Talk:Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

50/50 paint on map

The "partial control" on the map is messy and not based on properly sourced information regarding where the SAA are present in northeastern Syria. I would also argue that even if the SAA was consistently in partial military control of all the areas that are "striped" - would it be necessary to show this on this map since this map details the civil autonomous administration and its administrative divisions? The deal has according to the SDF [1] been a deal that is exclusively military in nature, with no changes in the region's civil administration. The US-led coalition's presence in the Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor governorates is also not shown as a separate 50/50 paint on the map, even though this also represents a military deal with the SDF, not a civil administration run partially by the US-led coalition in those areas. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've cleared the 50/50 paint for now because of the visual difficulty and for deviation from the main purpose of this map - which is to display the various subregions of the civilian administration of the de facto autonomous region, not military control agreements with no known civilian aspect as of date. If areas with an SAA/Russian or a US presence need to be highlighted in some manner, please discuss this here. Further sources are needed apart from the Russian military maps such as those that were provided as sources for the modified map - they cannot be considered to be neutral or factually accurate without additional verification. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The map currently used in this article to show SDF control is simply outdated, not correct anymore, and misleading. The control of SAA in areas of Raqqa, Ain al-Arab and areas east of Qamishli is no secret. Here is a map from Newsweek showing that. I attempted to use the updated map by user Bill, but AntonSamuel reverted my edit without explanation (as usual). Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I left an explanation on your talk page [2], but I'll explain the issue here again for further clarity: I brought up the issue regarding the map here a while ago. As stated above, there are areas of northeast Syria with an SAA/Russian presence and there are areas with a presence of the international coalition. So far no evidence has been provided of a change in the civilian administration and the Asayish police are still present in all areas, and the SDF has clarified that the agreement with Damascus is military in nature: [3]. The Russian military map you've referred to and the other one with even more purported SAA control that was used as a source on Wikimedia Commons [4] in attempted changes to the map cannot be relied on exclusively without additional verification, since so many other sources display a continued functioning of the Kurdish-led civilian administration. For example, here are some of the Facebook pages of the municipalities and internal security forces of the regions of Tabqa, Kobanî, Manbij and Raqqa, with many signs of full continued activity: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. The user (Bill497) that added the 50/50 paint to the map on Wikimedia Commons (both the old version and the new) is blocked on Wikipedia and tried to canvass Wikipedia users using his talk page on Wikimedia Commmons to change the map [12], and two users changed the map to his wishes (and are now blocked for sockpuppetry), and now you also made the same edit. I see that you were one of the tagged users on his Wikimedia Commons talk page - that you then made the same edit without sufficient explanation can be considered to be a breach of WP:CAN. AntonSamuel (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: The map refers to military control on the ground, not to instiutions. There are many youtube, facebook and twitter pages showing SAA in Raqqa, Manbij, norther Hasakah, al-Yarubiyya, etc., etc. More importantly, here is a map from IHS Markit clearly showing military controk areas. Finally, it doesn't really matter who made the map and whether they are blocked or not. This map reflects the situation on the ground, and that's very clear in Ras al-Ain, Manbij, Ain al-Arab, and the area west of Qamishli. In Ras al-Ain area, clashes happen at almost a daily basis between SAA and TBFSA. Again, it's about being neutral, fair and impartial, which is a long shot for this article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: As AntonSamuel said, the map despicts the proto-state, not SDF control. So who has a military presence in the area is not all that important as long as the local government is part of the Rojava administration - which it is. Applodion (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Article split proposal

I wonder if it's time for separate Rojava and AANES articles. Rojava is a very specific ethnic term, isn't officially used by the AANES, and is often resented by non-Kurds. I realise it's the most common shorthand for the AANES in English-language references, but it's possible that the Kurds are no longer a plurality in the region, let alone a majority. What do people think? Konli17 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No. "Rojava" is the term usually applied to this regional proto-state (this was discussed so many times already), and reverting it to the AANES name just for the area's name to change again solves nothing. "Rojava" as "Western Kurdistan" and "Rojava" as an existing proto-state are, by now, two separate things. Most people no longer think about "Western Kurdistan" when taling about Rojava, they think about this proto-state. You can create an article about "Western Kurdistan" (properly termed "Rojava Kurdistan") as a concept supported by Kurdish nationalists, but we should not split or rename this article (again). Applodion (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Konli17. How in the world can an area like Raqqa or Deir-ezzor (almost 100% ethnically Arab) be called part of "rojava" (literally meaning western Kurdistan)? You find this only on Wikipedia and Kurdish propaganda outlets. Even the Kurdish administration calls itself AAENS, not rojava. Applodion, your comment literally means the name rojava should not be applied to the whole area (where Arabs are majority, and they don't even know what the name means or where it came from), but a handful of users here have decided to apply the name to their area. Again, as I requested 100 times before, get me a respected international entity or media outlet using this word for the map depicted here! If anyone outlet uses the name, it would be for a very small section in the very northern part of al-Hasakah governorate. However, a few users here have consistently resisted any attempt to bring some balance to this article, including the name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rojava means "the West", not "Western Kurdistan", and we had the discussion about the name being just Kurdish or not so many times already... The respectable sources were listed in the old move discussion (in which you participated), look there. Applodion (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained more than once why Rojava is and should continue to be the name of this article. It would seem of all the people that have ever been a part of the debate about this article's name, only you have continued to argue against the consensus. I'll put that down to the fact that you have failed to comprehend the numerous arguments and refutations of your position, عمرو بن كلثوم. Sisuvia (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Konli17 here. We can have a Rojava AND an AANES article. Konli17 doesn't ask for our opinion about a move of the article but about a split of the article. They are clearly two different regions. It's just about WP:COMMONNAME, but I doubt anyone just a little familiar with the region thinks of Rojava when reading Raqqa, Manbij or Deir ez Zor. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Not as lively discussion as last time, despite the mass ping. Still, it is clear there has been a shift in consensus toward rename. The issue of COMMONNAME remains elusive here. Again, one of the reason for supporting the rename also involved contrasting Rojava with the official conventional long form and its usage. A well thought out, but singular opposition did result in some discussion, but the overall direction of the request is clear toward moving. Finally, note that while Rojava automatically redirects here now, that is only procedural. It may be redirected elsewhere. It may even be re-authored as a separate article. So, that is left to the discretion of contributors. El_C 10:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Rojava → Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria – Support move - This article is largely about the Administration in North and East Syria, consisting of many areas Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians and other minorities live in stretching over large areas of Syria. "Rojava" is something different, it is a name kurds use for areas in north Syria they live in. This administrations own official name for themselves is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. We should therefor change the name of this article to that. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support of move to suggested name. The name rojava has been used in the past by some PYD-affiliated parties to refer to three pockets in northern Syria per this map. However, things have changed in terms of the area under control by the Kurdish administration and the involvement, though limited, of other groups (some Arabs, some Assyrians, etc.) in the administration. The authority has called itself "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" so that would be the best name. Another name used a lot is northeastern Syria, but that would be referring to a geographic location rather than a political entity. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support as per above and per NPOV, Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is the official name of the region and not Kurdish POV rojova. After google hits i change my support to strong per WP:COMMONNAME. Google gives me 5.910.000 rojova hits vs 6.410.000 Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria hits. Shadow4dark (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I have no strong opinion on this, but we had an discussion about this last year (see here), and nothing has changed since then. In addition, I think that Shadow4dark has counted the google hits incorrectly: Rojava gets 6.230.000 hits, whereas "Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria" gets just 27.700. There seem to be no new arguments. I ping all users who had taken part in the previous discussion, so that they can voice their opinion as well: @Jeppiz:, @Nice4What:, @Semsûrî:, @Thespoondragon:, @Supreme Deliciousness:, @Nice4What:, @Power~enwiki:, @Legacypac:, @Czar: @AntonSamuel:, @RJFF:, @Rob984:, @Charles Essie:, @JDuggan101:, @Vanilla Wizard:, @Attar-Aram syria:, @Al Ameer son:, @Calthinus:, @Ecpiandy:, @Beshogur:. I hope that I have not forgotten anyone. Applodion (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, it doesn't matter which one gets most hits because they are two separate topics. This article is largely about the Administration in North and East Syria, consisting of many areas Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians and other minorities live in stretching over large areas of Syria. "Rojava" is something different, it is a name kurds use for areas in north Syria they live in, So "Rojava" can be discussed or redirected to a "Kurdistan" article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No comment. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Beshogur (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: the Rojava name is more common, but it is a name used by Kurdish nationalists to indicate what they consider a Western Kurdistan, which even in their own agenda does not include Raqqa and many other parts of the region covered by this article. This is why Rojava stopped being used "officially". Hence, Rojava is inaccurate, and while it could be used to clarify the name the Kurds started using to indicate the Kurdish inhabited regions in Northern Syria, it cannot be generalized to the regions of Syria east of the Euphrates. So the common name argument is not strong here, and we have an example in North Macedonia, whose common name is not North Macedonia, but none the less we are using that official name.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly they are separate topics, "Rojava" can be discussed at a "kurdistan" article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: and the Rojava page should become a redirect to Syrian Kurdistan which in turn should contain information about Kurdish-populated areas of in Northern Syria. The 3.1 Background and 3.2. Rule from Damascus-sections could be moved to this new page. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• support and to the google hits: Rojava doesn't always describe the same as the AANES. AANES is a description of a Governmental body, while Rojava is regional description.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Rojava refers specifically to western Kurdistan, whereas this article is about the administration presiding over areas of North and East Syria including, but not limited to, Rojava. It's important that the two are not conflated.Grnrchst (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

---

 Administrator note as the admin who has closed the last move request as no consensus to move, another proper move request is permitted. But this is not it. Please follow the documentation to launch a move request for this effort to be deemed valid. Regardless of its outcome, after it is concluded, a lengthy move moratorium may be imposed (for a duration of, say, a year). El_C 11:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

---

El_C, I have now started official RFC.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here we go again. In general, I prefer short-form names whenever feasible, so here I would prefer the title North and East Syria or similar, as it is commonly used by organizations and media as a short-form name for the region. (ANF, SyriacPress, Rojava Information Center (mostly uses NES)) It is also true that Rojava is commonly used to refer to the region in western sources, possibly due to the initial name being Rojava-Northern Syria when it was still mostly in Kurdish areas. As in western usage Rojava is ambiguous, either referring to the NES Admin or the Kurdish area of Syria, Rojava should probably be a disambiguation page between North and East Syria (this article) and a recreated Syrian Kurdistan article. (initially existed prior to the war, when it was turned into an article on the PYD->SDF controlled area) -Thespündragon 22:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a side note here, non-Kurdish populations of northeastern Syria, such as Arameans (per this reference and quote below) do not recognize or use the name (can provide similar sources for Arabs and Assyrians.

With respect to Northeast Syria, last year the Kurdish YPG forces attempted to impose Kurdish textbooks and Kurdish language courses on Aramean schools in Qamishli, which they have chosen as the capital of a self-declared federal region called ‘Rojava’ – a name which has no historical basis.

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The opposition described by Amr is only reflected by part of the non-Kurdish population in northern Syria. There are Arab, Assyrian, Circassian, etc. supporters of the PYD, just as there are Arab, Assyrian, Circassian opponents. The same goes for the readiness to adopt the name "Rojava" for the area (this article details some of the issues relating to Assyrians and "Rojava"). Applodion (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am specifically talking about the name "rojava", and stressing in the quote a self-declared federal region called ‘Rojava’ – a name which has no historical basis. The name is the subject of our discussion here, and has no presence in pre-war Syria, and if there are some Arabs, Assyrians, etc. supporting the administration this does not mean they are adopting the name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the opposition by locals does not disqualify the name either, and neither does "no historical basis". The question is about the name being commonly used to refer to the proto-state in northern Syria. Said proto-state only exists since the civil war anyway, so it is hardly surprising that it has no historical predecent. In fact, as your quote showcases, people use "Rojava" to refer to said proto-state. Applodion (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to throw some fuel into the fire, Rojava is similar to Padania, the part of Northern Italy the Lega Nord would like to make independent/a federal/autonomous region. Both are new terms originated for the same purpose. Unfortunately, IMHO, there are some (?) Kurds who wish to Kurdinize the area and all the people in it. Degen Earthfast (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted, howeever, that the northern Syrian proto-state actually tries to get people to use "Rojava" less for a few years. The name is actually mostly used by locals (including anti-PYD Kurdish parties) and the international community, not the PYD-led government. Applodion (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The arguments above are not grounded in wikipedia policy; perhaps the name "has no historical basis" but it's the one that is most commonly used in English, so that's what we go by. Looking at Google Trends, there's no contest which term is used more in English speaking countries [13], also see the Google hits that Applodion presented above. (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

He is right about WP:COMMONNAME but this article is about Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES}.

Rojava needs new own article and it is highly POV. Sometimes we not do COMMONNAME if it has NPOV issues see this relevant discussion[14] Shadow4dark (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, thanks for your input, but the two names are for different things. Rojava refers to Kurdish inhabited pockets in northern Syria, while this article is more about a political entity that controls almost 30% of the Syrian territory with an overwhelming Arab majority. This is like saying San Francisco is more used than the United States so let's just use that for the country. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It must be noted that it remains strongly disputed how large the current population of northeastern Syria is (considering the many refugees), and which ethnic groups are the majority. Al-Jazeera uses pro-Turkish sources for that article for example, making their estimate dubious (furthermore, they do not clarify which areas they actually counted; if they exluded Kobani, Manbij and Afrin from "northeastern Syria", it more likely to get a clear Arab majority than if you include these areas. Not to mention the extensive mixed population of Arabized Kurds, Kurdified Arabs, and Arab-Kurdish hybrids. These could be put into any category). In addition, "Rojava" is used as alternative name for the entire northern Syrian proto-state, as explained in this article's "Polity names and translations" section (whether that is a good thing to do, however, is an entirely different matter, as Shadow4dark pointed out). Applodion (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Secularism

The lede states: "The supporters of the region's administration state that it is an officially secular polity". This seems a strange way to put this; I've never heard of it accused of being non-secular. Is there a reason for this wording? Konli17 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that the sub-areas of the AANES, such as Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, include areas where the administration tolerates much more religious-conservative influences. So while the the AANES' central government is certainly secular, the local councils are much less so. Applodion (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Secular in the Middle Eastern context means (for me) that it doesn't favour any religion (unlike many of its predecessors and neighbours), not that it forbids any religious influence. And its supporters don't say it's "officially secular", they just say it's secular. "Officially secular" means (for me) that it says it's secular, whether or not it is. It's not something supporters would say. Konli17 (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. So we either change it to "The region's administration is officially secular" or "The supporters of the region's administration state that it is a secular polity". Applodion (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion for rojava conflict

There is currently an open discussion here regarding changing the name of Rojava conflict. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Also Talk:Kobanî#Requested move 16 December 2020 and Talk:Kurdish separatism in Iran#Requested move 10 December 2020. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

False content in the demographics section

@Supreme Deliciousness: Please revert your revert. The content عمرو بن كلثوم added is not supported by the sources. The first sentence is literally completely false: "The steppe area that makes up most of the area under PYD control in 2020 has historically been the domain of nomad and sedentary Arabs." is not supported by Fevret who is only talking about areas in Al-Hasakah Governorate, not the rest of the area covered by the AANES. The gigantic quote is also not helpful at all, and does not belong into this article. Put it into some other article like Kurds in Syria or Demographics of Syria, where these things can be discussed in detail.
The old version of this article was stable and generally agreed upon. Lets keep it that way. Applodion (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the incorrect text you pointed out. Concerning the quote, I strongly believe it belongs in the article as it shows the demographic history of areas the AANES are occupying, it is therefor relevant and belongs in the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh well, ok. I don't want to start an in-depth discussion on quotes, but this quote is bloating the text. I have added the important details as part of a sentence: "The last significant wave of Kurdish incoming migration from Turkey happened between 1945 and 1961 which stzrongly contributed to the growth of al-Hasakah Governorate's population from 240,000 to 305,000 between 1954 and 1961". As for the next part, I have rewrote it thus "In addition to the demographic changes brought about by the Kurdish immigration from Turkey, the Syrian government initiated Arabization policy. Therefore, 4000 Arab families from areas flooded by the Tabqa Dam in Raqqa and Aleppo were resettled in new village in al-Hasakah Governorate." - I am quite sure that the Arabization policy was not directly connected to the immigration, as pre-1954 already began some Arabization policies. Finbally, I restored the first sentence. The area is "historically been highly diverse" which should be noted. Applodion (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Applodion, "The area is historically been highly diverse" is not sourced to say the least. I will add a British ethnographic map to show the demographic history. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It was sourced before the reference was buried by the addition of more and more fluff to the demographics section. I will find a new reference, no problem. Applodion (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, I added a big note which documents several ethnic groups and migrations during the Middle Ages and early modern period. Applodion (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Self-Rule Administration Response to Human Rights Watch Report

The administration responded to the Human Rights Watch Report - see .

Shouldn't this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D07:3500:6095:67CD:90:9C72 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

On section on Kurdification

@Applodion: So one the section on Kurdification, the only example was use of Kurdish names in majority Kurdish cities so I re-added the accuse section as up to 50% of the SDF is non-Kurdish. The inability of other Kurdish parties are unable to operate however it also seems as though as a form of authoritarianism, however it does seem slightly minor viewpoint within the grand schemes of things as does not seem to be the widely accepted scholarly consensus. Authoritarianism is extremely minor in the AANES, working with foreign governments in the region. Especially when compared to organizations such as SNA or the SAA, HTS, even in the HTS article we put "accused" as it although clearly fits in the definition, much certainly more then in the AANES. There is not enough, for a claim on Kurdification we need absolute consensus which isn't present from sources. Des Vallee (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The lede already stated that the AANES has "been criticized by various partisan and non-partisan sources over" these issues, making the origins of the cricism very clear. To add "accused" to every example afterwards seemed to just bloat the text, and makes skewed impressions. The issue of Kurdification is not a minority viewpoint per se; the point is what to define as Kurdification. Fabrice Balanche (whom I strongly dislike on an acdemic level, but whose opinion still warrants inclusion due to some respect he has in certain academic circles) clearly considers officially giving Kurdish towns Kurdish names a form of "Kurdification". To a certain degree, this viewpoint is not wrong. "Kurdification" can already mean that one allows someone to speak Kurdish, as it would possibly "kurdify" an Arabized Kurd if the latter starts using Kurdish terms. In regards to authoritarianism, that one is better supported by reliable sources than Kurdification: Allsopp, van Wilgenburg, Lister, and others have noted that the PYD suppresses certain opposition groups as well as journalists. Yes, compared to other Syrian factions the AANES provides a less suppressive political envirnoment, but it still has authoritarian elements. Applodion (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Applodion I agree to a certain extent, however it might give undue weight. The AANES has been found to be no more authoritarian, in fact far less then other countries. If there is nothing special about the AANES compared to other territories and scholarly consensus seems to be Rojava as a radical form of democracy, with freedoms unprecedented within the region we should be extremely careful not to give undue weight, (I don't think we do at however). As an example the extremely authoritarian, Wahhabist, Salafist jihadism HTS, doesn't even mention there human rights abuses despite being classified by the US as terrorists and having extensive human rights abuses.

I am not sure about that definition of Kurdification however if that can be defined as such the AANES fits within that definition. However Kurdification usually means the process of taking non-Kurds and assimilation into Kurdish society, but as noted Kurdish is not even used as an official language in the southern regions like Raqqa, with over 50% of the Syrian Democratic Forces being made up of non-Kurds. Kurds can't really undergo Kurdification if they already identify as Kurdish. A Kurd itself is something which is extremely vaguely defined as most people in the region have both Kurdish, Arab and Syriac ancestors and live along just fine. I suppose you could define it however as Kurds who lost their cultural identity relearning the Kurdish language and culture, however this would be strange to be put in a criticisms section, as I don't think anyone is taking issue (or at least publicly) with Kurds voluntarily learning Kurdish. Thoughts? Des Vallee (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that undue weight might be an issue, but the truth is that both "Kurdification" and "authoritarianism" are much discussed issues in regards to the AANES. To not include them at all in the lede would result in people thinking that these are non-issues; however, local and international critics repeatedly bring them up regardless of their actual importance. The authoritarianism of the AANES is indeed often disputed - some see it as free, others believe in a cabal of PKK commanders deciding everything. Regardless, authoritarianism is brought up as criticsm, so warrants inclusion. If the HTS article does not mention violations in the lede, then that article is at fault. Also, I disagree that you could only apply Kurdification in regards to non-Kurds: One has to remember that the population of northern Syria is actually highly mixed in ethnicity and culture. Many locals are Arabized Kurds. If such individuals - whose Kurdish identity might consist of a Kurdish grandparent and nothing else - adopt Kurdish traditions because the PYD encourages Kurdish festivals,. education, music, etc., a critic might be tempted to regard it as Kurdification. This is a general issue of assimilation - many people believe that minority groups should integrate into larger state socities as much as possible - for such an individual, the re-adoption of a Kurdish identity by Syrian Kurds might have negative connotations. For example, some have argued that Kurds learning Kurdish is a bad thing, as it encourages separation from the rest of Syrian society (in my opinion, this argument is stupid, but some people actually think that way).
Anyway, IMO, the current version of the lede seems ok. Applodion (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

In the third paragraph there is a typo. It says ANNES when AANES is intended. Hevalkinch (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done – robertsky (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

4th paragraph, "through a system of local councils in minority, cultural and religious repersentation": change 'repersentation' to 'representation' GenericUsername3 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Mess of a lead

The current into reads more like a propaganda leaflet extolling the virtues of Rojava than a neutral encyclopedia article. It provides little context about the region/government, repeats all its supposed virtues over and over and over again, and also actively discredits criticisms. Regardless of whether or not this place is genuinely amazing (for all I know it may well be, I was reading it precisely because I'm ignorant about the topic), it's a shambolic, WP:NPOV-violating lead.

e.g. "AANES has support all over the world for its universal equal democratic, sustainable, autonomous pluralist, equal, and feminist policies" ... "an officially secular polity with direct democratic ambitions based on an anarchistic, feminist, and libertarian socialist ideology promoting decentralization, gender equality, environmental sustainability, social ecology and pluralistic tolerance for religious, cultural and political diversity, and that these values are mirrored in its constitution, society, and politics, stating it to be a model for a federalized Syria as a whole" ... "the AANES has been the most democratic system in Syria, with direct open elections, universal equality, respecting human rights within the region, as well as defense of minority and religious rights" ... region has a new social justice approach was implemented that emphasizes rehabilitation, empowerment and social care over retribution ... bases its policy ambitions to a large extent on democratic libertarian socialist ideology of democratic confederalism and have been described as pursuing a model of economy that blends co-operative and market enterprise, through a system of local councils in minority, cultural and religious representation. The AANES has by far the highest average salaries and standard of living throughout Syria.

Any thoughts on what can be done to clean it up among watchers/regular editors? If not, I'll try and give it a complete overhaul (and take a sweeping axe to the repetitious praise) some time over the next couple of weeks, when I've done more reading. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

In the Religion section this text appears, with problems noted (here shown numbered 1. and 2.):

"The dominant PYD party and the political administration in the region are decidedly secular, and
1.[laicism]{disambiguation needed}<ref name=Dawronoye>{{cite web |author=Carl Drott |url=http://www.warscapes.com/reportage/revolutionaries-bethnahrin |title=The Revolutionaries of Bethnahrin |publisher=Warscapes}}</ref>
2. {{Better source|date=April 2021}}"

Change to:

1. either DAB [laicism] to anti-clerical, or delete outright (as "secular" alone might be enough);
2. For - "Better source" - might like to cite this NYT article.

References

49.177.73.238 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Number 1. has been fixed (disambiguation of laicism): DAB diff . That leaves only the 'better source needed' tag to be replaced with a suitable cite.(Suggested cite included in last edit here.) Thank you 49.177.73.238 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording change in lead

I changed 'The AANES has support all over the world for its universal equal...' to 'The AANES has widespread support for its universal equal...' as 'all over the world' seemed unlikely; hardly anything has support 'all over the world'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

System of government

I am one of the biggest supporters you'll find of the AANES, SDF, the SNC, and the Syriacs/Assyrians, Ezidis, Teyar El-Qemih, ENKS, and CDR who have joined the administration. I have personal connections to some of these orgs and to this part of the world. However, I would warn against taking at face value the pronouncements such as, the system of government under operation in the AANES is "Libertarian socialist federated semi-direct democracy". I can barely stifle a giggle just typing it out. It is not quite Martial Law, but it is not far from it. Even if you were to believe it to be possible to establish a feminist, eco-friendly, LGBT+ friendly "libertarian socialist federated semi-direct democracy" in NE Syria, it certainly couldn't be established under the present conditions. The YPG still follow in the same martial traditions as the PKK and PYD in terms of recruiting minors (separating children from their families, forcibly conscripting them)and monopolizing the use of political and military power where it is most crucial. Thus the inevitable mutual distrust, and unfortunately ingrained rumor-spreading culture, between the various ethnic and religious groups (and not just between Kurds and Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen, but between Assyrians and the YPG, between Ezidis and the YPG, between anti-Ocalan/anti-Marxist Kurdish politicians and the old guard - yes, Ocalan's portrait still adorns many a camp and checkpoint in the AANES). It's a war zone, it's state-building in its infancy, it's rule by the force of arms, it's not, *giggle*, "libertarian socialist federated semi-direct democracy". At least not yet! But, inshallah ;-) TomReagan90 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@TomReagan90: The article is still in rough shape, partially due to it being a battleground between pro- and anti-ANEES editors for years. If you can help to improve the article's quality by expanding on its politics (with proper references of course), that would be great. Applodion (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to fix it right up, I actually just bought two books (like, physical ones) that would be of enormous utility. But my attempts on another page to restore NPOV on a BLP has sapped my will to live at the moment. So I'll come back to this is a few days I think. But I look forward to making it more encyclopedic, with more quality sources (I have access to JSTOR, and other academic resources)... although I'm terrified of being mobbed as I just was over the past 24 hours or so (longer? in lockdown time has much less meaning), got accused of all sorts, really can't be arsed with Wiki for a while I'd say. Time to hit the beach! TomReagan90 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@TomReagan90: (Responding to both this section and your comment from the discussion above:) I know what you mean. Back in the day, I added some stuff in regards to the PKK influence, but the endless bickering on the article (before the sanctions got implemented) burned me out. Since then, I just intervene here from time to time whenever stuff seems to get out of hand. I know that more stuff about the PKK influences should be added in the history and governance sections, but have not found the energy to search for sources and put them here - other projects generally feel more rewarding ^^ (the African history articles I currently mostly edit attract generally less hatred and vandalism). So if you want to expand the article with reliable sources, I can assure you that you will at least have my full backing. Applodion (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@TomReagan90: It's great to hear you're interested in helping out here, I agree with your analysis of the article's current state (unfortunately, rather over-dependent on what the AANES says it aspires to be, rather than telling the reader what the sources have to say about it). Please don't be discouraged by the background behaviour of a relatively small number of editors trying to push their viewpoint across, if you crack open JSTOR and add some properly referenced, quality expansions/rewrites, I doubt you'll have problems keeping them in, especially as there are a number of editors such as myself watching this page and checking revisions. I'd offer to give you a hand with the writing itself, but unfortunately I already have a backlog of on-wiki tasks and I'm extremely busy over the next two months. I may still have time to pop in and give you some assistance though, if you do find time to work on it. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

PKK and AANES

It is clear that the AANES has an ideological connection to Öcalan, but the international classification of the PKK and the AANES are completely different. Internationally Turkey equates AANES politicians with the PKK, NATO, EU and the UN etc. don't do so. Why include a terror classification of the PKK in the lead of the AANES article? Then also, the EU source doesn't even mention the AANES. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

nobody classified AANES as same organization with PKK. its obvious that you are talking about my edits, so i am going to talk about that. I only write the fact that "Rojavans follow Abdullah Öcalan's revolutionary socialist path" which is founder of PKK, recognized as a terrorist organization by European Commission. it is pretty pretty related to AANES/Rojava and important for readers' knowledge. I've showed Rojava Information Center for Öcalan thing and European Commission's file that is shared on official website as recognization. BerkBerk68 (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Öcalans teachings of Gender Equality and Democracy (one can question that, but his books really say so and the AANES refers to that) and the EU classification of the PKK as a terror organization are two different things. The AANES has never attacked anyone in the EU. That the PKK and the AANES are the similar if not the same is Turkish POV. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

AANES does not refer to "Gender Equality" or "Democracy" parts of Abdullah Öcalan, please stop writing false informations. As i wrote in my sentence, AANES' Abdullah Öcalan interest is mainly related on socialist revolutionary ideas. in the mind of AANES, Abdullah Öcalan is really important person. its proof is that there is Abdullah Öcalan posters and pictures in bilboards everywhere in Rojava controlled areas. the relation is absolutely not based on "women rights" and "democracy". BerkBerk68 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Literally what? "AANES does not refer to "Gender Equality" or "Democracy" parts of Abdullah Öcalan" - You know that the AANES maintains a female army and gender equality programs and has held election? Now you are just pushing your own interpretation of events. As said above, the way the PKK / terrorist designation is included in the lede through your addition, it pushes a certain POV. This is like including the terrorist designation of the CIA by Iran in the lede of the article on the United States - it is factual, but not relevant in this context unless one wants to push a POV.
In addition, you are currently violating the 1-revert-per-24-hours rule which has been put onto this article to prevent edit warring. Applodion (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources are referring to "socialist revolutionary ideological influence" by Abdullah Öcalan. Not gender equality or Democracy. He talked like according to my sources they took gender equality and Democracy from Abdullah Öcalan meanwhile the sources were about something else. Did i say that "there is no gender equality on AANES"? BerkBerk68 (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Umh, yes you did say exactly that (even if you did not mean to say it). Anyways, you keep ignoring our arguments. As was pointed out, the PKK's ideology is not directly related to its terrorist designation (which stems from it waging terrorist campaigns). So whether or not the ANNES follows the PKK's ideology has nothing to do with the PKK being designated as a terrorist organization. Through your wording, however, you frame it as if there is a connection between the ANNES' ideology/governance/whatever and a terrorist designation. This contributes nothing to the lede. Applodion (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

i did neither mean or say anything, can you show the exact part that i've said that please? Also if AANES is following the path of PKK's ideology, then we ofcourse should write the fact that PKK being designated as a terrorist organization. if some organization followed ideology of Taliban, I'd say its important to write it at its page and if Taliban was not known worldwide, it would be important to point that Taliban is designated as a terrorist organization aswell. Also if you agree the fact that Rojava follows path of Abdullah Öcalan, then why did you delete the first sentence which is exactly saying that? BerkBerk68 (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The PKK-YPG relationship is treated further down. Also that the AANES/PYD follow Öcalans political ideas, doesn't mean that they are terrorist. How he influences the school system and politics is explained in the relevant sections.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, if a group would follow the Taliban's ideology, I would still not mention the Taliban's designation as terrorist organization in the lede - because they are different groups. Sharing a ideology does not imply the same behavior. Not every Stalinist state behaved like the Soviet Union, not every presidential democracy acts like the United States. As comparison, hundreds of Marxist-Leninist groups have been designated as terrorist groups over the years, but articles on other Marxist-Leninist groups do not list all these terrorist designations. Of course ideology is important, but the lede is supposed to summarize core facts specific to this article, and the terrorist designations of the factions are really not that important - relatively speaking. Applodion (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess "showing the exact part" couldn't be answered, so i am going to pass that. You are saying that "not every presidental Democracy acts like USA" but there is no other example than USA which see George Washington as main teacher just like how no other organization see Muhammad Omar as their ideological teacher other than Taliban. But in terms of Rojava and PKK, unfortunately I couldn't say the same. BerkBerk68 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes there are. Muhammad Omar is literally an inspirational figure for the Pakistani Taliban (which are a separate faction and not a Taliban branch despite their name) and others such as Ahrar al-Sham. In regards to Washington, well, he was a President, not an ideological leader. At least in Germany, however, modern democracy is attributed to the American founding fathers and the French Revolution, so the modern state of Germany acknowledges their influence. However, that is beside the point: You still ignore our concerns that your inclusion of an unrelated terrorist designation is detrimental to the article. Also, you have again violated the on-revert-per-day rule. Adding the USA to the list of who sees the PKK as terrorists changes nothing; you might as well include a list of everyone who dislikes anarchism in general, that adds about the same amount of value to the lede (aka none). These details might have their place in this article's history and governance section, but not the lede. Applodion (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure i didn't violate "one revert per day" rule at all. Please check the page history. Also you just showed Pakistani Taliban as an example to another example? So we can say Rojava is "Pakistani Taliban" of PKK? And we are here to discuss "Terrorism" thing, we are discussing. If i ignored you I wouldn't write anything here. I am saying again and again, PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by many authorities, and Rojava is an organization that have powerful links with Öcalan. A reader who doesn't know anything about these situations just wouldn't care about Öcalan. Its all about informing people with real informations. BerkBerk68 (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68: restoring your revision after it has been removed counts as a revert, so yes, you've violated the 1RR multiple times. It's likely that an administrator will review the case against you at the edit warring noticeboard and contact you about this, but in the meantime I suggest you proceed carefully as this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions and disruptive editing (restoring your addition without a consensus, after several editors have expressed disagreement) may eventually end up in a block. While some of your edits, such as this one, have been helpful, I recommend you read Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and advocacy before continuing. Also, please be aware that using other accounts (or asking other people) to get around 1RR isn't allowed. Do you have any connection/relationship to the account Uhudlu Okçu? Jr8825 • Talk 01:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reported BerkBerk68 at the 3RR noticeboard. I just put it here so others don't incur in a 1RR violation as well. You don't have to take part in the discussion. The case is clear. Five different editors have reverted BerkBerk68, 3 of which were within 24h, we just need to wait that an Admin takes care of it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't? I saw his account before but i don't have any relations. and here is not for discussing it, here is for discussing the page. It is getting really hard to understand your logic, You are talking about neutrality, which is just because 2 sentences I've written meanwhile both of them are correct. Thats right i have violated 1RR once with 3 reverse in one day, but nothing more than it. I am not here to discuss that, I am here to discuss the page so do not wait an answer if you try to continue about talking this. BerkBerk68 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I will try to break down the counter-arguments: The issue is not about the facts by themselves. Yes, the sentences are correct. However, the questions are "What do they imply?" and "How is this relevant to the lede?" The PKK is not the same as the AANES; ergo, any terrorist designation of the PKK does not mean the AANES is designated as terrorist. So far, so good. You say that the AANES and PKK share an ideology, meaning a state (AANES) shares an ideology with a terrorist group (PKK). However, this is both oversimplified (they differ in several aspects) and conveyed without context in the lede (for example, what are the contents of this ideology?). Thus, it strongly implies AANES's ideology = PKK's ideology + PKK = terrorist --> AANES = terrorist. Complex issues and details like this should be discussed in the history, governance, and other sections of the article, but not in the lede. Applodion (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we are obliged to inform the public objectively. Rojava Information Centre is the official media of AANES. Therefore, all claims made up there are applicable for AANES including the Abdullah Ocalan one. Considering this you cannot delete information arbitrarily to put the page in shape you want others to see as. I don’t have any relationship with BerkBerk68. But I believe you have with ParadiseChronicle as I see both of you and Applodion reverting the pages that Turks are keen on when a new piece of information is added. Uhudlu Okçu (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet twice in the past, and both times found completely innocent, while the accuser turned out to be a sock. Applodion (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I mean huh, you guys are accuser here. I am pretty sure that admins have access to both Uhudlu Okçu's and mine IPs. 94.235.202.250 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If you wonder, I wrote this with my direct IP. I'm not afraid of anything. BerkBerk68 (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68: Just so you know BerkBerk68, I was talking only to Uhudlu Okçu in regards to the sockpuppeting because he accused me of being a sock of Paradise. I have not made any suggestions that you are a sock. So far, I have believed that everyone here is engaged in a problematic content dispute, but not seen anything which let me conclude that socks are involved. Applodion (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Uhudlu Okçu by restoring the contested revision twice within 10 hours you have violated WP:1RR. I previously gave you a DS alert on your talk page, and you should be aware of the 1RR on this article from my ping to you above. I invite you to self-revert before I report you to the appropriate noticeboard. Jr8825 • Talk 10:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've already seen him reported by Paradise Chronicle while I was checking my own report. BerkBerk68 (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

what is the question on your mind Applodion? I pretty pretty answered. BerkBerk68 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@BerkBerk68: No, you really have not. See for example my comment from abvove: "I will try to break down the counter-arguments: The issue is not about the facts by themselves. Yes, the sentences are correct. However, the questions are "What do they imply?" and "How is this relevant to the lede?" The PKK is not the same as the AANES; ergo, any terrorist designation of the PKK does not mean the AANES is designated as terrorist. So far, so good. You say that the AANES and PKK share an ideology, meaning a state (AANES) shares an ideology with a terrorist group (PKK). However, this is both oversimplified (they differ in several aspects) and conveyed without context in the lede (for example, what are the contents of this ideology?). Thus, it strongly implies AANES's ideology = PKK's ideology + PKK = terrorist --> AANES = terrorist. Complex issues and details like this should be discussed in the history, governance, and other sections of the article, but not in the lede." In addition, I would like to note once again that I was not the one to raise the sockpuppet issue. Paradise and Uhudlu were the ones talking about socks. Applodion (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is undue Turkish POV!!! There is not single mention of the AANES in the terrorist designation of the PKK. Get it? PKK ist NOT the AANES. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed I agree the AANES isn't the PKK, and while it can be argued that the AANES does follow Abdullah Oclan democratic confederalism, attempting to ham fist that into "AANES follows a terrorist ideology" is in my view blatant POV distortion, as well as this we never refer to the PKK with those WP:Contentious labels ever. Also I don't quite understand the rant about "Pakistani Talibani" hamming this information isn't allowed, and re-adding this information and editing your user-page over with minor edits. I also want to state there is a reason you shouldn't game the system, regardless of the obvious, it's wrong when you get extended confirmed you are expected a somewhat good understanding of the rules of Wikipedia, you are expected to understand how to behave and general policies, this way it is also in the best interest of those who are new to Wikipedia to learn before getting extended confirmed or they will find themselves overwhelmed. When you have extended confirmed you are now expected a basic understanding of Wikipedia, both in writing style and neutrality style, which you clearly don't. Des Vallee (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have some degree of expertise in this subject, and I have respect intellectually for what both parties to the argument are trying to achieve. As Applodion plainly states: "the PKK is not the same as the AANES; ergo, any terrorist designation of the PKK does not mean the AANES is designated as terrorist" is undeniable. And no mention of any terrorist designation or even the word terrorism should appear in the lede. Nevertheless, the PYD - which is the backbone of what is now the AANES - was simply the Syrian branch of the PKK, and this ought not to be denied. But it doesn't belong in the lede, as, obviously, the war has dramatically altered the political structures of the Kurdish orgs and their relationship with both the Assad govt and the Turkish govt. (without going into too much detail, it gets very murky with regards to who supported which of the various branches of Ocalan's organization, Wikileaks showed that Turkey gave limited support to PJAK against Iran - and Sunni Jihadists simultaneously - during the Iraq War, while the Turkish state at various times aided the PYD against Assad, while simultaneously killing tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians in trying to get at the comrades, the PKK in SE Turkey). And while the PYD provides most of the political cadres for the AANES, they are not synonymous - there has been much additional input from the KDP, SDF-SDC, the KNC, and more! TomReagan90 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@TomReagan90: Exactly. As a matter of fact, the PKK-PYD relationship are discussed in the article. See for example, the history section: "In an attempt to outwardly distance the Syrian branch from the PKK, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) was established as de facto Syrian 'successor' of the PKK in 2003." Perhaps these instances could be elaborated further, but they are already there. Applodion (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but the influence of Ocalan and the PKK-PYD is certainly minimized in the article as it now stands. From reading this you'd get the impression that Ocalan and his, let's say, "way of doing things", was of mere historical interest. That's the opposite impression you get from being on the ground, believe me. The troops still sing his praises, but it's complicated (It's Middle Eastern politics - how could it be anything but?:-)) TomReagan90 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This thread isn't really about the minimisation of Öcalan's significance – that's a separate issue and I think it warrants a separate thread. While I don't have any objection to mentioning Öcalan in the lead if someone can point to good sources which support it, this thread is about is about certain editors edit warring Öcalan into the lead for the sole purpose of inserting a negative POV & inappropriate mention of the PKK's terrorist classification. Jr8825 • Talk 00:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Standard of living

"The AANES has by far the highest average salaries and standard of living throughout Syria, with salaries being twice as large as in regime controlled Syria; following the collapse of the Syrian Pound the AANES doubled salaries to maintain inflation, and allow for good wages." Where is the associated evidence or citation for this?

Bryce Springfield (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Catalan Parliament Recognition

The first sentence of the second paragraph of this article is now outdated. The Catalan Parliament has officially recognized AANES.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/catalan-parliament-recognises-autonomous-syrian-kurdish-administration-in-historic-moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThirdAgrarian (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Media banning section

I forgot my password so I can’t edit this myself, but upon reading the sources for the paragraph of the war crimes section that says that critical media is banned, I can confidently say that the section is misleading if not altogether incorrect. One of the sources speaks about a general atmosphere of tension and uncertainty, but the same source explicitly states that any censorship is largely self-imposed by the local reporters, and makes no mention of banning (though there is mention of a fear of licenses being revoked, I recommend whoever is monitoring this page to look at the sources themselves, just in case I’m massively misinterpreting, though I’m fairly confident in my understanding). The other source mentions one instance of a banning in 2015, though mentions it specifically as a footnote to a line talking about how the banning was in a specific region and contrasting it with another. It was a source for a statement on disorganization/lack of communication between the two regions because one has a press committee and the other doesn’t, not a general statement saying that banning is a common occurrence. In context it seems more like a bureaucratic mistake than suppression of dissidents.

I’d suggest that the section on a whole have the sources double checked, as the latter one I mentioned is used earlier in it, though I couldn’t see the page of the source when checking it. 108.54.114.216 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

‘Syriac’

Classical Syriac is not spoken in Rojava, unless they’ve opened a time portal and summoned the citizens of ancient Edessa. The form of Aramaic spoken in Rojava is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. Just a quick correction! 199.89.180.254 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Tried to adapt it, but it seems that the Syriac language is called classical Syriac by the wikipedia template in use. So I won't mess with this further, as I don't read classical Syriac nor Syriac and leave this to someone with a better knowledge of the matter. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Autonomous or de-facto sovereign

Isn't Rojava de-facto sovereign/independent? Autonomous would mean, that it still has to adhere to laws of the state it belongs to, but they are not following laws of the syrian government, are they? 130.83.6.86 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Rojava / the AANES considers itself an autonomous region within Syria. Its government does not push for full independence, but rather for the federalization of Syria. To a large degree, the AANES still follows the laws of Syria, with some crucial exceptions (i.e. regarding political activism, the death sentence, and a number of social laws). Applodion (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Link to "ecology" page instead of "social ecology" page

"Social ecology" in the first sentence of the third paragraph links to the Ecology page instead of the Social Ecology (Bookchin) page. This should be rectified.

TheFauxFoe (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Accidental removal of info

@Applodion:, you seem to have accidentally removed info [15] from the article regarding a recent report about child soldiers and Rojava. Could you please add that info back to the article? X-Editor (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It's still mentioned in the human rights section, but there also with context Also the info on child soldiers (not for combat zones but educational purposes) and human rights violations (refuted by the UN) don't go too well with the phrases that follow for which the region is known for much more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: I restored the addition to the human rights section. That was indeed a mistake on my part, I had only seen your change to the lede. Applodion (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

Under section “External Relations”, the second subsection is called “Kurdish question” which to me sounds disturbingly close to the phrase “Jewish question”, the English form of a euphemism used by Nazi Germany to discuss their genocide of European Jews. The English phrase remains in use by neo-Nazis and white supremacists is English-speaking nations.

I would prefer to see the subsection in question retitled as something like “Kurdish issues” or “Kurdistan issue” to avoid the similarity with a very antisemitic reference to the Holocaust and its horrific purpose. So please CHANGE section “External Relations” second subsection name FROM “Kurdish question” TO “Kurdish issues” or “Kurdistan issue” 64.127.203.128 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Here's the edit responsibe for the questionable wording if you're interested. small jars tc 16:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Supposed "direct open elections"

The introduction states that in the AANES there are "direct open elections" which I don't believe is the case.

Not only elections are frequently postponed but they are largely dominated by the PYD that excludes both the regime's Baath and other (truly) independent parties or KRG-linked movements.

I therefore suggest the removal of "direct open elections". 22Chev22 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There were independent parties which have participated in the AANES elections and politics, for example the Kurdish National Alliance in Syria, Assyrian Democratic Party, and Law–Citizenship–Rights Movement, all of which have repeatedly and openly criticized the PYD-led government. Both Baath as well as KRG-linked groups boycotted the elections, not a move for which the PYD was responsible (also, one Baath faction did participate). The postponment of the elections only got going after Turkey repeatedly invaded the AANES, making elections basically impossible. One can criticize the AANES for a lot of things (the use of child soldiers, for example), but this stuff isn't among them. Applodion (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Every Rojava page on Wikipedia is abysmal. All rhetoric is pro PKK. This is absolutely something you can criticize AANES for. The only thing I can honestly say is even slightly positive is gender parity, but even the women in PKK are often Turkish rather than Syrian. Not to mention PKK is accused of allying with Assad to suppress the revolution in NES.

I highly doubt any of the authors of these pages are syrians who witnessed the revolution. Every page even remotely related to AANES reeks of Apoist rhetoric.

https://www.reuters.com/article/syria-crisis-kurds-idINDEE87U0C720120831 2607:9880:4277:FF02:D4FC:13D2:B368:82C7 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Remove “with further attacks on unarmed fleeing civilians conducted by local Arab militias” from the History section. It seems vandalism, I couldn’t verify it in any of the cited sources nor have read it anywhere before. Chafique (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Four seemingly reliable sources verify such information. If the statement is not verified by any of those four, please do let me know and I can remove it if that is the case. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Politics section needs total rewrite

The politics section of the article completely fails to actually meaningfully describe the political-adminsitrative system of AANES - how are councils formed, how are elections held, etc. The ideological background is good and all, as is mentioning issues, but, you can't see the issues until the system is actually described. Linking to a wikipedia article about the consitutions (which doesn't describe the structure either) or to the ideology (which may be the basis of the structure, but simply serves as its foundation) is not sufficient. 83.190.80.156 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This paper have a reasonable good description (I don't know if up-to-date) of the political system of AANES; someone with a better English than me could use it to develop that section of the article

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449057.2018.1525166?scroll=top&needAccess=true

(Specially in the two paragraphs after "Promoted by TEV-DEM, councils for decision-making and administration") MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

Law and security —> human's rights

The region's civil government has been hailed in international media for human rights advancement in particular in the legal system, concerning women's rights, ethnic minority rights, freedom of Speech and Press and for hosting inbound refugees.[279][280][281][282] The political agenda of "trying to break the honor-based religious and tribal rules that confine women" is controversial in conservative quarters of society.[257] Conscription into the Self-Defence Forces (HXP) has been called a human rights violation by those who call the region's institutions illegitimate.[283]

Add "men's rights" between "women's rights, ethnic minority rights", using this link or these sources: . AlmostDeveloper (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, neither of these sources talks about men's rights, so using them as a source for that would be WP:OR. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. I find your rationale on their men's rights questionable. Firstly, you appear to believe that men's rights is not good in this region, which is the opposite of "has been hailed". Secondly, conscription is another type of abuse than men's rights and child conscription is another thing entirely. 60% is not enough to say it predominantly conscripts men, especially without a figure on gender balance within the region. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

adding another human rights violation topic shortly mentioned with others with 3 sources

The region's civil government has been hailed in international media for human rights advancement in particular in the legal system, concerning women's rights, men's rights, ethnic minority rights, freedom of Speech and Press and for hosting inbound refugees. AlmostDeveloper (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please look up the definition of hail – it appwars to be the opposite of what you think it is. Furthermore, I still don't see "men's rights" mentioned in any of the quotes you provided. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, I misunderstood the definition of hail. Please pardon me. AlmostDeveloper (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

New Name/Replace old name - Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES)

The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) has been renamed to the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) as of 14/12/2023. Can someone kindly update the wikipedia page to reflect this update? Here is a couple sources to support the name change:

-Kurdistan 24 : https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/33441-New-administration-name-adopted-for-local-administration-in-northeast-Syria

-Arabic source: https://aawsat.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/4726676-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A9%C2%BB-%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%91%D9%84-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%82%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A AntnSV (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Rojava Recognition

In the second paragraph, it's also worth mentioning that Rojava is recognized by the Kurdistan Regional Government, as outlined in the provided source: https://legislation.krd/law-detail/?id=4714 Kurdian (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)