This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
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  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 , 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: . 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  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: . 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 , 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 propermove 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)
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.
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 , 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 discussionShadow4dark (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.