Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.171.140.252 (talk) at 15:38, 1 September 2016 (→UPDATE THE MAP: links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

History between 1941 and 2012?

There is a bit under the economy section. Should that be moved to the history section and if so what should the subheading be?

Dissolve the waterhead in history stuff

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

Another issue is that there is quite some information in diverse sections that was true in 2012, 2013 or 2014 but is outdated now, in particular there are many references to "Kurdish" bodies which are now transformed into or succeeded by non-ethnic Rojava bodies.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up-to-date in Rojava constitution should go through the diverse sections, update details and where appropriate move the outdated information to the history section. 2A1ZA (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map used here

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

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

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

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

(a) On the issue of borders of administrative claims for the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava, the only sincere source can be official publications from that administration, and the maps in the diplomatic representation offices abroad. The map currently in use for example erroneously suggests a claim for administration of the southern tip of Hasakah province, which simply does not exist in the official sources.
(b) The administration of the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava has stated numerous times that they would aim to extend the federal model beyond "Rojava", for all of Syria. A big congress has been held last year for exactly this purpose. The SDF and the SDC exist for exactly this purpose. Maps should not make the mistake to claim that "where ever SDF militias are in control, there is Rojava". The SDF does, and will, occupy areas which are not claimed by anyone under the label "Rojava" by anyone. The map currently in use however appears to suggest such erroneous claim.

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

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

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

The problem is, nobody recognizes the territorial claims and what's wrong with a map showing different colours for de facto and de jure territory like the one in the Iraqi Kurdistan infobox? Editor abcdef (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it would be perfect to have such a map. Please note that in the map you refer to, every variant of borders is based on a sourced reasoning and explanation. However, in the map currently used here, there are "borders of Rojava" which apparently are just the fantasy of its creator. 2A1ZA (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2A1ZA, the map you are referring to from PYD offices does not prove anything. Anyone can claim anything. When did Tell Rifaat have any Kurds living there? Is there any Kurds living in Latakia governorate, as your PYD office maps show. These maps require the largest ethnic cleansing since WWII to happen in northern Syria for this entity to become geographically continuous. Now, extending the federal model over the entire Syrian territory would be a different topic, and of course won't be called 'Rojava'. We are talking about the Kurdish administration area map here, which is restricted to al-Hasaka, Ain al-Arab and Afrin. All other areas added to the map are areas inhabited almost purely by Arabs and were captured by military force supported by US and Russian air forces, and in many cases are still scenes of military action and change hands constantly. To conclude, the map should refer to areas of military control, not to political entities. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Tell Rifaat doesn't have a Kurdish majority, but there are definitely Kurds living there. And yes, there are Kurds in Latakia governorate: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Syria_Ethnic_Detailed_lg.png What you maybe haven't understood yet: The Rojava administration doesn't aim to be a Kurdish-only area and there won't be ethnic cleansing due to that.
To the political situation it's to be said that it's more or less the same case as it is with the Republic of Nagorno-Karabach. It has no international recognition, but there is still controlled as well as claimed territory. That you obviously have some problems with the Kurds as a people doesn't change that fact. In Rojava, there is controlled as well as claimed territory and it's right to show this in a map what's controlled and claimed by this semi-autonomous movement.
I still don't like the currently map used here. The design looks good, no question, but it doesn't completely show which areas are really claimed or controlled by the YPG/SDF--Ermanarich (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"2A1ZA, the map you are referring to from PYD offices does not prove anything. Anyone can claim anything." --> Exactly, anyone can claim anything. And this particular map proves this particular claim. And depicting this particular claim (however audacious and outrageous you might politically find it) is the point of such map. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justice System

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

The new justice systems in Rojava reflects the revolutionary concept of Democratic Confederalism. Its first communal level are the Peace and Consensus Committees. They resolve cases on the basis of consensus and their structure is dual, with general committees responsible for conflicts and crimes and women’s commissions for cases of patriarchal violence, forced marriage, plural marriage and related. The second level are the People’s Courts, its seven member judges (who do not have to be jurists) are nominated by the Justice Councils (or by anyone) and elected by the People’s Councils at the regional level. Every party to a decision of a People’s Court can appeal to the judges (who must be jurists) of an Appeals Court, of which there are four. Last resort is one Regional Court for all of Rojava. The seven judges of the Constitutional Court decide only on compatibility of acts of government and legal proceedings with the social contract, the constitution of Rojava.[1]

Cheers, 2A1ZA (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested wording still has too much overlap with the source article. Here's how I would fix it:

The new justice systems in Rojava reflects the revolutionary concept of Democratic Confederalism. At the local level, citizens create Peace and Consensus Committees, which make group decisions on minor criminal cases and disputes as well as resolve women's issues regarding family violence and marriage. At the regional level, citizens (who are not required to be trained jurists) are elected by the regional People's Councils to serve on seven-member People's Courts. At the next level are four Appeals Courts, headed by trained jurists. The court of last resort is the Regional Court, which serves Rojava as a whole. A separate Constitutional Court renders decisions on compatibility of acts of government and legal proceedings with the constitution of Rojava (called the Social Contract).

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

Making the "Human rights in Rojava" article quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baath policy of removing Kurds for Arabs from the region

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

However, policies to change the demographic composition of the area by population change were also implemented. In 1962 the Syrian authorities in Hasaka randomly stripped tens of thousands of Kurdish families (more than 120,000 Kurds[2]) of their Syrian nationality. [3][4] In 1973 in the province of Hasaka, the Syrian authorities confiscated an area of fertile agricultural land owned and cultivated by tens of thousands of Kurdish citizens and gave it to Arab families brought in from the provinces of Aleppo and Ar-Raqqa. The National Leadership Bureau of the ruling Baath Party issued orders to establish 41 settlement centers in these areas, in order to change the demographic composition of these areas by evicting and displacing the Kurdish inhabitants. In 2007, Syrian authorities in the Agricultural Association in Malikiyah, Hasaka province, signed contracts granting 150 Arab families from the Shaddadi region, Hasaka province, about six thousand square kilometers in Malikiyah. At the same time, it evicted tens of thousands of Kurdish people from these villages, and forced them to move to other areas inside and outside of Syria in search of a decent living.[3][4]

While I do not know and do not research now in how far there is a copyright issue, I only shortened that text from the earlier much longer version some days ago, I definitely think that the topic deserves mentioning in the article, and sources deserve being cited. As you appear interested in the topic, couldn't you write a paragraph about it? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC

@2A1ZA: Sure, I'd be interested in writing up a bit about the Syrian ethnic displacement. Thank you for offering :) I'll see what I can find. The sources are good as they are, the only concern was that the paragraph as written was either directly copied or very closely paraphrased from the sources, which is not allowed as per WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO. GABgab 18:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The New Justice System in Rojava". biehlonbookchin.com. 2014-10-13. Retrieved 2016-06-06.
  2. ^ "A murder stirs Kurds in Syria". The Christian Science Monitor.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference OHCHR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference HRW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Naming of languages

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

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

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

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

If you do not agree, please discuss here instead of changing.-- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is bad because they do not speak Syriac, they speak Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. It's like claiming the French speak Latin. They speak Northern Kurdish and stating it should not be an issue; if it is, we have to write "the Kurdish languages" because they are separate languages. Also, the nationalistic statements on the page about the languages are not necessary or appropriate. Ogress 09:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ogress
(1) This "Syriac" versus "Aramaic" issue is not my field of expertise, so I do not care about the result. However, I do know that some people who work on this article insist on "Syriac" while others insist on "Aramaic". The compromise was Syriac-Aramaic. I do not see much sense in breaking this compromise now.
(2) The Arab dialect most spoken in Rojava is "North Mesopotamian Arabic" and the Kurdish dialect most spoken there is "Kurmanji Kurdish". However, it makes very much sense to simply use Kurdish and Arabic in the article.
This ethnic and nationalist supremacist POV by many on the subject is a curse on the article (I fully agree that "nationalistic statements on the page about the languages are not necessary or appropriate"). Your POV obviously is neither Kurdish nor Assyrian, probably Turkish or Arabic, I do not care, but this very good article should not be vandalized by POV. If you feel underlying links to other Wikipedia articles could be optimized, then do it, but leave these namings of the lanuages uniform and non-discriminatory.
And I do not see any reason why you deleted all explanations on the families on languages. Please do not vandalize them again. Thanks. --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic article you linked. It states that
Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is closely related to Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, both evolving from the same distinct Syriac dialect which evolved in Assyria[7] between the 5th century BC and 1st century AD.[8] There is also some Akkadian vocabulary and influence in the language. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is written from right to left, and it uses the Madnhāyā version of the Syriac alphabet.[9][10] Speakers of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo are ethnic Assyrians and are descendants of the ancient Assyrian inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia.[11][12][13][14][15] Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the largest speaking Neo-Aramaic group (232,000 speakers), which follows Chaldean Neo-Aramaic (206,000 speakers) and Turoyo (112,000 speakers).
So obviosly "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" is just a subset of that language spoken in Rojava, and a broader term like "Syriac-Aramaic" is appropriate. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you commented here when you immediately ran for administrator intervention. First, my perspective is "I am a Wikipedia editor who happens to be a linguist", not "I have a particular nationalist dog in this fight". Second, you are wrong. Syriac is like 2000 years old and dates from the period of Jesus (although Syriac is an Eastern Aramaic language while Jesus spoke a Western Aramaic language called "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic"). Calling the modern spoken language "Syriac" is ridiculous; it's Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Calling it "Aramaic" is wrong, like saying the English speak "Germanic". Calling is Syriac is wrong, like saying the the English speak "Saxon". More specifically, Syriac-Aramaic is saying they speak "Old English-Germanic". It's just flat-out wrong and it's 100% nationalism and we have zero reason to stand for providing patently incorrect information. Third, I think you are confusing "the term for the Assyrian people" drama with "the language spoken". There's an entire article on names used by various factions of the Assyrians/Syriacs/Aramaics/Arameans; that's not the same as the language in question. Ogress 10:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for administrator intervention only after you still went on making changes to the article while we were talking here. And once again, this "Syriac" versus "Aramaic" thing is my least concern (at least the naming in the box as an official language could be decided by the respective official act of government in Rojava). Neither is my main concern that you insist on the wrong naming of the script as "Arabic alphabet" instead of the correct "Arabic abjad". My main concerns are:
(1) The non-uniform naming of languages concerned within the article which you started.
(2) The discriminatory treatment you give to the language of Arabic and its dialect of North Mesopotamian Arabic on the one hand and the language of Kurdish and its dialect of Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji) on the other hand.
(3) The fact that you did without any reason delete the explanatory sentences to the languages in the "Languages and Scripts" section. By the way, exactly that would be the place to elaborate on Syriac-Aramaic, if you would have a sincere interest in the article, rather than pushing your political POV. --- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, we were not talking here; you just reverted my edit and then made this edit stating, "The Rojava I like to work on out of academic/professional interest in the topic incites much political emotions by many users. While in the past these things could somehow be solved, User:Ogress now persistently reverts the article to his particular POV, irrespective of discussion on the talk page. I never needed administrator help before on editing, what can I do?" You reverted my edits and I reverted them back. That does not make me "persistently revert[ing]" to "his [sic] point of view".
Second, I DO NOT HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA. I have specified this multiple times. Your accusations are insulting. Your discussion of this page is that of someone possessively owning it. Your only edits are to pages about Rojava; if anyone has a point of view issue, it's you. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the article on Assyrians in Syria says "they are a Syriac speaking community". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Second preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (here: naming scripts)

There appears to be consensus that the script for Arabic language shall be named Arabic alphabet (abjad). There was no objection to this suggestion. I will implement it now and delete the request for comment on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Fifth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (presentation in the language section)

After lengthy discussion, there appears a consensus or at least a broad majority to use this presentation of languages in Rojava in the languages section:

(1) Kurdish (in Northern Kurdish dialect), ...
(2) Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, in writing Modern Standard Arabic), ...
(3) Syriac-Aramaic (in the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and the Turoyo variety), ...
(4) Turkish (in Syrian Turkmen dialect), ...

I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: All article-links behind "Syriac-Aramaic" now correctly refer to Eastern Aramaic languages, not incorrectly to Syriac language as they did before the big discussion on naming languages. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested

Question POL: How should the three official languages in the Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava be named in the box? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to my information, the three official languages are in official documents called "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Assyrian" (the last being a non-linguistic term, see other question below). In this article, they were called "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Syriac-Aramaic". Then you came, Ogress, and changed the first to "Northern Kurdish" and the last to "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic". If you want to follow the apparent official terminology, what I would absolutely support, please revert your edit and make it "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Assyrian". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cite, please. It would help the discussion if you could provide it. Ogress 22:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is informal information I got, another piece of such information would be that apparently Rojava de facto foreign minister Sinam Mohamed in yesterday speaking to an American audience in a briefing in Washington DC referred to this third language as "Aramean" and "the language of Jesus Christ". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the article on Assyrians in Syria says "they are a Syriac speaking community". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how the languages are named in Rojava's official documents, we should go for the common language names in English, and these are the titles of the corresponding wikipedia articles. Provided, of course, that the specific language varieties covered in these articles are the same ones as those chosen as official. Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only language I can myself identify in original sources from Rojava (because it is the only one written in Latin script) is language number one, and that one is without exception referred to as "Kurdî", which is known as "Kurdish" in English, and used as such throughout Wikipedia zillion times. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning usage in English, the Google hits:
"Kurdish" 43.900.000 results versus "Northern Kurdish" 236.000 results
"Kurdish language" 349.000 results versus "Northern Kurdish language" 2.840 results
And in media, I do see each and every article on the language in Rojava referring to "Kurdish", I do not know of any article that calls that language "Northern Kurdish". In my humble opinion, this is a very clear result as to what is the common name. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has 2 (in words: two) results.
The combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying Google hits for language number three:
"Rojava" and "Assyrian language": 262 results
"Rojava" and "Aramaic language": 5.430 results
"Rojava" and "Neo-Aramaic language": 2.300 results
"Rojava" and "Syriac language": 4.460 results
"Rojava" and "Syriac-Aramaic language": 280 results
"Rojava" and "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic language": 6 results
Well. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the discussion here, my preliminary suggestion is to definitely name the first to languages as Kurdish and Arabic. These clearly are the names used by the Rojava government, these are the names exclusively used in English media to name the languages, and Google points to a universal use of these names for the languages in Rojava ("Northern Kurdish" is neither used by any media nor does is have any google results as a language of Rojava). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Among the three official languages in Rojava, for language one and two the naming issue (outside of the language section) appears to be resolved. These names are by all representatives of Rojava, by all English media, and by an extremely overwhelming majority of internet users called Kurdish and Arabic. The alternative suggestion of calling language number one "Northern Kurdish" is not supported by any statement from a Rojava official, not supported by any English media article, and while the combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results on Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has only 2 results. There was no argument whatsoever brought against this. I will therefore now take care that outside the language section, the names "Kurdish" and "Arabic" for these languages are uniformly used throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


Question LANG1: In the "Languages and Scripts" section, is discriminatory treatment warranted concerning the language of Arabic and its dialect of North Mesopotamian Arabic on the one hand and the language of Kurdish and its dialect of Northern Kurdish on the other hand? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid misunderstandings, once again:
(a) This article referred to that language simply as "Kurdish", and nothing else, before you came.
(b) "Northern Kurdish" dialect is "Kurmanji" dialect. That is what people in Rojava speak. "Central Kurdish" dialect is "Sorani" dialect. Nobody in Rojava speaks that, and never did this article anywhere refer to "Sorani". In the Wikipedia, Sorani redirects not to Northern Kurdish, as you claim, but to Central Kurdish. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your accusations of discrimination are inflammatory and unwarranted. Modern Standard Arabic is the standard used for Arabic in every country where Arabic is spoken. Does Rojava use MSA or North Mesopotamian Arabic as its standard? I was not able to find out, so I did not change it. If you feel confident, go for it. Change it to NMA if that is what the state uses. No other state in the world even recognises a vernacular Arabic, so you better be sure. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Northern Kurdish" dialect is "Kurmanji" dialect. That is what people in Rojava speak. "Central Kurdish" dialect is "Sorani" dialect. Nobody in Rojava speaks that, and never did this article anywhere refer to "Sorani". In the Wikipedia, Sorani redirects not to Northern Kurdish, as you claim, but to Central Kurdish.
(2) The "Languages and Scripts Section" refers primarily to languages actually spoken by people. If there are differences between dialects, standardized and non standardized versions of the language, this is be the right place to name them and elaborate on the issue (my best guess is that in official use, the Rojava administration will employ standardized versions of both Kurdish and Arabic).
(3) The standardisation of Kurdish is a big issue which has been in process for many decades, and I hope that some people with first-hand in-depth knowledge will comment here on the issue. And it will hopefully help resolve the question if your suggestion to discriminate (the term is technical and not "inflammatory") between Arabic and Kurdish in the presentation is warranted or not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdish isn't a language. The Kurdish languages are three separate languages. Which of these are we going to say is the language being used? Ogress 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article Kurdish languages speaks of diverse "Kurdish dialects", not of different languages. The terminology in this respect is similiar to the Wikipedia article on Arabic that speaks of "dialects of Arabic". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I've mentioned, the status of Arabic in every country where it is official or national is simply "Arabic", because it has been standardised since the early periods of Islam and understood to be a single language codified by the form of the Quran. If you can find a cite that they have created a written form of the local vernacular and don't use the same Arabic everyone else does, let me know. Ogress 22:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just stumbled over this source, it appears that in Manbij speaking Standard Arabic is an identifying characteristic of foreign ISIL fighters:
Moreover, he said, IS foreign fighters control the city of Manbij. “There were Chechens, Tunisians, Chinese, Saudis, Egyptians, Libyans, Jordanians, even French people. The city was full of foreign fighters, and they used to talk in standard Arabic,” Jumayli said.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/arab-civilians-welcome-overthrowing-isis-rule-near-manbij-1106140524 -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One could write for elegant presentation
Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, while in formal communication Modern Standard Arabic), ...
but is this acceptable without having a proper source? We do not want to do guesswork or original research. Ogress, do you have a source, direct or indirect, that would allow us to assume that Modern Standard Arabic being used in formal communication in Rojava? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the article on Modern Standard Arabic in full, it appears that in Syria MSA is taught in school and universally used in writing. Appears safe to say in this article here ...
Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, in writing Modern Standard Arabic), ...
... me thinks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to comment, but I can't because the real question isn't actually stated. Obviously, the answer to the stated question is "it depends on what discriminatory treatment - some is warranted, some is not." But there must be a particular treatment at issue here that someone considers discriminatory. What is that? And I suspect not everyone agrees the treatment is discriminatory at all, rendering the question moot. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The different treatment, as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava#Languages_and_scripts -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only different treatment evident on its face is the different syntax, in which one item in the list says, "D (a dialect of L)" and the other says, "L (in the D dialect)". If that's the disparate treatment upon which comments are requested, I say they should be the same, and I prefer "L (in the D dialect)". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider the same to be appropriate for language number four?
(1) Kurdish (in Northern Kurdish dialect), ...
(2) Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect), ...
(3) ...
(4) Turkish (in Syrian Turkmen dialect), ...
Would be a presentation clear and not confusing for the reader, is it justified in your opinion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (presentation in the language section)

After lengthy discussion, there appears a consensus or at least a broad majority to use this presentation of languages in Rojava in the languages section:

(1) Kurdish (in Northern Kurdish dialect), ...
(2) Arabic (in North Mesopotamian Arabic dialect, in writing Modern Standard Arabic), ...
(3) Syriac-Aramaic (in the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, the Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and the Turoyo variety), ...
(4) Turkish (in Syrian Turkmen dialect), ...

I will implement this now and remove the respective Request for Comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: All article-links behind "Syriac-Aramaic" now correctly refer to Eastern Aramaic languages, not incorrectly to Syriac language as they did before the big discussion on naming languages. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Question LANG2: In the "Languages and Scripts" section, how should the language of the Assyrians be described? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Assyrian people article states, with two cites, "Most Assyrians speak a Neo-Aramaic language, whose subdivisions include Northeastern, Central, and Western Neo-Aramaic, as well as another language, dependent on the country of residence." There are zero speakers of Syriac in the world; it's a long-dead language used only liturgically. Why would we describe the language spoken by Assyrians other than by the actual name of the language? What motivation would have us do that? Can you please answer that? Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, the term you prefer, explicitly states that "Speakers of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo are ethnic Assyrians ... Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the largest speaking Neo-Aramaic group (232,000 speakers), which follows Chaldean Neo-Aramaic (206,000 speakers) and Turoyo (112,000 speakers)" so the term "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" refers only to a subset of the people concerned. I have meanwhile done a bit of research, it appears that the Rojava administration itself uses the non-linguistic term "Assyrian" (the name of the ethnic group) to describe the (mutually intelligble) language(s) of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, thus avoiding the terminology problem we talk about here. My information is that in official documents, the languages are called "Kurdish", "Arabic" and "Assyrian". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Neo-Aramaic languages are highly distinct; the division between Western and Eastern was present already 2000 years ago and probably earlier. Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the variety spoken in Kurdistan. Oddly, the official name you state is listed (can we get that cite, please? it would be useful information for this conversation) is also "Assyrian". Why would it be changed to "Syriac-Aramaic"? Ogress 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Neo-Aramaic languages are highly distinct (...) Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is the variety spoken in Kurdistan. -> This article is about Rojava (not about a broad concept of "Kurdistan"). Do you have any source for your claim that among the varieties of Neo-Aramaic languages, in Rojava it would be in particular Assyrian Neo-Aramaic which is spoken? The Wikipedia articles you link do not provide such information. (edit: To avoid misunderstandings: These articles do not provide such information with respect a broad concept of "Kurdistan" either.) -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the article on Assyrians in Syria says "they are a Syriac speaking community". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't Turoyo be included as well? From its wikipedia article it seems it's spoken on the territory of Rojava. Uanfala (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just learned that it seems to be that this language number three is generally referred to as "Sureth" in Rojava. Funny thing seems to be that this is the word (with slight variance in phonetics) by which speakers of all Neo-Aramaic languages there (including Turoyo) call their respective own language. In Wikipedia, searching for "Sureth" gets a redirect to Syriac language. My petition now is Syriac-Aramaic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


Question LANG3: Is the proper name "Arabic alphabet" or "Arabic abjad"? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's article is Arabic alphabet, not Arabic abjad. Click on the link yourself, "Arabic abjad" redirects to "Arabic language". I'm very unclear why this is a big issue. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're looking for the most proper name in this generic context then this will be a question that is already answered by the title of the target article: at present it's Arabic alphabet and not Arabic abjad. If it needs to be changed then the issue is better discussed there. Using the more technical term "abjad" could be warranted in a context where the distinction between alphabet and abjad is relevant, and this isn't the case here as far as I can see. Uanfala (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this article, the best terminology is "Arabic alphabet". The word "alphabet" as most Wikipedia readers understand it, denotes a superset of abjads. But given that, at least among linguists, there is some ambiguity, it would be sensible to mention the alternative too.
I don't, though, believe the title of the Arabic alphabet article is an authority for this. Wikipedia isn't an authority for anything. There are rules against using Wikipedia as a reliable source for facts in other parts of Wikipedia, and I believe the same principle applies to using it as an authority for the language used in Wikipedia. Still, the question of whether abjads are distinct from or included within alphabets would probably find a better hearing at the alphabet and abjad articles (and may already have had). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second preliminary result of the discussion on NAMING LANGUAGES (here: naming scripts)

There appears to be consensus that the script for Arabic language shall be named Arabic alphabet (abjad). There was no objection to this suggestion. I will implement it now and delete the request for comment on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Question STYLE: Should the names for these official languages be used uniformly throughout the article, or is it of minor concern if references to the same thing use different names in different parts of the article? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consistent usage of unfamiliar terms is confusing. Using Wikipedia's guidelines is wise, because switching between "Sorani" and "Northern Kurdish" and "Kurdish" is confusing. Ogress 17:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly agree with that statement, Ogress, but it is surprising that you write that, because your vandalizing of the article in this respect created exactly the confusion which made me ask this question. Does your reply mean that we can now return to uniformly use "Kurdish" and "Syriac-Aramaic" respectively in the article, with the exception of an elaboration in the "Languages and Scripts" section, just as it was before your vandalizing? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing others of vandalism, especially when the textbook definition is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." Ogress has not vandalized. GABgab 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not into discuss that word, I am interested in a good article, and will happily refrain from using that word further in this discussion, but what Ogress did to the "Languages and Scripts" section, before I restored it, (edit: and with respect to what is the issue here, artbitrarily changing some of the language references "Kurdish" to "Northern Kurdish", while leaving others at "Kurdish", thus creating confusion), is exactly what your definition of the word says. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Super convenient that you keep calling my edits "vandalism" then, when called on it, say "you should focus on the edits" instead of APOLOGISING. Ogress 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We still have an article where one and the same thing is arbitrarily sometimes referred to as "Kurdish" and sometimes as "Northern Kurdish". This state of affairs which you claim to find as inacceptable as I do (I still wonder why you created it then), should be our focus. About anything else I will think once this is resolved, and not a minute earlier. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They names should be used uniformly throughout. (But that's obvious enough that I suspect it is not actually in controversy).
And how minor a concern it is is irrelevant. It's easy enough to change from one to the other that even the tiniest concerns can be addressed to give us the best possible article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Among the three official languages in Rojava, for language one and two the naming issue (outside of the language section) appears to be resolved. These names are by all representatives of Rojava, by all English media, and by an extremely overwhelming majority of internet users called Kurdish and Arabic. The alternative suggestion of calling language number one "Northern Kurdish" is not supported by any statement from a Rojava official, not supported by any English media article, and while the combination of "Rojava" and "Kurdish language" has 18.600 results on Google, the combination of "Rojava" and "Northern Kurdish language" has only 2 results. There was no argument whatsoever brought against this. I will therefore now take care that outside the language section, the names "Kurdish" and "Arabic" for these languages are uniformly used throughout the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There appears to be consensus that how ever the language of Assyrians shall be named in the article, one name for it shall be used uniformly throughout the article (outside of elaboration in the language section). While implementation must wait until a decision on the name to be used, I will now delete the request for comment from a style perspective on this particular issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French secularity

French secularity (French: laïcité, pronounced [laisite]) is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs, especially the prohibition of religious influence in the determination of state policies; it is also the absence of government involvement in religious affairs, especially the prohibition of government influence in the determination of religion. [1][2] French secularism has a long history but the current regime is based on the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State.[3] Dictionaries ordinarily translate laïcité as secularity or secularism (the latter being the political system),[4] although it is sometimes rendered in English as laicity or laicism by its opponents. While the term was first used with this meaning in 1871 in the dispute over the removal of religious teachers and instruction from elementary schools, the word laïcité dates to 1842.[5] In its strict and official acceptance, it is the principle of separation of church (or religion) and state.[6] Etymologically, laïcité is a noun formed by adding the suffix -ité (English -ity, Latin -itās) to the Latin adjective lāicus, loanword from the Greek λᾱϊκός (lāïkós "of the people", "layman"), the adjective from λᾱός (lāós "people").[7]

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

Although the concept of separation has been adopted in a number of countries, there are varying degrees of separation depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper relationship between religion and politics. While a country's policy may be to have a definite distinction between church and state bodies, there may be an "arm's length distance" relationship in which the two entities interact as independent organizations. A similar but typically stricter principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion.[8] The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.[9]

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

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

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


References

  1. ^ Religion and Society in Modern Europe, by René Rémond (Author), Antonia Nevill (Translator), Malden, MA, U.S.A.: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
  2. ^ Evelyn M. Acomb, : The French Laic Laws, 1879-1889: The First Anti-Clerical Campaign of the Third French Republic, New York : Columbia University Press, 1941
  3. ^ "France". Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. Retrieved 2011-12-15. See drop-down essay on "The Third Republic and the 1905 Law of Laïcité"
  4. ^ Collins Robert French Dictionary Unabridged, Harper Collins publishers
  5. ^ Ford, Caroline C. (2005), Divided houses: religion and gender in modern France, Cornell University Press, p. 6, retrieved 2012-02-10
  6. ^ TLFi dictionary: http://www.cnrtl.fr/lexicographie/laicit%E9?
  7. ^ Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: laic
  8. ^ "Norway separates church and state". Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  9. ^ Princeton University WordNet reads: "separationism: advocacy of a policy of strict separation of church and state."

"Shahba Canton"

There is no "Shahba Canton" and the content on that article are just pure speculation. The Shahba region is just the region between the Euphrates and the Afrin Canton[1] and no source have stated that the PYD is proposing to establish a new canton there. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, all these names have no recognition from any third party, and everything in Syria changes from day to day. This "Shahba canton" should be deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a website?

The one mentioned in the Jazira article seems to be dead. If there is one please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.150.177 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

The IPA currently indicates that the last syllable of Rojava is stressed; is that correct? Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Kurdish nouns and names are stressed on the last syllable. CathFR (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish language names of towns

There appears to be some confusion about edits with respect to Turkish language names of cities and towns.

(1) First of all, ONE name should be given to every town in every language.

(2) With respect to the city of Al-Hasakah, the Turkish language name obviously is Haseke, which is the lemma of the Turkish Wikipedia article on the town. I see no reason why alternative names would be added.

(3) With respect to the town of Kobani, the lemma of the Turkish Wikipedia article on the town is Kobani. For some reason, some editors continue to change this to "Mürşitpınar, Arap Pınar". The first is the name of another town, on the Turkish side of the border. The second has almost no Wikipedia hits, and by multitude less Turkish language Google hits than "Kobani".

So if you want to use other names than the obviously common Turkish language names for those towns, please explain your motivation/reasoning here on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agree with you. Kobani was never used before 2014, and you can't find the name Kobani in Turkish books or Turkish maps. The Turkish name of Kobani is Arap Pınar or Mürşitpınar and not Kobani. Beshogur (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is contemporary use. And both the Turkish Wikipedia and Turkish media use "Kobani". I am fully aware that the term "Kobani" was virtually non-existent in Turkish language two years ago (and it will neither show up in books or maps), but today is today and not two years ago. If you want to argue your case, please present arguments for contemporary use. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here is a quote from the Kobani article: "Kobanî was built between the village of Arap Pinar (Kaniya Ereban) in the east and the village of Mürşitpinar (Kaniya Murshid) in the west" -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any source? Beshogur (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in the history stuff, look at the sources given in the Kobani article, there appears to be at least one scholarly book about the history of the place. However, for our discussion here this is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is contemporary naming of the town in Turkish language media. So this is what we should argue, not history. I would still wish that you reply to the arguments I made above. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving history stuff to the articles of the cantons?

While there appears agreement in principle that the history part is still somewhat long for the article, almost all of the information left there is quite relevant in the context of Rojava. However, much of it concerns only one particular canton. Wouldn't it be an idea to consider, moving much of that history stuff to the articles of the respective canton concerned (and prominently linking the canton articles at the top of the history section)? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi, Someone might want to update the military situation map. It will change significantly soon. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's news for those interested

US, Russia oppose Kurdish autonomy in Syria

US, Russia agree on preserving Syria’s territorial unity, reject Kurdish Rojava project

213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rojava does not support separatism in the first place so Russia hasn't really changed its stance. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE THE MAP

This map is very old. The SDF now controls Manbij and all the are east of it. Rojava has also expanded south. Please take the Syrian civil war map as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regarding the Turkish invasion and the lack of reaction from the west, I guess it's not necessary to add Manbij and the area east of it anymore...--Ermanarich (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. Turkey will proceed further into territories of Northern Syria to install proper rebels instead of PYD/YPG terrorists and their new front, the SDF. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proper rebels like Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, which aim to establish the Sharia law in Syria? The YPG are still not terrorists, even if Turkey and its Propaganda wants everyone to regard them as such. But the fact that Turkey supported al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) and Ahrar al-Sham actively and that they did nothing against the thousands of IS-terrorists, weapons and oil-transporters from IS crossing their border speaks a more than clear language, that Islamism is currently destroying the Turkish democracy.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the mentioned groups you dislike, the PYD and its armed wing, YPG, have direct links to the PKK and they all work to kill innocent Turkish and Kurdish civilians who do not agree with their ideologies and goals. They are terrorists. Not calling them as such is a matter of conflict of interest and semantics perhaps. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Forces of Democratic Syria in Efrîn welcome people fleeing from ISIS". ANHA. 3 June 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria&oldid=737244350"