Jump to content

Talk:Rojava–Islamist conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death Toll

[edit]

Added a death toll table, because of the numbers in the sidebar are usually, when it comes to the kurds, outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.183.36 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Death toll table include past clashes between kurds and islamists like http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn ?

I'd also update the death toll with new 450 civil victims [1] [2]. (User Archinovista) 8 August 2013

Islamists and 'rebels'

[edit]

In the death toll listing the casualties for 'rebel' groups fighting on the Islamist side of the conflict are omitted. I believe that this is highly inconsistent and therefore I shall be adding 'rebel' casualties to the Islamist death toll list whenever these are omitted.

77.172.61.192 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article specifically about Islamists only, not Syrian rebels in general? FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because specifically only islamists fight there. Sources even go further and say jihadists or sometimes only AQ. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time answered my question, there are no non-Islamist rebels anymore, if there ever were. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assad/Islamists might just be two sides of the same fascist authoritarian coin , - he let them out of prison in 2011 , -[3] The Syrian regime is nominally secular. But it has a long history of tacit cooperation with militant Islamist groups - der Spiegel mentioned this release in 2011 as significant alsoSayerslle (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, so you're eating into this hogwash conspiracy theory that was created when people realised the FSA was doomed. I'll only ask this: Why did the FSA welcome the Islamists, until the very end? Why did they say they are "one" and "brothers" with them? Why did the condemn when Nusra was declared a terrorist organisation? Why did they never attack them, even when they were repeatedly attacked by them? The Islamists have killed far more Syrian soldiers than the FSA ever did, so how exactly does this theory make any sense? Yes, criminals are sometimes released, and these criminals sometimes commit more crimes. On the other hand, the Syrian army has welcomed hundreds of FSA members who defected back to them. What does this mean? Please spare us these pathetic theories. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not my theories, its just what happened in the spring of 2011 - der Spiegel also had this article -[4] - lifes not always black and white you know, its often grey - politics is a cynical business , that's a fact. Sayerslle (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you one of those people who think Assad blew up his own bases early on, as well as his own generals and brother in law, like the western media kept parroting from opposition propagandists? FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
are you one of those twitter pro-house-of-Assad parrots who think like this -- 'ⓉⒽⓄⓂⒶⓈ ⓃⓄⓋⓄⓉⓃⓎ ‏@ThomasNovotny 37m

@Brown_Moses Unlike you - I actually care about #Syria. I don't like to see it destroyed because of YouTube and pseudo experts @stianuhlmann' - - 'destroyed because of YouTube' !- what an utter moron. Sayerslle (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most random Americans cheerleading for the FSA here, I neither care about nor get any of my news form Twitter. Another question: If the Salafist groups are created/controlled by Assad, why do they get support from the Saudis, Turkey and Qatar? Can this conspiracy get any bigger? Where's Illuminati in all this? But be my guest and spread the rumour all over Wikipedia, it will do nothing than further inter-rebel distrust. Ironically, ISIL supporters accuse the Islamists who fight against them to be akin to the pro-US Sunni "Awakening" movement of Iraq. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the map, please

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to ask someone who knows how if they could expand the map so that it includes the areas to the west which are the front line now. thanks. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay, but i tried to extend the map and it couldn't pull it of. Instead i made a map for the situation in Kobane instead. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siege_of_Kobane.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.176.12 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it another try. The map at the bottom is an expanded map with a better background...

Ongoing conflict?

[edit]

SOHR hasn't reported any Kurdish deaths or any fighting in the Kurdish areas since ISIL was expelled from AQ. Can anyone confirm whether this conflict is ongoing or not?

SOHR also reported on 2/8/14 that both Nusrah and Ahrar al Sham have been attacked by ISIL in Hasakah province, and Ahrar in particular announced that they're abandoning the united front there.

Hystanes (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is nice. The conflict is ongoing. Still fighting in Sousik for example. Mabroukah front is very hot lately and no party has announced end of hostilities. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YPG and MFS take over of Tel Brak

[edit]

There are alot of tweets and pictures that Tel Brak has been taken over by YPG and MFS (Syriac Military Council) and they are headed to Tel Hamis Malik Danno (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Facebook page

[edit]

Raised this at WP:RSN#Syrian Observatory for Human Rights being used as an RS for Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013-present) Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we cannot use FB directly, we need second hand sources. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder - there is a 1RR restriction on this article

[edit]

Please read the note on sanctions at the top of this page. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit claiming US support for IS

[edit]

The last edit by the user named Predator2014 is not supported by the reference; just because the US supported some Syrian rebels who ultimately (purportedly) joined the IS doesn't mean that the US supports the IS. It is quite misleading to claim so, I think. I would revert it myself, but I believe that that would breach the revert rule on Syrian civil war articles. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert a specific edit once, so it should not be a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Alleged involvement

[edit]

I would like to ask other editors on whether Turkish alleged involvement should be included. I propose the inclusion of the following section into the article.Predator2014 opposes it.Should it be included or not?

Supported by:

Catlemur (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this information could be mentioned in the "Main Text" somewhere, but in the 'InfoBox' should be only uncontroversial, verified and consistent information.
P.S. This information is POV of Anwar Moslem.
----
Predator2014 (talk)

The information is not POV.It is barely the opinion of the Kurdish side, hence the alleged mark.It is by no means controversial.Turkey has already blocked Kurds from entering Syria (which itself can be considered as a minor form of indirect support to the enemies of YPG), there is also an endless list of reasons why Turkey would like to weaken Rojava.Catlemur (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want, I can suggest more accurate version:

Indirect support:

  •  Turkey (claimed by some Kurdish officials)
Because I don`t see in your explanation evidence of direct support from Turkey. But again it would be better if we would add this information to this article, but not InfoBox.
P.S. I think that Turkey blocked Kurds from entering Syria not because they support IS, but because they are afraid of possible re-armament of PKK
Predator2014 (talk)
  • Is it even controversial anymore, for anyone but Erdogan supporters? It is well known and reported that Turkey let's Islamists use their border at will, for practically any purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Catlemur (talk), too soon. Here were and users that disagree with you.
— Preceding(talk) 16:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one user agrees with you, it doesn`t mean that you can immediately add your information --Predator2014 (talk) 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I read more attentively your ref. Anwar Moslem does not claim Turkish support to ISIS.

See full text:

Anwar Moslem: Yes, that’s right. It regularly happens. But our people from Northern Kurdistan will also join us despite the difficulties created by the Turkish authorities. Those who want to cross the border to Kobane, they can do it one way or another despite all those hardships. But Turkish authorities must realize that if the ISIS seizes Kobane, they will soon head to Turkey. Turkish officials must take this fact into account and help Kobane and let Kobane’s boys and girls cross the borders to their own city.

He just warned that if Turkey will not support Kurds (remain neutral), soon ISIS will attack them (Turks).
Predator2014 (talk) comment added 16:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


"They attack us with the support of the Assad regime, and also Turkey is turning a blind eye" This quote is from here Here is another link with proof (go to 21,40). Please stop turning a blind eye and openly lying about the issue.--Catlemur (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sources again claim only indirect support from Turkey (based on their neutrality). Plus, they openly claim Assad`s support for Islamists. Why you do not add Syria to the InfoBox then? --Predator2014 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided enough evidence and have (at least so far) received overwhelming support from other users.Tomorrow I am going to put the section back,in case you persist I will report you. Catlemur (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your refs. doesn`t claim Turkish direct support. Your unilateral actions will be considered as vandalism. And you did not answer about your refs. claims that Syrian government supports ISIS against Kurds.--Predator2014 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey might intervene against Assad [5], making this discussion irrelevant. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,delete the section as soon as it happens.So far they block Kurdish volunteers from entering Syria.--Catlemur (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you have overwhelming support from the users? I've only seen you and one other user express support for this opinion. The rest were dissenting. --47.55.19.76 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Turkey with ISIL is inappropriate. Turkey has armed FSA, but the "support" of ISIL claim revolves around open or closed borders. It appears that Turkey is trying to control their own Kurdish population, and prevent ISIL from attacking in Turkey.Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating infobox

[edit]

I'm not sure how this should be done, but the YPG has collaborated with the FSA recently [6], so putting them as belligerents is somewhat misleading, based on the current status of the conflict. I propose that the infobox be updated. David O. Johnson (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French Translation

[edit]

Can someone translate this [article] from French?--Catlemur (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article

[edit]

Hello,

The article's title is troubling. It presents the conflict as between Kurds and Islamists when the kurds are being armed and supported by Islamist governments, and there are kurdish islamists. http://time.com/3196580/iran-kurds-isis-erbil-iraq/ I propose the article be renamed as Kurdish involvement in the Syrian Civil war.

The list of Belligerents gives a false impression of uniformity putting the Islamic State and AL Nusra on the same side when they are also fighting each other. The FSA is also not an Islamist movement and if the debate is framed as Kurdish vs Islamist they should definitely not be included. I propose that the list be removed completely.

The biggest part of the FSA is islamist only the Non-Muslims in FSA (Christians, Yazidis, Communists) are really secular.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably haven't understood that FSA is not militia group, it is organization. Majority of FSA groups who fight agains the Kurds are Islamists, like al-Nusra and al-Sham. FSA has supported them in fighting against the Kurds and Kurds are not in FSA anymore. al-Nusra and ISIS have cooperated against the Kurds, read sources. No Islamist government support the Kurds. Your source says Iran supported Iraq and thus the Kurds but not directly.Ferakp (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article does not makes sense. Because there are Kurds who are Islamists the IS and other Islamist Organization have also Kurdish members. The Kurdish Islamic Front is a Kurdish Islamist Organization who is a member of the FSA.--SBC Guy (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Kurdish Islamic Front isn't part of the FSA, it's part of Ahrar al-Sham who is not part of the FSA either. The only Kurdish FSA groups are Liwa Ahfad Saladin, who is anti-YPG, and Jabhat al-Akrad, which is pro-YPG. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the Name Kurdish-Islamist conflict doesn't make sense because there are Kurds who Islamists too.--Besserung erkannt (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but there are also Arabs in the Israel Defense Forces (Arab–Israeli conflict) and pro-Moscow Chechens (Chechen–Russian conflict). That said, I think the best way to resolve this issue is merge this article into Rojava conflict (which is being discussed here). Charles Essie (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merging with the Rojava conflict would make the article way too long and a lot of content in that article covers the relations between Rojava an the government, not with Islamists. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I also suggested that the content about the social revolution in Rojava be split into a separate article. Charles Essie (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are Kurdish members of IS too!

[edit]

The Islamic State has kurdish members too. The IS is only against Yezidis, Kurdish Schia Muslims and the secular socialist and communist PKK and its sub-Organizations but not against the Kurdish people.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is against the Kurdish people. According to sources they have declared Jihad against the Kurds.Ferakp (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No you are wrong the IS is a Sunni Islamist Organization they are not anti-Kurdish Racists like the Grey Wolves. They fight only against the PKK and Kurdish Islamists who support the FSA like the Kurdish Islamic Front.--SBC Guy (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2016

[edit]
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: not moved per consensus (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 05:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) → Syrian Rebel–Kurdish conflict (2013–present) – The title suggests that all of the organizations that fights against YPG and it's allies in Syria are Islamist organizations and that's totally false. Free Syrian Army (FSA) for example is not an Islamist organization and FSA cooperating with Islamists doesn't make them Islamists. Because if Bashar al-Assad's Syrian Arab Army (SAA) cooperating with Hezbollah (a Shia Jihadists-Islamist organization) doesn't make the SAA Islamist then FSA cooperating with Islamists doesn't make the FSA Islamist either. Patetez (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL are not widely considered rebels, and the majority of this article deals with the conflict between ISIL and the YPG, a better name would be "Northern Syria conflict (2013-present)". Editor abcdef (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor abcdef: Yes you're right about ISIS not being considered as rebels but "Northern Syria conflict (2013-present)" sounds too vague. I think renaming this page to Syrian Arab–Kurdish conflict (2013–present) would be a lot better. Especially since the vast majority of forces that fights against Kurds are Syrian Arabs. Also the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) should be added to the belligerents section of this page. Because the SAA and the Kurds have fought against each other in this conflict. So again that's an another non-Islamist Arab organization that fought against Kurds in this conflict. Sources for that: 1-http://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/7/syriakurd542.htm 2-http://web.archive.org/web/20120724224808/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/syria/4984.html - Also two other pages about Kurdish conflicts in Iraq and Turkey uses the same title style that I'm suggesting that's why this page should use that same title style: 1- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Iraqi%E2%80%93Kurdish_conflict 2- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(1978%E2%80%93present) Patetez (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Syrian Arab-Kurdish conflict" is also misleading since the SDF recruited hundreds of Arab fighters from captured towns such as Shaddadi and the original SDF itself has more than 4,000 Arabs. Another suggestion would be renaming Rojava conflict to Rojava revolution and rename this article "Rojava conflict", since the former article is mainly about the political revolution and not the conflict against ISIL. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Syrian Arab-Kurdish conflict" is not a misleading title at all a google search for "Syrian Arab-Kurdish conflict" gives us 4 times more results compared to "Rojava Conflict". "Syrian Arab-Kurdish conflict" also shows us 2 times more results compared to "Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict". And we name an article/event per the Common name policy. We check what name is the most common name that is used by reliable sources.
And about Arab fighters inside SDF. Turkey has more than 100.000 Kurdish soldiers and village guards too. But the conflict between Turkey and Kurdish organizations is named "Turkish-Kurdish Conflict". Same goes for Iraq and Iran. Both of those conflicts are called "Iraqi-Kurdish Conflict" and "Iranian-Kurdish Conflict". https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Wikipedia says that titles are supposed to be consistent with each other. So why use a different title style for this conflict? Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Chechen–Russian conflict are also other similar examples. There were a lot of Chechen fighters that fought alongside Russians in Chechen–Russian conflict. There are also a lot of Palestinian supporters of Israel too. This list goes on for dozens of other conflicts.
Also this conflict doesn't completely take place in Rojava, for example you talked about Shaddadi. Shaddadi is not part of Rojava or Tel Abyad or Azaz etc. etc. all of these towns are not considered to be part of Rojava. Patetez (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most common term however, is "Syrian Kurdistan conflict", with more than 9 million Google search results.
By the way Shaddadi ref and Tel Abyad ref are part of Rojava, literally all towns captured by the SDF that have popular support is part of it. Azaz is different because it's not controlled by the SDF/YPG. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree we don't need to specify which exact group the Kurds are fighting there. "Arabs" is way too restricted, they fight Turkmens, Turks, and hordes of other foreigners. There are Kurds in ISIL too, and Arabs fighting alongside the Kurds, etc. Need to find something better to replace the title with. "Syrian Kurdistan conflict" is also vague, there have been conflicts there before, so we at least need a date. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there are Kurds fighting against the SDF in Liwa Ahfad Saladin as well as the various jihadist groups, as well as Arabs in the SDF. SDF-rebel conflict might work, but even then, the SDF are technically rebels themselves.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rojava conflict which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of all pro-Islamist FSA content

[edit]

This article from the very beginning described the conflict between Rojava and al-Qaeda, including IS. There is already an article for the YPG-FSA conflict at YPG-FSA relations and all the content related to the conflict should be placed in that article, which is too big for a merger with this article. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is related to Islamist rebels and the YPG. al-Qaeda, a.k.a al-Nusra Front is just a part of the conflict, even though it is a part of the FSA. The majority of FSA groups which are in conflict with the YPG are ideologically Islamist and declared a war against the Kurdish parties. The YPG-FSA relation is related to the FSA and YPG. This article is related to all Islamist groups, including ISIS.Ferakp (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all al-Nusra is not part of the FSA. The reason that the FSA was added to the infobox was probably because of the Battle of Ras al-Ayn, when the FSA helped al-Qaeda to attack the YPG in the city, but the battle was over two years ago. The article YPG-FSA relations cover the major conflicts between the two groups and is too long for a merger with this article, and this article exclusively cover the conflict between Rojava and ISIS, so why not keep the articles separate and keep their scopes? Editor abcdef (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdistan–Rojava relations

[edit]

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) 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion/merge

[edit]

In this article there is no particular dispute that deserves an article alone. There is no conflict between Kurds and Islamists. I do not think that this article is worth staying and therefore I ask to delete it or merge it after getting the necessary votes. What's the source for the start of the conflict. I can not find any. Plus I have never read about a speacial Kurdish-Islamist conflict in Syria in neutral sources. In short this article is artificial and there are unknown goals behind its creation. The intermittent fights between the Kurds and the Islamists is not special and not unique to write about. Syrian Democratic Forces are not pure Kurds to be placed with the Kurds. There is also a huge lack of other wikis. The Syrian civil war is in its final stages, so there is no need to divide the conflict into conflicts with no horizon for its end.--Sakiv (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Foreign relations of North and East Syria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Designation of Turkey as Islamist

[edit]

How is Turkey's operation related with this article? Beshogur (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title moved without request

[edit]

Thepharoah17, it appears you have --> moved the article “Rojava–Islamist conflict” to --> “AANES–Islamist conflict” without a Request to Move discussion? Is this true? If so, you should move it back and open a request if you believe the new name fits better.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no I moved it from Rojava–Islamist conflict to AANES–Islamist conflict. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, (I adjusted the wording) but where was the Move request to make this decision? This kind of move requires a formal request, as you know, since you have taken part in many of the recent ones.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rojava–Islamist_conflict&oldid=1209557786"