Talk:Rojava conflict/Archive 1

Requested move for page 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava', 18 January 2015

Hi!

I'm inviting editors to participate in the discussion to move the article 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava'. My rationale is: This article is about a region governed by the PYD, which calls the area Rojava. Foreign press also uses this term, for example [1] (BBC) [2] (Guardian) [3] (Independent) [4] (VICE). Other examples on Wikipedia such as Kosovo (not South Serbia), Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) or Scotland (not Scottish United Kingdom) indicate this article should be called Rojava as per convention. Thanks Genjix (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Rojava? Revolution? Looks like PKK acquired wikipedia!! 3bdulelah (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Turkey and FSA

Alright, fells let´s clear this thing out. Now, although there is an animosity between Turkey and Kurds and even though sources says how Erdogan will never allow this or that fact remains that Turkey has not participated in this conflict, had not sent one trooper or anything else to the Kurdistan and had no cross-border clashes with the Kurds. Just because they say they do not like it, it doesn´t mean that they are participant in the conflict. As for FSA, SNC has no power over FSA. What they say matters not, even Riyad al-Asaad and Qasem Sadedine are in hairs with each other with colonel Sadedine saying several times to Asaad that he commands nothing as he is not on the ground. And even if we ignore this, SNC statement =/= FSA involvement. Only thing in sources we have about involvement is that FSA sent a unit to Kobani and Kurds turned it around. No clashes or shooting was reported. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Also there is NO CONFIRMED REPORT of hostilities between the major Kurdish forces and the Syrian Government. To the contrary, most reports over the whole conflict indicate an informal non-aggression agreement.

This whole "campaign" is so far just a wild speculation smelling of FSA/SNC propaganda trying to force Kurdish hand by associating them with SNC.85.160.55.115 (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Figting Activists"

From article: "on 22 July, it was reported that Kurdish forces were still fighting for Al-Malikiyah (Kurdish: Dêrika Hemko) where one young Kurdish activist was killed after government security forces opened fire on protesters."

Now, either an activist was killed during a protest, or a fighter was killed during clashes. Or both (thus 2 dead). One does not transform into "an activist" by being killed. That is pure BS.85.160.55.115 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

An activist was killed according to this source[5], I can't see anything of a fighter being killed. The article just says one Kurd was killed, we can change the "1 Kurdish activist killed" in the article.--Ahmetyal (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Kurdish participation in the Syrian civil war be merged into 2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign. I think that the content in the Kurdish participation in the Syrian civil war article can easily be explained in the context of 2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign. Ahmetyal (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree, there is no need for two articles about the same situation/conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.179.68 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not vote as I think I may not have a neutral point of view on this matter given that I created it, but frankly I don´t see why it wouln´d fit the WP:GNG describtion. It is well covered in media, giving it significance. Financial Times Reuters Egypt Independent CNN and others. All those sources are reliable. They are secondary sources. They are independent of subject. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is also WP:SNOW. Given state of, for example, Deir ez-Zor article which was about half long as this before I started digging in the sources and adding it which was notable I don´t see why this is not. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What I meant with the proposal was that we could move the Kurdish participation in the Syrian civil war page to the background section on this page. --Ahmetyal (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, that is a good idea. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw dont you speak, by any chance, Kurmanji? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, but I don't understand the dialect they speak in Southeastern Turkey so well. --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, do you know what Yekîneyên Parastina Gel translation is? I saw 3 different translations, don´t know which one is the right onw. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's Kurdish for the Popular Protection Units. --Ahmetyal (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is not the exact translation. One other Kurd, whom I talked to but he didn´t speak Kurmanji, told me that it is something along the lines of Peoples Defence Units. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support a merger to the background section of this article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Ahmetyal (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Kurds not part of Syrian uprising.

So it seems that several supporters of the Syrian opposition (SNC) have created an article here about how the Kurds have launched a pro-SNC pro-FSA campaign against Assad as part of the Syrian Civil War. However, most news sources report that pro-Assad forces have handed over control of these cities and regions to the Kurds (without any fight or any armed campaign) in a move to hurt the FSA and Turkey.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] The Syrian opposition for it's part has come out against the Kurds and the creation of such autonomous region, while the Kurds have declared they will not allow the FSA to enter this region. These realities however are not reflecting in the article at all. It must be changed and rewritten.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What you are saying is actually contradictory to the majority of sources, Including the PYD leader himself. If the PYD leader says they not against the FSA, then the PYD is not against the FSA period. http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4938.html

http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4977.html

http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/4979.html

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/7/syriakurd546.htm

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/kurdish-syria-cultural-armed-revolution

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100172668/syrian-kurds-united-against-assad-an-interview-with-an-insider/

http://www.kurdishglobe.net/display-article.html?id=7A94F9FF07600F97A51FCF66583BF65C

Sopher99 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way they didn't report that Assad forces left to weaken fsa, they just say in what apears and in what suggests

It is worth noting that the FSA are not even in the infobox, so I don't know why you are rambling about "pro-FSA" and "pro SNC" when we never state that in the article. The article only describes the conflict between the PYD, who gave ultimatums for assad forces to leave. Sopher99 (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I remove that template now? Discussion has been inactive for 4 days. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to incorporate the accusations of PYD-Assad cooperation into the article lead, as they are quite prevalent in the major news sources, and then also be careful to be aware of this dynamic going forward. I think that would resolve any reasonable accusations of editor bias, which should justify removing the template if no discussion is ongoing. Evzob (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it is all bunch of bollocks. SKC, KNC and PYD leaders are all vocally opposed to Assad, hell media didnt even notice it until Erdogans conference. This article was created weeks before any major media started writing about stituation in Kurdish areas, when already several cities were taken over by YPG. But I shall incorporate it because of NPOV. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The scope of this article is weird. It starts with claiming it is about Kurds fighting the Syrian government, yet more people have been killed in clashes between Kurds and the FSA. The Syrian government ha basically pulled out of Kurdish areas, so the article title and scope should be changed, to reflect that it is simply a hodgepodge article about what Kurds did during the Syrian war. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Derki city"

This article [12] makes reference to a "Derki city" which has been taken over by Kurdish groups. Does anyone know to which city this refers? I know that there are a lot of inconsistent spellings out there, and that the Kurdish and Arabic place names are sometimes completely different. Evzob (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably Al-Malikiyah or Dêrika Hemko in Kurdish. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ezaz and

the cities of A'zaz and Tell Abyad is not under kurdish controll, the source for both cities is from a turkish newspapers which has actually no sources for the statement, statements from PYD or any other kurdish orginisations inside Syria is more reliable than turkish newspapers. Besides the cities has no kurdish community and A'zaz is under the controll of FSA which is stated in this Wikipedia article Battle_of_Azaz_(2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.181.90 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Must have been removed before I saw this comment. Bytheway I am also removing Qamishli from the map, per source in the article (the last part). EllsworthSK (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved page

No sources call this the "Kurdish rebellion", and it isn't one, the article is basically just about what Kurds are doing during the Syrian civil war, which is basically sticking to themselves. The new title reflect others, such as for example History of the Jews during World War II. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And article was never named Kurdish rebellion as well. I can agree with removal of that part but you just moved it from smaller perspective to too vague. First, it should´ve been discussed but before moving it back I´d rather we have a compromise on the naming issue. Second, article name should reflect that we are talking about armed conflict where all three sides + civilians suffered casualties and also that power-change on large territory happened. What about 2012 Kurdish campaign? EllsworthSK (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say "2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion" is basically the same, and moving it back would be completely senseless (1: there's no Kurish rebellion, 2: "Kurdistan" is a pretty iffy term in this context). If anything, a new, more concise title could be proposed. "Campaign" seems more misleading, since they're basically not doing anything. "Kurdish stance during the Syrian civil war" or something similar would be more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rebellion? Who moved it from 2012 Kurdistan campaign? I didnt even notice that, to be honest. Anyway you know the rules about moving, if it is not a technical move (which it isn´t) it should´ve been discussed. Kurdistan is term used by sources in the article like rudaw.net. Others do not call the land one side or another. Kurdish stance is a political issue, not military. It is a conglomeration of civic activity, not armed. Not doing anything resulted in Kurds controlling independently most of Rojava, including incursion to Aleppo itself. Having under their power about the same border length with Turkey as Syrian government now has. Or even larger. Not even mentioning that nowadays everyone refers to them as a wild card. That is not definition of nothing, I am sure of that. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the name I moved it from, I wouldn't had moved it if it was simply campaign. The "Kurdistan rebellion" title was too over the top to let be. Anyway, the Kurds did exactly nothing to "come to power", the Syrian army simply left their region to fight elsewhere. The Kurds have barely fought the government at all, and have killed more rebels than soldiers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. I created it under different name and I kind of didnt notice it was moved. Or didnt care. One of that. Anyway, actually in Kurdish towns there was little to none army presence. Max police and that one became useless a long time ago. Army simply never counter-attacked because they didnt care and had other problems to worry about. And for them as long as Kurds said that they won´t be any trouble if they leave them alone, it was a lot better deal than with rebels who want to kill them. Yet with shift of power, what happened in Aleppo and what is happening in Ras al-ayn (this will hit news a little later but KNC and PYD played their role. While PYD just stood by and watched KNC attacked together with FSA who promised them that they will hand control to them and not PYD) things will happen. Per WP:SNOW EllsworthSK (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Either that, or the Kurds stay neutral, join forces with the government against Erdogan, start fighting internally over control, etc., etc. There are endless possibilities, knowing the sad recent history of the Kurds. As for now, there's no Kurdish rebellion. They're just hanging on. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the main point - so you would agree with original name? 2012 Kurdistan campaign? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you mean as in military campaign, then I'm a bit unsure how that applies to most of what the article covers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what about conflict? EllsworthSK (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

So again, is 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict good enough? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to change it back to "2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign". Ahmetyal (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Campaign simply doesn't make sense. Conflict might be vague enough to be applicable. And here are some news, still doesn't bode well for the FSA/Kurd relationship.[13] FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Done EllsworthSK (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

FSA kills counted as Kurdish kills

Why exactly are 18 soldiers killed by the FSA listed in the infobox and article? What do they have to do with the Kurds? Also, "Liveleak" is hardly a reliable source. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As on Northern Mali conflict (2012–present), we need to make clear how many of each faction has been killed by who. Right now, soldiers killed by the FSA are counted together with the few killed by Kurds, which gives a misleading impression. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This article has a made up name

There is no "Syrian Kurdistan" and there has never been one. The name of north eastern Syria is Al Hassake. Kurds also live in many places in Syria and this article covers fighting in several ares in Syria including north Syria and Aleppo. I am therefore planning to move the article to "2012–2013 Syrian Kurdish conflict" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As it would happen, the term "Syrian Kurdistan" does exist and is used in cases where "Hasakah Province" is not inclusive enough (e.g., when parts of Aleppo Province are to be included). It does seem to be somewhat associated with ethnic-nationalist groups, but it's obscure and mild enough that any POV connotations it may have are limited. For this article, I think it was mainly a term of convenience, because we are not just talking about the northeast of the country. It also has parallels in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan, and Turkish Kurdistan. If you really want to change it, I guess it's fine, but hardly a critical matter at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Its a fake and made up name and can not be used. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, ok bud. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A google search doesnt mean anything, I never said no one is using the fake name.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A google search means more than your own sourceless personal opinions on a term. You haven't even bothered to clarify what the hell "fake" and "made up" are supposed to mean in this context. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your third search was packed with kurdish websites like Kurdish Globe, Rudaw, kurdmedia, kurd Aspect. Your first two searches had several Kurdish authors just in the lead, but there was some others, but a book doesn't mean anything, who is the author? Why is the authors personal choice of words more valuable then the fact that the official name for southwestern northeastern Syria is Hassake? Your "Syrian Kurdistan" google books search got 362 hits, "Hassake" gets 3060 hits [14]. Its not my personal opinion that Hassake is its official name, its a fact. By "Syrian Kurdistan" being a fake name, imagine if your name is "Tom", and someone calls you "Johnny", that would be someone calling you by a fake name because your name is "Tom", and not "Johnny", do you get it now?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Southwestern Syria would be Quneitra or Deraa, bud. And for the second time, "Syrian Kurdistan" does not refer to Hasakah exclusively—it refers to Kurdish("-inhabited") areas within Syria at large. And while "Kurdish authors" may find their way into the search results, 1) being Kurdish does not disqualify one from being a reliable source and 2) "David Romano", "Christiane Bird", "Maria T. O'Shea", and "Christine Allison" do not strike me as Kurdish names.

That name comparison is complete and utter bullshit, frankly speaking, and I'm not going to dignify it with further response. I'm still waiting for you to provide even rudimentary sourcing for your commentary. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Says who? It even has it's own page, Syrian Kurdistan. Ahmetyal (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? There are also pages for Great Satan and Zionist entity, are you going to start replacing the US and Israel in all articles with those terms instead? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The name exist and it is used as name for the region which covers wider area, specifically Syrian part of Kurdistan region - ie region where Kurds live. Lothar already provided you with easy Google Scholar and Google Books reference which includes those names. Or are you going to say that term Kurdistan does not exist? EllsworthSK (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The names Zionist entity and Great Satan also exists and are used as names for Israel and the United States. Yeah he showed me a couple of google searches that doesn't show why the fake name "Syrian Kurdistan" should be used instead of my suggestion and I showed my google books search for Hassake that gave about 100 times more results. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The moment when serious literature will start calling unspecific area of operations of one group as Great Satan I will be glad to change it. Alas that didn't happen so let's stop with these silly examples. And your suggestion is wrong as area of operation does not span along the whole Hasaka governorate, nor whole Aleppo governorate but about specific parts which are refered to as Syrian Kurdistan, Western Kurdistan or Rojava. For sake of NPOV we chose the first one. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also you failed to mention why the name is fake aside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Supreme Deliciousness that the article should have its name changed to the 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdish conflict, since the article encompasses all Kurdish related incidents occurring during the Syrian civil war. Syrian Kurdistan generally refers to the Kurdish majority areas of Hasakah governorate, the area around Kobane, and the area around Efrin. The Kurdish conflict in Syria, however, has also included events in Aleppo and Damascus which are generally not considered part of Syrian Kurdistan. Guest2625 (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

^ That is a good argument, this is about Kurds in Syria during the war in general, not only about one area. All areas with Kurds are not considered "Kurdistan" by default. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Non neutral edit

Sayerslle, you are claiming with your edit: [15] that part of Syria "is Kurdish", and that Hassake is a "Kurdish region", that is clearly inaccurate and non neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just reading Josh Wood articles and one included talk about this region - "Things are changing in northeastern Syria’s Kurdish-majority Hassake province [-] The Hassake region is not exclusively Kurdish. While it is difficult to be certain as the Syrian government does not include Kurdish as an ethnic group in national surveys, they are estimated to make up more than 60 percent of the region’s population. And while much of Hassake is in the hands of Kurdish groups, the main oilfields remain controlled by the government’s forces."

for me 'more than 60%' is clearer with the wording I reverted to, and kind of obscured by your language. change it back by all means though , maybe I'm missing exact implications/nuances of the language used. Sayerslle (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Majority kurds there doesn't mean its a "Kurdish region". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

changing name

I suggest that we change the name of the article to Al-hasaka campaing or clashes and exlude evrything that isn't about events taking place in Al-hasaka province.

I suggest this mostly because of it's not only a kurdish uprising but also an arabic uprising taking place, and there is also an ismalist insurgency from both the north and south. This article most be delimitated to an geographical area but at the same time include everything connected to the civil war.

I hope i made my stance clear, my english is not very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.182.203 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no real uprising there. What we have is a region the Syrian government has left for the Kurds, and the Kurds are now mainly fighting Islamist forces. Whatever the title is changed to, "uprising" shouldn't be part of it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Lothar's extensive analysis.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah EllsworthSK (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Syrian Kurdistan" does not exist and it is a made up name and therefore the article must be moved. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It exists just as much as Iranian Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan or Iraqi Kurdistan exists, it is well sourced and that´s that. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Its an unofficial name used by kurds. How does that supersede reality? That this places real name is Hassake? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha yeah, Afrin and Ayn al-Arab are totally in Hasakah. Get outta here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we can change it to "Syrian Kurdish conflict (2012–present)". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial? So that is why they started to distribute car plates stating Rojavayê Kurdistan [16]? And it is not only Hakasa province, it is well sourced name mentioned gazillion times in sources and if you are unable to even define why is it "fake" name I will remove the template. Your WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not concern any editor. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So what? Israeli license plates can be found in the West bank, the place is still not "Israel". If its not only hasake, it can be changed to "Kurdish". It is a fake name by the fact that no place in Syria has "Kurdistan" as its name. It is used by a minority, mostly kurds. I and another person is disputing the fake name this article have so you had no right to remove the tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Kurds use "Rojava" or "West Kurdistan". Scholars, on the other hand, do use the term [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. You are still unable to provide any convincing rationale for why the name is "fake". Either come up with a new argument, adjust your terminology, or stop whining. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article is about Kurds in Syria during the war in general, not only about one area. All areas with Kurds are not considered "Kurdistan" by default. So it is irrelevant whether "Kurdistan" is a valid name or not, the point is that the scope of the article is wider than that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey, finally an argument that isn't composed entirely of pissy WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg

File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Yekîneyên Parastina Gel.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Death toll

So i noticed that the death toll on the right side in the bar was obsolete and did a counting of all the mentioned deaths in the article i also added a few death that is not mentioned but that are documented by SOHR. Here is my results

total YPG deaths 16 - 39 (6) Total SAA deaths 58 - 98 Total FSA deaths 87 - 97 (1) Total Civilian deaths 155

the numbers in the () is from SOHR and are not mentioned in the wiki. They are from 25 may to 11 of june 2013. The civilian death is more or less every on that is not carrieng a weapon. I have not added this to the article because of i would like someone else to second look my results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.19.122 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

YPG strength

The source [23] for 4000-4500, is for those who allegedely were transported from Qandil to Syrian Kurdistan, not total number of YPG fighters. It is also from early July 2012, as YPG has been intensively training large numbers of new recruits ever since. Recently Salih Muslim said the number is over 15000 [24]. Roboskiye (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

map of hasakah

Here is a map i did of hasakah province, if it is usefull use it, if something is wrong with the map please notify me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.177.123 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no Hasaka province map. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to link the map. I did a new one since the old one was no good. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/The_Situation_in_Hasakah.svg ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.177.28 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

new info

http://www.trust.org/item/20130718115153-tkdcx/?source=hpbreaking --93.137.179.168 (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"2013 Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict"

Any reason why the 2013 Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict is kept separate? The two articles don't even seem to acknowledge the existence of each other, weirdly enough. The body counts don't even match. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• On that note, why no mention of this massacre? http://rt.com/op-edge/us-kurds-massacre-syria-289/ FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
• Is this talk page completely dead? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge them, if no one is against it~ --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merging. The Syrian Kurdistan campaign (2012–present) article talks about the overall conflict in the Kurdish regions which includes Rebel-Army fighting, Kurdish-Army fighting and Kurdish-Islamist fighting. While the 2013 Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict talks specificaly about the open war that erupted in mid-July 2013 between the Kurds and Islamists which is constantly being talked about in the media and the mid-July 2013 start date is constantly being pointed to so it is notable enough per Wikipedia standards to have its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you compared them? One stops abruptly where the other starts, a completely arbitrary split. At the very least, this article should be expanded to include most of the other info. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Funky and I agree with Lothar, this article should be expanded to include info on that Kurdish-Islamist aspect of the conflict. I would have done it myself but I was busy with the other articles and thought someone else had taken on the job. EkoGraf (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think a total merge is necessarily warranted. However, I do think it a good idea to make a section in this article for these latest hostilities, with a link to the expanded information in the new article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Minorities

Is there any news on minorities living in Hasakah, mainly the Assyrians and Yezidis. What is their contribution (if any) to the conflict? Are minority dominated cities/towns taken by rebel, army or kurdish forces? How is their treatment under their superiors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.226.250 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Update?

This seems to be in major need of a 2014 update by knowledgeable people (meaning not me) Especially considering the ass whopping the Kurdish forces are getting from the crazies of ISIS...

MLKP from Turkey participating

It seems the communist MLKP from turkey are participating on the Kurdish side

http://www.mlkp.info/index.php?icerik_id=9692 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.35.243 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rojava campaign

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rojava campaign's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "news.yahoo.com":

• From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: "Egypt jihadists vow loyalty to IS as Iraq probes leader's fate". Agence France-Presse. 10 November 2014.
• From Battle of Al-Hasakah (June–July 2015): http://news.yahoo.com/kurds-gain-ground-syrias-hasakeh-fightback-141720299.html
• From Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War: Hendawi, Hamza. In Syria, Sunni rebels besiege Shiite villages. Yahoo News. Originally published by Associated Press. 2012-10-18,

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rojava Revolution

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rojava Revolution's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Recap":

• From Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2011): Iddon, Paul (30 July 2012). "A recap of the Syrian crisis to date". Digital Journal. Retrieved 20 September 2013.
• From Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War: Iddon, Paul (30 July). "A recap of the Syrian crisis to date". Digital Journal. Retrieved 3 August 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo

While it's doubtlessly a good photo, I can't free myself from thinking it's a bit boastful. Perhaps we should consider a replacement, or alternatively a compilation of photos including the current one? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal (duplicated article)

User @LogFTW has tried to move Rojava conflict to Syrian Kurdistan confict and has ended up creating two pages. They said the reason was that "Syrian Kurdistan" is the "correct name" however it has been discussed already and "Rojava" was chosen. Also "conflict" is spelled wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FugeeCamp (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Rojava conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130209210918/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/5716.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/5716.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121114074519/http://www.israelnationalnews.com:80/News/News.aspx/161915 to http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161915#.UPrOHSf7JCh
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110917033604/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/3941.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/3941.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120723012730/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/4964.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4964.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120801020239/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/5010.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/5010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721142617/http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/4978.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurds/4978.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120724224808/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/4984.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4984.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131225040625/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/23/3400914/fighting-in-syria-indicates-bashar.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/23/3400914/fighting-in-syria-indicates-bashar.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121129100410/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/4992.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4992.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728023132/http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4999.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4999.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403171641/http://www.rudaw.net/kurmanci/rojava/15041.html to http://www.rudaw.net/kurmanci/rojava/15041.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rojava conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130728074253/http://ciwanekurd.net/index.php/2011-12-26-15-15-44/5612-2012-09-05-00-20-32 to http://ciwanekurd.net/index.php/2011-12-26-15-15-44/5612-2012-09-05-00-20-32

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Article needs update

The "Towns under autonomous self rule" section is a year and a half out of date. Can someone run through and update it? Utahwriter14 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove the whole section? I mean the list is going to be very long. --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should just be removed altogether, it's not adding much and people can use the conflict map to see what territory is under whose control. --Cedewey (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Merging YPG-FSA relations article into Rojava conflict

Someone suggested merging the YPG-FSA relations article with this page. I don't see any place where discussion has taken place so I'm starting that here.

• Don't Merge I think that the current Rojava conflict already has enough information on the conflict and relationships between various groups so would be against merging them. The result would be an excessively long article. Cedewey (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Renaming Rojava campaign to Rojava revolution

I propose that this page be renamed to Rojava revolution. Citing Wikipedia ;), a revolution is defined as "A revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

Rojava has seen its autonomy declared with a new constitution that profoundly alters the rights of citizens. People in administration have changed, including many who were once barred from holding government positions. New ministries have been established. A model of "Democratic Confederalism" is being implemented. The courts now have many new lawyers and judges. The schools are now instructing in Kurdish and other languages. All of these constitute fundamental changes in power and organizational structures and has occurred within a short period of time.

In summary, I believe using the term revolution more accurately describes the situation taking place in Rojava.

I look forward to others' thoughts on the matter.Cedewey (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Few if any sources describe this as a revolution, so we can't either. The opinions of editors don't really matter in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in FunkMonk. There are quite a few sources that describe this as a revolution. Here are a few of them- ROAR Magazine, OpenDemocracy, Dissent Magazine, TeleSur, BBC News, ZCommunications, Vice News. On the other hand, I find very few sources using the term "Rojava campaign." Doing a Google search results comparison brings up 103,000 results for "rojava campaign" compared to 199,000 for "rojava revolution." Even with the results that come up for Rojava Campaign, the articles and pages that come up aren't using the term "Rojava Campaign" but rather include both the words "Rojava" and "campaign" somewhere in the content. Cedewey (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The term mainly seems to be used on some radical leftist sites. Campaign is more of just a general, neutral description, could just as well had been called war or conflict instead. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly accepted as a revolution on the left, but several of the sources I included are mainstream media outlets: BBC, Vice News, and TeleSur. Additionally, the title of the article should describe the content accurately. In this case we have a situation in which, as the definition speaks to, a fundamental change in power or organizational structures in a short amount of time. Rojava is now being administered by completely new politicians under a radically different organizational structure (Democratic Confederalism), with a new constitution and with laws that are very different from the previous ones. For example, the Kurdish language can now be spoken freely, there is a 40% gender quota for assemblies, a similar quota for ethnic minorities, schools can now teach Kurdish and other minority languages. The security force is handled under Asayish. These all strongly back the reality tht power and organizational structures have fundamentally shifted in a short amount of time. Because of what I've outlined above and there hasn't been others weighing in, I'll update the title of the article to Rojava Revolution and have Rojava Campaign redirect here. If people would like to discuss the title further, it can be resumed in the talk page. Cedewey (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't move the page without consensus. Something like "Rojava conflict" or whatever would better reflect the majority of sources. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for not seeking further consensus, I thought I had addressed your last concern. Again, as I demonstrated from the search results count and numerous articles, the term "Rojava Revolution" is the most common title for what is transpiring. Also, the people in Rojava describe it as a revolution. Being the ones most affected by the situation I believe that should weigh heavily in the article title. Looking at Wikipedia's Article Titles guidelines, the title should be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. The different terms being considered (campaign, conflict, revolution) are all concise, consistent and natural. So, the question is, choosing between those three, which is most recognizable and precise? As I've pointed out- what has transpired in Rojava is a significant change in power and organizational structure. So, revolution more precisely describes the situation on the ground. Also, when we're talking specifically about Rojava, "Rojava Revolution" is the most recognizable of these terms. One can argue that revolution has not been used in as many mainstream media articles, but that is true when the article is talking about the military conflict transpiring, not the larger picture description of the change in Rojava itself. And again, search results show that people are using the term Rojava Revolution more than conflict or campaign. So, I believe Rojava Revolution is the most recognizable and precise title for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedewey (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rojava Revolution?! Who came up with that gem? A PKK or some other socialist/communist sympathiser? If there is a Kurdish revolution then what of the broader Syrian Civil War? Shouldn't this be renamed the Syrian Revolution? Wikipedia you have outdone yourself in being a mouthpiece of special interest groups.--120.18.107.52 (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Rojava Revolution is the more common name given to the events than Syrian Revolution. I believe this is because the revolutionary activity of this nature is taking place primarily in northern Syria (Rojava). --Cedewey (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk and others- I've listed out numerous reasons why Rojava Revolution is the most accurate title. Since a decent amount of time has passed without any objection to those points made I'm going to return the page to Rojava Revolution. If you have further disagreements after that, please outline your thinking on this talk page. --Cedewey (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you need to make a formal move request and gain consensus. Your name is not neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't understand the formal move request procedure. I'll do that now. Cedewey (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think the renaming is premature and in violation of NPOV. If you want my opinion on why: it would be because I don't think you can call something a revolution until after the conflict is over. If the conflict ends and things revert to the way they were, with no permanent change, then it's not a revolution, it's a failed coup de e'tat. again i really think it ought to be Campaign for NPOV issues. morsontologica (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Spanish Revolution of 1936 and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 both failed (and both of them were influenced by libertarian socialism like Rojava) and yet they've always been referred to as revolutions (other examples include the 1851 Chilean Revolution, the Macedonian Revolution of 1878, the Donghak Peasant Revolution, the Revolution of 1905, the Saffron Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution of 2011). Charles Essie (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (and looks like off-site canvassing). Close includes the "Additional proposal" subsection. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Rojava conflict → Rojava Revolution – I propose that this page be moved to Rojava Revolution. Wikipedia's definition of a revolution is defined as "A revolution is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

Rojava has seen its autonomy declared with a new constitution that profoundly alters the rights of citizens. People in administration have changed, including many who were once barred from holding government positions. New ministries have been established. A model of "Democratic Confederalism" is being implemented. The courts now have many new lawyers and judges. The schools are now instructing in Kurdish and other languages. All of these constitute fundamental changes in power and organizational structures and has occurred within a short period of time.

Additionally, the combatants commonly refer to the conflict they are part of as a revolution.

In terms of search results, "Rojava Revolution" receives about 223,000 results. "Rojava conflict" receives 993 results. Cedewey (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Oppose - as mentioned earlier, that is far from a neutral title, unlike the current one. Most sources don't refer to the conflict in northern Syria as the "Rojava revolution". FunkMonk (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - FunkMonk. The term revolution is not a biased one, (revolutions aren't inherently good or bad) but a descriptive one. The events that have taken place, as I've shown, represent a significant shift in power: economically, politically and socially. To your second point, Rojava Revolution is in fact used much more often than Rojava conflict, as I supported with Google Search results. Lastly, the people who are actually fighting refer to it as a revolution, people whose views I think should carry significant weight when considering what to name what is taking place. Cedewey (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. While checking the Google search links provided above I noticed that Cedewey has solicited support for this move on a rather obviously biased offsite forum ([25]), which I believe is a violation of WP:CAN ("The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions"). I am neutral in regards to the proposed move, but would just note that it is not Wikipedia's role to be attempting to measure the applicability or desirability of a particular term; the WP:COMMONNAME used in the reliable sources should be the decisive factor here. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize that was an issue. I've deleted the reddit post. Cedewey (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This article is about the social revolution taking place in Rojava. Not the conflict. The conflict is covered in Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present). Charles Essie (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose For Syrian Arabs this is not a revoulution: https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/10/syria-us-allys-razing-of-villages-amounts-to-war-crimes/ - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/us-backed-kurdish-forces-committing-war-crimes-against-syrian-civilians - https://news.vice.com/article/us-airdropping-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-as-ypg-is-accused-of-war-crimes - http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-kurdish-ypg-accused-ethnic-cleansing-arabs-battle-tel-abyad-1506198 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/12/report-u-s-backed-kurdish-rebels-may-have-committed-war-crimes-in-syria/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patetez (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• The Zanzibar Revolution also featured atrocities against Arabs but it's still called a revolution because of the enormous political and social change that took place. Another example is the Rwandan Revolution which was a disaster for Rwanda's Tutsi population. Plus, your argument precludes the fact that many Arabs are also allied with the Kurds and are participating in the revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional proposal

• Rojava conflict → Rojava Revolution
• Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) → Rojava conflict

– As I've said above, this article is about the social revolution taking place in Rojava while the conflict is covered in Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present). So this might be good way to resolve the issue. Charles Essie (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Kurdish–Turkish conflict", "Iraqi–Kurdish conflict" and "Kurdish–Iranian conflict" are commonly used to describe Kurdish conflicts in those three countries. The title for this conflict should follow that same style too, for that reason I support renaming Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) → Syrian Arab-Kurdish conflict Patetez (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• This article is only about the Kurdish conflict taking place in midst of the Syrian Civil War so I think that's to broad a title. However, I would not be opposed to the creation of broader article about the history of Arab-Kurdish conflict in Syria, perhaps titled Kurdish–Syrian conflict. Charles Essie (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnicity

In January 2016, YPG militias conducted a surprise attack on Assyrian checkpoints in Qamishli, in a predominantly Assyrian area, killing one Assyrian and wounding three others.

Aina, Breitbart, aa and almasdarnews are not reliable sources. Ferakp (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

YPG-Turkish Conflict

Hi, the section under YPG-Turkish Conflict needs to be updated. Let us not forget to add the YPG is a terrorist organisation that has direct links to and trains PKK members. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Name of article is OR

The mame of this article is OR, and cannot be found in international media. I suggest renaming it to something like Kurdish campaign in northern Syria or PYD military activities or something along that. The name "rojava" itself is not recognized or used by international media and is not neutral. How about naming the areas under ISIL the "Caliphate land"? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rojava-Turkey conflict

This section needs a major edit since it includes huge sections copied from the main article of Rojava. -Human like you (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Any conflict should be based here and summarized there, not the other way around.--Zoupan 21:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan–Rojava relations

I've created a draft article about relations between Iraqi Kurdistan and Rojava using a paragraph from Foreign relations of Rojava. It needs a lot of work and I'd truly appreciate some help in developing it. Charles Essie (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I would instead have it as a section at Foreign relations of Rojava.--Zoupan 22:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed split

The following is a closed discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge was Not merged per Klbrain. Possibly consider merging the detailed timeline Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) into Timeline of the Syrian Civil War and its sub-articles. wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose to split the article into [Rojava conflict] (to describe the ongoing military conflict with ISIL) and [Rojava Revolution] (to describe the ongoing social revolution in Rojavan territory). Thoughts? Gob Lofa (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What revolution? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The social revolution. Gob Lofa (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but we already have an article for the conflict (Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present)) that could renamed "Rojava conflict" while this one is renamed "Rojava Revolution". Charles Essie (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's an idea, maybe after creating a separate article for the Rojava Revolution, we could merge Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) into this page to provide greater coverage of the conflict. Charles Essie (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, no need for any split.--Zoupan 02:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Charles Essie (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@120.18.107.52, Cedewey, FunkMonk, Gob Lofa, Masonpew, Nizolan, and Patetez: What do you think of my proposal? Charles Essie (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Still not sure why a split is necessary. At 49.000 byte, it is far form the 100.000 byte split "limit". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just a split. The is merger of Rojava conflict and Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) (we don't need two articles for the same conflict and this combined article would be much bigger) along with the creation of a separate article about the social revolution taking place in Rojava. Charles Essie (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of a split. There's certainly enough material to cover both the conflict side of what is going on and the social changes. Cedewey (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the social revolution is adequately covered on this page as is and see no need for a separate page. However, if this page were to merge with Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) that would warrant reconsideration of a split given that the article would be much larger; additionally if there were a good deal more material on the social revolution on this page, that might call for a split as well. If @Cedewey: and @Charles Essie: believe that there is enough material for a separate page on the social revolution I would support that. morsontologica (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think there's maybe enough, although some more material wouldn't hurt. Charles Essie (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose split. Support merge. I edit not in these articles, but in quite some related articles, and all this stuff is so much intertwined, to create value for the reader as much as possible should be presented in the context of a single article. Rojava documents the state of affairs, Rojava conflict the diverse conflicts/struggles to get there, and Human rights in Rojava as well as Foreign relations of Rojava have two particular perspectives. Plus diverse "timeline" structured articles of relations (most of which should also be merged into this article here, in my humble opinion; there is an extreme amount of duplicate content). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, let's start with a merger then see how we feel after that. @120.18.107.52, 2A1ZA, Cedewey, FunkMonk, Gob Lofa, Masonpew, Nizolan, Patetez, and Zoupan: What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with a merger. Cedewey (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Support merger, same conflict after all.--Catlemur (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Support merge. morsontologica (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge.--Zoupan 05:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

btw, shouldn't the information on the "social revolution" be at Rojava, only summarized here?--Zoupan 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose. Charles Essie (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, split discussion aside, It sounds to me like we have consensus to merge. Does everyone agree? Charles Essie (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @120.18.107.52, 2A1ZA, Catlemur, Cedewey, FunkMonk, Gob Lofa, Masonpew, Nizolan, Patetez, and Zoupan: Sorry to bother you guys but it’s been over a year. Are we merging or not? Charles Essie (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead.--Zoupan 02:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Do it.--Catlemur (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I support the merger. Cedewey (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal to merge Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) into Rojava conflict on the grounds of WP:TOOBIG. The combinged size of the two articles is too large (72k+65k=137k), there is relatively little that is straightforward duplication (as the former page is a detailed timeline and hard to reduce in size without losing information), and the pages are already appropriately linked in a summary/main format through the section Rojava conflict#Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict. Subsequent merge and split proposals also make this particular proposal impractical to implement. Klbrain (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested merger: Merging the Rojava–Syrian government relations article into this Rojava conflict article

In order to make the jungle of Rojava-related issues more comprehensible for the Wikipedia user, I strongly recommend to merge the Rojava–Syrian government relations article into this Rojava conflict article, which already has sections for the topic anyway, and duplicates much of the content. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Rojava–Syria relations.GreyShark (dibra) 08:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge, we do not need 10 articles on the same topic, especially if half are copies of eachother.--Zoupan 21:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article has been renamed to DFNS–Syria relations. It is also a WP:summary style sub-topic of Democratic Federation of Northern Syria § External relations, so that would seem to have an equal, if not stronger claim as the merge target. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested merger: Merging the YPG–FSA relations article into this Rojava conflict article

In order to make the jungle of Rojava-related issues more comprehensible for the Wikipedia user, I strongly recommend to merge the YPG–FSA relations article into this Rojava conflict article, which already has sections for the topic anyway, and duplicates much of the content. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is about relations, not just conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Further review shows that the topics of these two overlap quite a lot- they should be merged if the YPG-FSA relations article stays in its state.. Belsima (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article about the social revolution taking place in Northern Syria. The conflict is conflict is covered in Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present). So, if anything, YPG–FSA relations should be merged into that article. Charles Essie (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Renaming this page

I am suggesting to change the name to "Kurdish campaign in Syria", to better represent what's going on, rather a vague name. The reasons for this are:

There is no notability for the name "rojava" (aside from Google searches showing Wikipedia articles or Kurdish parties propaganda) or any international political recognition.

There are no clear or recognized borders of the so-called "rojava". Even the maps used on the main article "rojava" keep changing every week or so.

The war in the area is more or less one-sided. YPG militias advancing and IS retreating under US-led air strikes.

I hope to get some ideas here. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Rojava denotes a de facto existing distinct framework of civil governance in distinct parts of Northern Syria, there are 5 Million Google hits for it including all major English language media, and this is what the entire Rojava article on the Wikipedia is about. You may personally dislike anything about this sentence, or the well-sourced elaboration of facts in the Rojava article and in other articles, but your dislike is no valid reason to delete related material from the Wikipedia, or rename articles to your personal political liking. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"Northern Syria Campaign" is the most neutral name in my opinion. Be aware that since early 2015, other ethnic groups like Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen are involved too. It was initially a Kurdish campaign, but it's now multi-ethnic.79.246.21.154 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is not about conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 16:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. This page is mainly about the social revolution taking place in Northern Syria. I think we should merge the content here that is about the conflict into Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present), then we could move that page to Northern Syria conflict or something like that, and then move this page to Rojava Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• The term "Northern Syria conflict" can also include the conflict between rebel and government forces in northern Syria, making it overly ambiguous and non-specific. Rojava is still a common name for the region. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Fair enough, so what do you think of Rojava Revolution? Charles Essie (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

This article has a lot of issues with regards to neutrality, especially the "Social revolution" section, which can not be considered to be coming from a factual and neutral point of view. Assistance in improving this article would be appriciated. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Are there any particular claims made in the body of the article that are disputed? The lack of inline citations is a concern, of course. What would be a more neutral way to characterize the political project going on, then? 71.163.107.151 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy rename

The article has been renamed from Rojava conflict to Kurdish campaign in Syria. I believe the new name is against WP:NPOV. I suggest a speedy revert. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a speedy keep. "Rojava" is not a real place and is not recognized as such by any nation, even its official name is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Article is in need of updates

The article is in need of dire updates. The last actual edit of the page in terms of written content with up-to-date material seems to be all the way back in 2017. That is two, nearly three years ago. I've added a Template:Update and will personally try my best to contribute to updating the article, but I'm just one person. It would be great if other editors can contribute to making sure this is up-to-date as well. Sisuvia (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The only reference to 2019 is a situation map, and there's nothing for 2020. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Photos

I think there is too much photos of Kurdish woman in this article. Need to add men to balance it. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Good comment. This is a huge part of the propaganda campaign by certain users with POV here on all related articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. Tradedia^talk 13:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes YPG has 35k members include just 5k YPJ woman. Can someone reduce woman pictures, this is just propaganda. Shadow4dark (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming suggestion

The name here is OR at best and biased at worst. I suggest renaming to SDF campaign in Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I want support but SDF is from 2015 and this started in 2011. Do you know better names? Shadow4dark (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

May be "Kurdish YPG campaign in northern Syria". Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These proposals are just as bad as the current title, as they ignore the dozens of non-YPG and non-SDF groups involved in this conflict. Btw, Rojava conflict is not really OR; "Rojava revolution" gets 198.000 hits on google, including academic sources. Applodion (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Using the name "rojava conflict" means that there was a region by this name, and people are fighting over it, which simply is not true. The name rojava (meaning west in Kurdish) was made up by PYD during the war to depict Kurdish-inhabited regions. Another suggestion would be "northeastern Syria conflict", which is very neutral and correctly describes the area. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

See Rojava. I wouldn't describe either Afrin Region or Hajin as northeast. Konli17 (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Afrin region is no longer part of this. Last time I checked Hajin was part of Deir Ezzor, not known for having Kurds. When the Kurdish administration itself does not go by the rojava name, no entity in the world uses this name, and no map outside PYD/Kurdish sites AND wikipedia uses this name, then we should not be using this name. Here is a map of what you call rojava, made by pro-PYD people. Unless I am missing something, these are the original areas inhabited by Kurds in Syria (still mixed with Arabs for the most part). Similar maps produced by CIA, BBC, The Economist, U of Hawaii and other entities agree with this, more or less. If you want to call any area occupied by Kurdish fighters rojava, then that's military occupation, plain and simple, and Wikipedia is no place to spread this bullshit. I'll be opening this discussion on the main rojava page soon. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

And BTW, Konli17 I see you're back from the block, welcome back and I hope you can engage in a more civilized discussion now. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Picture of Ras al-Ayn

Using the picture of Ras al-Ayn in et his article and referring to it by a Kurdish name, rather than the centuries old Arabic name is a huge credibility problem here. This is of course no surprise give the record of pro-YPG users here. If you want to use a picture showing YPG fighters, then at least use a town that is currently under YPG occupation, there is still a few. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amr. I just wanted to say that the image is supposed to depict a historical event, not the current situation. I did, however, not properly look at the image (I didn't notice the Kurdish name being used, for example). I have now adjusted the image to better reflect its intended purpose - namely, illustrating an event. Thank you for pointing out these issues. Applodion (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You could say "Ras al-Ayn, called _____ by Kurds..." 2605:8D80:4C0:2C9B:A433:6346:13B9:FDBA (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)