Open main menu

Talk:People's Protection Units


FlagEdit

the flag is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.182.55 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not. According to Erbil agreement, Kurdish flag and not PYD flag (same as flag of Rojava) is official flag of YPG. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct nameEdit

YPG or Yekîneyên Parastina Gel in Kurdish means People's Protection Units. By a mistranslationin into Arabic in some media it has become وحدات حماية شعبية (Popular Protection Units) while its true form should be وحدات حماية الشعب (People's Protection Units). I've changed the mistakes in the text but the title still remains and should be changed to People's Protection Units. Roboskiye (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Since its a technical move I'll do it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The subject’s name is "People's Defense Units", not "People's Protection Units". People's Defense Units, http://ypgrojava.com/en/ (“People’s Defense Units … Following a major military campaign on the 48th uninterrupted day, combined forces of the People’s/Women’s Defense Units (YPG/YPJ) …”). --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: In this context, “name” means the subject’s published English-language name; it doesn’t mean one of multiple published Kurdish-to-English translations of the subject’s published Kurdish-language name. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The YPG has been giving its English-language name as “People’s Defense Units” for some time now. See, for example, People's Defense Units (Oct. 13, 2014). --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
See also People's Defense Units (YPG) Internal System, Article I:

Organizational Name: The YPG organizes itself as the basic defense force in Rojava, West Kurdistan (Syrian Kurdistan). The designation of its military organization is known as the People’s Defense Units – YPG: People’s Defense Units, a.k.a People’s Protection Units.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Allies and opponents?Edit

Most articles for armed groups have a list of it's allies and opponents featured in an infobox. The People's Protection Units should have one too. Charles Essie (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

YPG burning down Arab villagesEdit

http://syriadirect.org/main/36-interviews/1937-activist-ypg-wiped-arab-villages-off-the-face-of-the-map --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

whT DO YOU expect? YPG are worse than isil. they're a terrorist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.163.63 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Major edit lacking edit summaryEdit

Reverting revision 668488312 (16:36, 24 June 2015) by Sanderron. The edit made numerous additions and deletions to multiple sections but provided no edit summary per H:FIES. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Expand languageEdit

At this point we might as well remove the lengthy (23-word) Expand language template:

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (November 2014) Click [show] for important translation instructions.  [show]

A wary reader could perhaps misunderstand the label as a warning that the text may have been expanded or adulterated with pro-German material. But in any case, WP editors have been too busy to bother.

(And for unknown reasons, that German-language page is one of the 41 listed in the "Antiimperialismus" category.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

IsraelisEdit

A user called 2602:306:8074:a50:ec47:6c59:56de:741a made edits claiming an Israeli element to the YPG. I found nothing in the sources so I have removed it. I noticed that oddly, his/her user contributions page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2602:306:8074:A50:EC47:6C59:56DE:741A show he/she has only ever made three edits, i.e. the edits on the topic of Israelis in the YPG. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Dabiq as source for material about IS viewpoint on YPGEdit

The text below was removed (revision 694422003 by Callinus); the editor explained, "Dabiq is propaganda, clarionproject is not RS, just a group that translates propaganda materials. Find proper RS by independent body that actually investigates/fact checks".

(Text of former graf 3 in 'War crimes allegations' section):

In its flagship magazine Dābiq, Islamic State said YPG was violating Western rules of engagement; it cited the Amnesty study as the authority for its statement.[1]

There's no reasonable doubt as to the material's authenticity; Clarion Project is a well-regarded source of republished Islamic State propaganda. See Dabiq:External links.

Is there a more authoritative source of information about Islamic State's official viewpoint on the Amnesty allegation than Dabiq itself?

Compare WP:BIASED.

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political ... beliefs... Editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

The magazine's strict editorial control has never (yet) been questioned. And Islamic State does have a reputation for ruthlessly fact-checking any statement it publishes in its propaganda that purports to represent its official opinion on a particular matter. (One can imagine a contributor fearing that an unexplained cap error could result in decapitation!!)

Few editors would deny that Islamic State has extremist political beliefs that make its propaganda statements violently biased. But here's the deeper issue:

  • Can Islamic State's official propaganda publication be cited as a reliable source of information about its official viewpoint on a subject? In particular, about its viewpoint on YPG, a subject that's directly (and perhaps existentially) related to it?

See also WP:NOTTRUTH (threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

  • Add the Amnesty source. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on the person proposing the material to justify why it is relevant for inclusion. ISIL propaganda is not serious, compared to Amnesty. Note that Amnesty has no military or propaganda team. Per WP:ADVOCACY, it's not the requirement of Wikipedia to do propaganda work for ISIL. -- Callinus (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by "add the Amnesty source". Thanks!
The ISIL material is relevant for inclusion because ISIL's viewpoint on Amnesty's statement about YPG is relevant to ISIL's relationship with YPG. And ISIL's relationship with YPG is commonly thought to be relevant to YPG's (and perhaps ISIL's) continuing existence.
Your comment that Amnesty has no "military ... team" is unquestionably correct, Callinus. Amnesty does however have a public-relations team. The organization is an acknowledged advocacy group, and its statement is an acknowledged press release.
As a final note, Dervorguilla categorically denies your implied allegation about doing "propaganda work for ISIL" and she categorically denies any other such baseless assertion you may make about her or her contributions. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) 08:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Dervorguilla For some background, the AFP and other news outlets made choices to stop broadcasting ISIL propaganda (such as images of severed heads) after 2014 (see AFP 1 2 readingthepictures.org 1 2)
Per WP:PRIMARY, materials that only reference primary sources (eg propaganda materials) should not be included unless they are picked up by reliable, secondary sources.
The Center for American Progress says that the Clarion Project publicly disclosed that Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes were on their advisory board (this material was apparently taken off Clarion's public website - CFAP website). Clarion does not count as a reliable secondary source. The fact that Clarion spent $17 million distributing Obsession in swing states before the 2008 election shows they are vested in shaping U.S. attitudes to defense spending rather than fact-checking any reporting on the middle east - their 2015 promotion of ISIL propaganda is designed to shape U.S. voter attitudes on defense spending. The Clarion project is not independent of the dark money they receive from defense contractors.
The Amnesty report is worthy of inclusion because it is picked up in secondary sources (BBC). The Clarion Project's promotion of ISIL propaganda materials is not worthy of inclusion unless it is picked up in secondary sources.
The most that ISIL perspectives need is one sentence, and such material should only be included if there are references to secondary sources, not ISIL propaganda vehicles.
If you want to include material on "ISIL's relationship with YPG" you can find non-ISIL secondary sources. -- Callinus (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. In this specific case, Dābiq only refers to Amnesty's claims. There's no use citing a primary source via a secondary source, unless the secondary source substantially adds to it, which in this case it doesn't. Dābiq could only be cited to prove the point that ISIL picked up the Amnesty report, but even then this would only be worthy of inclusion if the Amnesty report plays a significant role in Dābiq's pro-ISIL propaganda.
  2. AFP may have stopped citing Dābiq as part of a counter-terrorism agenda they might follow. It is debatable whether deliberate ignorance is an effective strategy to counter their propaganda, but let's assume it is a reasonable decision for a press agency. At an encyclopedia we however don't follow a counterterrorism agenda (nor any other agenda), nor do we decide which strategy of countering Islamism is effective or not. For us, Dābiq simply is a primary source as every other primary source.
  3. Does Clarion Project follow an agenda? Quite probably it does. But tell me a single protagonist that doesn't follow an agenda nor is biassed in one way or the other. Here, the only question is, whether Clarion Project's PDF reproductions of the Dābiq issues are authentic, and this obviously seems to be the case, until contested.
  4. Therefore, Dābiq may of course be cited in (other) contexts, where citing it substantially adds to an article and no better sources are available. And of course it may be cited via Clarion Project's reproductions if no more reliable source is available.
@Callinus: Also, please stop your slightly paternalizing tone vs. Dervorguilla --PanchoS (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── To supplement the information given in PanchoS's reply above:

I. Callinus's objection to "images of severed heads" would indeed be valid to the use of such images here, per WP:PERTINENCE. Images must be relevant to the article and must be "significantly and directly related" to its topic.

However, the particular content we're discussing here ("... Islamic State said YPG was violating Western rules of engagement") is significantly and directly related to the article's topic (YPG) and, in particular, to war-crimes allegations about YPG.

The cited article in Dabiq gives Islamic State's official viewpoint on what it describes as America's six allies in Syria. The second-longest section in that article discusses PKK/YPG. The thesis of that section is that PKK/YPG is engaging in war crimes. ("And like the Russians who bomb non-military targets in Shām, the PKK methodologically follow similar ‘rules of engagement,’ defying those supposedly propagated by the West.")

(In case anyone's wondering, Dabiq doesn't deny that Islamic State uses terror as a weapon. Indeed, the title of this month's issue is "Just Terror". The publisher's viewpoint seems to be that only "unjust" terror is a war crime...)

II. Callinus's statement that "per WP:PRIMARY, materials that only reference primary sources ... should not be included unless they are picked up by reliable, secondary sources" is contradicted by WP:PRIMARY policy itself. ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources.")

Dabiq is indeed a primary source. More to the point, Dabiq is a reliable non-neutral primary source of information about its publisher's official viewpoints on YPG, on YPG's war crimes (if any), and on Amnesty's allegations about YPG's war crimes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. I agree with your assessment of Dabiq as a "reliable non-neutral primary source of information about its publisher's official viewpoints." The remaining question in this particular case is whether the Islamic State's official viewpoint on Amnesty's YPG war crimes allegations adds anything relevant to this article.
    While Callinus' rationale for removing the passage was outright wrong, the fact that he removed the passage seems reasonable. It is however reasonable on the grounds that there is no use citing a primary source (here: Amnesty's allegations) via an arbitrary secondary source, unless the latter substantially adds to the mere facts.
  2. So the ultimate question is about content not source. Does it add to the article that the IS considers the YPG as "violating Western rules of engagement"? And is Dabiq correctly paraphrased at all?
    The original passage reads: "And like the Russians who bomb non-military targets in Shām, the PKK methodologically follow similar “rules of engagement,” defying those supposedly propagated by the West."[1] "Those supposedly propagated" obviously means that from the IS point of view these "Western rules of engagement" are a propaganda tool rather than a fact.
    So the proposed interpretation doesn't hold. All that could be said is:

    In its flagship magazine Dābiq, Islamic State said YPG was violating the rules of engagement as supposedly propagated by the West; it cited the Amnesty study as the authority for its statement.

    However, it is even more clear that in its revised form, the statement doesn't add anything relevant to this article. --PanchoS (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There are some decent sources in academic (.edu) sites that are not as obviously or severely POV, which mention ISIS making deals with Arab tribes that are opposed to kurdish forces. Not the same content, but it doesn't have a full page image glorifying the Paris massacre on the front of a 66 page propaganda magazine.
PanchoS since you're less involved in this, I'd ask you to sum up and include the material below as it relates to ISIS and Arab tribes opposed to the YPG.
Dervorguilla, please don't re-add terrorist propaganda without trying to explain how this can't be better covered by material that doesn't glorify the Paris massacre. -- Callinus (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Callinus I object to your framing of Dervorguilla's text contribution as "adding terrorist propaganda." It is the second time now, and she even felt compelled to explicitely distance herself from your first subliminal allegation (which she categorically did). A third repetition will clearly bring you directly to WP:AN.
Now you declined embarking on the topic of the discussion – okay, fine. But note that I'm not your adjutant, so you have to see yourself what to do with the unrelated stuff you posted below. PanchoS (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference
  1. ^ a b "You think they are together, but their hearts are divided" (PDF). Dābiq. Islamic State: 43. December 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-11-19. Like the Russians who bomb non-military targets in Shām, the PKK methodologically follow similar ‘rules of engagement’, defying those supposedly propagated by the West. Hence, the PKK demolished entire villages ... and displaced entire communities on an ethnic basis as was documented by the Western-oriented ‘Amnesty International’... Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)
Callinus contrib - alternative sources
Alternative Sources
  • http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/isis-s-cup-is-half-full

    ISIS more recently announced formal deals with a number of Arab tribes within its areas of control, regulating its relations with these tribes through the Office of the Tribes. The Syrian regime’s seizure and redistribution of tribal lands from the Kurds to the Arabs in the 1980s has prompted many tribes to support ISIS to protect the lands they received. The Syrian regime confiscated lands from the Kurds and transferred ownership to the Arab tribes to prevent Kurdish control over contiguous swaths of territory, frustrating any attempts to secede based on Kurdish nationalism. With the backing of international coalition air strikes, the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have advanced toward the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa in July 2015. Arabs accused the Kurds of widespread displacement and human rights violations against the Arab majority. This experience convinced many Arabs that living under the control of Kurdish forces was a worse fate than supporting ISIS.

  • http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/syria-a-welcome-but-incomplete-shift-in-us-strategy-against-isis

    relying exclusively on the YPG may have worsened tensions between Arabs and Kurds by marginalizing Arab forces and possibly encouraging aggressive YPG behavior. Days after the new US program was announced, Amnesty International released a report alleging that the YPG had committed war crimes against local populations in areas liberated from ISIS, mostly by displacing Arabs and destroying their homes. As early as April 2015, Arab civil society and armed groups issued statements that Kurdish forces were displacing Arabs and giving their homes to Kurds. Given the US priority to defeat ISIS, policies that facilitate or acquiesce to a collapse in Arab-Kurdish relations only hurt the US cause. Strengthening the Arab anti-ISIS component may introduce some balance into this relationship and instill confidence and security among the Arab population that the United States will work with them. That is another reason why local Arab forces in Raqqa province may be open to cooperating with the United States against ISIS.

  • http://www.iswresearch.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-ypg-campaign-for-tel-abyad-and.html

    Despite its inclusion of FSA-affiliated rebel factions and other local paramilitary forces, prominent opposition actors have accused YPG forces of perpetrating a number of abuses against Arab civilians during the advance into northern ar-Raqqa Province. These allegations largely center upon claimed YPG involvement in the forced displacement of Arab civilians and the burning of Arab homes in an “ethnic cleansing” campaign designed to lay the foundation for the establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region in northern Syria. On May 30, as YPG forces began the advance towards Tel Abyad, the exiled Syrian National Coalition (SNC) released a statement accusing the YPG of committing “violations” against the local civilian population in Hasakah Province which served to “encourage sectarian and ethnic extremism.” In early June, Syrian opposition figures reaffirmed their concern over reports of YPG civilian abuses against Arab and Turkmen populations in light of the imminent fall of Tel Abyad. Former Syrian Military Council (SMC) chief of staff Salim Idriss stated his concern regarding Kurdish abuses against civilians, while Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, and thirteen other prominent rebel brigades released a joint statement demanding that the YPG be listed as a “terrorist organization” due to its “ethnic cleansing” of Arab areas. Independent media organizations have also reported these allegations, although no clear evidence has yet been presented. These accusations may threaten to disrupt the current cooperation between Kurdish forces and the Syrian opposition amidst preparations for a FSA-led offensive towards ar-Raqqa City.

───────────────────────── Reply to PanchoS's comment

You got some good points there, PanchoS! ("[Even] in its revised form, the statement doesn't add anything relevant to this article," and so forth.)

Upon rereading, the Dābiq story seems to suggest that IS is not worried about whether YPG observes the Geneva Protocol (the West's published rules of engagement). After all, it says the West doesn't!

So, would either of these two passages add anything relevant?

In its flagship magazine Dābiq, Islamic State supported Amnesty's allegations.

Islamic State's official viewpoint is that YPG is following Russia's rules of engagement rather than those published or followed by the West.

Upon further consideration, perhaps one of these two passages might be more helpful:

Islamic State's official viewpoint as given in its flagship magazine Dābiq is that the PKK/YPG, because of its "Marxist background", follows the Russians' rules of engagement in Syria.

Islamic State's official viewpoint as given in its flagship magazine Dābiq is that the YPG's "rules of engagement" systematically follow the Russians'; in particular, both groups direct operations against civilian targets rather than just military ones.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC) 05:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Merging and rewording:

Islamic State's official viewpoint (as given in its flagship magazine Dābiq) is that the YPG has a Marxist background and so it follows the Russians' "rules of engagement" in Syria; in particular, it directs operations against civilian targets, not just military ones.1

According to its flagship magazine Dābiq, Islamic State officially believes that the YPG has a Marxist background, follows the Russians' "rules of engagement" in Syria, and directs operations against civilian targets, not just military ones.1

According to its flagship magazine Dābiq, Islamic State officially believes that because the YPG has a Marxist background, it follows the Russians' "rules of engagement" in Syria and accordingly directs operations against civilian targets, not just military ones.1

--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Reshuffling and adding "PKK" to avoid falsifying the original text:

Islamic State's official viewpoint (as given in its flagship magazine Dābiq) is that the PKK and YPG have a Marxist background, so they follow the Russians' "rules of engagement" in Syria and accordingly direct operations against civilian targets, not just military ones.1

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Press releases from groups furthering a causeEdit

Sources that are usually not reliable (WP:V)

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those that ... have an apparent conflict of interest.1,2 Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be ... promotional... Questionable sources ... are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

  1. Columbia University: "A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial ... considerations have the potential to ... bias ... objectivity..."
  2. The New York Times Company: "Conflicts of interest ... may involve the relationships of staff members with ... news sources [or] advocacy groups..."

Self-published sources

Self-published media ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content... Examples of self-published sources include press releases...

  • Princeton University: "Much of the information on the Web is self-published... There are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers ... and university ... and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material..."

___

Dictionary.com, s.v. "promotion", "promote".
promotion. Something devised to publicize or advertise a ... cause... — promotional.
promote. To help or encourage to exist or flourish; further <to promote world peace>.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

International Crisis GroupEdit

App. E. About the International Crisis Group[1]
The International Crisis Group is an independent ... organisation ... working through ... high-level advocacy to ... resolve deadly conflict...
It produces analytical reports containing practical recommendations targeted at key international decision-takers...
Crisis Group works closely with governments and those who influence them, including the media, ... to generate support for its policy prescriptions...
The following governmental departments ... have provided funding in recent years: ... Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs...

Does the Crisis Group's self-description suggest that its press release is a reliable source for a contentious claim about "suspicions between Arabs and Kurds"?

Or, does the press release appear to be devised (1) to resolve a violent struggle by persuading governments to accept the group's policy prescriptions? (2) to curry favor with a particular Turkish government department? (3) both? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC) 07:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Responsibility for providing citations (WP:UNSOURCED)

Attribute ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source...
Do not leave ... poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of ... existing groups...

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC) 09:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: I don't disagree with you that the ICG does analysis and advocacy, and that it is sometimes hard to tell one from the other. It is also obvious that it depends on third-party funding including by states that follow a specific agenda in this conflict. So I would be on your side not relying on an ICG publication for exceptional, controversial claims that have been contested by other sides.
However, the cited passage

"Complex relations with local Arab tribes also represent a potential flashpoint, tying into tensions between Kurdish factions and opposition armed groups. Although in the early stages of the uprising both actors appeared to coordinate their demands vis-à-vis the regime, territorial issues and mutual suspicions derived in part from longstanding regime practices of playing one side against the other, as well as competition for control of local resources have prompted a growing number of violent incidents. Hostilities have involved in particular tribes the regime historically settled along the Turkish border, part of an attempt to establish an Arab corridor to separate Turkish and Syrian Kurds."

maybe with the exception of the "as well as competition for control of local resources have prompted a growing number of violent incidents" part, is so obviously well-balanced and uncontested that it can't be simply swept aside by refering to the ICG as an advocacy group. The highlighted passage "Mutual suspicions between Arabs and Kurds persist into the Syrian civil war." also doesn't damage the reputation of anyone, so while it may be contested via tagging and the Talk page, it is not to be deleted rightaway. --PanchoS (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this important point, PanchS. I'm personally challenging the claim that the number of violent incidents is growing.
The only cited source that supports the claim is self-published.
The source has an apparent financial conflict of interest.
The number may be growing, constant, or decreasing.
Compare WP:REDFLAG-
Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
* apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
* challenged claims that are supported purely by ... self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest. (See WP:V-COI SOURCES.)
--Dervorguilla (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Point is: this specific, controversial, and most probably incorrect statement isn't cited in the main text at all. It is just part of the whole paragraph given as full citation in the footnotes. However, I can see your problem, and while this doesn't come close to a WP:REDFLAG IMHO, it would be very welcome to replace the citation by a better, more balanced one. If the assertion that "Mutual suspicions between Arabs and Kurds persist into the Syrian civil war" is true (and IMHO it is), then there will clearly be other, including better, sources. --PanchoS (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like we can get rid of the ICG citation. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RequestEdit

Requestion to move war "War crimes allegations" section to Human Rights in Rojava, YPG is already mentioned there with much more details.Ferakp (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


I would seriously question that decision, as it is the group which this page has as its subject which is alleged to have carried out said violations. A short section with link to full article should remain at absolute minimum. Shawn.carrie (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

NumbersEdit

Figure of 60 000 fighters is wrong. Most sources point that there are around 30k YPG-fighters.

The SDF-page has the 30k-number, but this page inflates the numbers to 60k. Correct it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemliganonym (talkcontribs) 11:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

deliberate obfuscation/weasel wordsEdit

the sections on YPG origins states: 'The nature of the links between the YPG and the PKK in North Kurdistan is disputed'

this is not true, the nature of the links is well known, that is that the YPG is the official syrian wing of the PKK and was established by the PKK

needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. If there is indeed an "official Syrian wing of the PKK", it would be the PYD, not the YPG. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I only MOVED this sentence to the section about the 'Origin and Rise of the YPG'. However that may be; The first claim under this header: that is that the YPG is the official syrian wing of the PKK is incorrect for the simple reason that the PYD cannot be the 'official' Syrian wing of the PKK when it denies to be part of the PKK (this has to do with logic, no pun intended). The second claim, that: the PYD/YPG was established by the PKK , could be true, but I wrote that: In 2003 the PKK founded the PYD as its political branch in Syria, so I do not see a problem here.

However, the unknown (obfuscated/weasel) commenter could have a valid case if he complained about my lack of proving that 'the PYD/YPG was established by the PKK', so I'll revert this to a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grieg2 (talkcontribs) 18:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

what it denies is irrelevant, the fact is that the PYD and its armed wing YPG (unfortunate that you seem confused by me only mentioning its armed wing when PYD/YPG are generally synonymous as political/military faction) were created by the PKK and are controlled by the PKK and function as the "official" PKK presence in syria

you say you revert this to a "claim", no, it is a fact that the PKK established the PYD and they are two parts of the same organization

all this is quite indisputable

here you can see the 'YPG representative to Global Coalition to Counter ISIL', a man called polat can, pictured during his time in the mountains in turkey committing terrorist actions (and i will not say when he was in the PKK because he is still PKK, just syrian PKK aka PYD/YPG http://www.habervitrini.com/gundem/bordo-bereliler-o-pkkliyi-paketleyip-turkiyeye-getirdi-904246/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View tags / disputes on this pageEdit

On 19 March 2016 multiple neutral point of view tags have been placed on this page, without placing comments on this talk page explaining why these tags have been placed. Let's consider the Wikipedia policy on this: Template:POV: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. In accordance with this policy I will delete any of these tags that do not get a relevant discussion on this talk page before 26 March 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grieg2 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Actually I am very tempted to restore the tags you have just removed wholesale. If you read the policy in more detail, you did not take into account the segment " or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is." Now, in these particular cases, there is no way that that condition applies. The PoV is strong and clear. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You probably refer to: 'In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.' As such the first part of your statement is correct, I did not consider whether: 'it remained unclear what the NPOV violation is'. I removed these tags based on the condition preceding the 'or', that is the first condition i.e. the absence of such a discussion that gives any editor (i.e. me) the right to remove the tags you mentioned.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on People's Protection Units. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Map needs to be updatedEdit

Someone might want to update the map as it is has changed considerably. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

People's Protection Units: an American puppetEdit

"Looking at the reactions of pro-Kremlin think tanks, it is safe to assume that Russia does not have a huge problem with the operation because they consider the YPG as "an American puppet" in northern Syria as opposed to a legitimate party... Moreover, there are unconfirmed claims that U.S. special forces have been deployed to northern Manbij in an effort to prevent clashes between the Turkish-backed forces and the YPG. Although Ankara asked Washington for the coordinates of their special forces to not shoot them by mistake, the U.S., citing security concerns, refused to share information. According to sources in Ankara, Washington's response makes the claim about U.S. special forces more credible."

This column leads us to believe that the YPG is an American-backed organisation. In any event, this article on Wikipedia needs to be impartial and balanced. Otherwise, a WP:POV warning should be added. Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BALASP policy the article does not need to be "impartial" if the great majority of reputable sources are partial toward one point of view. Most reputable mainstream sources do say that America backs the YPG but very few support the claim that it's "an American puppet". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

YPG forces attack Turkish borderEdit

Someone should add additional info from this recent news article: Turkish soldiers return fire on YPG militants: Military officers Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


PKK sectionEdit

Grieg2 PKK and Cold war is more related to the PYD, explain how is it really related to the YPG?Ferakp (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason to make a very brief mention of the PKK and the Cold war, is that Syria's (and Moscow's) attempts to destabilize Turkey through the PKK, led to many Syrian and Turkish Kurds getting military training in Syria and Lebanon. Later the forces thus established led to the establishment of the PKK base in Quandil(Iraq). The relevancy of mentioning the PKK and the Cold War is that many persons fighting for the YPG in the Syrian Civil War had received their military training in either or both of these periods. The very minimal paragraph about the PKK and the Cold War thus explains how the very lightly armed YPG was/is able to beat better armed opponents like the FSA and ISIS, that also became significant only at the start of the Syrian Civil War: The YPG was able to draw upon a reservoir of very well trained and motivated guerrilla fighters and officers.

The paragraph does not intend to imply that the YPG was, or is, organizationally related to the PKK or the PYD. The significance of the PKK / Cold War period, is that it established the military capabilities that led to many YPG fighters having decent military training.Grieg2 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic CleansingEdit

There is a section titled ethnic cleansing in which it details the lack of any from the YPG. This section is clearly here so that a lazy reader who flicks through sees titles like ethnic cleansing and war crimes and is given a false impression. It should be called accusations of ethnic cleansing, or considering ethnic cleansing is a war crime it should be in the war crime section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.217.151 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Article LockedEdit

I don't know what the issue is with the ongoing edit war but resolve it here. I have locked the article for 48 hours. That should be sufficient time to resolve this. Please remember that there are multiple avenues for settling content disputes. If you need to contact me then either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page as I am not adding this to my already insanely long watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not edit much in this article, I just stumbled over the repeated insertion of propaganda content, which starts with a sentence "Turkey thinks that the YPG is related to any terror organization", and then goes on to narrate stuff which was done by other people in other countries, without discernable relation to the lemma/topic of the article. I removed such content insertions twice. I would wish that the editor concerned would abstain from such disruptive edits, or at least seek to gain consensus on the talk page. There even is a related existing talk page section above. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: How can someone delete a whole section with various sources (below) and nobody do anything about it? This whole article is propaganda for the YPG then. I believe an unbalanced warning needs to be added anyway.

Relations with Turkey Turkey consider the YPG as a part of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Turkey sees as a terrorist organization.[1] The military wing HPG of the Turkey-based PKK is involved in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present). The March 2016 Ankara bombing was claimed by Kurdistan Freedom Falcons (TAK) and the female suicide bomber was a plotter trianed in northern Syria.[2] The December 2016 Istanbul bombings were also claimed by the PKK affiliated TAK and evidence showed one of the suicide bombers came from Syria a week before the attack.[3]

-Human like you (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper known for printing sensationalist and inaccurate stories. It is not reliable. Daily Sabah is Turkish AKP propaganda and not reliable. Therefore I oppose including this material. 2003:77:4F2C:9E80:848A:3343:F9B6:525B (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017Edit

Please consider changing the line " and the Syrian affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)" to "and allegedly have some affiliation with the PKK". The United States repeatedly denied such allegations and any active operational ties between the YPG and the PKK, only the Turkish regime insists on placing the two very different organisations in one pot.

Many thanx Kordovia (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Morphdog (t - c) 17:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Neither seems appropriate. It is an unevidenced assertion made by Turkey (which thinks merely repeating the assertion many many times justifies the making of it), but regardless, it is very off-topic for lede content, however worded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Name not in ArabicEdit

In the very first line of the article, "یەکینەکانی پاراستنی گەل‎‎" has been labeled Arabic, while it is Sorani(Kurdish). There is no Arabic name in that part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.86.130.200 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Y Thank you for notifying, fixed. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Forced displacement -Edit

Reading the Forced displacement section of this article, it felt like it was a forum and an argument between two editors was going on with it and the preceding paragraph. The paragraph in question is the following:

  • Forced displacement of civilians and destruction of civilian property is not a war crime per se. These acts only become a war crime when there is no "imperative military necessity" for them. Amnesty International claims the report documents cases in which there was no such justification.[70] It furthermore claims that "the circumstances of some of these displacements suggested that they were carried out in retaliation for people's perceived sympathies with, or family ties to, suspected members of ISIL or other armed groups",[71] thus constituting "collective punishment, which is a violation of international humanitarian law".

Especially the first sentence there is what raised a flag for me. It felt like a violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research. Looks like this part needs some editing by an experienced editor or direct removal of it. PointOfViewGun (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend to replace much of that section with much better quality text/sources from the Human rights in Rojava article, subsection Rojava-associated militias. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor clean upsEdit

The small arms section lists the RPK as using the 7.62x54R round. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPK#RPKS according to wikipedia and any other source almost all RPKs fire the 7.62x39 or the 5.45x39. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.145.6 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on People's Protection Units. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on People's Protection Units. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018Edit

""""The CIA also defines PYD as the Syrian wing of PKK in The World Factbook.[1]"""

The CIA factbook link used refers nothing to such claim. This part was clearly added a few posts before the last edit that moved it here, without actual proof.

Also I don't get the "Salih MUSLIM Muhammad leads Kurdistan Workers Party's Syrian wing" part, Salih Muslim Muhammad is the FORMER co-chairman of the political Democratic Union Party (PYD) and in many interviews has denied that the PYD is a Syrian branch of the PKK, and in fact has said they do not take orders. So this is clear lies in these edits. TataofTata (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Nihlus 23:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The World Factbook". https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html. CIA. External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Is there such a thing as "guilt by association"?Edit

I added some info along with what I believed were reliable sources but was reverted by a privileged editor. From what I've been reading, the YPG and the PYD are Marxist-Leninist organizations. Some may argue that only certain related militia, like the PKK, are as such. Well, look at what I just read on NPR today in an article titled "Top U.S. Commander In Afghanistan Accuses Russia Of Aiding Taliban":

In an appearance before a Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb. 2017, Nicholson had this exchange with Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson:

"If Russia is cozying up to the Taliban — and that's a kind word — if they are giving equipment that we have some evidence that the Taliban is getting ... and other things that we can't mention in this unclassified setting? And the Taliban is also associated with al-Qaida? Therefore Russia indirectly is helping al-Qaida in Afghanistan," said Nelson.

"Your logic is absolutely sound, sir," Nicholson replied.

Based on this analogy, since the PKK is a Marxist-Leninist organization - not to mention a terrorist militia according to the State Department and the CIA - and it is a sister organization of the YPG/PYD, as they share fighters, weapons, ammunition, resources, intelligence, etc. then the YPG/PYD are also a Marxist-Leninist organization.

I sure hope I don't get reverted again based on silly excuses specially after running into the below excerpts in an article by the Washington Post titled "How two U.S. Marxists wound up on the front lines against ISIS":

the People’s Democratic Union, the Marxist-inspired political party that controls northeastern Syria. and

Belden wants to marry his girlfriend and return to Syria with her — to join a Marxist-Leninist political organization, not to fight.

And just in case you might not consider the Washington Post a reliable source, as I'm not sure I do anymore, consider these sources freely available on the internet:

I believe those who have a problem with these facts can either do their own research or just face the truth and let go of their POV. HEICOgel (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Suicide bombings" are not prohibited by any international law, and there is no relation to "minors" eitherEdit

Dear Marjdabi, "suicide bombings" as a war tactic are not prohibited by any international law. Please stop adding a "suicide bombings" subsection/text in a manner suggesting otherwise. And there is no indication of any relation to the issue of "minors" either, your attempt to insinuate the contrary is inappropriate. If you think that there should be a mention of self-sacrificing attacks, its proper place would be among the "Tactics" section, and there its length should have due weight, namely minor weight. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Marjdabi, if you want to add controversial content to the article, you have to seek a consensus for it. You cannot just add the content and demand others to argue against it while it is up. Please remove this "suicide bombings" section as it is now (insinuation of a relation with minors, POV language and POV internal linking, undue length) and then argue your case and seek consensus for a way to add self-sacrificing attacks as a (rare) tactic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop calling suicide bombing which killed others with the attackers "self sacrificing attack". The attack is mentioned as suicide bombing by the source, as suicide bombings are officially considered wrong. Wikipedia is a non biased encyclopedia and we do to call suicide attacks self sacrificing attacks on here. The event is a significant news which is cited and sourced. If you feel there is a mistake in this you will have to get consensus. And stop disrupting my edits. Marjdabi (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I will call stuff as I deem appropriate here on the talk page. Would you please address the substantial points I make? I told you that I am not completely opposed to mention self-sacrificing attacks as a military tactic in the article, if it is done in its proper place (among the "Tactics" section), without POV language and without POV internal linking (i.e. without linking to the "terrorism" article), without insinuation of a relation to "minors", and in due length, i.e. brief. Please undo the controversial state of the article which you have created and for which you have no consensus. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial on the other, sources other cited. If you believe it is controversial you may add up other information. Marjdabi (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

An edit is controversial if another editor disagrees, and I do disagree with this addition. You may not add controversial content against protest, you have to seek consensus. And I told you above what my conditions for consensus are. Please act accordingly or remove the controversial content completely. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual users do not have the ability to change the arguments they find controversial, stop disrupting cited edits. Marjdabi (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please educate yourself about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yes, individual users can effectively veto new additions, and if they do, consensus must be sought. Try reading WP:BRD for a start. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:BRD, WP:BRD does not give you the right to revert any edit you find controversial. Wikipedia would not have existed with that method. Wikipedia is not a opinion website where popular opinions are praised. We report unbiased neutral facts here. If you feel there is something controversial with the facts you've read you are free to feel so. Wikipedia is not about what the individual feels about the article. All the edits are cited. Stop reverting articles to your opinions. Marjdabi (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Basic piety in the image textline on the Avesta Habur imageEdit

The image of Avesta Habur comes with an image textline of "The 20 year old Avesta Habur who blew herself up to stop the Turkish advance" which apparently is crude, dehumanizing language. I changed this to "20 year old Avesta Habur made a self-sacrificing attack to stop advancing Turkish troops in Afrin", which is also more precise, but User:Marjdabi keeps reverting. Can you give a reason why you think that the version you reverted to would be more appropriate? Otherwise please change back to the version I suggested. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop praising the action of suicide bombing, the textline has not dehumanized anybody, this is a non biased encyclopedia, the words self sacrificing act do not belong in an encyclopedia. It is not more precise as the sources have cited that it is a suicide attack. Stop changing facts and removing sources. Marjdabi (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The image has apparently been deleted, as has another image been. I removed the two stumps. Why did you restore them? Would you be kind enough to undo that restoration of stumps? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not restored the stumps I have removed the remaining ones. Marjdabi (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Return to "People's Protection Units" page.