2003:77:4f26:a460:607b:3cac:2b16:5d1c (talk) |
2003:77:4f26:a460:607b:3cac:2b16:5d1c (talk) |
||
Line 352: | Line 352: | ||
As far a I can see the user 2A1ZA has just moved material from one article to another. While I dont't know whether this has been sufficiently discussed before, user should 213.74.186.109 have a closer look before calling other users actions vandalism. Such behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 is clearly uncivil. [[Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C|2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C]] ([[User talk:2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C|talk]]) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
As far a I can see the user 2A1ZA has just moved material from one article to another. While I dont't know whether this has been sufficiently discussed before, user should 213.74.186.109 have a closer look before calling other users actions vandalism. Such behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 is clearly uncivil. [[Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C|2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C]] ([[User talk:2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C|talk]]) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
Let me add that for me moving this material from [[Rojava]] to [[Rojava conflict]] completely makes sense and should be done. [[Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C|2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C]] ([[User talk:2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C|talk]]) 15:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:17, 19 December 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions
History between 1941 and 2012?
There is a bit under the economy section. Should that be moved to the history section and if so what should the subheading be?
History section
Please kindly do not remove important historical topics from the article. Some editors have moved the relevant stuff to canton articles, but some others like those related to Raqqa and Aleppo cities do not belong to those cantons. Therefore I have re-inserted those information, especially the ones regarding Janbulads and Millis.Vekoler (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rojava is allegedly a polyethnic entity and so, this article isnt meant to be about the Kurds alone. Those historic info about Kurds belong in the Kurds in Syria article not in the new creation called Rojava.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Article map and legend: Rojava is a civilian, not a military thing
Whatever map is used to illustrate the article (there appears to be not one perfect solution), neither the map nor its legend should seek to present "Rojava" as a militaty terms concept. As the article elaborates in depth, "Rojava" is all its shades of meaning and definition always is a civilian polity and civilian administration concept. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Of course there is a perfect solution (current military map), not what you (and one or two other users) are inventing (maps and names) here and trying to legitimize those names. The maps you are creating and using are of no value and should not be used here. This entity is a result of a military situation, and the territories under control by the different belligerents are changing by the day, if not by the hour. Obviously, the areas claimed by PYD have been expanding everyday, at least under the Turkish intervention, but this is not a reason to put these maps here. The de facto situation is the only thing that counts here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty much every state and other political entity in the world is "result of a military situation", and if you want to elaborate on Syrian Democratic Forces, you should do it on their article (or on the Rojava conflict article, which is about the emergence of the polity we call Rojava today). Both Rojava in its aspect of as a purely factual phenomenon (see first paragraph of introduction), or in its aspect of NSR as a self-declared federation with a constitution (see second paragraph of introduction), is a civilian polity thing, and does not stand out at more or less "result of a military situation" than other political entities in the world, and definitely not to a degree which would justify an outright denial of its character as a civilian polity, which you appear to try implementing on the infobox. Besides, the infobox of an article should reflect the content of the article, and this article is about Rojava as a civilan polity. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Rojava is a civil concept. However, adding a map that unrealistically shows a huge amount of northern Syria as "Rojava", even though they're not under Rojavan control, is simply misleading. Just like the map in the Iraqi Kurdistan page, this map shows the de jure and the de facto situation. Besides, the map you want is imposed on superficial district borders, something that Rojava does not recognize. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a reply to me? Then it is a misunderstanding. The map I prefer as the least flawed solution (and will now revert to) is not the one with the district borders, but your map (which I only find flawed with respect to the fact that its border lines are wrong in one section, directly to the north of DeZ, denying the fact that in there actual control is beyond claim; it opens the map to the criticism that it would not properly reflect the de facto situation). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Editor abcdef, just once again, here is the "official map of Rojava" as used in the NSR representation offices abroad, and here is the frontlines. The one issue with your map is that it simply does not depict either of them accurately, and in some areas even gets them very much wrong. Other than that flaw, I find the idea behind your map great. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
To give an overview over proposed maps to readers who are not familiar with the discussion concerning the infobox map, there are two maps which I would consider generally suitable:
There is one map which looks most professional of all, but has major flaws in substance, as pointed out by Editor abcdef above:
And there is one map which I do not find suitable at all, because it is a "military map" which does not reflect the topic of this article, namely Rojava as a civic polity phenomenon in its diverse aspects (this map might be suitable to illustrate Rojava conflict however):
Please feel invited to comment. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Structure of the introduction
The introduction has by now reached a three-paragraph structure which I find highly appropriate and helpful for the reader. It approaches the topic from three perspectives on "Rojava", all of which are intertwined in the article:
(1) First paragraph is about "Rojava" as a socio-political phenomenon.
(2) Second paragraph is about "Rojava" as a self-declared political entity, the "Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava (NSR)".
(3) Third paragraph is about "Rojava" from an ethno-political perspective.
I would suggest, and recommend, to respect this structure when editing the introduction. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Female role in militias
The picture under the subtitle Militias reads "Female fighters of the YPJ play a significant combat role in Rojava." Really? What percentage of the force is female? Please stop false representation and propaganda for YPG forces. It is not professional and does not fit Wikipedia standards. Just because supposed gender equality is espoused does not mean it is actually implemented in real life, let alone in military forces or militias. -78.171.152.206 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- The number usually given is that 40 percent of the overall YPG fighting force are female YPJ, and casualty ratios from combat on average mirror that. There are many good documentaries, and many good articles, for example this BBC piece. If you are interested in the role women have acquired in and after the "Rojava Revolution", I also definitely recommend this Kongreya Star paper. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Map of the area
The map currently used in this article (Claimed_and_de_facto_territory_of_Rojava.png) is outrageous, fake and unacceptable by any means. It keeps expanding and it oviously annexes large parts where there are no kurds at all, annexes even Aleppo city. This article in its current state is a pure blackwashing and PROPAGANDA for the YPG militias. This is Wikipedia, not a Kurdish nationalist site. I suggest a map that shows Kuridsh inhabited areas instead. If this issue is not rsolved due to two or three extreme Kurdish users, then I would request aribitration on this article and every thing related to it (Human rights aricle, canton articles, etc.). You decide. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The map is there because the PYD administration claims it, that's all. This is what the word de jure means and the map in the article Iraqi Kurdistan shows the same thing. Isn't the separation of colours between de jure and de facto enough?
- The territory of Rojava has nothing to do with Kurdishness. Tel Abyad isn't Kurdish but is still under the firm control of Rojava. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Being occupied by MILITARY FORCE is one thing, and being part of a political entity is a completely separate thing. Does that make sense to you? Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is only one political entity that has control over Rojava and it's called the Syrian Democratic Council, who is the one claiming all of these. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- And the political entity you are talking about enjoys recognition by no (ZERO) country or international organization. The areas in your maps are occupied by military force (as part of the Syrian civil war), and the Kurdish militias will be kicked of from those areas. If you want to write on the map "Areas occupied by PYD forces" then that's OK with me, but to invent a name and depict on the entire northern Syria territory, that OR and inventing facts. Until these maps get international recognition, I will be removing them from this and similar articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Making the "Autonomy" subsection of the "History" section what it should be
There currently in the "History" section is a sub-section headlined "Autonomy", which does not adress the topic it is supposed to address, namely the historic process of gaining de facto autonomy, but mostly is a dump for anything that could not be placed elsewhere. I take the liberty to clean that up. Details:
- Changing the headline to "Gaining de facto autonomy" for clarification
- Deleting the Syrian Civil War 2016 frontline map as well as another historic frontline map. Such (and in concrete these) maps can be found in many related articles anyway, for example Rojava conflict (which is prominently linked on top of the subsection), or articles on militias, where they are appropriate.
- Moving the paragraph about ISIL displacing Kurds in Northern Raqqa Governorate in 2013 to the Kobanî Canton article.
- Deleting the paragraph about clashes with Syrian regime forces in Hasakah and Qamishli, the content of which is amply covered in diverse related articles.
- Deleting the catch-all paragraph about alleged YPG misdeeds, the content of which is amply covered in the Human rights in Rojava article (which is prominently linked on top of the subsection).
- Deleting the sentence on foreign offices of Rojava, which is covered in the respective section of this article further down, and a random sentence about naming of an airport, which is not relevant here.
- The two remaining paragraphs, which actually concern the topic of this subsection, get a slight overhaul in language.
- Adding one new paragraph between them, because the events of 2014 were not covered at all in this section until now.
- Adding an appropriate map, the cantons in early 2014.
Please feel invited to improve. In any case, my recommendation is that this sub-section should stick with its actual topic from now, and within these bounds keep the balance of all events with respect to their importance. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Important discussion about the situation in PKK held areas in Syria
The YPG supporters have been able to portray its entities as legitimate historical regions and Wikipedia has turned into a playground of zealot pro-PKK activists. Hence, it is important to bring some sense back. I kindly ask all interested parties to participate in this discussion here.
Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- While I find the aggressive partisan political activist attitude and language employed in this post unsuitable for the Wikipedia, I would also point editors interested in the topic to the talk page of the "Human rights in Rojava" article, where input is welcome. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Turkey's "this is all PKK" meme
Dear editors 85.109.220.31 (talk) and 213.74.186.109 (talk), the "Kurdish question" subsection documents the all open and obvious PYD's shared political ideology and joint membership in the KCK with the PKK, the "Politics" section does in depth elaborate on the political ideology, and the "Foreign relations" subsection of the article does explicitly document the fact that Turkey thinks and says "this is all PKK". There is definitely no need to say the same thing with ever more words. If you think that the opinion of second-tier international organisations, or U.S. politicians trying to be polite towards Turkey, or else, on all this should be more elaborated, please use the Democratic Union Party (PYD) article, or the Foreign relations of Rojava article, whatever you think appropriate, but in this article here it does not really fit topic, and definitely would destroy balance to give this "PKK connection" aspect even more weight. On a separate note, if you edit on this in other articles, I would strongly recommend that you go for sources with some distance to the topic, sourcing claims about Rojava or PYD with Daily Sabah or the like is not convincing. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear editor 2A1ZA (talk), you talk too much and most of your rhetoric is inconsistent blabber. All points of view should be included. The sources provided have everything to do with the subject because Turkey is directly involved in the fight. I personally do not take the opinions of Senator McCain to be of any value as he is a conservative Republican and we all know what Republicans think when it comes to war. Stop vandalising please. -85.109.220.31 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- "A PYD spokesman told Reuters their aim was to declare a federal region in northern Syria." -> Redundant, the entire article says that. Not sutable for "foreign relations" section anyway. www.bitaf.org inacceptable as source anyway.
- "This is seen as changing the current borders and causing further instability in an already hectic region." Nobody sees it that way. Not sutable for "foreign relations" section anyway. No source.
- "The US, NATO, and Israel have also been accused of supprting ISIL." Yeah, by every lunatic around. Irrelevant here anyway. www.globalresearch.ca inacceptable as source anyway.
- "PYD and YPG groups have often called on Westerners to join them in attacks against Turkey." Bullshit (and please spare me the freak individuals who made private youtube videos). www.dailysabah.com inacceptable as source anyway.
- "The PYD was designated as a terrorist group at the Meeting of Council of Foreign Ministers of the 13th Islamic Summit of the OIC|Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on 12 April 2016 at Istanbul, Turkey. (...)" Lack of significance of this second-tier organisation for the brief summary in this article, might fit in the Foreign relations of Rojava article.
- "Defense Secretary Ashton Carter admitted to links between the PYD, the YPG, and the PKK. (...) Secretary Carter replied, 'Yes' to a US Senate panel when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked whether he believed the Syrian Kurds are aligned or at least have substantial ties to the PKK." Hell, the whole world does. Nobody denies it. This article elaborates about it in depth. How is that significant?
- Thank you for your attention. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, do not get me wrong: I do not think that this passage of the article currently is particularily brillant. It is the product of much "fighting" in the past, which I myself at some point went away from and just took note of the result. I would very much appreciate it if that section could be turned into an elegantly formulated thing which does justice to every view. I would very much appreciate a discussion on the talk page to that effect. I would very much appreciate you to engage in it in good faith. Edit-warring does not do good. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- It seems anything 2A1ZA (talk) does not agree with or does not like constitutes a bad sourced data unworthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia. Yet everything he/she supports is worthy of inclusion. Hmmm, hardly impartial or NPOV. Let experienced admins decide then. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Overhauling the "International relations" subsection
The only subsection of this article which I clearly found not meeting the good standard of this article is the "International relations" subsection. After discontent from some quarter led to some edit fights over the past days, I now took it on me to overhaul that emotionally charged section. The general line of this overhaul was to delete details, all kind of, but in particular those which are emotionally charged without providing actual insight. This presentation now is lead by the the desire to let the reader understand Rojava's foreign relations, not trying to sell narratives. Most sources/references were retained, additional references copied from the main article Foreign relations of Rojava.
Please feel invited to improve, however while doing so please consider that turning the section into another fight of competing narratives will only result in the deterioration we have seen before. Who "designates" whom as what and who whom as what not is not so much relevant for the presentation here (all the internal links given offer hours of everything of that kind for the interested reader). It is part of the competing narrative sale stuff which I strongly encourage to avoid here. If you absolutely feel competing foreign policy narratives must be presented under the headline of Rojava, make a section for it in the Foreign relations of Rojava article, I would recommend. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Dear 213.74.186.109 (et al), your attempt to enforce this highly problematic edit does not work that way. What you are doing here at the very least borders vandalism. Please engage in a discussion here instead of edit-warring. Just the main points:
- Structure: Your edit deletes the entite first paragraph of the section, which contains important information, without any discernable reason and with no explanation given. As such, your edit gravely corrupts the section by removing the existing paragraph on Rojava military cooperation with the "International Coalition", a major and probably the most important aspect of international relations of Rojava, and creates a section where two of three paragraphs are focused solely on Turkey.
- Your edit inserts much content and sources which is plain inacceptable, see section here above with details. If you are interested in going through these points in a substantial discussion, please reply to what I wrote above in substance.
- With respect to the overhaul, you re-insert all of these fighting narratives stuff like who "designates" whom as what and who whom as what not. If you think, other than me, that this is a good idea, please explain.
- If you want to continue this in the article, please consider at least inserting additional stuff at the end of the section instead of deleting the existing first paragraph for it. Cheers, -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Overhauling ?? you mean like when you overhauled the section of YPG atrocities with endless statements by every activist you could find just to tone down the severity of the crimes ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What is a "de facto autonomous region"?
Isn't "autonomous region" a de jure status bestowed by a national government? "de facto autonomous region" seems almost a contradiction in terms. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article does not follow any logic or internationally recognized practices about political units. It mainly follow the wishes and dreams a one political activist trying to create a state on Wikipedia. So dont bother a lot cause you will have a headache.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Removing info referenced by ARA News
Hello, ARA News is not a reliable news source. I suggest everything that is referenced to it be removed. Awaiting some suggestions from impartial users before I make a move. Thank you. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- ARA News is the most reputable and reliable source of all from the region. I have no idea how you get to think otherwise, and I strongly object to the idea that "everything that is referenced to it be removed". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh wow ! in the whole region !! really ?!!!!! seriously ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (yes, we know that you are infatuated with anything Kurdish or use the word Kurdistan, but this doesnt mean that its a universal school of thinking)
- Ara identify itself as: "ARA News is an independent press agency reporting on local developments across Rojava, Kurdistan Region, Syria, Iraq and Turkey". So, they already separated the Syrian north from Syria and named it Kurdistan.
- It is partisan, un notable and no self respected world agency use it as a source. The IP said impartial users (note, this exclude you). And as for the sentence "I have no idea how you get to think otherwise", please excuse him for thinking in a manner different than your very so hugely "NPOV" way.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those guys are vowing to ban Daily Sabah from Wikipedia, because it's "not reliable", while they're using PKK media's like: ARA, ANF, Hawar on Wikipedia. Funny. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, thats because they are the incarnation of NPOV in this world. How lucky we are that reddit activists are here to guide Wikipedia and offer their very very true and righteous view to the readers so that everyone can see the light of the PKK.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's funny how Kurdish users, such as Ferakp deleted everything which is against the PKK or YPG. For example, he delete everything without any source about the forced displacements of Turkmens and Arabs from the region, or the designation of YPG as an terror organization in Turkey. Also, living in a country which accepts PKK as an "terrorist organization" while you're writing PKK as "guerillas" on the Wikipedia pages. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend someone deal with or report this user. He thinks he is king when he is obviously just a menace to the community. -78.171.182.10 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's funny how Kurdish users, such as Ferakp deleted everything which is against the PKK or YPG. For example, he delete everything without any source about the forced displacements of Turkmens and Arabs from the region, or the designation of YPG as an terror organization in Turkey. Also, living in a country which accepts PKK as an "terrorist organization" while you're writing PKK as "guerillas" on the Wikipedia pages. Beshogur (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, thats because they are the incarnation of NPOV in this world. How lucky we are that reddit activists are here to guide Wikipedia and offer their very very true and righteous view to the readers so that everyone can see the light of the PKK.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Those guys are vowing to ban Daily Sabah from Wikipedia, because it's "not reliable", while they're using PKK media's like: ARA, ANF, Hawar on Wikipedia. Funny. Beshogur (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Beshogur Everything is fine as long as you follow WP:RULES. For the forced displacement, you need a reliable sources and use the neutral language. Turkey's view towards YPG was already mentioned in the article but you keep adding duplicates every corner and that's a big problem which I've tried to explain to you. Wikipedia is a neutral place, so whether your or my country see the PKK as a terrorist organization, it doesn't really help you write negative statements portraying them as blatant terrorists. Ferakp (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree, the PKK, YPG, DAESH and any other group that uses illegitimate means of fighting for its cause using terror tactics through its militia are designated as TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS. Simple. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Beshogur Everything is fine as long as you follow WP:RULES. For the forced displacement, you need a reliable sources and use the neutral language. Turkey's view towards YPG was already mentioned in the article but you keep adding duplicates every corner and that's a big problem which I've tried to explain to you. Wikipedia is a neutral place, so whether your or my country see the PKK as a terrorist organization, it doesn't really help you write negative statements portraying them as blatant terrorists. Ferakp (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
— 213.74.186.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- —Dude, the other guy (the famous NPOV editor) is also a single purpose account.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Daily Sabah is concipated as a professional partisan voice of the Turkish AKP party-led government, just like ANHA/Hawarnews is a professional partisan voice of the Rojava PYD party-led administration, SANA of the Syrian Baath party-led government, Rudaw of the Iraqi Kurdistan KDP party-led government, or same thing ANF/Firat for the PKK. All such source should be used with great care, at best only to explicitly state positions of and information from their respective patrons. And the more valuable are professional sources like Hurriyet Daily News or ARA News which are concipated independent. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- With their statement "ARA News is an independent press agency reporting on local developments across Rojava, Kurdistan Region, Syria, Iraq and Turkey," they obviously have NOT "separated the Syrian north from Syria and named it Kurdistan", but rather use "Kurdistan region" (as well as "Rojava") for a socio-cultural region, as opposed to the three states mentioned. And there is nothing particularily "partisan" about that ARA News statement. And if you would read theit actual contents, you would not make such an absurd claim. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Absurdity is your thing (when you claim that you are NPOV). They obviously seperated the Syrian north and stop using fancy words !! 40 millions Kurd use Kurdistan as a national ethnic concept and here you are, as always, being philosophical, and saying a socio cultural region (that doesnt even have a Kurdish majority if you compare the numbers of Kurds in syria with the general statistics about the population of each northern Syrian province).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Just like Hurriyet Daily News reflects a general "Turkish perspective", ARA News reflects a general "Kurdish perspective". Of course one has to keep that in mind when using the sources, but this does not make either of them illegitimate as a Wikipedia source. Without being too philosophical, it is pretty safe to say that every media outlet is a reflection of a particular "national" perspective, the most cherished English language publications included. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Absurdity is your thing (when you claim that you are NPOV). They obviously seperated the Syrian north and stop using fancy words !! 40 millions Kurd use Kurdistan as a national ethnic concept and here you are, as always, being philosophical, and saying a socio cultural region (that doesnt even have a Kurdish majority if you compare the numbers of Kurds in syria with the general statistics about the population of each northern Syrian province).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- With their statement "ARA News is an independent press agency reporting on local developments across Rojava, Kurdistan Region, Syria, Iraq and Turkey," they obviously have NOT "separated the Syrian north from Syria and named it Kurdistan", but rather use "Kurdistan region" (as well as "Rojava") for a socio-cultural region, as opposed to the three states mentioned. And there is nothing particularily "partisan" about that ARA News statement. And if you would read theit actual contents, you would not make such an absurd claim. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The earlier statement 'And the more valuable are professional sources like Hurriyet Daily News or ARA News which are concipated independent.' CONTRADICTS the above statement 'Just like Hurriyet Daily News reflects a general "Turkish perspective", ARA News reflects a general "Kurdish perspective".' In any event, please do not compare a legitimate government's newspaper with a terror network's propaganda outlet. Thanks. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hurriyet Daily News is not "a government's newspaper", and neither is ARA News or The Guardian or Le Monde or Der Spiegel or The Times of Israel or whatever (while all of them still being a reflection of a particular "national" perspective). You might wish to familiarize yourself with the concept of independent media. However, my impression is that what you consider "illegitimate" is simply a specific Kurdish perspective on things as such. I wish this use of "Kurdish" as a pejorative with delegitimizing intent by some editors would end, it does not suit the Wikipedia. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
How about ANHA and Kurdistan24? Should they be kept as references in the article? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- ANHA is definitely pro-PYD, but Kurdistan24 is entirely neutral. It covers all sorts of groups, from the PKK to the KDP. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- ANHA/Hawarnews can only be used as reference for information/views attributed to the governing coalition in Rojava (PYD, TEV-DEM), in my opinion. Kurdistan24 is a fair independent media source, just like ARA News. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I ragards to reliabilty, ARA News is comparable to SOHR, in that it has a bias, but still reports mostly neutral about events; for example, ARA News has several times reported about the unlawful arrests of KNC politicans and critized the PYD, proving that it is not a state/propganda outlet (like for example ANHA, which should be only used in the way 2A1ZA described). Applodion (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The majority still agrees ARA News and ANHA are problematic while Kurdistan24 is alright. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is a funny discussion. I do not like Kurdistan24 so much, because its editorial line is a bit too conservative and Kurdish-nationalistic for my taste, and I prefer the more liberal, center-left editorial line of ARA news. But serious professional independent media, fine for Wikipedia, are both. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Why are ethnic cleansing reports (ARA News as well), being repeatedly deleted?
It takes about 1 day for 2A1ZA to delete anything that is variously referenced but negative. Placed them right in the center of the page again. Berkaysnklf (talk), 2 November 2016, 19:12 (UTC)
- Yes, if its not supporting the YPG,PKK.. whatever then its a POV pushing and against his famous strict policy of NPOV. You can report this behavior.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Berkaysnklf, you mean this? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protection for the article
Due to the high level of IP vandalism on the "International relations" section, I have now requested semi-protection for the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- What's the matter? No tolerance for events and facts that do not fit your agenda? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear IP, you are not obligated to make an account but it wont hurt. Anyway, please go to the report page and express your opinion. Do not allow him to have the only voice.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- 2A1ZA, interesting. As soon as somebody tries to correct your the fake information you post you run to request protection. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear IP, you are not obligated to make an account but it wont hurt. Anyway, please go to the report page and express your opinion. Do not allow him to have the only voice.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Sub-section "Human rights and ethnic cleansing", flags for "unbalanced" and "clarification"
User:Berkaysnklf recently added a sub-section "Human rights and ethnic cleansing" to the article. Some issues concerning the section:
(1) There exists no report of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or any other reputable source concerning anything Rojava that contains the term "ethnic cleansing". The section definitely needs a different title.
(2) The first paragraph copies a sequence of sentences from the Human rights in Rojava article. That article puts the stuff in context. If the topic should be covered in this article here as well, I would strongly recommend to rather make a good faith summary of the entire section, rather than copying an arbitrary sequence of sentences. I will not do so myself for now, because I speculate Berkaysnklf might want to do so himself, and just placed an unbalanced flag with the section.
(3) The second paragraph also copies a sequence of sentences from that main article, but has a separate issue as well. It concerns the "expropriation law", which to my knowlewdge exists in all Rojava cantons. It is basically a socialist ideology thing, following a principle of "ownership by use" (see also economics section of this article), establishing that an owner of real estate loses his title if he does not personally make use of the property. This definitely is a controversial thing with human rights consequences in several directions. The particular concern of Assyrians is that their ethnic group has a strong tradition of real estate ownership as well as a high number of outbound Syrian Civil War refugees, who risk losing property titles. The important topic should be elaborated concerning its facts, not only consist of "accusations" and buzzwords. I will not do so myself for now, because I speculate Berkaysnklf might want to do so himself, and just placed a clarification flag with the paragraph. See also the same discussion in the Human rights in Rojava article.
Cheers, -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The 2nd paragraph is fine as it is. Accusations should be included, if they're coming from reliable sources.79.246.20.245 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with 79.246.20.245. Applodion (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you might misunderstand my point concerning this Assyrian topic (2nd para). I do not suggest to delete the reported accusations, I suggest to expand the topic by elaborating what the issue is about in substance. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
As nobody else appears interested, I now make the section a fair summary of the main article Human rights in Rojava, using as much internal linking as possible. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
No, no. Sub-section should say as 3 others also suggested. I will take care of it further more when I have free time from my exams. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10 November 2016, 14:20 (UTC)
Gosh, looking at how you made a summary, I'm shocked. Good job mentioning "contested accusations" without even mentioning Amnesty's cleansing reports. I'm putting the reports back in the page same as they are. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10 November 2016, 14:24 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "Amnesty's cleansing reports", there exists no report of Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or any other reputable source concerning anything Rojava that contains the term "ethnic cleansing". If you disagree with the text of the section, please auggest another reasonable balanced NPOV formulation, but stop edit-warring reverting to inacceptable propaganda blackwashing with invented buzzwords. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Kurds as the majority population issue
There appears to be no source confirming the claim that the Kurds are the majority ethnic group in Rojava.
"Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava. During the Syrian civil war, many Kurds who had lived elsewhere in Syria fled back to their traditional lands in Rojava."
I have found no reference for this claim, and previously when the demographic breakdown of Rojava, it was removed from the article and replaced with a "generalized" version. Could someone please correct this? Vivaporius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a source, one which is definitely not "pro-Kurdish" or "pro-Rojava" in any sense. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll add this information to the page as soon as possible. Vivaporius (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem with those "sources" is that they are never true. Syria do not include ethnic background in its statistics. No one knows the real percentages and no one conducted any field work. If you will use sources then at least use data from agencies like the CIA, instead of the kinds of Mehrdad Izady or other wild estimates.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll add this information to the page as soon as possible. Vivaporius (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then the Kurds should not be stated as being the majority in the region when most accounts agree that Arabs, Assyrians, and Turkmen are the majority. We have one source that agrees with the one that originally provided a list of the ethnic groups in the region. The first was written off as "propaganda", and the second is being written off as a "general statement". If what Attar-Aram says is true, then we don't have any proof that the Kurds are the majority in the region aside from what can only be chalked up as hearsay. Vivaporius (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Any claims by any ethnicity about a majority in the Jazira are total propaganda. No one have any data and the CIA maps show the Kurdish inhabited areas but doesnt mean they are a majority. The same can be said about other ethnicities. It is known that ethnicity is not part of any population statistics conducted by Syria and the government do not allow any none official party to collect such data. There should not be any indication to a majority in this article, not even general statements cause they are utterly wild guessings and a POV tool--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fully agree with you that such speculation in the article would not make any sense. There are no reliable data even for the time before the civil war, and if there were, they would be obsolete now. And still more important in my opinion, the definition of "Arab" (panethnicity, defined by mother tongue) on the one hand and "Kurd" or "Turkmen" on the other hand are nor even exclusive, a person can fulfill both definitions (and a huge number of people in Rojava do, e.g. my educated guess is that in Shahba region with its extreme Arabization efforts over the last three generations, the majority of population is "multi-ethnic" in this sense, "Arab" plus "Kurd" or "Turkmen" at the same time). And that is one of the many problems of those ethnic-map-makers as well. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Vivaporius, the article as it currently is does not make a claim that Kurds were an overall majority in Rojava, and neither does it claim that they were not (contrary to what you say, all sources I know suggest that they most probably are such majority, and clearly so if current lines of control are used to define what is Rojava, thus much of Shahba region excluded). The only quantitative speculation that the article necessarily does is implicit in ranking the list, and the fact that Kurds are more numerous than any other single ethnic group, i.e. a plurality, appears beyond doubt in my view. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a hot topic that readers will be interested in, and one that shouldn't be avoided. Might I suggest a middle-of-the-road approach, as per WP:IMPARTIAL - do not dodge the question of Kurdish majority, but summarise both perspectives with their criticisms, noting also the contentiousness of the subject, and that good figures are not available. Batternut (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's better than nothing. Given the recent developments in the region, having this information out there helps to provide a much clear picture of Rojava's state of being, rather than painting what appears to be a clearly biased/rosy picture of the reality on the ground. I'm not one for hyperbolicism, but the information as it stands does not present a realistic or honest image of the region. That's my only concern. Vivaporius (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Attar-Aram syria here that the article should NOT make any speculation on overall majority of ethnicities in Rojava. And dear Vivaporius, the article currently does not do that, neither explicit nor implicit. The sentence "Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava" (which factually is most obviously true, and I added a reference to the article after you voiced doubt here) does not do that, nor do the other sentences on other ethnicities that they form a majority/plurality in conrete regions. With me, we could replace the words "majority" and "plurality" in the entire section (concerning ALL ethnicities equally!) with "strong presence". I disagree with Batternut on the matter, I see zero value in starting a fight of competing narratives on the matter, which were all pure and naked speculation without any use. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- First off, it doesn't say the Kurds are the majority, because according to the history of the article, you removed that statement. Second, the source itself does not providing any data regarding the demographics of the region, only saying off-hand that the Kurds no longer the majority as in the past; a statement that was not mention in the article here. The issue I have is that sources that were listed were written off as propaganda, not because it listed information that gave numbers for the demographics of Rojava, but because it stated that the YPG was a terrorist organization. Mind you, that alone is not a reason to discount data. It was discounted for what I can only assume were political reasons by some working on this article. If there was clear proof that the data was deliberately altered, then I would understand the claim that it was propaganda. However, no such evidence was presented, and it was only because the YPG was stated to be a terrorist organization that the source itself was written off. The Syrian government may not look at religious or ethnic demographics, but there are plenty of NGOs that do frequently do. We don't need the government's information on the Kurdish or Arab population to know who makes up what percentage of the population. Vivaporius (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I made no such claim regarding Syria. I simply used NGOs as an example of non-governmental organizations providing census data the government itself will not. You have yet to explain how the source giving some percentage as to the ethnic makeup of Rojava was propaganda. It all comes back down to the same issue I have raised over and over again; what proof do you have that the source giving the demographics for Rojava was indeed propaganda? Therefore I ask you, do you have a link>? Vivaporius (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not make any claim concerning the overall ethnic composition of Rojava (how ever defined for the purpose), and I do not think such a claim can seriously be made, for the reasons given in this discussion here (I linked this one paper above just to support the most general statement that "Kurds form the majority or plurality in much of Rojava", which currently is in the article). What is that "source giving the demographics for Rojava" you are talking about? I understand you say that I would have deleted it from the article, but if I did such it must have been long ago, I do not recall that. Can you link it here? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- The issue with the paper you cited is that it makes a general statement, but provides no numbers of data to back it up, which was my main issue with it. As to the link for the source I was talking about, this is it. It was published by the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat based out of London. It was said by one user that it was "propaganda", but no evidence for this claim was ever produced. The source gives a detailed breakdown of the ethnic demographics of each canton in Rojava. It should be noted that the source itself was used to prove that the Kurds, not the Arabs, were a majority in Rojava initially. When I actually did the math using the source cited for the Kurds population, it showed plainly that the Arabs were the majority and the Kurds a minority.
- The source stated that of the 4.6 million inhabitants in Rojava, 30% (about 1.4 million) were Kurdish. This would realistically match up with the known population of Kurds in Syria, which is about two million, citing sources such as the CIA (as requested by Attar-Aram) and Minority Rights Group International. The majority of the Kurds are known to live in Rojava, but there is a large portion located throughout Syria, mainly around Aleppo and Damascus; of which a population 600,000 Kurds spread throughout the rest of the nation would be more than reasonable. So unless another million or so Kurds materialized out of thin air, the Kurds realistically cannot be the majority in Rojava based on what we know of the current demographics in Syria. The source cited provides a completely reasonable assessment of the demographic state of Rojava. Vivaporius (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hard for me to read through that article you linked, using Google translate, and the political pathos and absence of transparent methodology I find is not convincing to me. In comparison, the Fabrice Balanche papers with "The Washington Institute" think tank, this (which I linked above, at the beginning of this section) as well as this (with some in depth demographics) appear much more scientifically sound to me, but even they do not reach the point where I think they should be included into the article. While Balanche at least is very transparent about how he defines "Rojava" for every different consideration, just like with any source the issue is how to define "Kurd" (there are perfectly sound claims that "Kurds" would make up anything from 5 percent to 25 percent of Syria's population, just depending on how you define the term). In the first paper, the one I linked initially, he at one point explicitly says that the answer to the "majority question" for a larger Rojava very much depends on to what degree Arabized people with Kurdish heritage choose and will choose to self-identify as "Kurd". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
One remark: The canton articles on Afrin Canton, Jazira Canton and Kobanî Canton do have somewhat more information on quantification of ethnicities. It makes some sense there in my opinion, because due to the smaller, clearer areas one can somewhat more make substantive statements. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Issues with the last paragraph of the article
Dear 213.74.186.109, there are template-flagged issues persisting with the last paragrph of the article (elaboration of Turkish views) which you inserted. I point to the three gravest:
- "The PYD was designated as a terrorist organisation at the Meeting of Council of Foreign Ministers of the 13th Islamic Summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on 12 April 2016 at Istanbul, Turkey."
- This sentence does not have a reference/source which backs up the claim. There only is a speech of a Turkish official at the conference, where he calls the PYD "terrorist". I do not know if the OIC has a procedure to "designate as a terrorist organisation" at all, and if so, if such procedure was applied with respect to the PYD, but I know that if no proper reference/source can be provided for it, the sentence must be deleted.
- The sentence stands since the event ocurred. We are discussing POV here. We are discussing whether such a claim was made and it was made.
- "PYD and YPG groups have often called on Westerners to join them in attacks against Turkey"
- The only source reference/source is an article in the Erdogan government mouthpiece Daily Sabah, and even this article only says: "A YouTube video has appeared of an English-speaking man, believed to be a fighter from the Democratic Union Party's (PYD) armed wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG) (...) making a call for Westerners to join the ranks of the armed group and conduct terrorist attacks against the Turkish state." If no proper reference/source can be provided for the sentence in the article, the sentence must be deleted.
- The source clearly supports the sentence as the PYD and its armed militia YPG have been known to recruit fighters from Europe and elsewhere. There is more evidence on the internet which I just might search for and add for your convenience. The sentence is alright as it stands.
- After correctly mentioning the Rojava federation project: "This is seen as changing the current borders"
- This sentence fails in every respect. It does not make explicit who allegedly has that view, and it does nor provide a reference/source. Unless such clarification and reference/source is provided, the sentence must be deleted.
- This sentence is valid in every respect. It reflects the issue believed by all the surrounding nations and countries in the area. Please be my guest and look for sources on the internet for yourself instead of only portraying a Pro-PYD/YPG stance.
Please address these issues in good faith. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA (talk), the template-flagged sentences are not a persistent issue since they were added by yourself and they do not represent a problem to the rest of the community of users. However, your persistence on denying that ARA News and ANHA are biased is a problem. This issue was discussed earlier. Yet you unfortunately insist on changing the subject and attacking the Daily Sabah as unreliable when it is much more reliable and professional in its journalism than any of the supposed professional media outlets you hold so dearly. Your smearing campaign is obvious and ill intentioned. Please do not pretend to be debating to correct an issue and just be honest as many other users have called on for you before. You may find my answers to your negative criticism below. Thank you.
- *Duplicate text deleted*
Note: stop edit warring please. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Re Duplicate text deleted - @213.74.186.109 you just copied and pasted 2A1ZA's comments. What is your actual criticism?
- FYI the place to discuss whether ARA News, ANHA or any other source is reliable is WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Batternut (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Of course these sentences were NOT inserted into the article by me. However, as a result of our discussion here, I now took the liberty to make the corrections which get the sentences in tune with their references/sources, so that everybody can be fine. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Everything will be fine when everyone gets to add to Wikipedia without having to deal with a user who removes other's contributions. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- 2A1ZA was right to remove these parts, because:
- 1. The claim, that the PYD was designated as terrorist by the OIC is NOT backed by the source.
- 2. Daily Sabah is pro-Erdogan and because of that unreliable. (Most Turkish media isn't reliable anymore at this point!)
- 3. No Source provided for that statement.
- Of course everyone should be able to contribute to Wikipedia, but adding unsourced content or twisting the content of the source into something else and then complaining it gets removed isn't the best attitude to show here. Editors might suspect you for acting in bad faith.79.246.29.7 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- If Turkish media isnt reliable, then no Kurdish media can be used as well. You think being pro-Erdogan is worse than being pro-PYD !! At least he is elected, not a rebel who took up arms and started to illegally force its rule over an internationally recognized region of Syria.
- The most outrageous twisting is being done by the enthusiastic activists who are pro the terrorist PKK group (and its arms, the YPD, YPG...etc). And no, its not propaganda that they are a PKK. When they occupy Menagh Military Airbase and start calling it Ocelan airport, they leave you no chance to doubt their affiliation.
- As for the OIC, a source can be provided.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect 79.246.29.7 (talk) is affiliated with 2A1ZA (talk) since the language and good faith/bad faith rhetoric is identical. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Whenever he is not winning an argument or not getting his edits approved, new accounts and IPs who know exactly how to edit and what page they need to come to will show up. You will get used to it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect 79.246.29.7 (talk) is affiliated with 2A1ZA (talk) since the language and good faith/bad faith rhetoric is identical. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Everything will be fine when everyone gets to add to Wikipedia without having to deal with a user who removes other's contributions. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The IP address is located in Hamburg, where 2A1ZA is in, so yes he is. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, we wish the same thing. But you appear to be highly motivated by your POV and keep disrupting other users' contributions. Although, I have to give it to you, you have been more moderate in your actions lately. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I will from now on try to stay away from any disputes involving 2A1ZA, because it's completely pointless to get to a conclusion. Every single time, both sides are heavily biased and unwilling to back down. i'm also not affiliated with 2A1ZA, just because we're both from Germany. I take his side for once, just because he's right this time and i already get accused of being affiliated with him.
- At least 2A1ZA is trying to be civil at all times, unlike his "opponents" who get emotional way to much and are sometimes not even trying to hide their bias. Yes i'm talking about this "PKK = YPG = Terrorist" meme... 79.246.3.127 (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, we wish the same thing. But you appear to be highly motivated by your POV and keep disrupting other users' contributions. Although, I have to give it to you, you have been more moderate in your actions lately. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Balance discussion in "Human rights in Rojava"
Dear editors interested in the topic, there is a ongoing discussion on balance and deletion of content in the Human rights in Rojava article. It would be appreciated if some of you would be willing to contribute to solving issues, concerning deletions of material in the article as well as not least in the talk page discussion. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
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) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Unbalanced article
This article is becoming more and more unbalanced with clearly PYD supporting users, against all other Kurdish factions in the region:
"Like the KCK umbrella in general, and even more so, the PYD is critical of any form of nationalism,[168] including Kurdish nationalism. They stand in stark contrast to Kurdish nationalist visions of the Iraqi Kurdish KDP sponsored Kurdish National Council in Syria."
I will not even get into the biased ARA News and what not. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- ARA News isn't pro-PYD at all. It is biased but it's biased towards Kurdish groups in general, not the PYD specifically. ARA News regularly post articles about KNC members been arrested and some criticism of the PYD as well. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Pronunciation
I changed the pronunciation from "IPA: [roʒɑːˈvɑ]" to "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ] or IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]". Stressing the last syllable seems wrong. I kept a variant with long "a": IPA: [roʒɑːvɑ]. However, people who should know how to pronounce it (like Janet Biehl) pronounce it more like IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]. I think we should only keep "IPA: [roʒɑvɑ]". What's your opinion? 2003:77:4F55:4B12:6D9F:A7E2:762C:565F (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Some English speaking journalists have got used to pronouncing "IPA: [ro.ˈʒɑ.vɑ]", so you are free to consider that this is the correct English pronunciation. In Kurdish however, unmodified adjectives, nouns and names are stressed on the last syllable. Though it is not striking in a recording of the isolated word, this is the case for Rojava. You may hear this on recording of rojava and başûrê rojava. CathFR (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. So it should be like IPA: [roʒɑˈvɑ] with a stress on the last syllable and a short syllable in the middle? I think we should have the original Kurdish version in the article (in any case it will be modified in this or that direction by people speaking other languages). 2003:77:4F30:3565:7C71:7D74:3E15:E175 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Vandalising the article
Hello, has anyone noticed 2A1ZA just vandalised a huge chunk of the article?? Does anybody care? -213.74.186.109 (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, he took advantage of the page protection to do what he wants. The worst kind of internet warriors. I will revert him but I hate dealing with him, discussing with him, or worst of all, edit war him and boy he loves to fight (I think he lives for it). So please IP, create an account so you will be able to put him at his place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
As far a I can see the user 2A1ZA has just moved material from one article to another. While I dont't know whether this has been sufficiently discussed before, user should 213.74.186.109 have a closer look before calling other users actions vandalism. Such behaviour of user 213.74.186.109 is clearly uncivil. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that for me moving this material from Rojava to Rojava conflict completely makes sense and should be done. 2003:77:4F26:A460:607B:3CAC:2B16:5D1C (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)