This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
There appears to be no source confirming the claim that the Kurds are the majority ethnic group in Rojava.
"Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava. During the Syrian civil war, many Kurds who had lived elsewhere in Syria fled back to their traditional lands in Rojava."
I have found no reference for this claim, and previously when the demographic breakdown of Rojava, it was removed from the article and replaced with a "generalized" version. Could someone please correct this? Vivaporius ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a hot topic that readers will be interested in, and one that shouldn't be avoided. Might I suggest a middle-of-the-road approach, as per WP:IMPARTIAL - do not dodge the question of Kurdish majority, but summarise both perspectives with their criticisms, noting also the contentiousness of the subject, and that good figures are not available. Batternut ( talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
One remark: The canton articles on Afrin Canton, Jazira Canton and Kobanî Canton do have somewhat more information on quantification of ethnicities. It makes some sense there in my opinion, because due to the smaller, clearer areas one can somewhat more make substantive statements. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 23:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors interested in the topic, there is a ongoing discussion on balance and deletion of content in the Human rights in Rojava article. It would be appreciated if some of you would be willing to contribute to solving issues, concerning deletions of material in the article as well as not least in the talk page discussion. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear 213.74.186.109, there are template-flagged issues persisting with the last paragrph of the article (elaboration of Turkish views) which you inserted. I point to the three gravest:
Please address these issues in good faith. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA ( talk), the template-flagged sentences are not a persistent issue since they were added by yourself and they do not represent a problem to the rest of the community of users. However, your persistence on denying that ARA News and ANHA are biased is a problem. This issue was discussed earlier. Yet you unfortunately insist on changing the subject and attacking the Daily Sabah as unreliable when it is much more reliable and professional in its journalism than any of the supposed professional media outlets you hold so dearly. Your smearing campaign is obvious and ill intentioned. Please do not pretend to be debating to correct an issue and just be honest as many other users have called on for you before. You may find my answers to your negative criticism below. Thank you.
Note: stop edit warring please. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 05:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I've created a draft article about relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava using a paragraph from Foreign relations of Rojava. It needs a lot of work and I'd truly appreciate some help in developing it. Charles Essie ( talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is becoming more and more unbalanced with clearly PYD supporting users, against all other Kurdish factions in the region:
"Like the KCK umbrella in general, and even more so, the PYD is critical of any form of nationalism,[168] including Kurdish nationalism. They stand in stark contrast to Kurdish nationalist visions of the Iraqi Kurdish KDP sponsored Kurdish National Council in Syria."
I will not even get into the biased ARA News and what not. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 06:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed the pronunciation from "IPA: [roʒɑːˈvɑ]" to "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ] or IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]". Stressing the last syllable seems wrong. I kept a variant with long "a": IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]. However, people who should know how to pronounce it (like Janet Biehl) pronounce it more like IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]. I think we should only keep "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]". What's your opinion? 2003:77:4F55:4B12:6D9F:A7E2:762C:565F ( talk) 16:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The director of PYD terror propaganda, Firat News Agency (ANF), has finally been detained in Belgium. Is there any doubt about the partiality of ANF now? I suggest removing these references from all articles. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, has anyone noticed 2A1ZA just vandalised a huge chunk of the article?? Does anybody care? - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
As far a I can see the user 2A1ZA has just moved material from one article to another. While I dont't know whether this has been sufficiently discussed before, user should 213.74.186.109 have a closer look before calling other users actions vandalism. Such behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 is clearly uncivil. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C ( talk) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that for me moving this material from Rojava to Rojava conflict completely makes sense and should be done. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C ( talk) 15:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that user Attar-Aram syria is engaged in wp:Canvassing#Votestacking: [2], [3]. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 ( talk) 22:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There was some intensification of the discussion yesterday. To come back to the main issue whether or not to move the material from Rojava to Rojava conflict:
1) The main argument of user 2A1ZA is that WP:UNDUE applies here.
2) User Attar-Aram syria countered "The opponents of YPG need a similar space and since Turkey is the biggest one, then its normal for its paragraph to be long."
3) I later elaborated that the argument in 2) is based on a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE citing "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." from WP:UNDUE, because Turkey represents a minority viewpoint.
4) Further argument of user 2A1ZA: "The paragraph concerned (last para of the article) is an additional second detail paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives, in addition to an already existing general paragraph on Turkish perspectives."
5) The section in question is about international relations. Even after the material is moved Turkey is well represented whereas other countries are still underrepresented.
6) Since someone reverted the deletion of the material in this article but did not revert the addition to the other article now exactly the same material appears twice. However in Rojava conflict the material should not be deleted because it fits there.
If there are no arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 ( talk) 09:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:2A1ZA. As explained above I think the only argument against was based on a misunderstanding of WP:DUE. If there are no valid arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F70:5658:85CB:1C9D:EF21:5C92 ( talk) 09:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Taking up the above discussion on the topic to further a conclusion of the issue. To sum up, this is about the process of moving the last paragraph of this article in its final "International relations" sub-section, the lengthy second additional paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives with much details, to the Rojava conflict article. The reasoning behind this move is that this paragraph in here violates WP:UNDUE, as it gives absurd weight to perspectives of one single country, the only one that has a general paragraph on its specific perspectives on Rojava in the "International relations" sub-section anyway. The Rojava conflict article however has a dedicated section on "Rojava-Turkey conflict", where it fits fine. The moving of the paragraph concerned was initially done on 18 December (see [4] and [5]), however later some edit warring about the removal from this article ensued. In the above discussion, the only argument brought against the move was two editors' stated perception that this article here should have more negativity, and the paragraph concerned would provide such negativity. However, I do not really consider that an argument based on Wikipedia rules and policies, and certainly not an argument that can counter the apparent violation of WP:UNDUE which keeping the paragraph in this article here means. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 03:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As there appears to be no objection at this point against concluding the move, I am now updating the respective paragraph in the Rojava conflict article with the minor improvements made here since, and then deleting it here. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding the so-called rojava template and categories in towns and villages under military occupation by YPG militias militia does not change that official status. This is an on-going military conflict and any interim control (YPG, ISIS, FSA) does not mean a change in the political status of the village/town. I am moving to remove these categories (rojava, cantons, IS, etc). Accordingly, I also move to remove all these names from the rojava topics template. Comments are welcome. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Rojava denotes a de facto existing distinct framework of civil governance in distinct parts of Northern Syria, there are 5 Million Google hits for it including all major English language media, and this is what the entire Rojava article on the Wikipedia is about. You may personally dislike anything about this sentence, or the well-sourced elaboration of facts in the Rojava article and in other articles, but your dislike is no valid reason to delete related material from the Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
User Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is engaged in illegal WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification here (and possibly also here). 2003:77:4F17:A084:F045:F118:604F:208F ( talk) 08:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
He obviously doesn't like the existence of Rojava, along with its CIVIL administration, even though it's referenced with reliable sources... 79.246.28.34 ( talk) 09:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, Rojava is for now just a DE FACTO entity within Syria. It's not even clear if Rojava will survive the war. However, it's a proven fact that as of now, Rojava does exist, along with all of its governmental institutions. The existence of Rojava won't change the legal status of ANY town within Rojava, but as a matter of fact, there exists a civil administration for most of the areas under SDF control. And contrary to popular belief among certain people, the PYD is NOT trying to divide Syria by declaring Rojava independent. They want Rojava to be part of Syria and only time can tell how Syria will look like in the future. But the DE FACTO Situation is, that currently there is an autonomous region within Syria. 79.246.28.34 ( talk) 09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone can make a chart of how the confederal system and cantons actually delegates authority amongst each other. Something like this chart of the CNT's syndicalist structure would be a good starting. -- Cartoondiablo ( talk) 04:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The German wikipedia article uses the above diagram. 84.187.148.104 ( talk) 19:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's use it, who knows german? -- Il giovane bello 73 ( talk) 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
To editor 2A1ZA: don't need to have academic consensus to call Arabs an ethnic group. An ethnic group is unrelated to physical appearance or even genes, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences or a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent. due to the diversiry in all characteristics other than language, you seem to be wrong: the ties that bind Arabs are ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historical, identical, nationalist, geographical and political. The Arabs have their own customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society, sports and mythology. Canbel ( talk) 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The last section of this article has three paragraphs: The first concerns military cooperations, the second issues of political recognition, and the third is all about Turkey's view on it. The second paragraph early on states:
It is inappropriate POV concerning the relative importance of issues to add elaborations on this in the first paragraph. Please stop it, user:Attar-Aram syria. If you absolutely think that this clear formulation needs further elaboration, then use the second paragraph where it belongs. Or discuss on the talk page here. In any case, do not do edit warring. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Due to the YPG campaign in Raqqa, it's pretty ridiculous to see this map portraying only FSA/Yihadist (Euphrates shield) & SAA (Qamishli & Hasakah) territories in Aleppo governorate in orange as "claimed territory", when ISIS-held territory nearby green territory (YPG-held) aint painted in orange. This map doesnt portrait reality, so it should be ammended (I would suggest remove the orange colour) or removed as innexact.-- HC PUNXKID 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this map is quite close to the best one can do for now. I do have some minor issues with it. The first one is the extent of the "claimed territory", which in my humble opinion should follow the claims map of the Rojava administration as put up in its diplomatic missions, and in this respect fails to depict the claim for the westernmost part, namely northern Idlib province. The second is that "control" on this map apparently is defined as military control by the SDF, while this article should in my view ideally have a map depicting the area with proper civil administration according to the constitution of the Federation; however, I am aware that the latter is for a lack of sources (let alone English ones) on details almost impossible to properly do and source. And I have not seen any map better suited for this article than the one used now, no other one comes even close. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC) (cc User:Editor abcdef)
Please can we change the name of this article from Rojava to the Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria. I realise Rojava is a commonly used name when referring to the Federation because of its Kurdish roots, but its an incorrect term. The social contract refers only to Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria, and to call it Rojava risks alienating non-Kurdish elements within the system.
The social contract emphasised the heterogeneous identity of the Northern Syrian region and I feel it is biased to call it Rojava - as this neglects the region's other ethnicities.
82.35.169.227 ( talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't "autonomous region" a de jure status bestowed by a national government? "de facto autonomous region" seems almost a contradiction in terms. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this article has neutrality issues Shadychiri ( talk) 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a contradiction, because they want to remain part of the Syrian nation, just operating autonomously. Which obviously won't happen. Wh1ter0se ( talk) 13:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
According to this map ( https://www.ethnologue.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/maps/20/JOSY_rgb.png) the majority of the area in the territory of Rojava is populated by Arabs. Kurds are only the majority in two very small areas. The map is from 2016 and Ethnologue is internationally accepted by linguists. Does someone have a better map? I think, that Arabs are the majority in Rojava should be mentioned in the article. -- 77.179.173.176 ( talk) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the areas oonquered by SDF from ISIL during the ongoing Raqqa campaign (2016–present) are getting a civil administration within the framework of the Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria, which refers to Raqqa region as an element separate from the existing three cantons (Afrin, Jazira and Kobani) and one region (Shahba). See Raqqa campaign (2016–present)#Civil administration of captured territory
In my opinion, this article here should reflect the development, both in its map (cc mapmaker User:Editor abcdef) and in its text. And I would be interested in everybody's opinion on whether a new Raqqa region article along the lines of the existing Shahba region article is warranted. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rojava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Despite the variety of names used to describe this people, the sources used in the article ( Minahan, Nisan, Skutsch, Danver, UNPO: Assyria, Schaefer) do not use the term "Syriac-Assyrian". As far as I'm aware the term "Syriac-Assyrian" is not employed in scholarly works. The sources used also do not attest that a majority identifies as Syriac/Aramean in Syria and Turkey. I do not disagree that the majority of the people described as Assyrian in Syria and Turkey do in fact identify as Syriac/Aramean ( Minahan), but this is explained on the Assyrian people article and it is acknowledged there that Assyrian is used to refer to several groups of people. Therefore, I'd suggest simply using the term Assyrian on this article and perhaps linking to the Terms for Syriac Christians article. Mugsalot ( talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Emblem/Coat of Arms hasn't been updated to the corrected version? (See link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Rojava_-_13-12-17.svg) Albert.trosk ( talk) 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
There appears to be no source confirming the claim that the Kurds are the majority ethnic group in Rojava.
"Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava. During the Syrian civil war, many Kurds who had lived elsewhere in Syria fled back to their traditional lands in Rojava."
I have found no reference for this claim, and previously when the demographic breakdown of Rojava, it was removed from the article and replaced with a "generalized" version. Could someone please correct this? Vivaporius ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a hot topic that readers will be interested in, and one that shouldn't be avoided. Might I suggest a middle-of-the-road approach, as per WP:IMPARTIAL - do not dodge the question of Kurdish majority, but summarise both perspectives with their criticisms, noting also the contentiousness of the subject, and that good figures are not available. Batternut ( talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
One remark: The canton articles on Afrin Canton, Jazira Canton and Kobanî Canton do have somewhat more information on quantification of ethnicities. It makes some sense there in my opinion, because due to the smaller, clearer areas one can somewhat more make substantive statements. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 23:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors interested in the topic, there is a ongoing discussion on balance and deletion of content in the Human rights in Rojava article. It would be appreciated if some of you would be willing to contribute to solving issues, concerning deletions of material in the article as well as not least in the talk page discussion. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear 213.74.186.109, there are template-flagged issues persisting with the last paragrph of the article (elaboration of Turkish views) which you inserted. I point to the three gravest:
Please address these issues in good faith. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA ( talk), the template-flagged sentences are not a persistent issue since they were added by yourself and they do not represent a problem to the rest of the community of users. However, your persistence on denying that ARA News and ANHA are biased is a problem. This issue was discussed earlier. Yet you unfortunately insist on changing the subject and attacking the Daily Sabah as unreliable when it is much more reliable and professional in its journalism than any of the supposed professional media outlets you hold so dearly. Your smearing campaign is obvious and ill intentioned. Please do not pretend to be debating to correct an issue and just be honest as many other users have called on for you before. You may find my answers to your negative criticism below. Thank you.
Note: stop edit warring please. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 05:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I've created a draft article about relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava using a paragraph from Foreign relations of Rojava. It needs a lot of work and I'd truly appreciate some help in developing it. Charles Essie ( talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is becoming more and more unbalanced with clearly PYD supporting users, against all other Kurdish factions in the region:
"Like the KCK umbrella in general, and even more so, the PYD is critical of any form of nationalism,[168] including Kurdish nationalism. They stand in stark contrast to Kurdish nationalist visions of the Iraqi Kurdish KDP sponsored Kurdish National Council in Syria."
I will not even get into the biased ARA News and what not. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 06:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed the pronunciation from "IPA: [roʒɑːˈvɑ]" to "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ] or IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]". Stressing the last syllable seems wrong. I kept a variant with long "a": IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]. However, people who should know how to pronounce it (like Janet Biehl) pronounce it more like IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]. I think we should only keep "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]". What's your opinion? 2003:77:4F55:4B12:6D9F:A7E2:762C:565F ( talk) 16:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The director of PYD terror propaganda, Firat News Agency (ANF), has finally been detained in Belgium. Is there any doubt about the partiality of ANF now? I suggest removing these references from all articles. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, has anyone noticed 2A1ZA just vandalised a huge chunk of the article?? Does anybody care? - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
As far a I can see the user 2A1ZA has just moved material from one article to another. While I dont't know whether this has been sufficiently discussed before, user should 213.74.186.109 have a closer look before calling other users actions vandalism. Such behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 is clearly uncivil. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C ( talk) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that for me moving this material from Rojava to Rojava conflict completely makes sense and should be done. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C ( talk) 15:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems that user Attar-Aram syria is engaged in wp:Canvassing#Votestacking: [2], [3]. 2003:77:4F2A:9B56:2142:A814:B77C:E840 ( talk) 22:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There was some intensification of the discussion yesterday. To come back to the main issue whether or not to move the material from Rojava to Rojava conflict:
1) The main argument of user 2A1ZA is that WP:UNDUE applies here.
2) User Attar-Aram syria countered "The opponents of YPG need a similar space and since Turkey is the biggest one, then its normal for its paragraph to be long."
3) I later elaborated that the argument in 2) is based on a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE citing "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." from WP:UNDUE, because Turkey represents a minority viewpoint.
4) Further argument of user 2A1ZA: "The paragraph concerned (last para of the article) is an additional second detail paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives, in addition to an already existing general paragraph on Turkish perspectives."
5) The section in question is about international relations. Even after the material is moved Turkey is well represented whereas other countries are still underrepresented.
6) Since someone reverted the deletion of the material in this article but did not revert the addition to the other article now exactly the same material appears twice. However in Rojava conflict the material should not be deleted because it fits there.
If there are no arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F15:B950:30E9:1757:3DAD:1446 ( talk) 09:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:2A1ZA. As explained above I think the only argument against was based on a misunderstanding of WP:DUE. If there are no valid arguments against I suggest to implement this move of material. 2003:77:4F70:5658:85CB:1C9D:EF21:5C92 ( talk) 09:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Taking up the above discussion on the topic to further a conclusion of the issue. To sum up, this is about the process of moving the last paragraph of this article in its final "International relations" sub-section, the lengthy second additional paragraph on specific Turkish perspectives with much details, to the Rojava conflict article. The reasoning behind this move is that this paragraph in here violates WP:UNDUE, as it gives absurd weight to perspectives of one single country, the only one that has a general paragraph on its specific perspectives on Rojava in the "International relations" sub-section anyway. The Rojava conflict article however has a dedicated section on "Rojava-Turkey conflict", where it fits fine. The moving of the paragraph concerned was initially done on 18 December (see [4] and [5]), however later some edit warring about the removal from this article ensued. In the above discussion, the only argument brought against the move was two editors' stated perception that this article here should have more negativity, and the paragraph concerned would provide such negativity. However, I do not really consider that an argument based on Wikipedia rules and policies, and certainly not an argument that can counter the apparent violation of WP:UNDUE which keeping the paragraph in this article here means. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 03:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As there appears to be no objection at this point against concluding the move, I am now updating the respective paragraph in the Rojava conflict article with the minor improvements made here since, and then deleting it here. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding the so-called rojava template and categories in towns and villages under military occupation by YPG militias militia does not change that official status. This is an on-going military conflict and any interim control (YPG, ISIS, FSA) does not mean a change in the political status of the village/town. I am moving to remove these categories (rojava, cantons, IS, etc). Accordingly, I also move to remove all these names from the rojava topics template. Comments are welcome. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 01:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Rojava denotes a de facto existing distinct framework of civil governance in distinct parts of Northern Syria, there are 5 Million Google hits for it including all major English language media, and this is what the entire Rojava article on the Wikipedia is about. You may personally dislike anything about this sentence, or the well-sourced elaboration of facts in the Rojava article and in other articles, but your dislike is no valid reason to delete related material from the Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 21:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
User Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is engaged in illegal WP:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification here (and possibly also here). 2003:77:4F17:A084:F045:F118:604F:208F ( talk) 08:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
He obviously doesn't like the existence of Rojava, along with its CIVIL administration, even though it's referenced with reliable sources... 79.246.28.34 ( talk) 09:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, Rojava is for now just a DE FACTO entity within Syria. It's not even clear if Rojava will survive the war. However, it's a proven fact that as of now, Rojava does exist, along with all of its governmental institutions. The existence of Rojava won't change the legal status of ANY town within Rojava, but as a matter of fact, there exists a civil administration for most of the areas under SDF control. And contrary to popular belief among certain people, the PYD is NOT trying to divide Syria by declaring Rojava independent. They want Rojava to be part of Syria and only time can tell how Syria will look like in the future. But the DE FACTO Situation is, that currently there is an autonomous region within Syria. 79.246.28.34 ( talk) 09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone can make a chart of how the confederal system and cantons actually delegates authority amongst each other. Something like this chart of the CNT's syndicalist structure would be a good starting. -- Cartoondiablo ( talk) 04:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The German wikipedia article uses the above diagram. 84.187.148.104 ( talk) 19:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's use it, who knows german? -- Il giovane bello 73 ( talk) 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
To editor 2A1ZA: don't need to have academic consensus to call Arabs an ethnic group. An ethnic group is unrelated to physical appearance or even genes, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences or a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent. due to the diversiry in all characteristics other than language, you seem to be wrong: the ties that bind Arabs are ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historical, identical, nationalist, geographical and political. The Arabs have their own customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society, sports and mythology. Canbel ( talk) 15:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The last section of this article has three paragraphs: The first concerns military cooperations, the second issues of political recognition, and the third is all about Turkey's view on it. The second paragraph early on states:
It is inappropriate POV concerning the relative importance of issues to add elaborations on this in the first paragraph. Please stop it, user:Attar-Aram syria. If you absolutely think that this clear formulation needs further elaboration, then use the second paragraph where it belongs. Or discuss on the talk page here. In any case, do not do edit warring. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Due to the YPG campaign in Raqqa, it's pretty ridiculous to see this map portraying only FSA/Yihadist (Euphrates shield) & SAA (Qamishli & Hasakah) territories in Aleppo governorate in orange as "claimed territory", when ISIS-held territory nearby green territory (YPG-held) aint painted in orange. This map doesnt portrait reality, so it should be ammended (I would suggest remove the orange colour) or removed as innexact.-- HC PUNXKID 19:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think this map is quite close to the best one can do for now. I do have some minor issues with it. The first one is the extent of the "claimed territory", which in my humble opinion should follow the claims map of the Rojava administration as put up in its diplomatic missions, and in this respect fails to depict the claim for the westernmost part, namely northern Idlib province. The second is that "control" on this map apparently is defined as military control by the SDF, while this article should in my view ideally have a map depicting the area with proper civil administration according to the constitution of the Federation; however, I am aware that the latter is for a lack of sources (let alone English ones) on details almost impossible to properly do and source. And I have not seen any map better suited for this article than the one used now, no other one comes even close. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 17:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC) (cc User:Editor abcdef)
Please can we change the name of this article from Rojava to the Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria. I realise Rojava is a commonly used name when referring to the Federation because of its Kurdish roots, but its an incorrect term. The social contract refers only to Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria, and to call it Rojava risks alienating non-Kurdish elements within the system.
The social contract emphasised the heterogeneous identity of the Northern Syrian region and I feel it is biased to call it Rojava - as this neglects the region's other ethnicities.
82.35.169.227 ( talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't "autonomous region" a de jure status bestowed by a national government? "de facto autonomous region" seems almost a contradiction in terms. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this article has neutrality issues Shadychiri ( talk) 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't a contradiction, because they want to remain part of the Syrian nation, just operating autonomously. Which obviously won't happen. Wh1ter0se ( talk) 13:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
According to this map ( https://www.ethnologue.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/maps/20/JOSY_rgb.png) the majority of the area in the territory of Rojava is populated by Arabs. Kurds are only the majority in two very small areas. The map is from 2016 and Ethnologue is internationally accepted by linguists. Does someone have a better map? I think, that Arabs are the majority in Rojava should be mentioned in the article. -- 77.179.173.176 ( talk) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the areas oonquered by SDF from ISIL during the ongoing Raqqa campaign (2016–present) are getting a civil administration within the framework of the Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria, which refers to Raqqa region as an element separate from the existing three cantons (Afrin, Jazira and Kobani) and one region (Shahba). See Raqqa campaign (2016–present)#Civil administration of captured territory
In my opinion, this article here should reflect the development, both in its map (cc mapmaker User:Editor abcdef) and in its text. And I would be interested in everybody's opinion on whether a new Raqqa region article along the lines of the existing Shahba region article is warranted. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rojava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Despite the variety of names used to describe this people, the sources used in the article ( Minahan, Nisan, Skutsch, Danver, UNPO: Assyria, Schaefer) do not use the term "Syriac-Assyrian". As far as I'm aware the term "Syriac-Assyrian" is not employed in scholarly works. The sources used also do not attest that a majority identifies as Syriac/Aramean in Syria and Turkey. I do not disagree that the majority of the people described as Assyrian in Syria and Turkey do in fact identify as Syriac/Aramean ( Minahan), but this is explained on the Assyrian people article and it is acknowledged there that Assyrian is used to refer to several groups of people. Therefore, I'd suggest simply using the term Assyrian on this article and perhaps linking to the Terms for Syriac Christians article. Mugsalot ( talk) 21:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Emblem/Coat of Arms hasn't been updated to the corrected version? (See link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Rojava_-_13-12-17.svg) Albert.trosk ( talk) 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)