linking a certain incident to a place called Rojava. I will have much laugh.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Subject: Civility and good faith in conduct. Dear Attar-Aram syria (talk), I find the lack of civility and good faith in your conduct and lanuage in this affair frequently inappropriate in general. Now stumbling over your call in another article's talk page linking to this discussion here with openly inciting to transform this discussion into a political activist battleground, this is deeply disturbing. You appear to misunderstand what the Wiklipedia is about. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As a much older editor who actually contributed tens of articles about cultural topics (4 good articles and a featured one) and his edits arent just a constant political fight that are driven by a very strong ideology, I disagree. Read more about Wikipedia, it wasnt meant for the likes of you who are active in every internet political forum. You made all topics about this "Rojava" a nightmare. Now, we need to stop this cause this is getting like Reddit. Its important to end this, and if discussions and Rfc wont work, then we will go to the arbitration committee.

Question, do you participate in any topic not related to Rojava and Kurds (specifically the nationalist aspect of them) ? a Single-purpose account shouldnt preach to me about Wikiepedia. Thanks.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your last two comments here include six slanderous insinuations concerning my person, two insults concerning my person, several condescending remarks about both this article and its topic, and no effort to contribute to a sincere discussion. I would really appreciate to have a formal framework for a sincere discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the Single-purpose account guideline ? Its weird that you will talk like this, you, the one who always accuse people of racism, vandalism, POV pushing (you !!). There was no insults in my two last comments, I just made remarks about your behavior and reason to be here in Wikipedia. A quick look at your edits shows that you are here for one topic, and one topic only. The likes of you are not very encouraged here as the article about such accounts makes clear.

However, if you would be less zealous, my attitude toward you will change.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Read my previous comment, it applies again. Just for the record, I do not edit Wikipedia for any other purpose than an interest in comprehensive transparent NPOV documentation on what is going on in the Middle East hotspot which northern Syria is in our time, and criticisms of mine are about edits, not about people (if you find the handful exceptions where I lost patience in maybe a thousand talk page comments of mine, you may keep them). Please take the time and read your comments and my comments in this discussion again, and try to understand who of us makes ad hominem attacks and who does not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

again with "NPOV" thing. Dude, you are as close to NPOV as I am close to ascend the throne of England. many editors made fun of your "NPOV", just stop preaching what you dont practice, its annoying. Now, your edits contradict your statement about the reason you are here. You care only about: Rojava, Kurdish fighter (lions of Rojava), and erdogan's conflict with those parties. Thats a single purpose account. You did not came here for NPOV, but to defend and push the view of the party you feel compatible with. You made it very clear when you announced your glorious creation of your account to which ferakp gave you a "belated welcome" then stopped editing Rojava and gave the mission to you. Are we done here ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV is a principle about articles in Wikipedia, which I very much appreciate and which motivates me to contribute to the project. It is not about personal opinions of all the people who make edits, for the purpose of NPOV articles. My personal opinions on stuff are irrelevant here, and on a sidenote, all your speculation and insinuations about what my personal opinions on stuff might be are completely wrong. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't agree more with Attar. This rojava article and all other articles derived from that are OR and deserve speedy deletion. Amazingly, no administrator or neutral editor is interested in this article besides yourself. On the other hand, we have a handful of Kurdish editors (or sockpuppets) who keep reverting or deleting any other informatedits trying to bring some balance to these articles. For example, I remeber having sections of Kurdwatch reports documenting human rights violations by PYG militias against Kurds and other constituents, but user 2A1ZA keeps deleting that information persistently. Obviously, wikipedia is ignoring all its own rules when it comes to these articles (may be out of political bias and ignorance, thinking Kurds are fighting ISIL, therefore they can claim all llands held by ISIL). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rojava article should be speedy deleted just because of some errors in the article? Seriously? Why don't you try to fix the articles instead of calling for all of them to be deleted? Rojava is concept recognized by numerous reliable sources and deleting would be a tremendous blow to the quality of Wikipedia and would be akin to deleting something like Iraqi Kurdistan. Heck, even stuff like the Principality of Sealand wasn't deleted, let alone deleting an article for an entity that actually controls large amounts of land and millions of people. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree partially with amr but also with User:Editor abcdef . Rojava exist and the deletion of it isnt the best way. However, it should have a scope that is compatible with historic and current realities and the scope cant count on the claims of rojava's creators or supporters. A map created by them and unrecognised both by the international community or historic works can not be the base for the scope of this article and other related articles and is by no means "official".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Headlines in 1.2: While I clearly disagree with any change in scope and structure of this article as desired by editor Attar-Aram syria here (see my post above), there is one single point which I see that might at least "emotionally" be in line with his desires, namely changing the sub-headlines within section 1.2 into bullet points (with the effect that they would not feature prominently in the table of contents any more). I had long ago made them bullet points, because the relatively short sections would not warrant own chapters and because I found this extreme highlighting a bit much, but some other editors who apparently wished to highlight them this way kept turning them into sub-headlines, and I eventually acquiesced. My suggestion would be to give it a new try for bullet points with the power of talk page consensus. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

One point because just stumbling over the idea, dear Attar-Aram syria, could we solve all the issues you have by simply deleting the word "Rojava" from the headline of section 2? When I read your comments here, it appears to me that you are extremely emotionally invested in that word and have strong and complex associations with any edit documenting something in section 2 because of that word in the headline. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As nobody objects, the edit does no harm to anything and appears to solve all the issues that have led to eternal fighting and edit-warring in the article and on the talk page, I make it an edit request now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete the word "Rojava" from the headline of section 2.

2A1ZA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To 2A1ZA': why did you inserted this edit request in the discussion about defining the scope of this article ???!!! This discussion is not solved yet and it wont be solved by your word. You have no consensus what so ever. People are busy in real life and many of them dont have all the free time to be constantly on wikipedia. Not replying doesnt mean "no object !" and specially not replying in less than 24 hours !. Your suggestion is invalid as this article is titled human rights in rojava and any event mentioned here should actually happen in rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have several issues with this article regarding POV language and scope, the writing of views of partisan actors in Wikipedia's voice instead of attributing to said actors, the use of activist sources without attribution, among other issues. As for this thread, I agree that we should have a clear definition of what Rojava is, determined "according to reliable neutral sources" as Attar states. Is Rojava simply the Kurdish word for "Western [Kurdistan]" or "Syrian Kurdistan" or is it what this article and all other Rojava-related articles deem as the territories controlled by Kurdish militias (essentially the PYD) and their subordinate allied militias. According to the current logic, does the definition of Rojava change as these territories recede or grow into non-Kurdish-majority areas? Like I said, there are several issues with this article that I will hopefully list out soon in a separate section, but it helps to start with a clear definition of "Rojava" according to reliable, neutral (non-partisan, non-activist) sources, otherwise we're leaving this up to editors' (and/or activists') original research. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Rojava article itself starts with stating that there are three different (if intertwined and overlapping) uses and definitions of the term, the first denoting a concrete project of social revolution, the second denoting a de facto existing political federation with a constitution and institutions, the third denoting an area which is polyethnic and contains a significant ethnic Kurdish presence in the population. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of users here are openly pro-Kurdish militia and terrorists, and are not ashamed of being biased. Their contributions should be carefully examined. They are trying to portray events from their own POV and Wikipedia is turning a blind eye. -78.171.190.249 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with concerns and disaccord being voiced here. There are a dozen Kurdish editors, 2A1ZA in the first place, who distorted all the articles related to the region and acted as if the Wikipedia was their playground, deleting what they do not like and stipulating their own points. Thanks to their huge effort (which really deserves congratulating) to portray the region and articles as if they were all Kurdish and pro-Kurdistan since the start of time, now Wikipedia has a wide range of articles with distorted facts and POV information, only presenting positive points and deleting anything negative with the hope that the World will see all these and go on to think like "These areas are all Kurdish and pro-Kurdistan and everything is perfect this way, nothing bad at all". Action must be taken before this leads to the irreversible point of further more distortion. Berkaysnklf (talk) 2 November 2016, 19:31 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for Edit request concerning chapter "2.5 Turkey"

Add a new paragraph at the end of the sub-chapter "2.5 Turkey":

in October 2016, the co-chairman of Rojava's leading Democratic Union Party (PYD), Salih Muslim, has accused Turkey of ethnic cleansing in the border area between Azaz and Jarabulus which at the time is occupied by Turkish-backed opposition rebels, saying it has driven thousands of Kurds from their land in villages near the border.

2A1ZA (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for Edit request concerning chapter "2.3 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"

Add/insert a new paragraph after the existing first paragraph of the sub-chapter "2.3 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant":

In July 2013, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) began to forcibly displace Kurdish civilians from towns in northern Al-Raqqah Governorate. After demanding that all Kurds leave Tell Abyad or else be killed, thousands of civilians, including Turkmens and Arabs, fled on 21 July. Its fighters looted and destroyed the property of Kurds, and in some cases, resettled displaced Sunni Arab families from the an-Nabek District (Rif Damascus), Deir ez-Zor and al-Raqqah, in abandoned Kurdish homes. A similar pattern was documented in Tel Arab and Tal Hassel in July 2013. As ISIL consolidated its authority in Ar-Raqqah, Kurdish civilians were forcibly displaced from Tel Akhader, and from the immediate Kobanî area, in March and September 2014, respectively.

Note: This paragraph is a copy from the history section of the Kobanî Canton article (with minor adaptations/improvements), which however is even more relevant for this article here.

2A1ZA (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, this happened before rojava occupied those areas and hence out of the scope of the article. It belong in kurds of syria article. ISIL did much atrocities to Arabs but its not mentioned in this "polyethnic" article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The headline and content of Section 2 of this article obviously refer to a geographic region, not to who was in control of a place at the time of an event, as evidenced by the most obvious fact that human rights issues of all civil parties have a sub-section there. As long as you do not get the consensus which you seek to delete the Section 2 of this article in its entirety, I see no valid argument to deny this edit request. And I would very much cherish if you would add content to ISIL atrocities in this region to the article (while I disagree with you concerning the main target of ISIL atrocities, indeed both in Syria and Iraq, ethnic minorities like Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrians were singled out by them). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Arent you tired of showing those cartoons drawn by the ypg militia ? this geographic region doesnt exist in history and not acknowledged politically. this region is only what the ypg can gets its hand on. You cant argue a geographic region cause it has no international or historical consensus on its areas. This so called region is a modern invention and it cant claim what it doesnt own and anything that happened in a certain area before it get invaded by YPG doesnt concern the so called Rojava. Arguing with you is pointless, from now on, whenever you try to insert anything here, your source must be reliable and mention the word Rojava clearly, or I will delete it and I have every right to delete non sourced material. This article is under the general sanctions now, so it will be very hard to manipulate it anymore (this includes wild IPs showing to support one of your edits. We have something called meat puppets on wikipedia, so sockpuppeting isnt the only way and investigation can be opened).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The scope and structure of this article as it is existed for many months before you came along and were established well within Wikipedia policies and good practices. Of course you can seek consensus to change the scope and structure of this article as it is (I object to such change, see the respective section you created now on the talk page), but what you cannot do is in the meantime to sabotage and obstruct the article and its updating and improvement within existing scope and structure. You are in your latest edit here formally announcing that you will disruptively delete further edits in line with the scope and structure of this article as it exists, I call on you to cease and desist and be aware that such conduct might earn you a permanent ban on Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This article was created after a discussion with me, so it was you who came and vandalized it with your partisan involvement and POV pushing. In the mean time, I can repair the unsourced POV pushing. Just because it existed in a very wrong way doesnt mean that this should be maintained. Again, do you have sources ? cause if an article existed for 10 years, it can be deleted if it doesnt have sources.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Note, 2A1ZA, just because you were given a chance to step over the rules and push the YPG agenda with no sources doesnt mean that repairing your mess is a disturbance. When you were allowed to run this article, you abused it, and you cant argue that your misbehaving is the right scope and criteria of this article which btw, you got no consensus for. Anyway, all those arguments are worthless now, from now on, only sources can talk, not your humble opinion as always.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

question: do you have any source about Rojava and its areas before the YPG or a source listing northern Raqqa in Rojava before teh YPG invaded ? The answer is naturally no and hence, you cant say "geographic region" cause no such region existed before the YPG.

An arbitrary act by the YPG to identify some Syrian regions as a Rojava and funny unrecognized maps (which you call official but are worthless) doesnt mean that the region is a Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

-> To the Admin who will eventually have to look at this, I take note that user Attar-Aram syria declares to object to the edit, with his argument basically being that the event concerned were outside of the scope of the article, however I find this argument obviously invalid. (1) The concerned Tell Abyad District of Syria was temporarily und partially under control and administration of the Federation of Syria - Rojava respective its component Kobani Canton in early 2013 and is completely so since since summer 2015. (2) This very paragraph requested to include in this article has been an uncontested element of the Rojava article (and since recently of the Kobanî Canton article instead) since time immemorial, for the obvious reason of being historic context of maximum importance. (3) Syrian Civil War human rights related events (of lower significance) taking place in the exactly same area before as well as after this event concerned here are uncontested elements of subsection 2.2 and of subsection 2.4 of this article, irrespective of who did it and who controlled the place at the time. (4) The highly intertwined relevance of the event concerned for the encyclopedic documentation of facts and context in this article is most obvious, its omission a blatant deficit of this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

-> To the Admin there has never been a scope to this article and what that user calls a scope is just his original research and POV pushing of the YPG map. The paragraph he is asking for concerns areas not in Rojava at the time of the happening of the event except for the last part in the paragraph about kobani. Tell abyad city and most of its areas had nothing to do with Rojava at that time and hence, they are outside the scope of rojava, an entity that no one recognises its claims. We are working on a real scope of this article in contrast to the blatant POV O.R pushed here before and named a scope by that user who think that the continuetion of a wrong practice makes it a rule.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

One point because just stumbling over the idea, dear Attar-Aram syria, could we solve all the issues you have by simply deleting the word "Rojava" from the headline of section 2? When I read your comments here, it appears to me that you are extremely emotionally invested in that word and have strong and complex associations with any edit documenting something in section 2 because of that word in the headline. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

-> To the Admin the good news that with the edit of deleting the word "Rojava" from the headline of section 2 (which is formally requested above), there appears consensus for this edit here (and a solution to all other issues as well) now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

->To the admin The issues are not solved and the user is making an assumption and closing duscussions just because his last comment wasnt replied to immediately. This article have huge issues and are far from being fixed by the deleting of one word. The article is titled human rights in rojava and the tell abyad incident happened before the takeover of the city by rojava, an unrecognised new entity and hence, the event dont belong here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA, The admin didnt tell you to insert this paragraph, he just told you to stop asking it from him. The admin refused the inserting of this paragraph himself as long as there was no consensus. You still have no consensus yet you childishly add it which goes against the consensus about the scope of this page. Tell Hasel isnt a Rojava. Tell Abyad was not a Rojava. Your disgusting behavior will stop. You claimed in you summary that the admin gave you the call to add it. But he only told you that he is not needed anymore because the protection was over. I will report you. Are you playing a game? I can restore all of Kurd watch material and watch you cry about it unable to revert, would you like that ?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for Edit request creating new chapter "3.3 Freedom of Speech and Press"

Add/insert a new sub-section "3.3 Freedom of Speech and Press" (which makes the existing sub-section 3.3 the 3.4):

Freedom of Speech and Press

See also: Human rights in Syria § Freedom of speech and the media

Incorporating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other internationally recognized human rights conventions, the 2014 Constitution of Rojava guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As a result, a diverse media landscape has developed in Rojava. However, media often face economic pressures, as demonstrated by the shutting down of news website Welati in May 2016. Political extremism incited by the context of the Syrian Civil war can put media outlets under pressure, the April 2016 threatening and burning down of the premises of Arta FM ("the first, and only, independent radio station staffed and broadcast by Syrians inside Syria") in Amuda by unidentified assailants being the most prominent example.

International media and journalists operate with few restrictions in Rojava, the only region in Syria where they can operate freely. In August 2015, the withdrawal of a press licence for the Rudaw Media Network based in Iraqi Kurdistan has drawn attention.

2A1ZA (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The "expropriation law", a concern of Assyrians ("clarification" flag)

User:Berkaysnklf recently added a paragraph to the article with concern to the "expropriation law", which to my knowlewdge exists in all Rojava cantons. It is basically a socialist ideology thing, following a principle of "ownership by use" (see also economics section of the Rojava article), establishing that an owner of real estate loses his title if he does not personally make use of the property. This definitely is a controversial thing with human rights consequences in several directions, and I appreciate that has now found its way into the article. The particular concern of Assyrians is that their ethnic group has a strong tradition of real estate ownership as well as a high number of outbound Syrian Civil War refugees, who risk losing property titles.

For now, Berkaysnklf has placed the topic in the section civil war and militias, which probably is not the most appropriate place, section "Ethnic minority rights" appears more appropriate. And the important topic should be elaborated concerning its facts, not only consist of "accusations" and buzzwords. I will not do so myself for now, because I speculate Berkaysnklf might want to do so himself, and just placed a clarification flag with the paragraph. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As there appears to be no interest by anybody, I do it now. Expanding the "Ethnic minority rights" section, including the topic of concern here, and moving the sentences to that appropriate place. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please give an explanation for "neutrality flag" aniscuss

Dear عمرو بن كلثوم, a neutrality flag is to be removed when "it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given", and it also is to be removed "in the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant". Please state a concrete, comprehensible neutrality issue, which can be discussed, otherwise the flag must be removed without discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We had months worth of discussion above related to the neutrality of this article. In short, an example of this bias is when you give the 2 sides of the story in the "Rojava-associated militias" section, while in all previous sections and historical background you present your point of view as a fact. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The point which you mention now appears to be that you say there were a lack of "the other side of the story" in diverse sub-sections of section two. I broadly agree with this observation, but this as far as I can see is simply due to the fact that there are no sources for such "other side of the story". I am not aware that anyone would have ever objected to adding such where found. You also have to take into account that diverse parties, most notably ISIL, intentionally cultivate a reputation of "tough guys" and do not even want to tell "another side of the story" concerning human rights allegations against them. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Apart from ISIL, the rest deny the accusations against them. The neutrality flag is meant to notify interested users who can work on the subject. I know that the Syrian government deny those accusations, I know that some of the opposition militias deny them. I could have worked on this and brought the sources (mostly in Arabic) but I have no interest cause thats not why I edit Wikipedia (and there is no rule that force me to do it). So, either you (2A1ZA) work on representing the other side of the government and the militias, or Amro, or the flag remains until an interested user step forward and edit the article to add those point of views. That is the policy of Wikipedia and thats why the flags exist. Until the problem is solved, the flag will remain and its perfectly fine cause that is its job: to notify interested users. Note: an editor who flag an article isnt expected to fix the problem and his unwillingness to edit the article is not a reason to remove the flag.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware that the Syrian government would deny anything written about it in the (pretty short) subsection about it within section 2 of the article. If you know of such and have sources, please just add the stuff to the article (same is true for FSA). Actually the Syrian government is the only party that has some affirmatively positive stuff written about it in section 2 of the article. And a "neutrality flag" is not just an invitation into the blue to editors to contribute to an article, putting/keeping it up with such justification rather sounds like abuse. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is an invitation into the blue for editors who can help and if you find it to be abuse, then, oh well, too bad but it isnt about what you think. Read more about it here. You seem to treat Wikipedia as reddit, aka a place to exchange opinions and where your opinion means more than policies, and you are wrong to treat this place as such. As for denying, you dont need to be aware, your awareness is not the criteria. I am busy with real articles as Wikipedia isnt a playground for me, and as my only passion in life is not to speak my political opinion. I have no time to spare to edit the Syrian government and militias. Whatever time I have is used for actual beneficial articles. In short, the historic background section is full of accusations and you need the opinion of the government. Just wait for an interesting editor, or do it yourself--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Constructive, good faith work on (perceived) issues with an article is to identify concrete issues, discuss them, work on them. Dear Attar-Aram syria, please do not try to make this a "political fight". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I discussed, the problems were laid, and the solutions are known: You edit the article to solve the bias, Amr can edit it, or wait for an interested user.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

the problems were laid, and the solutions are known -> No, this is NOT true. You are constantly insinuating a "personal bias" of my person, distracting from the discussion of concrete article issues into a "political fight", insulting me, but what has not happened is a clear pointing to and good faith discussion of the article, section by section, sub-section by sub-section. And exactly that is what is needed for solution in my view, I do not see an alternative, and I do not see you suggesting one. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, in my first response I laid the issues, explained the solutions and did not insult anyone, look here. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The only concrete (perceived) issue which you adressed "in your first response" was the sentence "I know that the Syrian government deny those accusations". This does actually support my suggestion to make the entire discussion point-by-point. I am not aware that the Syrian government would deny anything addressing its actions in this article, I could not find anything while researching it on the internet, the Human rights in Syria article does not mention any denial, and to solve this (perceived) issue, I do not see what better our community could do than as clearly and directly as possible point to this concrete (perceived) issue, just as I suggest. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You just live to argue and discuss and repeat your self and you make me repeat my self, dont you. So frustrating its like a forum.... I told you that your awareness isnt important yet you mention that you are not aware, again. I told you that Im not obligated to do a research and waste my time yet again you demand that I do it or otherwise the sources do not exist cause YOU couldnt find any. Dude, this isnt gonna last forever and you have such an appetite to talk. A flag was inserted, a problem exist, and the solution is by fixing the bias by an editor who is able to do his research, I cant do it, so wait for someone who will do it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources are important for Wikipedia. Sources. And if nobody, not even YOU, can find a source that the Syrian government (or any third party) would "deny" actions of it which are mentioned and well sourced in this article (apparently because such sources for denial do not exist), it does not make the article unbalanced to not mention what does not exist. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A small sample, you wrote about Syria not respecting the freedom of press in the historical background based on HRW report. But the government disagree and this is mentioned here. So again, just because you couldnt find a thing, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It means that you need an editor who will spend his time to do a research. And who told you I couldnt find ?? I said Im not willing to do an effort not couldnt find.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I cannot read the (Arabic? Persian?) language of the source, so I ask you to provide a translation, as per WP:NONENG. And if you can tell WHICH EXACT CLAIM(S) mentioned in the article this source allegedly references a Syrian government denial to, why don't you just insert a brief sentence into the article (while the Iranian "Young Jornalists' Club" website appears somewhat dubious as a source, for referencing an Assad statement it is probably ok), instead of wasting your and other people's time with extended flag discussions? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion for further procedure would be to address (perceived) neutrality issues topic by topic. Starting with moving the flag to sections concerned, and then diswcussiong those sections seperately. Any onjections to that procedure? Which sections should have such discussion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

All sections are concerned, specially the historical background as I said above. This article is full of deformities.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine, as you explicitly boast to play the 1RR rule for the article, would you be kind enough to turn the flag (back) into three section flags, with direct links to the talk page sections I create now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The editor who flagged the article believe it to be unnatural in its totality and he told you why. It is not up to you to decide where the flag goes !!!. Please, reach a consensus. I also agree that the three sections need work and this mean that the whole article is flawed and this mean that one flag is enough instead of three (a friendly note, why are you so passionate? pick your battles here carefully, cause you are a fighter darling and this fight you are having now isnt worth the stress you will get).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It is up to all of us here to make this a constructive, good faith discussion about the article and (perveived) issues it might have. This is not about "fighting". My suggestion is to break it down to the section level, and go through it part by part. This simply appears to be the most effective, constructive procedure to me. Do you have a different suggestion for procedure? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, since the errors or neutrality issues are said to include all sections, then one flag is enough as it is the norm in Wikipedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Flags about (perceived) issues are not an aim in itself. They are an instrument to help achieving consensus about and improving an article. And this can only be done by a discussion about concrete points, all concrete points, one by one. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are not the aim, they are meant to notify others about the problem and this problem cannot be solved with discussion cause its about a lack of information and representation in the article. It can be solved only if an editor came and elaborated the position of the government and the militias regarding the accusations. Do it yourself, or wait for an interested user. I dont know what are you discussing right now, like what is you aim ??? You can not take the flag out before adding paragraphs to describe the other point of view regarding the accusations. So, what are you discussing ! Just start writing the paragraphs or wait for some one to do it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The aim of the procedure, as you appear to agree now, must be to achieve SOLUTION of any (perceived) issues. And this is obviously best done by pointing to and discussing any concrete (perceived) issue as concrete and direct as possible. This is best done by making the entire discussion point-by-point. And as to the concrete (perceived) issue you mention, I am not aware that the Syrian government would deny anything addressing its actions in this article, I could not find anything while researching it on the internet, the Human rights in Syria article does not mention any denial either. I would be more than happy to add such stuff to the article if I could find it, but comprehensive research led me to the conclusion that, to my utmost regret, it appears not to exist. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You just live to argue and discuss and repeat your self and you make me repeat my self, dont you. So frustrating its like a forum.... I told you that your awareness isnt important yet you mention that you are not aware, again. I told you that Im not obligated to do a research and waste my time yet again you demand that I do it or otherwise the sources do not exist cause YOU couldnt find any. Dude, this isnt gonna last forever and you have such an appetite to talk. A flag was inserted, a problem exist, and the solution is by fixing the bias by an editor who is able to do his research, I cant do it, so wait for someone who will do it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources are important for Wikipedia. Sources. And if nobody, not even YOU, can find a source that the Syrian government (or any third party) would "deny" actions of it which are mentioned and well sourced in this article (apparently because such sources for denial do not exist), it does not make the article unbalanced to not mention what does not exist. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A small sample, you wrote about Syria not respecting the freedom of press in the historical background based on HRW report. But the government disagree and this is mentioned here. So again, just because you couldnt find a thing, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It means that you need an editor who will spend his time to do a research. Now please, fulfill your appetite for arguments and endless discussion and expression of opinion with someone else. I wasted enough time repeating myself and reading your same arguments over and over again Bye.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I cannot read the (Arabic? Persian?) language of the source, so I ask you to provide a translation, as per WP:NONENG. And if you can tell WHICH EXACT CLAIM(S) mentioned in the article this source allegedly references a Syrian government denial to, why don't you just insert a brief sentence into the article (while the Iranian "Young Jornalists' Club" website appears somewhat dubious as a source, for referencing an Assad statement it is probably ok), instead of wasting your and other people's time with extended flag discussions? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Another sample, here from the HRW site: the Syrian government denies all accusations. So, do you get why its so annoying to argue with you? you are a militant here. You push people with your persistence. I told you I dont want to waste my time doing a research but you kept saying that you are not aware of any sources and that if you couldnt find them then they dont exist and you pushed me to do something I didnt wanna do and start digging to find your majesty the sources !!! OMG a flag of neutrality is meant to notify interested users who can expand.. You cant expand so step aside and wait for someone who will do it instead of frustrating other users with forum discussions.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I cannot read the (Arabic? Persian?) language of the source, so I ask you to provide a translation, as per WP:NONENG. And if you can tell WHICH EXACT CLAIM(S) mentioned in the article this source allegedly references a Syrian government denial to, why don't you just insert a brief sentence into the article, instead of wasting your and other people's time with extended flag discussions? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that you cant use the HRW article to write a paragraph about the government cause its a counter argument by the accusing party. You need to find a copy of the government report itself.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I cannot read the (Arabic? Persian?) language of the sources you present here, so I ask you to provide a translation, as per WP:NONENG. The existence of an alleged "government report" you suggest appears completely into the blue to me. If you think the article has a balancing issue for not mentioning such an alleged "government report", it is up to you to provide evidence for the existence of such "government report". However, the topic of the thread here is not the substance but procedure, and everything you write obviously supports my suggestion to break down the discussion/flagging to the concrete sections and sub-sections of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You dont need to read, nor is your opinion important anymore and I dont have to present anything. The sources exist, and the Syrian report isnt alleged (its mentioned in the damn HRW site !!! ffs), and now you can go and do whatever you do in your life. Wait for a willing editor to start editing the article. As for WP:NONENG, its only when you quote an non English source that you need to provide a translation. Your claim that no source exist has been debunked. YOU have NOTHING to do with this problem anymore unless you are willing to dig the internet for the report of the government and the statements of the militias. Now leave (note: please stop talking about yourself, no one care about your opinion, awareness, beliefs...etc a sentence like "appears completely into the blue to me" means nothing !! who care if you didnt know before !!!!!!!!! this isnt about YOU !).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to uphold civility and good faith in discussion. And certainly I will not "leave". If there are sources for Syrian government statements to be included into the article, I would love to see that done, as I told you multiple times above. And for this purpose, as for any purpose of ever improving the article in good faith, it ever more apparently is imperative to break down discussion to the concrete sections and sub-sections of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And just to send you off cause im getting really annoyed: This is the English version of the HRW site to prove to you that its not an "alleged" report. Cause that is the most important thing we have, proving something to YOU. Pfffff "alleged", so garrulous--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This 2001 HRW link says "The Syrian government is erroneously claiming to United Nations experts that it has complied with the provisions of a major human rights treaty," with the reference "On March 30 (2001), the U.N. Human Rights Committee examined Syria's long-overdue report on its compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)." Where/how exactly would you work this into the article? I do not see it making any particular claims abour Syria's compliance or non-compliance with the ICCPR in 2001. A general sentence that Syria has in the past on occasion objected to UN reports of non-complance with the ICCPR? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You cant be serious... Dude, are you made of rubber ? Stop discussing this material, its not for you. This was just an example of the sources that exist. An editor needs to work on them, and balance this article and until then, the flag will remain to notify interested users. Since you are not gonna dig and find the reports then you should stop arguing cause you have no substance in your argument anymore. Syria practically denied every single accusation made by HRW (Syria has always presented long denying reports btw, not just the 2001 and dont you ever ask me to provide them, go find for yourself).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) The starting point of the discussion in this thread is the suggestion of mine to break any "balance" discussion into its section parts, and virtually everything you write supports the case for that suggestion. (2) As I told you multiple times, and will tell you multiple times in the future, I absoutely wish that the Baathist view on issues would be elaborated more in that first section of the article. (3) The reports on the human rights situation in Syria referenced in the first section of this article are not only HRW, but UN institutions as well. (4) Somewhat off topic, is there a reason that you are so obsessed with this article, and not with the dozen or so other articles on the human rights situation in Syria, presenting the same dire facts concerning Syria? I had gone through all of them a while ago looking (in vain) for Syrian government denials I could import, you would find ample playground for apologetics there. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol, dont mix between you and me, im not apologetic at all, I know our government did shitty things and is far from being innocent and I admit it instead of claiming that the YPG has nothing to do with the destruction of the Husseiniya village which was destroyed after the YPG invaded. I dont go to articles and declare that any accusation against the YPG must be countered with a paragraph with the same exact number of words in order for it to be neutral. Obsession and playgrounds, thats your thing, considering that you only edit Kurds and Erdogan. I, unlike someone, didnt come from reddit, im not a 40yo something zealot activist who have a lot of time obviously. Why I concentrate on this article ? cause if I dont, you will turn it into a reddit forum and make it a place to spread your always "humble" opinions.... Bye Bye.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You have somewhat successfully abstained from ad hominem insinuations, speculations, insults and so on on this section here, I recommend you stay with that better side of yours and not fall back into bad habits. Please reply to edits in substance, or not at all. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I advice to start writing real articles that dont involve your political passion. The likes of you destroy Wikipedia. I would really like to see (one day, but probably wont happen) an article written by you like my new project that is almost done and that is actually encyclopedic and beneficial.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Writing "real Wikipedia articles" about topics highly charged with political emotions, like Middle East politics articles, is the most important place for the mission of Wikipedia in my view. And I am proud to have contributed to making quite some of those sincere "real Wikipedia articles", and pretty good ones, after finding them in the sorry state of partisan activist bickering. The Rojava article, or this one here, are examples. "Destroying Wikipedia" are rather people who treat an article like this one here as a place for political "fighting". You may ask yourself in a quiet hour how you would rate your attitude towards cooperation here in good faith terms, so please stop posing. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"partisan activist bickering" do I need to point to whom this description fit the best.? Again, the likes of you, single purpose accounts, coming from political forums and reddit to push their opinions and defend their party, are a big threat to Wikipedia. By all criteria, you made the articles you mentioned worse by turning them into a place to worship your YPG loved ones (or whatever fancy word you like to use to describe this militia).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Quoting myself from above: You have somewhat successfully abstained from ad hominem insinuations, speculations, insults and so on on this section here, I recommend you stay with that better side of yours and not fall back into bad habits. Please reply to edits in substance, or not at all. On this article here, this is how I found it, and this is it today. On the Rojava article, this is how I found it, and this is it today. The fact that YOU perceive, or at least love to defame, the turning of these articles from a partisan political bickering mess into good and sincere Wikipedia articles as "YPG worship" speaks not about the articles or about me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, again, you made them worse cause you are a partisan activist (oh wow, the most persistent activist Ive seen, wow, come on, even you cant deny this). I decided to stop replying, gosh you love to talk.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: the discussion elaborated the opinions of both parties. I have said what I had to say, and I wont allow this to drag me for days (as usual when it comes to discussions involving 2A1ZA..) and this doesnt mean that you have a consensus but it means that I dont want to repeat my self. Please 2A1ZA, understand the reason for the flags. The discussion told you whats wrong, just wait for Amr to edit the article if he can, or for an interested user, or do it yourself. Ciao.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA, remember all the KurdWatch information you deleted from this article? This is the lack of neutrality I am talking about. There is another side of the story, but you persistently keep deleting it. don't waste my time and other people's time just discussing for the sake of discussing. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There has not been any "Kurdwatch" sourced junk in this article for a long time, and I do very well remember my contribution to deleting it. Deleting junk sourced with a website that lives (rather lived, it has been shut down some time ago, after our German authorities cut the abuse of a public university's funds for it) from putting up rumours into the internet under an aggressively partisan agenda, this certainly is an imperative of Wikipedia rules, and certainly does improve and not imperil the neutrality of an article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The only junk is anything inserted by you since you are the biggest partisan around here. Kudwatch was approved on Wikipedia, so whatever you think of it is irrelevant, just like all your opinions. This reminded me that I should restore what you deleted cause you had no right to do it and didnt seek a consensus, it was pure vandalism (as are most of your "NPOV" edits). And now you will write me a huge paragraph about your very important opinion which I give zero care for. Hence, I wont reply.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Attar-Aram syria, the content substance aspect of this points very much to the core of the issue I have with your attitude towards this article. This "Kurdwatch" junk was/is rumours to support the narrative of the Kurdish nationalist camp, centered around the KDP-S party and its KNC alliance. I have on several occasions sought to start a sincere (not "Kurdwatch" sourced) insertion of the "political participation" topic into section 3 of the article, and at least the last such attempt was reverted by you, for the sake of rather a Daily-Mail-style sentence of an KNC-associated journalist making some anecdote claim with many buzzwords. I will probably somewhen make a new attempt, with a "Political participation rights" subsection, and I would very much appreciate it if you contribute to a sincere presentation of the topic tather than trying to make it a reddit-style "accusation buzzword timeline" (as you did with all of this article before I started working on it, contributing to make it the quality Wikipedia article which it is now). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: The owner of Kurdwatch website is also owner of the KNC (ENKS) website. The KNC, a part of Syrian opposition, is the biggest opposition alliance against Rojava. The KCN doesn't recognize Rojava and PYD. They actually don't even recognize the government of Syria (they call Assad as a "gang" and terrorist in their reports). Kurdwatch website still states: Nevertheless we cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information contained therein. We are excluded from liability for damages that directly or indirectly result from the use of this website, provided that the damage is neither intentional nor the result of gross negligence. The European Center for Kurdish Studies assumes no responsibility for the content of third-party sites referenced on this website. If you know what is AINA (Assyrian International News Agency), I can tell that Kurdwatch is 2x worse than it. I would be very careful about Kurdwatch reports and use "Kurdwatch, a Germany-based Kurdish internet portal, claims" when mentioning their "claims". Ferakp (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The KNC and Kurdwatch use same offices, they have same managers and even same resources.

Here's a proof:

Registrant Contact Information: KNC-geneva.org

Name Europaeisches Zentrum fuer kurdische Studien e.V.

Organization

Address Siamend Hajo

Address Emser Strasse 26

City Berlin

Postal Code 12051

Country DE

Phone +49.3067968527

Email

---

Registrant Contact Information: Kurdwatch.org

Name Siamend Hajo

Organization EZKS

Address Emser Str. 26

City Berlin

Postal Code 12051

Country DE

Phone +49.3062607032

Email Ferakp (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

To be honest Ferakp, I dont care about restoring Kurdwatch. But I do care about making that user understand that he doesnt own the articles, that the articles are not a playground or a battlefield and definitely not a forum to express his political opinions (since he is very vocal in several forums, sites...etc and he just loooooooves to argue) He cant decide that a source is not reliable, he cant decide a scope of an article and he cant frustrate editors with long discussion to get what he wants by driving others desperate (not to mention the weird IPs always showing up). I used not to interfere here a lot, practically, I didnt add a full paragraph to those articles before that user showed up. But he pushed me when he edited every single edit I made, when he edit-warred me, when he wasted my time. To be short, if he gets less zealous, I will move away from this damn article and anything that has to do with Rojava or the civil war.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Users make a lot of mistakes initially but later they learn. Thank you for your efforts to improve these articles anyway. Ferakp (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA, I wonder if you believe in the same when it comes to the neutrality of Turkish military intervention in Syria? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Please do not remove this para on FSA torture videos against clear express objection (and without a serious reaon), such deletion violates Wikipedia policy

Dear Attar-Aram syria, please do not remove the paragraph on FSA torture videos against clear express objection (and without a serious reaon), such deletion violates Wikipedia policy. And your claim "there is a consensus to remove it (me and amr against you)", is no valid argument, consens is not "percveived majority vote". Deleting this paragraph is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please restore it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Man, Im not your dear, If it was legal for you to shoot me, you would do it. Now, you inserted the sentence a few months ago without a consensus, remember ? I deleted it, but instead of you seeking a consensus to restore it, you edit warred and I was too busy with my tests that I just tried to step aside, not giving you a consensus. Now, also amr agree and that is a consensus. You dont need to agree all the time cause we had a long discussion about the scope of Rojava where many editors participated and only you thought that the article is perfect. So, now that your "official" map was sent to the recycle bin where it belongs, and no one accepted it as a criteria (since a militia cant declare a land scope it doesnt control), and after it became a consensus that the article should mention things that happened in Rojava and that not everything the YPG claim is a Rojava, then you have no reason whatsoever to insert this paragraph. I advice you to insert the paragraph in the YPG article, the FSA article or even human rights in Syria, but not in Rojava cause this didnt happen in Rojava. Oh, can you please stop tagging me or ping me? I have the articles on my watch list, dont worry, I will always know when you write anything here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read back the last month arguments/discussion above. Subsection 2 of this article is concerned with "Human rights issues with Syrian Civil War armed forces in the region", and the 2013 ISIL ethnic cleansings in the Tel Abyad district (before the event in part, and now completely, de facto part of Kobani Canton administration) are most clearly "in the region" of the Rojava topic, whichever of the three definition approaches (see introduction of the Rojava article) one chooses. And you yourself have been very busy inserting/expanding human rights related events in Tel Abyad into this article here, with respect to a civil war party you dislike. Your opposition against this edit is most blatant political activist hypocrisy. Please start to approach this article, and the issue at hand, with a constructive good faith attitude. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This section is about Jarablus. Anyway, your paragraph is not in the region. Get a map: Tel Arab and Tal Hassel are in southern Aleppo. Tell Abyad mentioned in your paragraph denote the city itself and it wasnt part of what you call a Rojava. Only the immediate Kobanî area belong. Do not talk about activism. Everyone know what kind of an activist you are. You dont see me all over the internet telling people my opinions and arguing with them. In all cases, this is a controversial paragraph which you have no consensus for. If you will play this game, then from now on, many controversial paragraphs which will make you cry will be inserted and I will just watch how you will be waiting by your PC for the minute you can revert back, only to see it restored.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"First time in Syria history

This very weird sentence was inserted to a new section. It is untrue and very ignorant. It is part of the constant very "NPOV" attempts to portray the YPG occupied territories as a heaven by bashing the mother country. I have tens of academic reliable sources to contradict it. Syria in the fifties and forties was democracy. It was a parliamentary republic with elected officials. No single source can be used to affirm such a claim that what is happening in the Syrian north didnt happen before. I advise reading those books: Syria 1945-1986 (RLE Syria): Politics and Society - Damascus Between Democracy and Dictatorship.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)