Talk:Dawronoye

NPU

@2A1ZA: Thank you for creating this article. I saw that you reverted my removal of NPU from the affiliated organization in Iraq. I am still very sure that NPU is not Dawronoye-affiliated in any way. I read the blog post that you linked in the comment, but I am not sure what in the text you are refering to? The NPU was established by ADM; in what way would that mean Dawronoye-affiliated? Note that the Gozarto Protection Force (or Sootoro) are sometimes using the same logo as the NPU [1] [2]. They are in an open conflict with the Dawronoye-Sutoro. Shmayo (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shmayo, I find the affiliations among Assyrian organizations often difficult to discern, and NPU and NPF are a prime example. It starts with the habit of people giving the same names in Syriac to competing organizations, and using the same pool of logo and symbolism, only making a difference in English transcription/translation if at all. Additional problems are that Assyrian sources with inside knowledge are usually highly partisan and polemic, and by habit often make up founding history and chronology. In our case here, the logo of what is the the blog article called "NPU", and what appears to be the same organization that the Wikipedia article calls "NPU", indeed uses a logo similiar in elements to what Sootoro uses or had used in Syria, but the same is true for the "NPF" logo given in the article, and while I do positively know that one of the two is heavily Dawronoye-affiliated, my best navigation through the topic is the one that is not the KRG-partner, which is called "NPF" in the article. As I have much more own knowledge about the situation of Assyrians in Syria, I would very much appreciate it if you could contribute some information concerning the Iraqi situation to this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it is difficult. I am not sure whether you by mistake or not wrote that NPF is not the KRG-partner, because NPF is very much a part of KRG and Peshmerga, which is what the article stated too. While NPU and GPF/Sootoro logos are almost identical, I find the NPF logo being slighly different. SINA, clearly Dowronoye, have written muliple articles about NPF, see this link. A similar search for NPU gives you one result, being mentioned next to NPF in an article about the Mosul offensive. Searching the Syriac Military Councils official Facebooks page for NPF, there are a several post, while non when searching for NPU. I am pretty sure NPF is the one affiliated with the Dowronoye. Shmayo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yo may have misunderstood by comment in this point, the militia called "NPF" in this blog article is described as the KRG-partner, and that was the reason why I assumed that this is not the Dawronoye-affiliated one. On the logos, please note that the logo attributed to "NPF" in the article has this "NATO-star"-like symbol small in its center in it as well, and this very eagle was the initial logo of the GPF in Syria; the whole logo consideration does not really help. However, I now found this source where "NPF" is used for the Dawronoye-affiliated militia. They do not have a Wikipedia article yet, I will create one now, and revert my own revert to the article to your last edit in the meantime. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. Note that the acronym NPF stands for "Nineveh Plain Forces", without "Protection". Shmayo (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact that the different political factions in this case actually use different names in Syriac language for the competing militias in my humble opinion is great progress for every student of Assyrian affairs. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Syriac writing

Could someone who knows add the Syriac writing of the name of the Lemma? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Assyrian nationalism vs Kurdish nationalism

I recently linked to the page "Kurdish nationalism" in the "See Also:" section here as something quite relevant to peruse alongside this page, but this was swiftly taken down by editor @abcdef (reason given: "unnecessary" - which was ironically very dismissive and unnecessary) and replaced by an anonymous user with "Assyrian nationalism" - I want to know why? This isn't a loose association; it is common knowledge that Dawronoye are existentially tied to the aspirations and will of Kurdish nationalist movements and have been since their inception. They coordinate and associate as such only with Assyrian groups who serve this agenda. This is why their network does not promote Assyrian groups or militias which are not tied to Kurdish groups - it is one central principle underpinning all of their operations. As cited in the article itself through no edit of mine: the NPF are the militia of the Beth Nahrain Democratic Party (BNDP) in Iraq, who are directly funded and promoted (by their own admission) by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). The MFS are the militia of the Syriac Union Party (SUP), which are totally on board (by their own admission) with the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) political project in Northern Syria. Dawronoye most certainly do not work with the Gozarto Protection Forces (GPF - whom they have considerable conflict with, esp. in Qamishli) nor the Nineveh Protection Units (NPU - who they pretend don't exist, despite being the largest Assyrian force in Iraq by quite a distance) - both of which do not have such an association with Dawronoye, and both of which precede Dawronoye affiliated groups (which were conceived and supported as responses by Kurdish groups to weaken and dilute independent Assyrian groups - or at least groups independent of direct Kurdish influence and affiliation). The very concept of nationalism gives primacy to ones nation and its well-being (albeit to often catastrophic effect), and given how deeply tied Dawronoye are to aims and ambitions of Kurdish nationalist groups, they (merely by definition and not even really by extensive argument) cannot be considered Assyrian nationalists. Please respond reasonably or I will add the association again until people can give me evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheodorLewin (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

All of the arguments above are personal analysis and SYNTH. According to this point of view, we should add "Arab nationalism" in "See also" section of Sootoro, just because their allegiance to Syrian gov. Additively, Mesopotamia National Council, a Dawronoye affiliated group, carried out its first attack against Kurdish nationalist KDP military compound in 1999 and this info directly contradicts with user "TheodorLewin"s claims. Dawronoye closely cooperated with PKK and People's Protection Units. Therefore, "PKK" or "People's Protection Units" would be more reasonable than "Kurdish nationalism" for the see also section. 89.33.246.107 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

First: go ahead - provide an extensive definition of how Sootoro specifically promote Arab nationalism and feel free to edit their Wikipedia accordingly Mr Anonymous - you can't just perform whataboutery here to divert attention away from the fact that Dawronoye and their Syrian extension the MFS are fully under operational command of the YPG/PYD, who seek to build a Kurdistan. Note: from official UK Government paper published February 2018, quote "The PYD told us that it was not arguing for a ‘Greater Kurdistan’, but instead that “different solutions to each part of Kurdistan are needed in line with the objective circumstances of each part”. (It did nevertheless hope, in the future,for the chance of “self-determination for a confederal united Kurdistan”. - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/518/518.pdf This is the project Dawronoye have bought into, straight from the horse's mouth. Second: launching an attack on a rival Kurdish party does not suddenly mean they do not support a Kurdish nationalist agenda. That's a ridiculous argument - more Kurds have killed other Kurds throughout history than anybody else. The KDP and PUK went to war in the 90's and thousands died - both are Kurdish nationalists. The American civil war - both sides considered themselves patriots. All of the wars in Europe. I am re-adding Kurdish nationalism as the above. TheodorLewin (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dawronoye is a movement from Assyrians, for Assyrians, with a dedicated Assyrian nationalist agenda. The fact that they cooperate with other ethnicities, rather than hating anyone else as it otherwise is a frequent custom in the region, does not alter the facts. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, they could both be left out from the article. The Dawronoye movement has served both Assyrian and Kurdish interests during its time. Shmayo (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as objective "Assyrian interests" or "Kurdish interests", such stuff is defined by context and interpretation. Dawronoye is dedicated to its own interpretation of "Assyrian interests" in given context, and this is the basis for this Wikipedia article. You are invited to open a section on criticism, where you can present sources of clerical anti-enlightenment Assyrians bashing Dawronoye, while I will provide sources of secular enlightened Assyrians bashing the clerical anti-enlightenment faction. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor bias: abcdef

I have made repeated attempts to contribute information on this page but have been met with intense resistance, despite citing numerous verified journalists and official government accounts.

I have recently been told to "discuss and come to a consensus" before making edits, when that is preposterous objection - if you check the Talk page above, you will see my last comment from 13th February left unanswered by other contributors. It is now 19th February. Given that nobody has challenged me or my sources except abcdef this is a gross abuse of power by one individual over the information related to this group. I have made every attempt to engage in civil discourse with the other contributors and the editor but to no avail. There is little understanding of how complex this group is - in fact, there is stubborn resistance against any attempt to depict it. The information presented on this page as it is currently is very one-sided, and as such, I felt that there needed to be a more balanced view present which presents as much information as possible to fill in any blanks - again, with as much objectivity as possible. There seems to be the feeling that Assyrians cannot by definition be Kurdish nationalists, when anyone who knows these issues knows this is patently false. Franso Hariri was an Assyrian Kurdish Nationalist in action and in memory - as described in a remembrance post on the anniversary of his death: http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/416149

I am a relatively new user to wikipedia, but this cabal like approach is terribly off-putting. TheodorLewin (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, Twitter is not a reliable source, and should not be used to push a bias. Secondly, a lot of the content you added are irrelevant and outright agenda pushing, for example the "oldest and largest nonpartisan Assyrian membership organisations around the world", etc. The PYD's ideology is irrelevant as it's not a Dawronoye or even Assyrian group. Committing "violations" in northeastern Syria also has nothing to do with Kurdish nationalism. I would like for you to reconsider this and stop adding what is borderline misinformation and POV pushing. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you discount the Twitter link, what I have provided elsewhere are legitimate links and reportage of a) the symbiotic nature of the PYD/YPG and SUP/MFS relationship - do you dispute this? If so, dispute it openly and plainly and provide sources to the contrary. If you do not dispute the nature of their relationship, how about b) that the PYD/YPG are indeed Kurdish nationalists according to testimonies and evidence recorded by witnesses and the findings/designations of sovereign governments. They claim as I have included, quote “different solutions to each part of Kurdistan are needed in line with the objective circumstances of each part” (It did nevertheless hope, in the future, for the chance of “self-determination for a confederal united Kurdistan)". The fact that they identify these four areas as "Kurdistan" when they currently comprise four other states and hope for one confederal Kurdistan in the future makes them nationalists, no? (Nevermind the fact that Dawronoye never pronounce any of these areas as "Assyria" yet somehow they are designated as "Assyrian nationalists" here - something I haven't even bothered to contest because that isn't the primary point I am trying to make) If you accept that this underpins the PYD's ideology at a very deep level, and you do not deny the link between the PYD/YPG and SUP/MFS, what is the problem with stating it clearly on the Dawronoye page? Unless of course you think that this relationship does not affect their Dawronoye's politics - which would be beyond naive. The PYD/YPG is the dominant political and military group whose banner the Dawronoye have flocked under in Syria - not the other way around. Is this the first time in Wikipedia history that a political party's links and relationships are detailed on their Wiki page - especially when they're so strong and intimate that they largely determine the policies and purpose of the group? Is it wrong to say, for example, that the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in Iraq set up and funded the Chaldean Syriac Assyrian Popular Council? Because its a fact, and this relationship is mentioned on the respective Wiki entry precisely because it is relevant to understanding the politics of that particular party. The KDP is not an Assyrian group either - should all traces of them be removed from the CSAPC entry too? Wouldn't that take away from understanding the group? You claim that I am pushing POV and misinformation but I have not deleted anything that was already on the Dawronoye page; I have only added to it to provide a balance view of the group. I am baffled you even have a problem. TheodorLewin (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear TheodorLewin, please try to keep your edits in line with the topic of the article and also consider WP:DUE. It is fine to have criticism of Dawronoye by other Assyrian voices in the article, but such criticism should be seperately at the end of the article, not have undue length, and not get lost in general deliberations concerning broader agendas Kurdish parties might or might not have. I just made an edit on the criticism part along these lines, I suggest that you try to keep further edits of yours in line with the general Wikipedia criteria I mentioned. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In particular concerning criticism of the close collaboration of Dawronoye organizations with Apoist Kurdish organizations, please abstain from making frivolous claims in the lead that Dawronoye were dedicated to "Kurdish nationalism". If you think that the bitter criticism of other Assyrian groups concerning the collaboration with Apoist Kurdish organizations should be in the article, which I would agree with, add it to the criticism part in the last paragraph, with proper sources that do not insinuate but properly reference what is stated in the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)