Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

POV-pushing

Amr has a history of problematic anti-Kurdish editing stretching back years, with a notable burst of it at the time of the last Turkish incursion into Syria late last year. Here they have introduced POV that they failed to do at Kurds in Syria, using selected sources to present the Syrian Kurds as interlopers, in accord with Turkish and Syrian state propaganda. There's an interesting story to tell about how, why, and when these parts of Syria came to be settled by Kurdish people, and how the last major migration in the early 20th century still informs citizenship laws and attitudes today, but this Erdoganist/Assadist conspiracy theory is not it. Amr made what they knew would be a controversial edit, and instead of coming to the talk page to make their case after being reverted, immediately launched into an edit war in defiance of BRD (which they have hypocritically cited elsewhere). Will they be sanctioned for this? Konli17 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, What does an Erdoganist/Assadist conspiracy theory have to do with Kurdish immigration to Syria in the 1920's? Obviously, you fail to argue with the sourced content, some of these sources are from the mid 20th century, long before Assad, and half a century before Erdogan. The content is well sourced, and well known by the way. If you don't like it, that's your problem, but then you can stay away from the topic. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You have failed to persuade me that your controversial and provocative edit has merit. Konli17 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You might recall we covered similar ground at Talk:Qamishli#Foundation,_demographic_changes_etc.. It can be difficult to get you to commit to a conversation. Konli17 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

They're certainly heading toward a sanction. I left them a warning not to edit war and to observe WP:ONUS. Hopefully, it will register. Note that a topic ban from the topic area is at my discretion to impose, per the WP:GS/SCW general sanctions. El_C 14:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully. Konli17 (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The writer of the source is kurdish and the source is from USA. Can you explain why this is POV? It is nor Turkish nor arabic or Assad pov.Peacetowikied (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the second brand-new user to show an inordinate interest in my edits, and little else. Konli17 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry i was the ip, look my talk page.Peacetowikied (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But can you explain the POV points of the sources Peacetowikied (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Konli17: You reverted edits claiming these were POV-pushing. User Peacetowikied and myself are asking for detailed explanations regarding the mass removal of sourced content under your claim. If you are not willing to provide detailed explanations to each and every statement you removed, then I will have to report you for edit-warring and POV-pushing. As per El C's request on my Talk page, I am acting here in good faith to give you another chance at explain your content removal edit. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a new tune for you, Amr. My recollection of our discussion at Talk:Tell_Abyad#Recent_reverts is that trying to get any meaningful engagement from you, let alone "detailed explanations to each and every statement you removed", was like trying to get blood from a stone. I went into great detail, to no avail. What's changed? Konli17 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, a substantive explanation is due nonetheless. If there are systemic problems, ANI is the venue in which to submit a well-documented report. This article talk page is not for that. El_C 00:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Amr has assembled references which give the impression that the majority of Syrian Kurds are descended from recent migrants, ignoring the many references available at Kurds in Syria that say otherwise. Exaggerating the Kurdish north-south migration of the 1920s (estimated to have added 10% to the Kurdish population of al-Jazira Province) is a familiar trope, used by the Assad regimes to justify land seizure and denial of citizenship, and by the AKP to justify ethnic cleansing. From these references, Amr presented a quite slanted picture, ignoring the mountain of other evidence available. Amr is quite familiar with this evidence, having tried for years to make Kurds in Syria more in line with their beliefs, and failed. Now they try here. Many of these references could be useful, but not when used in the manner Amr attempted. If Amr wanted a demographics section, they could have simply copy-and-pasted Kurds_in_Syria#Demographics, but they chose a different road. Konli17 (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop your accusations and focus in the content! Which one of my references is an Assad regime story? None of the references is even Arab. And how is Kurds_in_Syria#Demographics different from the text I added here? In the section you are referring to it is mentioned: "Sir John Hope Simpson reports that the Jazira province had 100,000 inhabitants, among which 20,000 were Kurds." This reference is from 1939 (French mandate era), so 30 years before Assad and an era of no Arab (Syrian government) influence what soever. The section you are referring to is almost identical except for more details here given that this area (northeastern Syria) is the focus of this article, and this is where most of the Kurdish inflow happened (rather talking in general about Syria as in the other article). This information is well documented and is relevant, so you denying it does not change facts. Maybe I am opening your eyes to another evidence that you will try to delete from the other article. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

See Kurds_in_Syria#Citizenship and Kurds_in_Syria#Arab_cordon. Konli17 (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is a real discussion to take place, I'd like to be part of it. I guess it is better we do this at an ANI as El C has recommended.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any way around it at this stage. Konli17 (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

well you fighting here in a WP:BATTLEPeacetowikied (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Peacetowikied, please. You are not helping. El_C 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

But after few days i go revert this. Konli17 has personal dispute with that arab guy. But the sources are not pov Peacetowikied (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli, regarding the citizenship and Arab cordon info, obviously you are cherry picking the information that suits your agenda. However, I am not against adding that as part of a chronological narration of events starting with the information you deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, that is not substantive enough. You need to address the content in relation to the sources. That is how you are meant to engage this article talk page to resolve the dispute. El_C 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Amr, you're projecting again with your talk of cherrypicking. You asked how the trope informed regime policy, I showed you. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by that, El C. The content Amr added was slewed to undermine Syrian Kurdish claims to their homeland. Amr's 'Historical background' section kicks off with an unreferenced statement that "Historical Kurdistan during Ottoman times referred to parts of northeastern Iraq and southeastern Turkey", followed by a confusing part about post-WWI negotiations, before concluding with an assertion that there are only three parts of Kurdistan, i.e. it only exists outside Syria. The section called 'Kurdification of the area' is also confusing, drawing on references to early 20th-century migration to Jazira to paint a picture of Kurdish interlopers. The major Kurdish areas to the west are ignored. Kurdish migration to Jazira, small as it was, is presented as Kurdification; Christian migration is presented as neutral. I don't really have a problem with the the references used here, rather the cherrypicking of information from them and then the slanted presentation of that information. I have my suspicions about French census-takers' reliability, but that's a relatively minor quibble. My intention is that this article broadly follow the articles about the other three parts of Kurdistan; Amr skewed it well away from the norm. Konli17 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

If you feel I am cheery picking, then add the missing info, without deleting the entire portion I added. What you are saying about no Kurdistan in Syria is a word for word quote from the Treaty of Sevres text that Kurdish nationalists request to be enacted, so I don't really think that's biased. Give me one source published before 2011 mentioning the term Syrian Kurdistan. Yes, there are Kurdish inhabited areas in Syria, but with other groups, nothing purely Kurdish. Even the small pocket in Afrin has an Arab population and has seen inflowing Kurdish immigration from Turkey but I chose to leave that out. I can include it if you wish. Your argument has just shown how POV-pushing is your editing. My edits are all balanced and from European sources. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's two: The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development, by Wadie Jwaideh (2006, page 1), and Archaeometry 98: The Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, April 26-May 3 1998, Part 2 (page 389). No part of Kurdistan is absolutely ethnically homogenous, and no-one has claimed this. Konli17 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked for the term "Syrian Kurdistan", not Kurdistan. These references don't mention a "Syrian Kurdistan". Christian migration is not presented as neutral, it is clearly mentioned that French authorities encouraged Christian and Kurdish immigration from Turkey. If you want to add more info to that be my guest, but our discussion right now is about the major parts you deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Both of those references clearly specify Syrian Kurdistan. It's not clear from the section title, which specifies Kurdification. You haven't convinced me we need any of this information here at all, it seems to be quite adequately covered at Kurds in Syria. We can seek advice from the relevant talk pages how it's decided what material gets covered at Northern Kurdistan, Southern Kurdistan, and Eastern Kurdistan, and what gets covered at Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Iraq, and Kurds in Iran. Konli17 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

With your agenda, no amount of evidence will ever convince you. I invited you to add what you think is missing information, but you won't do that, rather insisting on keeping this very neutrally-written, well-sourced and very relevant information out. @El C:, what do you think? It's about time you restore the deleted portion. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You're projecting again. Konli17 (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this all you are going to contribute here, just keeping to throw accusations around? Again, I invited you to complement the material that you feel is missing from my edit that you removed, but you never presented anything. If you have "another side of the story" then bring it up. What you are currently doing is just objecting for the sake of objection, without presenting any solution or way forward. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

When you accused me of having an agenda in your last comment, was that you throwing accusations around? You still haven't convinced me we need to have any of this information here, given how well it's covered at Kurds in Syria, an article with which you have a long association. Konli17 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?! This article was fine the way it was as a redirect to the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. All the content in this article is already covered in that article and the Kurds in Syria article. This article is just another one of Konli17’s POV edits and his attempt to show Syrian Kurdistan as an entity even though it only emerged as a concept in the late 20th century. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the creation of this article was discussed and agreed upon in the last naming discussion for the AANES. While the contents of the article are still disputed, the issue itself is noteworthy and warrants a separate topic. Applodion (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I read the discussion above, and I think Konli does not has a natural point of view, he is trying to follow an aganda, and when he is not able to build an argument with amr, he started a personal attack. Please stay on the topic, and provide evidence for the claims. Michel Bakni (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Pov pushing made up lede

First sentence in article says: "Syrian Kurdistan (also Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎ or simply Rojava)) is the portion of Kurdistan in Syria," So the first sentence of the article claims that inside Syria a "Kurdistan" exists" and it is presenting this as a fact. Who recognizes this? What state or organization? This is only a kurdish nationalistic pov and noting more. There has NEVER been a "Syrian Kurdistan", its a made up thing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Saying that Syrian Kurdistan is the portion of Kurdistan in Syria indicates that Kurdistan covered those regions before the establishment of Syria. Where is the historical evidence for that? Kurdish nomads grazing their herds is not an evidence that they are in a "homeland". There need to be academic sources proving that these regions were part of Kurdistan prior to Syria. Hence, do we have reports by governments from before the establishment of Syria designating these regions as Kurdistan? or reports by travelers? If not, then the lead should make it clear that Syrian Kurdistan is a designation used by Kurds to indicate the regions they consider part of Kurdistan--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with users Supreme Deliciousness and Attar Aram syria. The conventional wisdom talks about three parts of Kurdistan; in Turkey, Iran and Iraq. See these reference works for example:

• David McDowall, 1997. A Modern History of the Kurds
• Denise Natali 2005. The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.

While Kurds do live in Syria (various parts), no Syrian territory is considered part of Kurdistan, which is also echoed in the Treaty of Sevres map and Ottoman maps, etc. We can refer to the presence of Kurdish-inhabited areas in northeaster Syria, but it is a mistake to refer to that as part of Kurdistan. Otherwise, we would be also calling Armenian Kurdistan, German Kurdistan (parts of German suburbs)? Here is a reference saying PYD created the name rojava (west Kurdistan) (PYD invented rojava. P276 last paragraph). Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Are all three of you in agreement that the term 'Syrian/Western Kurdistan' is nothing more than a Kurdish nationalist POV? Konli17 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This isnt an exchange of opinions. If prior to the establishment of Syria the regions of Afrin and Ayn al-Arab and Qamishli were acknowledged by the majority of the international and academic community as Kurdistan then the current introduction in the lead is correct and sources wont be hard to find. Otherwise yes, its just Kurdish nationalistic ambtions that has no base in history.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I asked it because both you and Amr said you agreed with SD, who wrote "This is only a kurdish nationalistic pov and noting more." Why do you say "prior to the establishment of Syria"? Konli17 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You did not ask the right question that is relevant for the article. As an encyclopedia, you need to be based on academia, so opinions are irrelevant. I say prior to Syria because you used a language in the lead that indicates that there was a Kurdistan and Syria took parts of it. Therefore, you need to establish the existence of Kurdistan in Afrin, Ain al Arab and Qamishli prior to Syria. Otherwise, it should be clear that it is the Kurds who consider these regions part of their Kurdistan and that its not the historical reality.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I often ask the wrong questions. Syria has only lost territory since the French took over. What language in the lead indicates to you that Syria took anything? Konli17 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Syria has only lost territory since the French took over"-It isnt our topic in this article. "Syrian Kurdistan (also Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎ or simply Rojava)) is the portion of Kurdistan in Syria". This indicates a historic Kurdistan invaded, annexed, or taken, by Syria. I would change into: "Syrian Kurdistan (also Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎ or simply Rojava)) designates three non-contiguous regions in the Aleppo, Raqqa, and Al-Hasakah Governorates with a Kurdish ethnic majority. Then you can explain about the origin of the name Kurdistan and its usage by the Kurds in Syria.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't indicate "invaded, annexed, or taken by Syria" to me. Konli17 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

But it does logically. If a portion of a land is within another land then the latter took it somehow. Prove that this was Kurdistan before Syria, which will justify claiming that these lands are portions of Kurdistan in Syria. This seems like an attempt to go on and on in the discussion just to retain the current version of the article which is more in line with the Kurdish nationalistic pov. However, this will not continue forever, as a consensus will be reached, even if one editor is against it. Most importantly, in Wikipedia, consensus is built when you have different pov's and each is supported by solid evidence, however, you have failed to prove that these lands are within the borders of historic Kurdistan, so presenting them as parts of Kurdistan for granted in this article is unsupported by reliable sources, and this warrants the deletion of the sentence whether there is a consensus or not. I hope the rules of WIkipedia will be followed, or there will be no point of discussion and an admin will have to enforce the rules and delete the unsupported material.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing cultural regions with states. Konli17 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

No Im not. Kurdistan is not merely a cultural region, and we both know the nationalistic aspects of that term and its usage by the Kurds. Anyway, I really hope that you will be part of the solution and compromise instead of insisting on having it your way which will not happen since you are not presenting any reliable sources. We seem to be at a dead end now, so I will wait a while to see how this evolve.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have the same hope for you. The Kurdistan article doesn't seem to cover Kurdish nationalism much, apart from a mention in the lede. It would strike me as undue to go into detail about nationalism here and not at the main article. The Kurds article does go into detail about it, so I reckon you'd have a stronger argument for inclusion at Kurds in Syria than for here. Konli17 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The article of Kurdistan is different: there is no doubt that a Kurdistan exist. Its borders, and its extension into Syria, are controversial topics. The Kurds in Syria article is about the Kurds who live in Syria, which is undeniable and does not mean nationalistic ambitions. Kurdistan in Syria on the other hand is much more controversial. The article of Kurdistan have: "a geo-cultural historical region" So where are the historic roots of this region in Syria? You wrote this article yourself, without any consensus, and you failed to source it. You have been in Wikipedia enough to know that this situation wont end up in your favour.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I did source it. You keep talking about nationalism and I don't understand why. Kurdish nationalists have a very different view of Western Kurdistan than the one I described. You're right, "there is no doubt that a Kurdistan exist," even among Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian nationalists. But they all want Kurdistan to exist outside their states. Konli17 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Im not talking about nationalism, but about the existence of Kurdistan in Syria, which is only a nationalistic dream, if it cant be supported by historical records and reliable academic sources (which you failed to provide).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A nationalistic nightmare for certain types of nationalists. By historical records, do you mean prior to the establishment of the Syrian state? Konli17 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thats what I mean. Do you have some memoires by a traveller from lets say the 18th or 19th centuries writing: I went to Afrin, in Kurdistan...etc? Or an official British or French document mentioning that they will divide Kurdistan with France getting Ain al-Arab in Kurdistan? Just any historic record mentioning a Kurdistan in the lands that are part of Syria today?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, without these we ought not describe Western Kurdistan as a historical region, do I understand you correctly? Konli17 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you do, but also, you cant present the existence of Kurdistan in Syria as a fact, since it is disputed and has no historic base. Right now, a reader will understand that it is unopposed that a Kurdistan exist in Syria, which might be true, but need to be supported by solid evidence.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The existence of all of the parts of Kurdistan are disputed. I'm happy to add material that shows the Syrian nationalist POV, as well as the Kurdish nationalist one. Konli17 (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well no. Not all parts are disputed rightly. We do have many accounts of western travelers to Kurdistan where they mention what cities and boundries that land have. Also Ottoman period historians...etc So it cannot be denied that many areas in Turkey or Iraq (not to mention Iran, the Urheimat of the Kurdish language) are part of the historic region of Kurdistan. When it comes to Syria, Im happy with the existence of Kurdistan if this can be proven, otherwise, saying a Kurdistan exist in Syria is purely a nationalistic POV, unlike the situation in Iraq for example. Anyway, We will decide what material will be added and what language will be used soon, once other editors jump in.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I could find you a few Turks, Iraqis, and Iranians who would deny it strenuously. When you say 'proven', you mean from historical documents? Konli17 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"When you say 'proven', you mean from historical documents?" Yes, you know this is what I mean. Anyway, what User:Applodion did solved most my issues, and for that I give a big thanks. So if this current version can be maintained and improved after discussions on the talk page, we will all get a rest.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Kurdistan Eyalet stretched from Lake Van to Deir ez-Zor, encompassing much of modern Western Kurdistan. Konli17 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits

Konli17, I just added a reference that the term Syrian Kurdistan is used by PYD. Please refrain from your edit-warring bahavior and do not remove that content. Otherwise, I would be forced to report you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's bad faith behaviour on your part, Amr. Well you know it's not just the PYD who describes Western Kurdistan thus, as your edit implies. Konli17 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Then add the other sources/outlets that do adopt the name, but don't remove sourced, relevant material! We still have to discuss the historical background section, but the discussion cannot just go forever so that you keep your reverted truncated version as is. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are already in the article. Your text implies it's solely a PYD term. Konli17 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Then mention the other parties using it, but don't remove the reference to the PYD, because this is how it all started. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can show that the PYD was the genesis for use of the terms Western and Syrian Kurdistan, this would be dynamite, and well worth describing. In the meanwhile, I intend to retain the many references that use the term without unnecessarily highlighting those from groups that I oppose. Konli17 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Konli, I think you coming up with a pre-2003 reference to a "Syrian Kurdistan" would really be a bombshell. Here is another reference that indicates the name is a Kurdish invention: And in Northern Syria, a region the Kurds refer to as Rojava (Western Kurdistan), a non-statist/stateless form of autonomy .... Anyone is welcome to add this reference to the lead. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I recall bombing you back to 1998 on this very topic above. Konli17 (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall so. Give me your evidence! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

17:19, 29 July 2020, above. Konli17 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And what do they say exactly? Can you quote? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Population development and Kurdistan Eyalet

In regard to Supreme Deliciousness' attempts at adding population development to the article, I want to reiterate why these additions are absolutely irrelevant to the article: As the article itself states, "Syrian Kurdistan" is NOT a historical region (despite it being grouped together into Kurdistan by some pre-1980s groups). It is a modern concept which developed from the mid-20th century. So it does not matter when exactly Kurds migrated to the area, as their migration did not "create" Syrian Kurdistan. It is an idea; an idea does not need concrete, hard facts on the ground. "Syrian Kurdistan" developed organically as an ambition of nationalists and as description for some parts of Syria. The fact that said concept still lacks firm borders showcases how confusing the situation remains and how little actual population groups matter in this context. For example, Afrin is almost never shown as part of "Greater Kurdistan", yet Syrian Kurds regard it as part of "Syrian Kurdistan". Population shifts belong to the "Kurds in Syria" article, not here. Applodion (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The reader needs to see where the people who are pushing for a "Syrian Kurdistan" come from, how they ended up there. You say "as their migration did not "create" Syrian Kurdistan." actually it did, because if they hadn't migrated to Syria, they wouldn't be there and obviously Arabs, Syriacs and Assyrians wouldn't be pushing for a "Syrian Kurdistan", so it is directly related. This sentence is also in the article: "Kurds have lived in territories which later became part of modern Syria for centuries." how is that relevant to the article but how they got to Syria is not relevant? You also removed the quotes trying to portray "kurdistan" in Syria as a fact. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not true to say that it's not a historical region; Kurdistan Eyalet stretched from Lake Van to Deir ez-Zor, encompassing much of modern Western Kurdistan. Konli17 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: No, it does not. The quote about Kurds being present there simply states a fact, and is contrasted with "Before the 1980s, however, Kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria were usually only regarded as Kurdish regions of Syria". The reader can thus understand that while Kurds lived in the area before the 1980s, the concept of "Syrian Kurdistan" only emerged in the 20th century's second half. Of course there would be not Kurdistan without Kurds, but migration history has no direct bearing on the emergence of "Syrian Kurdistan" per se, as it emerged in consequence of political activism, not mass migration. "Syrian Kurdistan" gained mass appeal in the 1980s, decades after the last large population shifts. Secondly, what do you even mean with "kurdistan in Syria as a fact"? The article makes it abundantly clear that certain groups, not everyone, think that parts of Syria are part of Kurdistan. The "the unification of Kurdistan" issue is directly attributed to the PKK and PYD.
@Konli17: Kurdistan Eyalet was not "Syrian Kurdistan", though; the article is about a separate "Western" / "Syrian" Kurdistan, not about Greater Kurdistan. I agree that it warrants mentioning. Applodion (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Kurdish regions of Syria" is a pov statement claiming areas in Syria are not Syrian but Kurdish, it must be removed. Kurdish migration is part of the claim of "Syrian Kuridistan" that is why background info is important, without the kurdish migration, it would never have happened. "Unification of Kurdistan" was without quotes and presented as a fact and not attributed to PKK. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Mmmh, I have looked into the issue, and found no source confirming that Kurdistan Eyalet strechted into Syria (the sources seem to indicate that it mostly covered a large areas in eastern Anatolia and northern Iraq, bordering Iran). @Konli17:, Can you show me sources which say so. Thanks in advance. Applodion (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Turkish language source only, at Diyarbekir Eyalet. Konli17 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Diyarbekir / Kurdistan Eyalet does not seem to include Syrian territory in this map.

Doesn't the Turkish article only confirm that parts of Syria were at some point of Diyarbekir Eyalet? As far as I understand, Kurdistan Eyalet succeeded Diyarbekir Eyalet, but the two had not the same territories (as Kurdistan Eyalet covered further areas at the Iranian border)? In consequence, there is no definitive proof that Diyarbekir's Syrian areas were ever part of Kurdistan Eyalet. The map to the right from 1855 mislabels Kurdistan Eyalet as Diyarbekir Eyalet (as Kurdistan Eyalet had replaced Diyarbekir at the time), but still shows that no part of modern Syria was part of Diyarbekir / Kurdistan Eyalet at the time. Applodion (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

CUINET(1892) 2.126 Aleppo Vilayet

Konli17, I will continue here. You shouldnt count on the Ottoman administrative units to establish historic regions. I qoute: "The basic Ottoman administrative unit , the eyalet , was very large and cut across ethnic boundaries". This was the case for Diyarbekir Eyalet, which was renamed to Kurdistan for about 20 years, and this is understandable as the population centres of the province had a Kurdish majority, but that was not meant to designate a historical region of the Kurds. These centres are all in Turkey today anyway as no city in the Syrian Jazira, which you call Western Kurdistan, existed! The region was a place for Kurdish and Arab nomads after it was devastated by Timur and it only urbanised in the 20 century. Other examples can be given of how Ottoman divisions meant nothing: the Syria Vilayet which didnt include Aleppo (does anyone doubt that Aleppo is part of historic Syria?). Aleppo Vilayet which included regions deep in Turkey (does this makes these regions historical Syrian ones?)...etc If you want to prove that Syrian Kurdistan is a historic region, or that the Kurdish inhabited regions of Syria are part of historic Kurdistan, then the Ottoman administrative divisions are not the way to go.
Applodion: if the Kurdistan eyalet will be mentioned, then a background on the Ottoman eyalets will be mentioned as well, as this should be contextualized to avoid the usage of history to serve modern agendas.
As for the demographic changes, I stand with Applodion if the scope of the article will remain as it is now. However, if new material will be added, such as the Kurdistan eyalet, to imply the existence of a historical region, then I will be adding material to explain that history, which will include demographic changes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Attar, above you asked for "Just any historic record mentioning a Kurdistan in the lands that are part of Syria today?" Now you seem to be shifting the goalposts. Konli17 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I asked, and Im not shifting anything. You did not present a historical record of a historic Kurdistan but mentioned the existence of an Ottoman province which is something that has nothing to do with historic regions or ethnic homelands, but an administrative division that crossed these lines. When it comes to the ethnic policy of the Ottomans, you can make use of them allowing the Kurdish principalities to retain their autonomy, ofcourse under the governorship of the Wali in Dyiar Baker, a province that has nothing to do with a historic homeland of the Kurds.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as we have no source actually stating that Kurdistan Eyalet included Syrian territories, this is a non-issue anyway, as the eyalet only warrants mentioning if it had a presence in Syria. Btw, I see both of your points. Attar-Aram is correct in that presenting an Ottoman province as predecessor to the modern "Syrian Kurdistan" would be wrong, as it had very different connotations and implications. Regardless, Konli17 also has a point: If the administrative area included Syrian lands while being called "Kurdistan", it would showcase that a geographical definition of Kurdistan included some Syrian areas at the time (for whatever reason). Nevertheless, we should only mention the eyalet if its control of Syrian territory is proven. Applodion (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no wish to present an Ottoman province as a predecessor to the modern Western Kurdistan, I was asked for a historical reference to Kurdistan in Syria and I've done my best to find one. The Kurdistan Eyalet page says it "included the former Diyarbakir Eyalet and the areas around Van, Hakkari and Muş as well as the districts of Botan, Mardin and Cizre." Diyarbekir Eyalet included Deir ez-Zor Sanjak after 1526. It seems to me that there must have been a reduction in the size of Diyarbakir Eyalet at some point between then and when that map was made in 1855, nine years after the creation of the Kurdistan Eyalet, but I don't know when. I believe the 1855 map does include the Amuda area in the Kurdistan Eyalet. Konli17 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, what you presented is not a reference to Kurdistan (the genuine historical homeland of the Kurdish people) in Syria. You mentioned an Ottoman division that does not correspond to any cultural, historic, or political realities. The province of Diyarbekir, temporarily Kurdistan, included the actual historic Kurdistan but was not limited to it, and the regions in Syria you call Kurdistan were not part of the actual Kurdistan within the Diyarbekir province. This historic Kurdistan is a collection of Sanjaks ruled by Kurdish hereditary rulers, and each Sanjak was created to correspond to a Kurdish principality. The lands in Syria that you consider Kurdistan became part of Zor Sanjak, created in 1857, and according to J. D. H. Stewart, who visited the Sanjak in 1881, the districts of Jaghjagh River, Khabur (Euphrates), and Rmelan, were all part of this Sanjak. Thats a historical report for example. However, what does this mean? According to Charles Issawi, the Zor Sanjak was essentialy an Arab district, but in its north-west, north, and north-east, are places of different peoples and religions. So? should we say that its because the lands of north-eastern Syria are not Kurdistan they were organized into the Zor Sanjak? or should we just understand the Ottoman divisions as they are: administrative bodies that do not indicate anything. If the Kurdistan Eyalet included parts of what is being called Syrian Kurdistan and this will be mentioned in the article, then a contextualization will follow immediately, because just mentioning this Eyalet with that name will lead many non-familiar readers to make conclusions that has no base in reality.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I gave what I was asked for. No more, no less. Konli17 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SD and Attar, that we need a section on the history of demographics in the area, as it has seen major shifts in the last century, resulting in a Kurdish majority in three pockets in northern Syria (Qamishli, Ain al-Arab, and Afrin), hence some Kurdish nationalists trying to call for a Syrian Kurdistan. This is very important background information that makes this area different from Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan or Iranian Kurdistan, where the Kurdish populations represent overwhelming majorities. Here, it's very different from at least three aspects:

1. Ethnic composition is very mixed
2. The Kurdish population is newer to northeastern Syria, compared to Kurdistan
3. Kurdish-inhabited areas in Syria are not contiguous

I supported the concept of this article to be a standalone article based on these factors above, and given that we would be able to give the background behind this Syrian Kurdistan concept. If people are against adding this background information here, then this article will be truncated, and would not need to be a standalone article, therefore would need to be redirected to the AANES article, just as it always did. One last comment to respond to Konli's claims about the Diyarbekr villayet being Kurdistan, you may want to check out this book Social Relations in Ottoman Diyarbekir 1870-1915 to gain a better understanding of the ethnic composition of the villayet. In short, the area from Diyarbekir (city) to the north of Resulayn (Ras al-Ain) is mixed Arab, Kurdish and Christian (Armenian, Assyrian, Syriac, Nestorians, etc.), while south of Ras al-Ain only the Arab tribes of Shammar, Tay and Bekari (Baggara) are mentioned. I quote from the book:

1. Diyarbekir was an important centre of both traditional industry and trade, .... it was also ethnically and religiously very mixed, a place where Turks, Kurds, Zazas, Arabs, Armenians, Syriacs, and Jews, and Greek-Orthodox all lived together. P19-20
2. The city of Mardin, the second largest in the province, was undisputedly the main urban centre of the area. Like the capital, Mardin too had a mixed Muslim-Christian population and a strong Muslim elite, mostly of Arab descent, which also exerted influence outside the city. p24
3. Settled Arabs: The cities/towns of Mardin, Urfa, Savur and Nusaybin especially had settled Arabic populations. There were also villages populated by Arabs. P25
4. Şammar: + 1000 tents. Largest of the Arab aşirets, divided into three sections, each headed by a şeyh family, the al-Jerbe, az-Zeydan, and al-Omar. The Şammar spread over a large area including the districts of Siverek, Urfa, Akçakale, Harran, Mardin, the Abdulaziz Mountain (Cebel-i Abdulaziz, to the Southwest of Hasakah), Rakkah, Mosul, Tel Afar and the Sincar Mountains. P26
5. Along the Çağçağ River, between Midyat and Hasakah (currently in Syria). The Tay grew strongly in size because of a merger with a number of smaller tribes, the Bekari, Ganame, Haciş, Harb and es-Sade. They were nomadic, but were also involved in subsistence agriculture. P26

There are three other Arab tribes mentioned, all living between Urfa and Nusaybin. See P26-27 (previous link) for full information on the distribution of Arab and Kurdish tribes. To conclude, Konli's claim that the Diraybekir Eyalet/Villayet represented Kurdistan is PURELY and SQUARELY FALSE. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: Could you please revert back to the old version, as the discussion is still ongoing? Neither you nor Supreme Deliciousness have so far properly explained why all this background info is important for this specific article. The information is important for the articles "Kurds in Syria" and the one about the "AANES" (where they are included), but here they are WP:UNDUE. How does it matter that Kurds migrated to northern Syria in the 17th century when the concept of Syrian Kurdistan only emerged in the later 20th century? It has literally nothing to do with the emergence of the concept of Syrian Kurdistan which is a modern idea. You are seemingly connecting Kurds living in Syria for centuries with the modern idea, making it almost appear as if Syrian Kurdistan is super old. I know that you want to showcase exactly the opposite, but as Attar said, the demographic information would be primarily relevant if we tried to showcase a centuries-old presence of Syrian Kurdistan. As it stands, we do not - we say that it emerged in the 1980s, which is seemingly supported by most experts. Thereby, the demographic shifts of previous centuries are not all that relevant. If you insist that it is important, I would have to add the claims by several historians that Kurds live in Syria since antiquity, turning this article more into a demographic study than an overview of "Syrian Kurdistan". Applodion (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

NO! We have both explained to you why this background information is important, but you refused to listen. You don't own this article. There is no consensus to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

But more importantly, there is no consensus for adding it. Konli17 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: First of all, Amr mainly defended your position; you said very little. I directly adressed the points you raised above, but you did not respond. Your reasoning seems to remain, and I quote: the "reader needs to see where the people who are pushing for a "Syrian Kurdistan" come from". And to that one can fairly say: No, not really. How does it matter "where they come from"? They are present in Syria, and developed the idea of "Syrian Kurdistan" centuries (in case of the original Kurds) or at least decades (in case of the immigrants from Turkey) after settling in the area - it is as simple as that. As explained above, the demographic shifts would be relevant if the article would present "Syrian Kurdistan" as an old historical region. It does not. It says that it originated in the 1980s. Neither you nor Amr have, so far, properly adressed this issue - that the article does not need to throw around population history to explain a much more recent concept. Amr's arguments above were mainly directed at Konli17's argument that older concepts of Kurdistan included Syrian territory. As it currently stands, however, we have no firm proof for that. As result, the previous status quo holds true: "Syrian Kurdistan" began to gain acceptance in the 1980s - long after the Kurdish migrations. Thus, to include said migrations is WP:UNDUE, as it is already explained in the "Kurds in Syria" and "AANES" articles. Applodion (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the United States article, there is background information about European colonization of North America before the creation of the United States of America, why do you think? because that colonization led to the creation of today's US, its important for the reader to see how it was created. Same thing here, without the kurdish migrants to Syria, the idea of "Syrian Kurdistan" wouldn't exist today, so it is important for the reader to see how this idea was created. If you don't believe background info about where kurds in Syria came from, that is your personal pov. You have failed to gain consensus to remove the information from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and your claims ""Kurdish regions of Syria" is a pov statement" and " "Unification of Kurdistan" was without quotes and presented as a fact and not attributed to PKK" are patently false, btw. The first one comes from a reliable, academic source and it being a POV statement is ridiculous - how it is POV is say that an area is inhabited by certain people? In the second case, the sentence clearly attributes the idea to the PKK and PYD. Applodion (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, "Kurdish region" implies "region is owned by Kurds" or "populated only by Kurds", and both are false. Kurdish-inhabited is a better, more-neutral term, just like the CIA used in their map. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't invent this term - it is literally a quote by an academic. This article is about the idea / concept of Syrian Kurdistan; and thus, we have to state how the Kurdish-inhabited area was described before the emergence of the term "Syrian Kurdistan". Jordi Tejel says this: "The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" referring to northern Syria, as opposed to the traditionally used phrase "Kurdish regions of Syria." " Thereby, "Kurdish regions of Syria" is a legitimate description of the Kurdish-inhabited areas. He uses this description ("Kurdish regions") multiple times in the book, obviously to avoid the more loaded term "Kurdistan". Applodion (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Given this use of Kurdish region, that's just another reason to include the demographic history of the area, since Kurds never lived here alone, and have never been a majority (except at some village/town levels). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Still, I think that it would be best to make the demographics section at least much, much smaller. I will think of a more concise text tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Applodion. Also, we have now three maps in the article, and none of them show the Kurdish populated areas in Afrin in Syria. Its an article about Syrian Kurdistan, not where Syrian Kurdistan is not.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the maps. I'd also like to suggest that the demographics section not stray too far from Kurds_in_Syria#Demographics, which I reckon is a better route to follow than having a section based on the rambling theories of an editor who has tried unsuccessfully for years to have those theories accepted on the Kurds in Syria article. Konli17 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Konli, the Kurds in Syria article also talks about Kurds in Aleppo, Damascus, Hama, etc., who are not and should not be covered in this article. Some of the city Kurds have been living there for centuries, which we cannot say about the Kurds in Jazira. I suggest you do your history reading homework before commenting here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: I am currently really busy, so I can only get around to revist the text this weekend. I hope this isn't a problem. Applodion (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is, given your original undertaking to have something for "tomorrow" four days ago. The current content has far too many problems. I'm replacing the entire section with the demographics section from Kurds in Syria. I've removed the reference to Damascene Kurds and noted that Aleppo and Damascus aren't considered to be in Kurdistan, to take Amr's concerns into account. Konli17 (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this stuff needs a lot of energy, such as to come up with neutral and generally acceptable wording. Applodion (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologise, the wording of the text from Kurds in Syria has already had a lot of energy put into it to come up with exactly that. Konli17 (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If you insist on keeping that map, can you come up with a less pointy description for it? Konli17 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Here maybe a good source about the extension of the [Kurdistan Eyalet ] by Evliya Celebi. p.94. There it says that Jazira was included in the Province, either in the Diyarbakir Eyalet or later in the Kurdistan Eyalet which had a larger size than the Diyarbakir Eyalet.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar Cizre. Anyway, even if the Ottoman province of Kurdistan included Damascus, it means nothing for the geo-cultural or political region of Kurdistan. In the source ypu provided, Evliya himslef specify that not all Dyiar Bakir province is Kurdish, only some Sanjaks, and he mention them.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The Kurds in Syria section on demographics has a completely different scope and cannot be used here. Kurds existed in Damascus and other southern or central areas for centuries. For example, Rukn ad-din includes a significant population (>10,000) of Arabized Kurds. There were military outposts manned by Kurdish fighters west of Homs and Aleppo, is that part of a Kurdistan? Of course NOT, not in the past, not now, and not in the future. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Untrue, there is a significant overlap. I thought you were in favour of detailing origins. Konli17 (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Demographic maps

I disagree about having only one demographic map. Western Kurdistan is defined differently, and its inhabitants (as we see) can be counted differently. Konli17 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Kurdish nationalist map

This map that was added by Paradise is in no way or form acceptable to be included in this article for the following reasons:

1. It has no source
2. Almost 80-90% of the area in the map has overwhelming Arab majority (eg., Aleppo, Azaz, Tel Abyad to Ras al-Ayn, al-Ba, Manbij, all the areas south of Hasaka town). Vanly talks about three Kurdish inhabited pockets in Syria: east and west of Qamishli, Ayl al-Arab and Afrin. Anything beyond that is false.

For all these reasons, we can only use ethnographic maps, rather than random claims by anyone. At the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia, not a Kurdish propagandopedia. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an excellent map, that clearly shows irredentist Kurdish nationalist ambitions for Syria. Maps just like it can be seen on many Kurdish nationalist websites. You're correct that much of the area highlighted is Arab-majority; that's how irredentism works. Konli17 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

And WP is no outlet for these nationalistic claims. Take it somewhere else. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a claim, but a depiction of one. Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Excessive demographics section

Please, can somebody explain how it is relevant for an article about Syrian Kurdistan, which became a tangible subject around 1980s, that Kurds massacred Christians in Iraq in WW1? Or how exactly French authorities provided citzenship to Kurdish migrants? Or how the Kurdish population developed half a century before anyone even started talking about Syrian Kurdistan? This is WP:UNDUE; all this stuff can be read in the relevant articles for Kurds in Syria, Syrian history, and about the AANES. It just does not belong here. It is excessively detailed and tells us nothing about the concept of Syrian Kurdistan. All information about how these areas became Kurdiah-inhabited were already there. So far, the information has been added with claims about it being important without explaining why or that it is "disrespectful" (how?) to remove infos about the history of northeastern Syria from the article, even though the article is not about the history of northeastern Syria (it is about a concept, not a specific region or historical area!). Applodion (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to give you an answer, I also don't understand several aspects of the article. I agree that a specific region doesn't merit inclusion in this detail. The article is about the whole region. Also the maps are just included to show that Kurds live outside of Syria and not to show the Kurdish regions inside of Syria about what the article actually should be. I'll adapt the article in this regards.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion and PC, you are clearly choosing to remove information that shows the intensive Kurdish immigration into northeastern Syria and how this has changed the demographics of the area to the point that we now have Kurdush-inhabited region of Syria. The maps you removed are internationally recognized and show the situation in the area claimed to be Syrian Kurdistan, so I don't know under what pretext you are removing the info and maps from the article besides hiding historical facts. Last time I chaecked there was no limit to the size of any section in an article, may be be besides the lede. Pc, I kindly request you to restore the info you removed and revert your edits. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion and Paradise Chronicle, it has already been explained repeatedly above why background information about the kurds and other peoples in the area of Syria kurds call "Syrian Kurdistan" is needed. And there is NO LIMIT to the extent of this background information. You had no right to remove this. All the information and maps you removed must be restored to the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This is no question about any limits. If the article were longer, and discuss Syrian and Kurdish history in depth, more details are ok. Instead, the artile is rather short, and putting so much detail into the demographics section distracts from the actual point of the article - "Syrian Kurdistan" which is not directly related with the policies of the French or the Ottomans. Amr, I am not "clearly choosing to remove information that shows the intensive Kurdish immigration". My shortened version directly adressed the mass migrations - just in fewer sentences, more condensed in information. I am not trying to "hide" anything - all this information can be read on the "Kurds in Syria" and AANES articles, as it is important for said articles. To better illustrate my point, look at articles about other nationalist, irredentist concepts such as Akhand Bharat, Italian irredentism, Argentine irredentism or Greater Indonesia. Do these articles discuss how and when exactly ethnic groups moved and got citizenship in the last four hundred years? No, they do not, as they are not directly related - these are claims; a nationalist can claim areas as part of his/her "greater" homeland regardless of history or demographics.
Also, I have to agree with PC - we do not need four maps showing the same thing. This article should have three maps: One for demographics, one for history, and one for the claims of Kurdish nationalists. For the latter, we have currently no reliable map, so two are all we need. Applodion (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from expanding it. The reason why a lot of background information is needed is to show the reader the full and true nature and origin of so called "Syrian Kurdistan" and that this imaginary made up entity lacks history in the region. By removing information you are hiding the true non-kurdish history of the area. All the history, french, ottoman and other about how kurds settled in this Syrian region is directly related because it exposes the so called "Syrian Kurdistan" fraud. Please do not edit war and do not remove text or images again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You know what is also a "imaginary made up entity"? Every nation state ever. Before it is actually founded, every country was an idea whose historical basis was often flimsy in the extreme. As your answer showcases, however, your motivation in changing the article is mostly based on your personal viewpoint of events, so whatever. Applodion (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, you are saying we should present Kurdiah claims to the area without really giving context or giving the full picture. Did I get that right? We are not giving the last 4 centuries history, only the 20th century in which the demographics changes in favor of Kurds. If this information is not included then this article does not need to exist because you will only be presenting one side of the story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. Context is extremely important; accordingly, I did not remove the explaination of the multiple Kurdish immigration waves. I just think that the expanded text is giving too much context, so much that it distracts from the article's main focus. For example, I simply do not understand how it is important for this article to explain in which way French authorities provided citizenship to Kurdish immigrants. This is important information for other articles such as "Kurds in Syria", where Kurds are generally discussed. This article deals with a 1980s-onwards irredentist concept, however, which the French policy did not directly influence. Yes, the French policy resulted in more Syrian Kurds, but it did not cause the emergence of a "Syrian Kurdistan". That happened decades later and was related to developments in Iraq and Turkey through the PKK.
And yes, we are giving 4 centuries of history as it is explained how exactly the Ottoman authorities drove Kurds to Syria from the 16th century, followed by the French (whose policies are stil half a century before the emergence of Syrian Kurdistan as tangible idea). The shortened text very clearly explained how multiple waves of Kurds came to Syria, and adresses the changing demographics. The shortened text also mentions how the demographics remain unclear up to the present day. From my perspective, the short text fairly presents a simple overview about the demographics of the area to the extent that they are relevant for the article. Applodion (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle why did you delete large sourced content? The only reasons i see is, you edit from one POV point. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please read the dozens of sentences above before throwing accusations against other editors around? Thank you. Applodion (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I did, you do same as PC with this edit [[1]]. I know it is maybe to much detailed for this page but you ignoring other editors and seeking no consensus but pushing it. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you were reading the conversation, you would at least attempt to respond to the points made, like Amr did. Instead, you barge in, and accuse others of POV. In addition, if you had read the discussion, you would know that we discussed shortening the text at least a week ago, and I said that I would write a shortened version. If you are opposed to any shortening, you could have already< voiced your concern then and there. Applodion (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Shadow4dark, the removed maps have nothing to do with the article. They were included to show that Kurdistan is OUT of Syria, while the article is about a Kurdistan or Kurdish regions IN Syria. The demographic section is still very well expanded and the Kurdish immigration is presented in the section. If the history section is also described in depth, then the demographics section can also get coverage in depth, but then really in depth, not excluding the Kurd Dagh/Afrin area, where Lescot has made extensive studies about the Kurds and from where the first (as to my knowledge) demands for a Kurdish Autonomy arose. If demographics only cover a specific region, include it in the article about the specific region. I also don't include the Kurdish autonomy claims for only the Jarabulus area at the moment as it doesn't fit into the article at the moment.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion and PC, this is exactly the point: Apploidion is saying "1980s-onwards irredentist concept," therefore inclusion of maps showing that a "Syrian Kurdistan" was not there when a Kurdistan was conceived in the Treaty of Sevres is of utmost importance and fits perfectly this purpose (showing that the concept is new). To me, removing these maps and the other information related to the successive immigration waves of Kurds into Syria is misleading at best and hiding facts at worse. Again, there is no limit to how much information you ca include in an article. If you are after summarizing the history and demographics section, then I can do that for you without cutting out important information. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

But what have the Treaty of Sevres and the French policies actually to do with Syrian Kurdistan? Like, what impact had this treaty which carved up the region according to European interests, disregarding the locals, on an idea which emerged in the 1980s? How did the French policies lead to Syrian Kurdistan? You still did not answer that question. Why do we need more than one map to show that the concept is relatively new, when it is already outright explained in the text? Applodion (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go one-by-one through the long text, and talk about every sentence - as to its purpose, and why it should stay or be removed. Perhaps that would solve the issue? Applodion (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What does the map of Treaty of Sevres and the other map too have to do with a Syrian Kurdistan. You include both maps mentioning that Kurdistan is outside of Syria, while the article is about a Kurdistan IN Syria. The borders of the Kurdish nation are not created by treaties where the Kurds are excluded from large portions of their homeland, but of the territory where they live in a majority since centuries.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, you last revert just confirmed that you don't want to see facts or numbers presented in this article. You would rather see general talk about Arabization policies, but when I added the number of farmers relocated to Jazira you removed that, because you'd rather keep it vague. You want to talk about a Syrian Kurdistan and stop there as if this is a fact that is not contested. When we talk about the treaty that founded the modern claims of a Kurdistan (Land of the Kurds) you (and Paradise chronicle) remove that. Either you don't know history or you want to hide it. You want to talk about a Kurdish majority in parts of northeastern Syria, but when I present demographic developments you remove that. French policies resulted in areas with Kurdish majority along the border, and the reference you removed (Gibert and Févret) just talks about that. Everything you removed is relevant and provides important context for the claim of A Syrian Kurdistan. Still, you are worried about article size as a pretext to remove information that goes against your POV. You want to do a sentence by sentence, that's fine with me, but after you restore the last version. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Will anyone answer to my arguments to the maps? These are issues that are not about balance or size but of content. For the size issues I had a similar conflict with Ibn Amr at the Hasakah Governorate and I suggested to create an article about the demographics of the Governorate, which I also created in the user space but its publishing is on hold to see the further discussion in the dispute. Why is it important to show a map showing a Kurdistan outside of Syria, when the article is about a Kurdistan within Syria? And to the time of the concept Syrian Kurdistan. Historically there were since centuries and probably all more than a thousand years Kurds in present day Syria, but a Syrian Kurdistan is rather modern as Syria was also not founded long ago and Kurdistan is only divided into four parts since the Treaty of Sèvres. I would welcome a map of the Treaty of Sevres that depicts the Kurdish areas IN the French Mandate, not a map which is included to show only a Kurdistan outside of the French Mandate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The maps are relevant because they show Kurdistan and the name of this article has "Kurdistan" in it. Choosing to ignore the connection is a choice, obviously. 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, I feel like the points both I and Paradise Chronicle make are completely ignored. No Amr, my change did not show bias. The bit about the farmers is a detail that has no real bearing on the subject on the article; it is one of dozens of mentionings of Kurdish population numbers in the expanded article, most of which do not contribute anything meaningful to the article besides repeating that Kurds migrated there. In contrast, you removed the ONLY mentioning of the Arabization policy which was covered in ONE sentence. I think that it is quite unfair to accuse my of bias when I restored literally one sentence. Applodion (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to repeat that I have honestly no bias in favor of Kurdish nationalism or anything in regards to this article. What I have said dozens of times already is true; I am just concerned that the article is talking more about population numbers than anything directly related to the concept pf "Syrian Kurdistan". I am genuinely tired of this, as I just feel that my arguments are mostly ignored. Like, if anyone gave actual good arguments rather than saying "Kurds migrated there, and thus there was claims for Kurdistan" as basic argument, I would have no issue with all the demographics stuff. But Kurds migrating somewhere is not directly related to the emergence of a Syrian Kurdistan. Kurds also migrated to Europe, and there are no claims for a "European Kurdistan". The presence of Kurds is related to "Kurdistan", yes, but not neccessarily the main reason for its emergence. Just to repeat my opinion. Applodion (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Then restore the one sentence you're worried about without deleting several sourced sentences telling chronological events! You talk about Arabization as if the area was Kurdish and it was Arabized, when the opposite is true, and you strive to push your POV, as evidenced by the information you are removing. The number of Arabs who came to the area is 4000 farmers, but you dont want to show a number, because this is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of Kurds immigrating here from Turkey. We've been discussing the same content for 3 weeks and you still say we have not replied to your points. You want to remove information and then discussing forever so that you keep the status quo. You are not being fair or constructive here. Again, you are choosing to ignore important details with your editing, whether it's addition or removal. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on, Amr! We disagree a lot here on Wikipedia, but you should know by now that I generally agree when fair arguments are made, including by you. To blatantly accuse me of POV is really unfair, especially as you still have not answered my questions above. But I am honestly just tired. I feel like this is going nowhere. Like, the article is currently in a out-of-focus state, but it is not completely horrible. I think that it would be best if I take back a step and take a break in trying to improve this article; I could be doing more productive things in my free time than endlessly arguing while feeling like being ignored. Doesn't change the fact that my arguments remain unadressed. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, I do respect you as an editor and like working with you as I always considered you more logical, reasonable and fair than any other editor representing the Kurdish POV (this is not an accusation as I represent the non-Kurdish POV although I don't try to push it), but I am also getting frustrated with this endless discussion going nowhere. I feel I have addressed your questions multiple times, but if you still feel I didn't would you mind summarizing them here in bullet points, and I'll do my best to answer them. I have other real life occupations so please bear with me. Cheers and stay safe, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that we are basically talking past each other. You regard the information as essential, I think of it as excessive. I still think that it would be best to go through the text one-by-one. Regardless, I will take a break on the article, and return to it in a few days. I just got frustrated and angry (I am sorry if I was a bit too aggressive at times), and this borderline edit war proves that we all lost patience which is unproductive for everyone. Applodion (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Amr, you're trying to do the same here as you've done at Al-Hasakah Governorate and failed to do at Kurds in Syria. Konli17 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Demographics

Why does the 'Demographic background' section here depart so much from the 'Demographics' section of Kurds in Syria? Konli17 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Because the two are different articles with different scopes and geographic coverage. If you see otherwise, you can suggest a merger of two articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But there should still be a considerable overlap between the demographics sections of both articles, as 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Kurdistan. Konli17 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pov sentence

This sentence is currently in the article: "Before the 1980s, however, Kurdish-inhabited areas of Syria were usually only regarded as "Kurdish regions of Syria"" It is claiming and presenting as a fact that part of Syria that kurds live in is "Kurdish regions of Syria". This is made up, false and pov and must be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is properly sourced and quoted from an academic source. It can stay, as it is important in the context of the article. Applodion (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Its a pov statement claiming Syrian land are kurdish. Can you please tell me what states and international organizations recognize this pov?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you at least try to read the discussion above? Amr and I already talked about this issue. Applodion (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Historical map

I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the historical map shows us, as the file page doesn't explain it very well and I'm not inclined to take the current description in the article at face value. Can anyone explain it to me? If not, I'm afraid it will have to go. Konli17 (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It showcases the historical region of Kurdistan as it was more generally defined in the 19th century; its pupose is to put modern Syrian Kurdistan into a historical context, highlighting how definitions and borders of Kurdistan have shifted over time. From this perspective, I think that it is quite useful. Applodion (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Which part is marked Kurdistan? Konli17 (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated in the infobox text, the blue area. Of course, as I cannot speak Arabic, I can only say that due to the translation provided by Amr. In case said identification is incorrect, we could remove it of course. As long as it is correct, however, my view (in regard to its use from a historical perspective) as explained above applies. Note that I just think that the map is useful, but not invaluable, for the article; if the other editors disagree about its usefullness, I would not oppose a removal per se. Applodion (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two blue areas. Konli17 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, there are two blue areas, and we can not assume that all who read wikipedia, actually know where modern day Turkey, Iraq and Iran exist, specially, if they are described in arabic. There are other maps in english, that show a Kurdish population in Syria pretty well, also the Kurdish population in Afrin. Again, the article is about Syrian Kurdistan, and not where Syrian Kurdistan is not. First, there should be included a map to show where the Kurdish population is in Syria and the map where Syrian Kurdistan is not, should only be included after the first map was included.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It has also been pointed out by different editors in the sections above that Ottoman designations could be somewhat arbitrary, thereby limiting their usefulness for discerning what was and wasn't considered Kurdistan at the time. The point was made several times. Konli17 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldnt count on the Ottoman official designations for their administrative units, but the map here is not about these provinces (no Ottoman province is shown) and was not issued by the Ottoman government. It is a map from the Cedid Atlas of regions, just like any other map from Europe for example, and it was made to imitate the European maps by showing the cultural regions of Western Asia, and it is not in Arabic, but in Turkish using Ottoman script which is based on the Arabic one. Anyway, the map shows the regions within the Ottoman state, and does not show Iranian Kurdistan for example, therefore it cannot be said that it represent Kurdistan in totality.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting. Can you understand that old script? Konli17 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I can read it, yes, but I wont be able to understand a sentence written in it, it would be like an English speaker reading a German text. However, the map mention geographic names, which are universal as in the case of Sham (Syria) and Kurdistan, so I can read the word Kurdistan on the map, but Cyprus is written as the Turkish قبريس (qibris) instead of the Arabic قبرص (Qubros) for example.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you. Konli17 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed this map for the following reasons;

• As discussed above, it isn't clear to the average English-language reader what it shows.
• It's not clear whose map this is, and what bias they may, or may not have, had. Who defined these areas?
• Historical maps do not necessarily reflect the current situation. If this map is to be used it should be put in its correct historical context within the article.
• Determining what a source does not say/show is original research. This map does not show lots of things, the significance of what it doesn't show in relation to Kurdistan has been determined by a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source.
• All this should be done by the sources, not constructed on this page.
• Any analysis, and leading the reader to any conclusion based on that, is therefore original research, opinion and not neutral.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand you have reasons, but so does every editor here. It would be better to first use the talk page of a very contested article before deleting an element that is being discussed then coming to the talk page with a subjective list of reasons.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Esacpe Orbt that Determining what a source does not say/show is original research and the significance of what it doesn't show in relation to Kurdistan has been determined by a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There have been too many arguments against these maps. You can only ignore the arguments and edit war against them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And there have been many arguments for these maps. You can only ignore the arguments and edit war against them. It seems better to seek intervention by a non involved party.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying the Cedid Atlas map "The atlas shows no part of Syria being part of a "Kurdistan"" is not original research because it is an accurate description of the map. Thats exactly what the map is showing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Which source says "it is an accurate description of the map"? If there is none, it is original research. Trying to reconnect (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the maps per WP:ONUS, which states that info doesn't have to be included if there is no consensus if is does or not improve the article. For me it is clear, a map showing where a Kurdistan is outside of Syria does have nothing to do with a Syrian Kurdistan which is a Kurdistan inside of Syria. Kurdistan does not signify a legal country or a province, but a part of a larger Kurdistan, the region where Kurds live, and the article Syrian Kurdistan is about the Syrian part of this Kurdistan, not about a Kurdistan outside of Syrian KurdistanParadise Chronicle (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have seen there is opposition from Ibn Amr. Will he also answer to WP:ONUS, and to the arguments I brought forward?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been no answer to my question here for over a week. Amr?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting ONUS. ONUS is practically the same as consensus, and I quote: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article". This is what the guideline says, then continue to say that: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Therefore, first you need to have a consensus that the maps do not belong here, then the ONUS is on the editors who seek to keep them to revert that consensus. You obviously have no consensus that the maps dont belong here, and your attempt to use ONUS as a tool to remove any disputed content can be countered by me or Amr and the others using the same principle to remove anything we dont like in this article, since every sentence of it is practically disputed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Still no answer here to my arguments. WP:ONUS says nothing can go IN the article, if there is no consensus, I quote from you "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and there was clearly no consensus as several editors have brought forward various arguments. Why do you want to include a map showing only a Kurdistan out of Syria in an article about a Kurdistan in Syria. How does it make the article better? There is no mention of the maps in the text of the article. No mention of Cedid nor of the Treaty of Sevres not of a blue depicted area showing a part of Syria in the Anatolia/Lake Urmia region. What do these maps have to do with a Kurdistan in Syria/Syrian Kurdistan? Could anyone answer to region where Kurds live argument, I mentioned above on the 3 September 2020, like two weeks ago? If no-one answers and Ibn Amr just edit wars, it is not really helpful. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you reading the second part of the guidline and not the first? It say: if there is a consensus not to add something, then the ONUS is on the other editors to change that consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus that the maps dont belong here. So your usage of ONUS is unjustified and serves only to go around achieving a consensus here and to get the edit you want. If we follow your understanding of ONUS, we can delete this whole contested article. As for why these maps are important, the answer is simple: the section where the Cedid map is placed is about Kurdish demography and how Kurds migrated and it is helpful to the reader to see where their historic region was actually located. Same for Sèvres treaty since its section is talking about how the idea of a Kurdistan in Syria is new and this is reflected in the map of Sèvres.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a new article and the maps about Sevres and Cedid were introduced later. Then also WP:ONUS (please click on the button and read carefully) says

"While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

So if you claim Kurds formerly only lived at Lake Urmia or at the Black Sea, this is a weird argument and the map has no relevance in the article. There are multiple articles about Kurdish dynasties and Kurdish principalities elsewhere and even existing before the Cedid Atlas in 1803. Then also I can't read Arabic, and average English Wikipedia readers also not. And that the Treaty of Sevres didn't include all Kurdish regions is also made clear during the discussion at the Paris Peace Conference. Then the Region of Kurds argument of the 3rd September is still not answered. It is not about a country Kurdistan, but a Syrian part of a region called Kurdistan. If you again oppose the removal or don't answer the questions I raise I go to the ANI.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Again focusing on one part of the guidline. And again: Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. So, did a consensus appear that those maps dont belong? Only then you can use the second part of the guidline to get what you want. You should go to ANI.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Replacing Jazira relevant content by text relevant to Syria as a whole

Konli, you seem to not grasp the idea that content about Kurds in Syria is not necessarily relevant here. What does the number of Kurds in Damascus have to do with this article? Are you expanding your Kurdistan to Danascus? May be Germany next? Also, again, the map you added is pure and plain POV pushing and has no place here. Please stop edit-warring or you will be reported. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Where in the text is the reference to Damascene Kurds? Which map? Konli17 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Amr? Konli17 (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Amr? Konli17 (talk) 02:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Irredentist map removal

What was the justification for the removal of the irredentist map? Konli17 (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The justification is that its a fake map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SD, I assure you that Kurdish nationalists use maps like this all the time. There are plenty examples online. Konli17 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You need a reliable source.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Konli this is not a (Kurdish) nationalism forum. Fantasy maps like that have no role here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nor is it a Nazi forum, but that never stopped us describing the plans of the Nazis (see map). Konli17 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Imagine actually comparing a map regarding an actual entity (and a major one that is) to a map drawn by who knows who and is apparently (according to you) believed by irredentists to be the actual map of Syrian Kurdistan (or whatever u wanna call it). Yawn, this is a not forum, take this somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What actual entity? This was an irredentist German nationalist aim. It remained unrealised. Do you doubt that Kurdish nationalists produce maps like the one you deleted? Konli17 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

By entity I meant Nazi Germany. No I don't doubt that, read my comment again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly, that your objection is that the map is based on Kurdish nationalist maps and hasn't necessarily been produced by a Kurdish nationalist organisation? Konli17 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

1) The map is unsourced 2) The map is tagged on Commons 3) No Wikipedia-language uses the map except the Kurdish-language Wikipedia (shocker). That's enough reason to object against the inclusion of this fairy-tale image. Also, please refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other users. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what aspersions you're referring to, nor what 'tagged' signifies. I've seen images created on Wikipedia before without any issue, it allows us to have images that otherwise we wouldn't be able to use. This map follows pretty much every Kurdish irredentist map I've ever seen of Western Kurdistan, which can be easily verified by anyone familiar with Kurdish nationalism. Nor do I see how the ambition the map indicates is any more of a fairy-tale than the Nazis' Generalplan Ost. Konli17 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Generalplan Ost was an actual thing and ongoing process which could have (horrifyingly enough) been successful, and it was planned by a country (unlike the 'map' of Wikipedia-user made Syrian Kurdistan which can only be found in dreams), I am honestly just baffled how you can compare these two things - it's borderline insulting. Try to suppress your personal feelings please. Anyways, at the end of the day sources matter, not personal opinions-and seeing that this is pretty much a dead end, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't believe there are Kurdish nationalists who plan to incorporate the Arab-majority areas along the Turkish border into their ethno-state, you're being naive. A bit of research on the subject would soon enlighten you. Konli17 (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again you're completely missing the point. Also, I'm not interested in delving into nationalistic nonsense. You however, should 'enlighten' yourself and stop wasting everybody's time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I've seen images created on Wikipedia before without any issue, it allows us to have images that otherwise we wouldn't be able to use. This map follows pretty much every Kurdish irredentist map I've ever seen of Western Kurdistan, which can be easily verified by anyone familiar with Kurdish nationalism. Konli17 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

SD, I came across the source when it was referenced in a book, The Kurds of Northern Syria by Wladimir van Wilgenburg and Harriet Allsop. Why do you say it's unreliable? Konli17 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SD? Konli17 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

≤== Removal of an established historical map and addition of a fraudulent map ==

@Thepharoah17:, @Supreme Deliciousness:, @Attar-Aram syria:, @Applodion:, @Al Ameer son:: User Konli has just removed the Treaty of Sevres map (which is the basis for a Kurdistan territory within the Ottoman empire, including Syria back then) and another established historical Ottoman map and added a fraudulent map with no established reputation or merit instead. With their edits this page looks like a PYD/PKK propaganda map. Your input is welcome. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats weird. The maps are contested and no consensus for their deletion exists, yet they keep getting deleted. I think we need an rfc or admin intervention.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, there was also never an established consensus in regard to keeping all maps (for example, I think that the inclusion of the Sèvres map was more contentius than the 1803 Cedid Atlas), and several points mentioned by Konli remain unadressed. Applodion (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The only reason Cedid Atlas was deleted was due WP:OR but it is not an WP:OR but historically documented map. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The map cited by Amr as fraudulent is also on the book cover of a book by Mazloum Abdi/Kobane. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh well, that is excellent. Now we have a proper source to attribute the claim. Applodion (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome Applodion. For the doubtful or the ones who can't read it. Here also an English source from Amazon. The book is on sale for 5-10$.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Appolodion: yes there was no consensus but thats how most of wikipedia is: contested. We dont delete contested material unless there is a clear consensus for that, but we maintain NPOV by presenting all views that can be referenced and accurately described. Thats why the nationalist map isnt a problem for me as long as it is stated that this is the view of Kurdish nationalists, but deleting the other maps is unacceptable and we debated it long enough. So either have an rfc or admin intervention or the users who delete them should stop doing that and just settle for the addition of the map representing what Kurdish nationalists consider a Syrian Kurdistan.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we have to discuss the removal of the maps; I just wanted to note that Konli17 was probably not acting out of bad faith, as Amr kinda suggested. In regard to the maps, as I said in previous discussion, my position is that we should include the 1803 Cedid Atlas, while the Sèvres map seems not helpful (as the treaty divided the region without regard to traditions or ethnicities and has no apparent relation to the modern-day concept of Syrian Kurdistan). Applodion (talk)

Seems fair. The atlas map isnt based on politics but on that time's (19th century) geographic regions, so the treaty map can go.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. I'd also suggest we introduce other demographic maps to show other portrayals of Syrian Kurdistan, rather than relying solely on the irredentist one. Konli17 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The Treaty of Sevres is what nationalist Kurds based their calls for Kurdistan on (see here for example). Applodion removed a French reference I had added a couple of days ago that shows the history of this area under the new French mandate, and how it was a no man's land, mostly used by bedouin tribes for grazing, and plenty of evidence shows that the majority (if not all) Kurds immigrated here from Turkey after the border was drawn in 1921. There is a ton of evidence (maps, books, etc.) that show that Kurdish tribes existed mainly from Urfa and Nusaybin northwards. Here is one example. Konli is adding a baseless map created by nobody to lay claims to areas in Syria from Iraq almost to the Mediterranean, scandalous to say the least about it. Konli IS acting in bad faith. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing, historical reference to Kurdistan is mostly found in Cedid atlas and Treaty of Sevres maps. Those show no "Syrian Kurdistan". The new reference to any Kurdish area in Syria is purely the result of PYD/PKK propaganda after the demographic changes that happened recently in northeastern Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was reached at the talk page for the inclusion of the irredentist map after a source was found. The source of Mazloum Abdi was not used, but could've just been added, instead of removing the map. Why then did Ibn Amr remove it? For bad faith of Konli because he added a referenced (SOURCED) map? Is it really bad faith to include a referenced map, while Ibn Amr adds an completely unreferenced map with no relevance to the text of the article. There is no mention to a Kurdistan at Urmiah nor about a Kurdistan outside of Syria in any phrase in the article which also no sense since the article is about a Kurdistan in Syria.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr, your recent edits fly in the face of the consensus established here. If you're not happy with this consensus, you need to persuade people by reasoned argument, instead of launching an edit war. Konli17 (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr, that is simply not true. First of all, several academics (cited in the article) state that northern Syria is home to Kurdish groups for centuries. Secondly, the entire north was definitely not part of a "no man's land", as cities have existed in the area since the Bronze Age and remained settled during the medieval and early modern period. Yes, there were many demographic shifts, and settlements greatly dimished in their populations during significant periods of time, but few were completely abandoned. One could probably refer to some areas of northern Syria as no-man's land, but not all of it. In regard to the French article, it actually seems to support this (though I have only skimmed through it), as it details the development of certain areas in the northeast, not all of northern Syria. Applodion (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, where is the consensus for these changes? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=987664486&oldid=987663524 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Currently, only you and Amr are opposed to adding the irredentist map and supporting the retention of the Severes one. You are currently in a minority. Neither of you have provided a sufficient reason to retain the Severes map (so far), and the sources have been found which support the inclusion of the irredentist map, therefor making the early opposition to it (the lack of sources) void. Of course, you can provide more points which can be discussed. Applodion (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Where is the source for irredentist map? 2. The reason for Severes is to show historical location of "kurdistan" so it deserves to be here, 3. your edit reverted several other changes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

1) It's the book by Mazloum Abdi, SDF chief commander. I thought that Paradise Chronicle had already added it, will do so now. 2) Severes was decided by Western powers without Kurdish input. Do you have any source that Severes is related to the current claims about Syrian Kurdistan? 3) Sorry, I had not realized this. I think you are talking about that one reference added by Konli17? No idea if that is a reliable source or not. Applodion (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A map from Mazloum Abdi can only be attributed to him, who decided Severes is not important, its a historical treaty and therfor notable and deserves mention becuase it shows a "kurdistan" area.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Which reference? Konli17 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that Supreme Deliciousness refers to the reference for "Around 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Kurdish-majority regions along the Syria-Turkey border." He removed that line before I reverted his edits. Applodion (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, having lived in Aleppo myself, I know how fake and baseless the map used by konli is given the extent of the Arab areas it cover in northern Syria including Aleppo (or its outskirts). For example, here is another map by another nationalist group (The Kurdish Project). This one is more based on Kurdish-inhabited areas, rather than the expansionist, racist map used by Konli, so I won't be opposed to using this one instead of the outrageous map from konli. BTW, remember that WP is not a democracy, so it's not about how many users pro/against using the map. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr, that ... actually does not matter. It is absolutely pointless whether this map is correct or racist or politically charged or who knows what. The issue is that some people use it. The sources we have support this. Wikipedia is obliged to include these view points, as long as they are marked as viewpoints. Wikipedia is neutral. That also means in many cases that we have to include stuff we don't like. As long as you only provide your experience as argument against the map's inclusion... it has to stay. Your feelings - that the map is racist and incorrect - do not matter in this regard. The article does NOT say that the map reflects reality - it only says that the map reflects the viewpoint of Kurdish nationalists! That is an important distinction. In regard to Wikipedia being no democracy, yes, that is true; but currently you have no proper argument against the map, so it does not matter whether you are in the minority or majority. Applodion (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, you chose to ignore my argument and focused on my "feelings" part. I never said I rely on my feelings as an argument. I provided an alternative map that you chose to ignore. The map used by konli has no merit whatsoever, with even no source. A random person drew that and Konli picked it up and ran with it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr, I did not adress the map you pointed out because 1) it is actually a Wikimedia map (search for it), and 2) it clearly says "cantons" of Rojava. It portays the proto-state that is currently the AANES, not this subject. It is 100% not useable for this article, as this article is about an idea not an existing structure / organization / country. Applodion (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, you just shot yourself in the foot. Here is the lede from this very same article: "Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê), often shortened to Rojava". I know this map is from WP Commons referring to your Syrian Kurdistan myth, and IS ADOPTED by Kurdish nationalists. You are obviously cherry picking here. The maps shown here indicate that Kurds claim any and every piece of land their militias control by force. Does that make it encyclopedic and worth mentioning here and presented as a fact. This is a credibility test for the editors here. And pls cut the BS on the neutrality of this page. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia created Syrian Kurdistan? This article shows an extensive nationalist claim and was published in 2012, before the current AANES was declared, and even before the YPG/YPJ got off the ground, let alone the respective Wikipedia article got big. Three of the four books cited in this article (which are mentioning Syrian / Western Kurdistan) were published years before the Syrian Civil War. Your claim makes honestly no sense. I also think that it would be best for you to stay civil. No need to become aggressive. Applodion (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The publication date of the books is another, indirect evidence that this concept here is purely and simply an invention of PYD/PKK propaganda machine. Still, you did not answer my point about the contradiction you make when refusing to use a map showing a "claimed rojava" in this article about "rojava", claiming instead that this is a cultural region! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I had actually not understood that you were criticising that. Well, the problem is that "Rojava" is a byword for both the cultural region and/or nationalist plan AND the existing proto-state. The AANES is and was called Rojava, but this is not the same as the Syrian Kurdistan we are talking about here. The map you pointed out (the "Kurdish Project" one) mentions "cantons". Cantons are specific for the political project, the current AANES. Cantons are NOT directly connected to the "Syrian Kurdistan" concept. As a result, the "Kurdish Project" map is about the proto-state. In contrast, the other references such as the map from this article include areas that were never controlled by the proto-state. Thus, they depict the plans. Applodion (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, I came across the source when it was referenced in a book, The Kurds of Northern Syria by Wladimir van Wilgenburg and Harriet Allsop. Konli17 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, which map are you talking about now? The Wikimedia map I talked about is the one Amr found (the "Kurdish Project" map); I know that your map (the irredentist one) has sources. I was trying to explain this. Sorry to everyone that I come across as rambling. I am so dumb. You were talking about the source which Supreme Deliciousness removed, right? That I misread that one showcases that I need to get some sleep. Applodion (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Konli17 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. Did you leave it out for some other reason? Konli17 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What reliable source opposes that there exists a Syrian KURDISTAN

At the moment it states that Syrian Kurdistan refers to that "some regional analysts" and "many Kurds" classify as one of the four parts of Kurdistan. I have not found any reliable source which opposes the fact that there is a Syrian Part of Kurdistan so there is no need to mention who classifies this as Syrian Kurdistan, it is common sense. If no one opposes at the talk page, I'll adapt the article in this regard, as I have done before, which was reverted by Ibn Amr as a POV edit. So provide some non POV reliable sources who oppose the fact that there exists a Syrian part of Kurdistan. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

check at WP:Commonsense. It is common sense that there exists a Syrian part of Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is an academic one explicitly tracing the problem back to Turkey and how Kurdish immigration from Turkey created Kurdish-inhabited areas in Syria.

Here are some books:

• David McDowall, 1997. A Modern History of the Kurds
• Denise Natali, 2005. The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.
• Edgar O'Ballance, 2004. The Kurdish Struggle Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of reliable sources. Mc Dowell is the only name of the mentioned ones I have ever come across concerning Kurds, and he sure also has the Syrian part of Kurdistan covered, which is also stated in the summary of the book. You think that the term Kurdistan refers automatically to an established political entity. Kurdistan can be a political entity, but today, as well as in the past, it is known as a geographical region where Kurds live. Like Catalunya refers to a region where Catalans live, or Palestine to a region where Palestines live. Maybe in the past, the Kurds culture was oppressed in Syria and Turkey, but today they can often openly live their culture.

The Hamza Mustafa source is only from a PhD candidate and sure no reliable source to deny an existence of a cultural region against sources provided of the likes such as Tejel, Jongerden, van Bruinessen or Kreyenbroek. He also doesn't deny a cultural existence of the Kurds, he clearly refers to a political entity. He is also sure not worth of a quotation.

The article is about the areas with a Kurdish majority in Syria, which are adjacent to the other 3 parts of KurdistanParadise Chronicle (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, but you don't get to decide which source is reliable and which one is not. The HAmza Mustafa article is a peer-reviewed article, which by definition is a reliable source, whether the person is a PhD candidate or professor. By your standards, Mazlom Abdi source for the map fortunately goes to garbage. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Mazloum Abdi is very well known and influential figure in Syrian politics, while Mustafa Hamza is a nobody, has no wikipedia page and also doesn't deny a cultural region Kurdistan for which it is used here in the discussion. To whether he denies the fact that there currently exists a Kurdish cultural region or not, to this you have to answer. As to me he even supports a Kurdish cultural freedom.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand what a peer-reviewed paper means, very understandable giving your behavior here. Hamza Mustafa is reviewing an academic book, so that makes it two reputable sources, not one. As for Abdi, he is a militia man, considered terrorist by many, and this forum is not the suitable one for terrorists. Nobody is disputing the presence of Kurdish culture in parts of Syria, if you want to rename the page to "Kurdish culture in Syria", then your argument might become relevant. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I inform you that I have opened a discussion at the WP:RSN ,Here you and anyone else who wants to take part in it, can get involved in the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Whatever about Mustafa, forget about Abdi. He's not a nationalist, and the image from the book cover shows the AANES as it was before its major expansion south into Arabistan. Konli17 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

New discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard. here you can take part in the discussion.

Comment: actually, what reliable source support that there exists a "Syrian KURDISTAN" as a unanimous fact? You see, every country recognize that a region called Palestine exists. The majority of the UN members recognize a Palestenian state. Same goes for Iraqi Kurdistan, which is recognized by the constitution of Iraq, and by the international community. So, which international community member recognize this Syrian Kurdistan? Which historian noted the existence of such entity before the establishment of Syria? The Syrian government also does not recognize such entity. So yeah, this Syrian Kurdistan is the position of Kurds, but its not universal, and cant be treated like the other examples you listed, and until you can provide reliable sources confirming that the term Western/Syrian Kurdistan is universally used, you will have to settle for the current lead, because that is what Western Kurdistan is: a Kurdish dream, contested by others. For you its Kurdistan, for me its Northern Syria.
- The book of Wladimir van Wilgenburg was mentioned, but in it, we see this: For ease of explanation, the term 'Kurdish areas' or 'northern Syria' is used to refer to the areas of northern Syria where Kurds are concentrated. Its use does not imply any politically motivated judgement on the ethnic or political character of the regions nor does it imply that these areas are homogenous ethnically. 1
- Another source, this time by a scholar who totally support Syrian Kurdistan, Robert Lowe "The Emergence of Western Kurdistan and the Future of Syria" in D. Romano et al. (eds.), Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East (2014), has the following:
1- Western Kurdistan was previously a vague concept rarely used by most Kurds (page 225)
2-Until 2012, the Kurdish national movement in Syria had barely flirted with the idea of devolved or autonomous government for Kurdish areas. The concept of Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan received very little attention. Even the term was rarely used and then mostly only by the PYD and some more radical nationalist groups operating from abroad. (page 236). So here you see that the term is not taken for granted, its new, not universal, and not a undisputed fact that can be presented as such in Wikipedia in accordance with the NPOV policy.
3- In general, Syrian Sunni Arabs are deeply opposed to Western Kurdistan and any form of devolution or federation in Syria. The Kurds are unclear and disunited on the issue. (page 240). So here you have it: the rest of Syria contests the existence of such entity, this, combined with the lack of international recognition, and the fact that the majority of international media do not use the term Kurdistan to designate the regions of Syria, and use only Syria or North Syria or Kurdish inhabited regions, makes your effort to present Syrian Kurdistan as a fact hard.
* So here are your sources: the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan is a fact for its supporters only.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

To add to what Attar said, here is one more reference (page 1) from the prestigious International Crisis Group that answer the question about who uses the term "Syrian Kurdistan", I quote:

The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

PYD and its followers invented and use this term. If anyone else, that would be the exception, not the norm. This is why the lead says "some international ...". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Paradise Chronicle, what is you reply to this?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

As to my knowledge there was never a political entity called Syrian Kurdistan, and the article Syrian Kurdistan is also not about a political entity. It is about a Kurdish populated region in Syria adjacent to other parts of Kurdistan, therefore Syrian Kurdistan. Kurdistan simply means the area where Kurds live. See -stan or the etymology section at Kurdistan. It is a by academics widely used distinction for the Syrian Part of Kurdistan. As some Kurds and the media often also call it Rojava, some academics use the term Rojava, and at times also the translation of the term Rojava: Western Kurdistan. To the removal of multiple sources by professors, I'd also like to have an answer, you could also just adapt the text. But only remove high quality sources and leave the lesser ones calls for an explanation.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If this is the case, then why are we in a conflict? You mentioned that many professors use Kurdistan and the majority of Kurds and you are right, and that was reflected in the lead, but then you removed this when you added your sources, and presented the existence of Kurdistan in Syria as uncontested which made me revert as you edited without concluding in this discussion that you started yourself. My intention was not deleting the new sources at all. I see that Amr removed the sources again even though the original wording wasnt changed, and this is not the way to go. Please Amr revert yourself.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done Attar. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess a PhD candidate (I only find a medical doctor and a scientist who studies noise if I google the name Mustapha Hamza) who defends the cultural rights of Kurds in Syria is not a good source do deny the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan. The other sources also accept that there exist Kurds in Syria. I've brought several high quality sources now for the terms Syrian Kurdistan, Western Kurdistan or Rojava in order to sort of Overkill the phrase, and you haven't brought any reliable source which denies the fact that there have existed Kurds in Syria. Kurdistan signifies the land where Kurds live, and Kurdistan is the main word used to describe an area where Kurds live, as we can see in other articles on Kurdistan on Wikipedia like Kurdistan Eyalet, Kordistan Province, Iranian Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan etc. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So there is Berliner Kurdistan too, right? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if there were a substiantal number of people saying that a "Berliner Kurdistan" existed or wanted for it to exist, then yes, there would be. Applodion (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle: please read Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Pov_pushing_made_up_lede because its not productive that we repeat ourselves (and Kurdistan isnt an innocent word, it is laden with political messages). Applodion: sure, there would be a Berliner Kurdistan, but in accordance with the NPOV policy, the lead of that article will clarify who believe in the existence of such non historic entity, instead of presenting it as a universal natural case, which is what is being attempted here in this article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: Just so. My reply was only for Amr's sarcastic comment and in regards to him mixing up theories, ideas, and cultural areas (which are the topic of this article) and political structures like states or administrations (which should be mentioned here, but are not the main focus of this article). My position remains that "Syrian Kurdistan" is an idea, just like many nationalist claims, which has some grounding in local realities but also forms its own narrative, ignoring other facts. In my opinion, it is absolutely fair for the lede and the article to reflect that "Syrian Kurdistan" remains a much-discussed topic, with some propagating, some denying its existence, and others taking middle-ground approaches. The current mentioning of racist elements of the concept in the lede, for example, was added by me. On the other side, I feel that Amr is often taking statements of authors and selecting them in a way to suit his view of things - basically what he accuses everyone else of doing. I do not think that he is doing this on purpose, but rather honestly misunderstands some of the content here. Regardless, these remain misunderstandings. Applodion (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but I just wanted to use the example to further explain my position to Paradise Chronicle. Sadly, these articles are a pain in the a.. I did not have this in my watchlist for a while now, but then I was pinged! and allowed myself to be drawn back here. Once this calms down I will probably unwatch this again, cause damn!--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I have to mirror Attar-Aram's position in regards to this discussion becoming extremely tiring. I think that I will take a break from editing the article. Applodion (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, the problem is that you, PC and konli are cherry-picking. Even worse, some of you (mostly konli) are faking content and removing sensitive words (such as 'at most', 'no more than', or chnaging 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc. as they did in Kurds in Syria). Back to this article, you are not giving context in your edits. For example, yopu continue to remove content and sources that talk about all the immigration waves into northern Syria (northeastern and northwestern) in the last century and all the demographic changes those have made. Your pretext is the difference between this article and aanes article. Well, I really don't see the difference or where that line extends, and it even seems the line in drawn in moving sands to suit your narrative. we did work productively before on this very same article and elsewhere until knoli showed up and decided to shake things up with his/her extremist agenda pushing edits. I echo Attar's concerns that you guys, especially konli and PC are trying to present this term as a fact that is accepted and used by everyone, and remove any reference to other opinions. Anyway, I have reinserted the Treaty of Sevres map as an important context for this discussion and article, and added a little more info on the immigrations from Turkey that changed the demographics of the area, leading to some Kurds calling it Syrian kurdistan. If these changes stay then I will be OK with the current version of the article. If you want to keep the edit-war going then I have a ton of material to add to this, especially the immigration and demographics section. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That reminds me, Amr's ridiculously biased interpretation of Kurdish migration still makes up the majority of a whole section; this will also have to be culled. There's a well put-together and neutral Demographics section at Kurds_in_Syria#Demographics, we can base a new one on that. Konli17 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The result at the NPOV noticeboard was that there are now numerous academic sources (13) for Syrian Kurdistan which are others than the ones added by me, that Syrian Kurdistan is commonsense and doesn't need to be attributed. Here the diff and here the diff that supports it. I hope this brings some calm into the lead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I just had a look at that; I really admire your patience, PC. Konli17 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

PC, Im glad for you that you were able to convince two non admin editors, but they havent read the discussions here and do not know how sensitive the topic is. It is not commonsense given all the arguments against it. Arabs and Assyrians in Qamishli are not living in the land of the Kurds. You can have an rfc where each party can present their arguments, or this will go on and on.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've informed here about both discussions. Anybody could've taken part in the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Extent section

Applodion, my changes strike me as self-evident and don't need to be referenced e.g. describing the shape of the Western Kurdistan claimed by the irredentists, saying that irredentist portrayals of Western Kurdistan are more generous than those of ethnographic maps, or saying that they include the Arab-majority areas that are also on the S-T border. All of this is obvious at a glance. Also, it's a bit odd that of the three ethnographic maps available to us, you prefer the one from more than a century ago rather than either of the two produced in the last half-century. I'd prefer to show all of them, to further illustrate how Western Kurdistan can be conceived differently even by people with no nationalist axe to grind. But if you insist on one only, why the oldest?. As for the Cedid Atlas, Attar-Aram said above that it denotes cultural regions rather than political units. Konli17 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion? Konli17 (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, going by your recent edits, you're catering very much to the loudest voices on this talk page. Can you address the issues I've raised? Konli17 (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I had not noticed that you asked for my view of things. In essence, I reverted your initial changes mostly because I felt that they reworded the text in a way that did not properly reflected the uncertainties of the claims - The old version of the extent, written by me, was unchalleged for months. IMO, rewording the entire section - as you did - only provoked opposition from other editors - and so it went, with the current extent section being worse off as a result of quasi-edit-warring. I also not to prefer one map. I actually (and this has remained my position since the beginning) simply support the inclusion of three map: A nationalist map portraying the maximium claims; a demographic map; and a historical map. In regards to which maps to use, I honestly do not care much, as long as they are understandable and reflect some sources. As for the nationalist map in particular, I just want to portray the actual nationalist claims and not the AANES (as a result, I disagree with using the Kurdish Project map). However, the question as to which maps on the internet actually showcase claims instead of the AANES remains difficult to answer. As it turned out, Mazlum's map seems to also reflect the AANES' hopes, not the nationalists', and is not useable (sadly, as I initially supported its inclusion and hoped for a solution).
I am also not sure as to how I can help you. From my understanding, my word only counts a bit here because I am somewhat standing between the frontlines, trying to find compromises and consequently leaving everyone unhappy (which I do not enjoy - I would prefer if we could all work together instead of fighting for every sentence). As I noted below, I will stop editing here for a bit - I am just getting tired of the infighting, sorry. Applodion (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hard to blame you. It's not pleasant, what goes on here. Konli17 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions violation

Amr, you've reverted more than once today, violating the sanctions in place over Syrian war-related articles. Best revert back before you attract the attention of anyone liable to apply those sanctions to you. Engage here instead. Konli17 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr, you've repeated this feat for the second day. Have you no shame? Konli17 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Mazloum Abdi map talks about AANES not Syrian Kurdistan

The Mazloum Abdi map talks about AANES not Syrian Kurdistan. Another reason why the irredentist map added by Konli is fake, baseless and useless. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it just means that that particular map can't be used for that particular purpose. Also, why start a new section when this very map is being debated above? You really are tiresome. Konli17 (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

This page is turning into a Kurdish propaganda forum

The three pro-Kurdish users here have been removing sourced material from reputable source to suit their narrative and POV-pushing agenda. Konli has removed a story a story from the prestigious International Crisis Group (page 1) that says: The PYD assumed de facto governing authority, running a transitional administration in what it, and Kurds in general, call Rojava (Western Kurdistan), including three noncontiguous enclaves: Afrin, Kobani (Ayn al-Arab) and Cezire (al-Jazeera region in Hassakah province).

Applodion removed another story talking about the population of northeastern Syria (claimed here to be syrian kurdistan) at the onset of the French mandate, calling the area "no man's land primarily reserved for the grazing land of nomadic and semi-sedentary tribes." Both users removed international treaty and political divisions maps and inserted PKK/PYD-drawn maps instead. Obviously, we have a couple of users who want to hide any evidence that goes against their narration in an effort to show their claimed "Syrian Kurdistan" as a fact with historical merit, when this is simply a Kurdish propaganda invention. What is happening on this page is SCANDALOUS. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen any author in the article of the "prestigious" International Crisis Group. A bit weird for a prestigious "whatever".Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Look them up first. If you haven't heard of them that's your problem. Not every document has explicit author names, especially when it's a compilation of facts by many authors (e.g., statistics). I understand if you have no clue about what I'm am talking about, and this is part of the problem here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Now I remember where the Crisis Group was an issue as well, at the PYD page where they also have no author and even anonymous partner of an interview. No name paper is not a prestigious paper on the topic if there are numerous really prominent professors publishing on the topic. That you want to include no name papers instead of prominently sourced papers or books and even defend them of being of a prestigious background is not according to the Wikipedia spirit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr, your interpretation of both the Crisis Group article and the French text is false. The French text does NOT call all of northern or northeastern Syria "no-man's land", only some areas in the northeast (as I explained in detail above). The Crisis Group mostly talks about the AANES, not the topic of this article. Instead, it says this about Syrian Kurdistan as meant in this article: "The Middle East’s present-day borders stem largely from the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between France and the UK. Deprived of a state of their own, Kurds found themselves living in four different countries, Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. The term “rojava” (“west” in Kurdish) refers to the western area of “Kurdistan”; today in practice it includes non-contiguous Kurdish-populated areas of north-ern Syria where the PYD proclaimed a transitional administration in November 2013." They actually imply that the idea of Rojava emerged after WW1. I also think that it would be nice if you could stop the personal attacks. Applodion (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, once again you remove sourced content and chose what suits your POV agenda. The crisis group report talks clearly about rojava, which is mentioned as synonym to "syrian Kurdistan" in the first line of this article. Yet, you say this is not relevant here, remove what you don't like and pick other things you like from that source, and insist on continuing the edit war you, Konli and pc are waging here to force your narration, removing any and everything that disprove your theory. I had thought before that you were fair and realistic, it seems I was wrong. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

And you seem to be playing games here. The text I had added and you removed Until the beginning of the 20th century, al-Hasakah Governorate (then called Jazira province) was a "no man's land" primarily reserved for the grazing land of nomadic and semi-sedentary tribes clearly mentions al-Hasakah province. Last time I checked, all your fake maps and description include that province. So, how is that not relevant here? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Read your wording! You say that ALL of "al-Hasakah Governorate (then called Jazira province) was a "no man's land" ". That is wrong, and the French article talks about areas WITHIN Jazira province. I had already adjusted the text in the article accordingly.
Also: The Crisis Group clearly states that the proto-state called Rojava emerged in 2013, NOT the idea of "Rojava". You seem to miss that this has to be distinguished. You also do not adress the issues I have raised? In addition, your misiniterpretations also include Hamza Mustaph's article. I have read it now, and it does not say what you claimed at all! He does not say that only extermists use the term, he says this: "The terms 'Syrian Kurdistan' and 'West Kurdistan' have come into use, with some extreme Kurdish nationalists having described the Arab population of Upper Mesopotamia as 'settler herds' – the same description used in the West Bank to describe Zionist settlers." I also want to say that my main interest is to genuinely bring about a balanced article. I have no beef with you or any other editor. I just feel that you ignore some of the issues discussed here. Applodion (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw, I have integrated the aspect of racism from Mustaph's article into the article, and adjusted the quote. What do you think? Applodion (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Applodion: read my text above again, I did not say "ALL al-Hasakah"! The word ALL was not part of the sentence. On the ICG thing, here is an excerpt from their report: The term “rojava” (“west” in Kurdish) refers to the western area of “Kurdistan”; today in practice it includes non-contiguous Kurdish-populated areas of northern Syria where the PYD proclaimed a transitional administration in November 2013 Did you on purpose leave out the latter part (the description of the territory) or that was an oversight? I hope we can reach some consensus here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I worded it wrongly (sorry for that); to word it properly, your version sounded as if implying that all of al-Hasakah was meant. I am not sure what you mean in regard to "the description of the territory"... Do you mean "non-contiguous Kurdish-populated areas"? In that case, it was an oversight. I will adjust the text accordingly. Applodion (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the "non-contiguous Kurdish-populated areas". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, the current lede is problematic, as it juxtaposes an extremist Kurdish nationalist view with a moderate Arab nationalist one, immediately giving a POV impression of both. It's also ahistorical, given the treatment meted out to the Kurds of Syria by Arab nationalists over most of the last seven decades. Believing in compromise with exceptionally stubborn and aggressive nationalists will always lead to these sorts of mistakes, this false balance. Konli17 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

SK/Rojava/AANES

Another problem that has come to light is that 'Syrian Kurdistan' is sometimes used to describe the AANES, and that this usage was particularly common in the mid-2010s, before the AANES expanded south into Arabistan. The AANES was born in the three major Kurdish centres on the Turkish border, after the YPG established control over them. Not long after, the YPG drove the Islamists out of the territory between the central and eastern Kurdish-majority areas, fusing them and enlarging the AANES. Their attempt to do the same with the westernmost centre was blocked by the Islamists from the north. So, at the start, the AANES was three distinct and separate areas. Afterwards, it comprised two areas, a large one in the east separated from a smaller one in the west. Because of this, AANES maps from these times are snapshots. The map on the cover of Abdi's book is a good example of the latter, and the latest map from the Kurdish Project which depicts the AANES OF 2014 (on right) of the former. These are not like the demographic maps, or those which show nationalist aspirations. These maps show the AANES at those times. Konli17 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Kurdish nationalist propaganda non-neutral changes

Applodion, the edits you did here push a strong non-neutral kurdish nationalist propaganda pov: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=987967252&oldid=987950258

You change it to "of the Syrian part of Kurdistan." and you remove "a name used by some for the Kurdish-majority populated area of northern Syria" you are basically claiming that a part of Syria "is Kurdistan" You are basically claiming that "Syrian Kurdistan" is a real entity and a real name for a place in Syria. This is not acceptable and I will revert your changes. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: That was an accident, as can be seen in my edit summary comments. I subsequently edited it to the current version, reading "is regarded by many Kurds[1][2][3] and some regional experts as one of the four parts of Kurdistan, covering parts in northern Syria". Applodion (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, your last edit is fine with me if we include the story about the immigration (somewhere else is fine). What it adds is the number of failed Kurdish rebellions and that each resulted with more immigration. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I have adjusted it in this way: "Accordingly, some researchers argue that the Kurdish problem is Syria was originally a Turkish problem that shifted into Syria, as Kurds from Turkey migrated to Syria and took their national concepts with them". Ok? I feel that the rebellions do not contribute much in this case. Applodion (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This is terrible. It's utterly WP:UNDUE. Please don't coddle them, Applodion. Konli17 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, the rebellions explain the immigration. This is THE context of a "Kurdistan in Syria". Konli obviously wants to hide it. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous Assadist drivel. Go if you must Applodion, but don't associate yourself with this nonsense. Konli17 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Problems with lede

The current lede is problematic, as it juxtaposes an extremist Kurdish nationalist view with a moderate Arab nationalist one, immediately giving a POV impression of both. It's also ahistorical, given the treatment meted out to the Kurds of Syria by Arab nationalists over most of the last seven decades. Believing in compromise with exceptionally stubborn and aggressive nationalists will always lead to these sorts of mistakes, this false balance. Konli17 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we really don't need an opinion of a non-prominent source (If you google Mustapha Hamza there appears a scientist who studies noiseor a medical doctor) to be portrayed in the lead. The lead is not according to WP:LEAD and must be changed. This is an opinion by a non prominent "whoever" and his opinion what Syrian Kurdistan is not as important as this. We can add a controversy section for it at the end.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved the book review of Mustapha Hamza down to controversies.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Amr Ibn, we wait for the adaption for the lead while having 15 mostly high quality sources for it and you want to include a book review by a PhD candidate of a book who's authors are not known? Take at least part in the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Applodion an Arab nationalist? This is the version the edited, that Konli and Paradise vandalized, as usual, leading to the current mess and discussion. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't called Applodion a Arab nationalist. You try to hide the fact that the book has no known author, and that the reviewer is a PhD candidate with no further known mention beside this review on the internet. This is not according to WP:Lead which states that the lead needs reliable, verifiable sources. I'll re-add it to controversies and re-clarify. Also if you add POV worded text with such a source, why not accept the 15+ verifiable sources that source the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Some kind of RfC needs to be done

This article is a mess. This talk page is a mess. I originally stated that I wouldn't return, but I've come checking and I just can't not comment. This needs an RfC which pulls editors from other parts of the projects to view it, so that neutral editors can do an independent assessment. I would set it up myself but I have no idea what the actual debate is anymore. If people have multiple things they want to solve, then set up multiple RfC's. But don't add your own viewpoint, you can do that as a voter and add as nom so people know that's what the nominator believes. If you want to debate what topic should be done, feel free to do that under this banner. I also just want to note that based on current discussions this needs something like an RfC to cool down the heat; if not, arbitration may be a possibility that people will appeal to and that is a headache for all involved. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 19:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I've just finished a makor clean-up, please have a look. I agree about the talk page, consensus has been very difficult to achieve here. I'm considering your suggestion of an RfC. Konli17 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest mass content removal by Konli

@Applodion: Can you see the latest edit by Konli that goes against everything we have been trying to agree on? Obviously, they don't care about the talk page or consensus on their zeal to push their POV agenda. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Another in your long line of tendentious mischaracterisations of my edits, and woeful misunderstandings of what is and isn't agreed upon. If you have any specific complaints, make them or shut up. Konli17 (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli, please stop your disruptive edit warring and agenda to falsify history and reality. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's impressive projection. Konli17 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to everyone, but as explained above, I will abstain from partaking in these discussions for now. It is just getting too frustrating. Applodion (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments on range of issues

There are disputes over a range of issues, including but not limited to WP:UNDUE, sources, and allegations of nationalist bias and acting in bad faith. These disputes have lasted for months, and have rarely come even close to a proper resolution. Anyone with experience and/or knowledge in this area is encouraged to comment. Konli17 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This cant go like this. You need specific things, or it will just be along discussion on everything. So probably we will have several rfc's, each one needs to specify what is to be decided on.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? The problems here are so deep-rooted, it would surely be better with a broader discussion, especially on policies and how they apply here. Konli17 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, because neutral editors will not read the thousands of fights we had. I started the first rfc below, feel free to start one on every issue.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I reckon I'd prefer people with a knowledge of policy to weigh in, because for sure there are many here who have got hold of the wrong end of the stick about that and how it applies here. The nitty-gritty of content disputes can follow. Konli17 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can continue with this rfc, but editors will ask you what exactly you are expecting of them, so this is too general.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Clean-up

PC, you're editing the pre-clean-up, pre-RfC version of the article. Whatever changes get agreed in the RfC, please make sure they're added to the cleaned up version, not the nationalist one. Konli17 (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah great. Removing the whole lot of what Pinkerton added (I guess after quite some research), seemed just not right and also not according to the RfC moderator.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've no problem with it being added, just not to the nationalist version. Your revert changed a lot more than the lede. Konli17 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, the RfC is about the first sentence in the article, while the version you are edit warring to are changing the entire article. You are also reintroducing fake maps that has already been discussed above and that have no consensus. You can not make theses mass changes without consensus. I'm giving you a chance now. If there is something you would like to change in the article. Bring up the sentences here on the talkpage and then we can discuss them. If they have reliable sources they will be added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if you followed this advice, SD. Konli17 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one adding fake maps made in MS Paint and personal amateur websites as sources. If you were behaving in the first place no one would be reverting you. I'm giving you an opportunity now. Ad the sentences you would like to ad here on the talkpage and we can discuss to include them. Bring reliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

SD, if you made good arguments for the changes you want, no-one would revert you. You've had ample opportunity. Konli17 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it not a good argument that a map or text should have a reliable source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The maps are sourced to the nationalist websites. What text do you believe hasn't been sourced adequately? Konli17 (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In your mass changes here are a few examples: you ad unreliable sources like: http://sahipkiran.org/ https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/syrian-kurdistan/ and https://en.zamanalwsl.net/ The fake "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist" map is not even following the unreliable source you added, the unreliable source extends the Kurdish-occupied region to the Mediterranean Sea, while your fake MS Paint map does not. You also remove French Mandate census for the Jazira region without consensus. You remove the historical Treaty of Sevres map without consensus, a real map based on real history unlike the one you are adding. You are also introducing fake terminology that implies that "Syrian Kurdistan" as being a real historical region for example "which included Syrian Kurdistan in its short-lived State of Aleppo"... these are only a few examples, there are more. These mass changes are hard to follow and the unreliable sources, fake terminology and your removal of good factual content gives us no choice but to revert it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The sahipkiran.org reference reflects what's said in van Wilgenburg's and Allsop's book, we can reference the book if you'd prefer. Are you really saying that your problem with the Kurdish nationalist map is that it isn't nationalist enough? I'm sure we can find an example that fits better. There's a strong consensus to get rid of the Sevres map, which is as irrelevant to the article as the treaty itself. Of course it's a historical region, why else would its people be appealing to the French for autonomy? Konli17 (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ad here at the talkpage what you are suggesting with source and I will look at it. There is no consensus to remove the Sevres map, if there is, show it to me. It is to show historically where kurds were in the region, so its connected to the subject. If "Syrian Kurdistan" is a historical region show me a historical source mentioning it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

All covered above, sometimes several times. Try to keep up. Konli17 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, no-one can force you. Konli17 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverts of large edits

I suggest the ones who just revert whole large edits because they do not like a word or two, would please stop with this. You can adapt the terminology or remove the word or two you found and don't like, instead of reverting a whole edit with a lot of really good info.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

People in glass houses ought not throw stones, PC. You did this too recently. Konli17 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Because I didn't like a terminology or didn't like a word or two? Where?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is just for the lead which is stated at the RfC.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Demographics 2

The 'Demographic background' section of this article ought not depart so much from the 'Demographics' section of Kurds in Syria. That it does seems to be the work of one editor, who has failed over the years to have their particular interpretation, complete with cherrypicked references, accepted at Talk:Kurds in Syria, and has since shoehorned it into articles that see less traffic e.g. Al-Hasakah_Governorate#Demographics and Arab_Belt#Background. And now they've got it in here. For me, this is the most glaring example of the problems with this article; an entire section devoted to pushing the Assadist/Neo-Ottomanist propaganda line that Kurds are not native to Syria and do not belong there. Konli17 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What text is not following the source?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to assume good faith with such an egregious misreading of the points I made.Konli17 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli, which one of the references is from "Assadist/Neo-Ottomanism| propaganda"? I'd like to see specific examples. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

And again, it's difficult to assume good faith with such an egregious misreading of the points I made. Konli17 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli17 It can be hard to assume good faith in certain situations; I would urge you to continue trying. Many of the threads above are impossible to wade through, containing little but snide comments about other editors, shading into blatant personal attacks. I'm willing to try to help move this conversation on into something more productive, but that will only be possible if we keep the discussion focussed on the content, and away from observations about who added it or what their motivations were.

I am entirely neutral on this matter, and know very little indeed about the subject matter. I will be happy to help mediate this discussion, if I can, but that will only work if people are prepared to say things like 'This sentence is problematic because Source X is unreliable', or whatever. If you think there is a problem with the Demographic background section, please spell out what it is very clearly - what are the problems with the content, what are the problems with the sourcing. I don't mean who they were added by or what their interpretation of them was - just keep it focussed on the content. You will need to speak to me like I am an idiot, assume no prior knowledge on my part. Explain the problem. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for giving this a shot. There's no problem with most of the sources, the problem is the overall interpretation given to them, and the manner in which some are highlighted and others downplayed, which I contend has little to do with their perceived reliability. Exaggerating the Kurdish north-south migration of the 1920s (estimated to have added 10% to the Kurdish population of al-Jazira Province by one source, much less than has sometimes been implied) is a familiar trope, used by the Syrian regime to justify the Arab Belt land seizures from Syrian Kurds and denial of citizenship to them, and by the Turkish regime to justify its current ethnic cleansing. The major Syrian Kurdish areas to the west are ignored. Kurdish migration to Jazira, small as it was, is presented as Kurdification; Christian migration is presented as neutral. There's an interesting story to tell about how, why, and when these parts of Syria came to be settled by Kurdish people, and how the last major migration in the early 20th century still informs citizenship laws and attitudes today, but giving the impression that the majority of Syrian Kurds are descended from recent migrants ignores the many references available at Kurds_in_Syria#Demographics that say otherwise. 80% of Syrian Kurds live in Syrian Kurdistan, and I've long argued that any demographics section in this article ought to follow the one at the Kurds in Syria article closely. Konli17 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, I agree in general terms that we ought not to have two articles which have conflicting information in them, but at present I don't know which of the two articles does it better. Would it possible for you to break this down into particular paragraphs, sentences or assertions in the article as it currently stands that you have problems with, so we can discuss specifics? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I can, but for you to get the thrust of my argument I'd like you first to scan the relevant sections in both articles. Some of the information here is at Kurds_in_Syria#Demographics, but there it isn't WP:UNDUE; it takes up as much room as its relevance dictates. But the opposite isn't the case, most of the information there is missing here. On this article, the section is longer and at the same time more concentrated, both geographically (just the east of Syrian Kurdistan) and in time (covering mostly the 1920s and 1930s, with the occasional foray as far as the 1950s), ignoring the rest of Syrian Kurdistan and the rest of the history. Konli17 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've scanned them (no more than that), but without knowing the specifics of what I'm looking for I'm pretty much in the dark. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, well that's the most important point regarding this section; it has a geographical and chronological focus that's inexplicable when assuming good faith, and only becomes more difficult to explain given its length relative to the corresponding section at Kurds in Syria. Other problems include:

• Giving undue weight to some sources that are contradicted by others e.g "Until the beginning of the 20th century, parts of al-Hasakah Governorate (then called Jazira province) were "no man's land" primarily reserved for the grazing land of nomadic and semi-sedentary tribes.", "The number of Kurds settled in the Jazira province during the 1920s was estimated at 20,000[61] to 25,000 people,[62] out of 100,000 inhabitants", "Consequently, the border areas in al-Hasakah Governorate started to have a Kurdish majority".
• Pointy language e.g. "French mandate authorities gave the new Kurdish refugees considerable rights", "French Mandate authorities encouraged their immigration" and "French official reports show the existence of at most 45 Kurdish villages".
• Original research e.g. "the population of northeastern Syria has seen several unnatural, big jumps (as shown in the table) fueled by the arrival of Kurds from Turkey".
• Biased language in Wikipedia's voice e.g. "These successive Kurdish immigrations from Turkey have led the governing Ba'ath Party to think about Arabization policies in northern Syria, settling 4000 farmer families from areas inundated by the Tabqa Dam in Raqqa Governorate in al-Hasakah Governorate" to describe the Arab Belt.

Konli17 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, are you happy with this summary? Konli17 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli17, sorry - I got side tracked with some other threads in this discussion, which seems to be growing arms and legs rapidly. I'll try and get this read shortly. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Konli17 Hi - OK, I've taken a look at this.

• On the first point (undue weight) - can you expand on what (and why) you think is undue weight?
• On the second point, I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure that I agree with all your bolding. 'Considerable' is a value judgement, and ought to be attributed since this is contentious. 'Encouraged' seems less problematic - either they encouraged it, or they didn't, what does the source say? 'At most' I agree is problematic - it is WP:EDITORIALISING in an attempt to downplay the size of the number. It ought to give a number, or a range, neutrally.
• On the third point, I agree with you quite strongly - 'unnatural' seems like a very strange word to use in Wikipedia's voice in this context. Can you give a sense of what the source says, and whether there is a better way to word this (or do you think it should be removed entirely)?
• On the fourth point, I agree that it's poorly worded, but I'm not sure whether it's biased or just bad writing. Can you expand on your concerns?

Thanks for your patience. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The undue weight wasn't the first point, although it was the first bulleted. The first point, whose importance for me outweighs the rest, is dealt with in the paragraph preceding the bulleted points; the (since we're assuming good faith) inexplicable spatial and temporal focus of the section. For me, this problem dwarfs the others. Konli17 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That is a very good point if i understand you correctly Konli17, going down the path of who lived where and when should not be accepted in this article. Maybe if things settle down it would be a good idea to figure out how to do that? fiveby(zero) 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I think what Konli is saying is that at present this article is focused on just the former al-Jazira province and tries very hard to demonstrate that because that province was thinly populated and largely nomadic when records began there can only have been Arabs living there, which is a claim put about by the Arab Nationalist Ba'ath Party regime from the 1960s in order to delegitimize the entire Kurdish population of Syria as foreign interlopers. Konli suggests that the other territories of Syrian Kurdistan need at least the same or greater prominence to those of the Jazira region. (i.e., the "island" on the left bank of the Euphrates and the right bank of the Tigris, especially as we know that there has been larger, long-standing and more populous permanent Kurdish settlements in the areas of Kobane and Jarabulus, not to mention the "Kurd Mountains" enclave.

Yes, that's a fair summary, but the temporal focus is also important. Konli17 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: This is the source for the number of villages "at most 45" and the word "encouragement". Jordi Tejel, an author pro-Kurdish editors like to cite often. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Or a source one could describe as "often deliberately ignored and deliberately misconstrued by anti-Kurdish editors". For example, the example that torpedoes the whole denialist position that Kurds were post Mandate immgrants in Syria: "The left bank of the Euphrates around Kobane and some strips of land on the right bank had been settled by the Kurds at the beginning of the seventeenth century, following forced migrations as a result of the Sultans’ decisions. Kurdish population of Jazira increased with the arrival of Kurdish refugees from Turkey and Iraq during the 1920s–1930s. Before 1927, there were only 47 Kurdish villages in this region, whereas by 1939, the number of villages with Kurdish majority reached 700–800." Tejel, Jordi (2020), Cimino, Matthieu (ed.), "The Complex and Dynamic Relationship of Syria's Kurds with Syrian Borders: Continuities and Changes", Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State, Mobility & Politics, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 243–267, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44877-6_11, ISBN 978-3-030-44877-6 Further (unsourced and prima facie wrong) denial of these facts and of the existence of a Kurdish population in Syrian Kurdistan should be met with immediate administrative sanction. So too should any editor that continues to claim, against all evidence, that the areas of Syrian Kurdistan were not largely Kurdish at the time of the imposition of the Syria–Turkey border, since this too is utterly refuted by the statement of Tejel (among many others') that Kurdish populations placed under the French Mandate occupied three narrow zones isolated from each other along the Turkish frontier: the Upper Jazira, Jarabulus, and Kurd Dagh. These three Kurdish enclaves constituted nevertheless a natural extension of Kurdish territory into Turkey and Iraq. In other words, Syrian Kurdistan was from the outset demographically similar to the Kurdish territory in Turkey and Iraq, a fact long denied on this talkpage. This denial must not be allowed to continue further. GPinkerton (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit

For the following text:

Events in Iraqi Kurdistan and the discovery of oil in Syrian Kurdistan in the 1960s coincided with a marked worsening for the Kurdish population. In August 1961, the government decreed an extraordinary census of al-Jazira Province, which was undertaken in November, by which time the uprising for Kurdish autonomy in Iraq had begun. As part of this census, 120,000 Kurds in the province were stripped of Syrian nationality and civil rights, on the pretext that they were foreigners – the August decree stated that Kurds were "illegally infiltrating" from Turkish Kurdistan into Syria, aiming to "destroy its Arab character". The following year, the Syrian government adopted the Arab Belt (al-Hizam al-Arabi) policy in order and "save Arabism" and defeat the "Kurdish threat" by expelling all the Kurdish inhabitants from the area of the Syria–Turkey border, dispersing and resettling them, and replacing them with Arabs. Oil had been discovered at Qaratchok, and the desire the control the Kurdish region's resources was connected with the policy. The Kurdish situation worsened again when, in March 1963, Ba'ath Party of Michel Aflaq took power in Damascus. In November the party published Study of the Jezireh Provnce in its National, Social, and Political Aspects, a pamphlet written by the al-Jazira Province's chief of police, Mohamed Talab Hilal. An Arab nationalist, Hilal claimed to use "anthropological" reasoning to "prove scientifically" Kurds "do not constitute a nation". His view was that "the Kurdish people are a people without history or civilization or language or even definite ethnic origin of their own. Their only characteristics are those shaped by force, destructive power and violence, characteristics which are, by the way, inherent in all mountain populations". It was also his opinion that "The Kurds live from civilization and history of other nations. They have taken no part in these civilizations or in the history of these nations." Hilal produced a twelvefold strategy to achieve the Arabization of the al-Jazira Province. The steps were:

• (1) batr (dispossession) – eviction and resettlement of Kurds
• (2) tajhil (obscurantist) – deprivation of all education for Kurds, including in Arabic
• (3) tajwii (famine) – removal of Kurds from employment
• (4) extradition – expulsion of refugees from Turkish Kurdistan into Turkish custody
• (5) encouragement of intra-Kurdish factionalism in order to divide and rule
• (6) hizam (Arab cordon) – Arab settlement of former Kurdish lands, much as proposed in 1962
• (7) iskan (colonization) – "pure and nationalist Arabs" to be settled in Syrian Kurdistan so Kurds might be "watched until their dispersion"
• (8) military involvement by "divisions stationed in the zone of the cordon" would guaranty "that the dispersion of the Kurds and the settlement of Arabs would take place according to plans drawn up by the government"
• (9) "socialization" – "collective farms", (mazarii jama'iyya), to be established in the Kurds' stead by Arab settlers equipped with "armament and training"
• (10) prohibition of "anybody ignorant of the Arabic language exercising the right to vote or stand for office"
• (11) Kurdish ulemas were to be expelled to the south and replaced with Arabs
• (12) "a vast anti-Kurdish campaign amongst the Arabs" to be undertaken by the state

Though the 120,000 Kurds of al-Jazira Province deemed non-Syrians were unable to vote or marry or receive education or healthcare, they were nevertheless eligible to be conscripted for military service, and could be sent to fight on the Golan Heights; they were particular victims of the Arab Belt policy, which continued to set the Kurdish agenda of the Syrian government and many of whose provisions were implemented in the following years. The strategy called for the eviction of 140,000 Kurdish peasants and their replacement with Arabs; possibly even extending the expulsions to the Kurds of the Kurd Mountains was under consideration in 1966. In the decade following 1965, around 30,000 Kurds left al-Jazira Province to find work or escape persecution elsewhere in Syria or in Lebanon. In 1967, the land of the Kurds in al-Jazira Province was nationalized under the Plan to establish model state farms in the Jezireh Province, a euphemism for the Arab Belt concept, and those who had been ordered out refused to leave but the events of the Six-Day War temporarily prevented its implementation from being completed. The construction and flooding of the Tabqa Dam displaced Arabs who were then resettled in Kurdish al-Jazira. 40 "model villages" were constructed in 1975 and populated with 7,000 armed Arab peasant families; these settlements stretched from Amuda to Derik, a town whose Kurdish name was replaced with the Arabic al-Malikiyah at that time. Proceeding slowly to avoid international criticism, the Syrian government suppressed Kurdish culture and harassed Kurdish people, and Kurdish literature and music was confiscated. Members of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria were given lengthy prison sentences for "anti-Arabist" crimes. In official government documents, mention of Kurds (along with all other non-Arabs) is omitted, and while there were Kurdish members of the legislative People's Council of Syria, official identity was exclusively Arab.

In 1976, the policy of the Arab Belt , never fully realized, were abandoned, with Hafez al-Assad preferring "to leave things as they are", remitting the official harassment and ceasing to build new settlements. Existing Arab colonies and settlers remained in place, and while Kurdish music was again heard, the position of Kurds in Syria remained dependent to developments in relations between Syria and Iraq. The descendants of the 120,000 continued to be denied passports and documents and were still nevertheless the subject to conscription into the 21st century.

References

Naturally the references will not be objected to this time, since others here have already cited this particular book as authoritative, so no-one should have qualms about referencing. GPinkerton (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work. This text would also be a good addition to the Arab Belt article, which is need of some work. Konli17 (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What then distinguishes this article from Kurds in Syria? What content is appropriate for that article, and what content appropriate for this? fiveby(zero) 02:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Kurds are significant minority all over Syria, in Aleppo, Damascus, etc. This is specifically about the three Kurdish majority areas of Syria bordering Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan, a specific artefact of the careless imposition of temporary borders in the early 1920s that have since become entrenched. This area is usually included in maps of "Greater Kurdistan" or of Kurdish-populated regions generally, but includes populations and history that is also non-Kurd (Arabs, Armenians, Turks, Assyrians, etc.). GPinkerton (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. This is scandalous attempt to convert Wikipedia into a Kurdish propaganda blog and completely adopting the Kurdish nationalist rhetoric. This text is cherry-picking and completely ignores all the demographic changes that have been happening since the establishment of the French mandate and it's welcoming strategy to immigrants from Turkey (Kurds and Christian) but benefited mostly Kurds in terms of numbers. According to French geographer Etienne de Vaumas, the population of Jazira Province increased six folds from 40,000 in 1929 to 234,000 in 1954. Furthermore, David McDowall states the following: Arab nationalists had good reason to be paranoid about internal and external enemies. Nowhere was the Syrian Arab cause less assured than in the north where so many non-Arab communities lived, particularly in al-Hasaka governorate. The population had grown rapidly, and it was the growth since 1945 that gave cause for Arab concern. In its own words, the government believed that 'At the beginning of 1945, the Kurds began to infiltrate into al-Hasakeh governorate. They came singly and in groups from neighbouring countries, especially Turkey, crossing illegally along the border from Ras al'Ain to al-Malikiyya. Gradually and illegally, they settled down in the region along the border in major population centres such as Dirbasiyya, Amuda and Malikiyya. Many of these Kurds were able to register themselves illegally in the Syrian civil registers. They were also able to obtain Syrian identity cards through a variety of means, with the help of their relatives and members if their tribes. They did so with the intent of settling down and acquiring property, especially after the issue of the agricultural reform law, so as to benefit from land redistribution.' Official figures available in 1961 showed that in a mere seven year period, between 1954 and 1961, the population of al-Hasakah governorate had increased from 240,000 to 305,000, an increase of 27 per cent which could not possibly be explained merely by natural increase. The government was sufficiently worried by the apparent influx that it carried out a sample census in June 1962 which indicated the real population was probably closer to 340,000. Although these figures may have been exaggerated, they were credible given the actual circumstances. From being lawless and virtually empty prior to 1914, the Jazira had proved to be astonishingly fertile once order was imposed by the French mandate and farming undertaken by the largely Kurdish population.... A strong suspicion that many migrants were entering Syria was inevitable. In Turkey the rapid mechanisation of farming had created huge unemployment and massive labour migration from the 1950s onwards. The fertile but not yet cultivated lands of northern Jazira must have been a strong enticement and the affected frontier was too long feasibly to police it. The government in Damascus felt it had good grounds to fear that many of those entering al-Hasaka governorate were neither Syrian nor Arab, and that presented a security problem. Indeed, in the view of the British embassy: 'It seems doubtful if the Damascus government could easily control the area if Kurdish dissidence from within Syria's borders, or an irruption by Kurdish tribesmen from without, should disturb the uneasy tranquility' Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, this problematic, POV-screaming edit suggested by Pinkerton is designed to draw our attention away from the most important thing we are discussing right now, which is the name of the page/territory, and whether that is universal or not. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting something in this quotation somehow contradicts the facts stated by the source above? Because it does not. Indeed, thanks for being prepared to quote a source that agrees with all the others that the area was largely Kurdish even before the First World War! GPinkerton (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is another one of your comments that confirm that you don't read before jumping to conclusions. The quote clearly says: From being lawless and virtually empty prior to 1914,. This is before/beginning of WWI. The large Kurdish population during the French mandate. This is another evidence of the origin of this Kurdish population. As Jordi Tejel said: Kurdish political parties have never set out to challenge Syrian national borders. In the 1920s, Kurdish activists turned their eyes toward Turkish Kurdistan, their region of origin. I hope this is clear enough where the Jazira Kurdish population came from!!! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It is clear from Tejel that the exiled Kurdish nationalists in Syria originated in Turkey, because that is what Tejel says. He most certainly does not refer to all Kurds in Syria being immigrants, that's just woeful misinterpretation combined with quotemining. Look, Tejel also says, and you should have no trouble with the source since you are misquoting the same chapter as I am quoting here: The left bank of the Euphrates around Kobane and some strips of land on the right bank had been settled by the Kurds at the beginning of the seventeenth century, following forced migrations as a result of the Sultans’ decisions. Kurdish population of Jazira increased with the arrival of Kurdish refugees from Turkey and Iraq during the 1920s–1930s. What part of Kurds living in Syria in the 17th century on both banks of the Euphrates do you have difficulty understanding? Al-Jazira is the left bank. If the numbers of Kurds increased in the 1920s, it cannot have been nothing beforehand. Indeed, the French mandate was established only in 1920, but the French army was fighting resident Kurdish tribesmen in Kurd Dagh and al-Jazira in the autumn of 1919. It was not until 1925 that the Kurdish refugees from Turkey were allowed, let alone encouraged, settle in al-Jazira, where Tejel says, the local population of Jazira, which included both Kurdish and Arab nomads, was deemed insufficiently large and ‘unprepared’ to assume a potential increase in arable lands. The Kurds cannot be written out of the history of Syrian Kurdistan like that. GPinkerton (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Further support for the facts cited above includes:

• Allsopp, Harriet (2019). The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. p. 33. doi:10.5040/9781788315944.0010. ISBN 978-1-78831-483-1. … punitive exclusion of groups and individuals from benefits accruing from state employment, health care and even citizenship, created underclasses not linked to either social or labour relations. Within Kurdish society, an estimated 120,000 Kurds were denaturalized by the Syrian government as a result of the 1962 Hasakah census. These Kurds were registered individually as 'ajnabi al-Hasakah or "a foreigner of Hasakah province", while those who were left unregistered were known collectively as the maktumiin. By 2011 their combined number was estimated by some to be more than 300,000. A unique underclass of Kurds was formed that crossed formal class and tribal structures. Until the beginning of the civil protests in Syria in 2011, these Kurds were denied even the conditional rights to representation, services and property that other Kurds in Syria could claim as Syrian Arab citizens.

GPinkerton (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What you say above It is clear from Tejel that the exiled Kurdish nationalists in Syria originated in Turkey, because that is what Tejel says. He most certainly does not refer to all Kurds in Syria being immigrants, that's just woeful misinterpretation combined with quotemining. is WP:OR and a pathetic attempt at rewording what Tejel clearly says to twist facts to suit your POV-pushing narrative. We have evidence from de Vaumas, Gibert and Fevret, McDowall and Tejel indicating that the origins of Jazira's Kurds are from Turkey and that this immigration has happened after WWI and into the late 1950's. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This desperate attempt at an opinion of yours is just too tendentious to credit that this is not just nationalist trolling. It would only be creditable if you wilfully ignore Tejel's quite unambiguous statement that: The left bank of the Euphrates around Kobane and some strips of land on the right bank had been settled by the Kurds at the beginning of the seventeenth century, following forced migrations as a result of the Sultans’ decisions. Kurdish population of Jazira increased with the arrival of Kurdish refugees from Turkey and Iraq during the 1920s–1930s. The idea that Jazira's Kurds are all immigrants from Turkey is simply a Ba'ath Party lie which is clearly refuted by anyone that reads any of the sources without bigotry. The POV-pushing comes from the denialsits here, not from the reliable sources, which clearly stste the opposite of all your have claimed. It is obvious you are unable to discuss this further, and can present no sources to support your view. GPinkerton (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself, and mostly your personal attacks, adding nothing new and nothing concrete. Did you see all the names I provided above. Did you even read my comment? Did you read any of the content there? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to supply anything more. You have lost what was never even an argument, and your denials have achieved nothing. Neither will they. Desist. GPinkerton (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

table to allow editors to assess sources as acceptable or not?

unneeded
assessing sources source Username 1 username 2 username 3 Harriet Allsopp & Wladimir van Wilgenburg (2019), The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts, Bloomsbury. [2] Yes Maybe No Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, Nir T. Boms & Sareta Ashraph, eds. (2019), The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality, Cambridge. [3] Samer N. Abboud (2015), Syria, Wiley. [4]

—valereee (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)