"Human Rights Watch uses] ""PYD-Run areas of Syria"". Reuters uses ""The Kurdish-run areas of Syria"", and so do other major international media. The new title should be along these titles.    

 == Large history lead == 

 I removed that huge quote which is difficult to read and is already in the Kurdistan article. But it was reverted by another editor. Is there any reason to have such a large history section which dominates the rest of the article? Maybe if the article was bigger it would make sense.    
 : Its called by Kurds as Kurdistan, and readers who are interested only in the Syrian parts must be able to know the historic background of this particular area without having to go to the article of Kurdistan. That quote is referenced and on topic, so there is no justification for its deletion. Plus, I find it so weird that those 6 lines dominate the article in your view ! this article is being filled daily with all kinds of info's but this quote is the one that annoy you the most ! .. or maybe you are not annoyed and dont have any agenda and just want the article to look better and in this case I apologize for misunderstanding.  

 :a good compromise is to remove the quote into a note section, but keep the information about Kurdistan Tigris borders, if this is Ok with you and the other editor, then I can do it.    
 ::ok, sure. I don't want to remove anything useful. I'm just saying it's long and difficult to read. The language is arcane and old style, and it goes into lots of details that many western readers won't understand (all the old place names in non-standard spellings). If the article were longer, it would make sense to have a bigger history lead. However the purpose of this article is to inform readers about the current situation of how this region is. ""Kurds in Syria"" is more suitable for in depth history, as this article shouldn't be Kurd specific either.    
 :::Agreed with Aram, and I think it is pretty much needed here, especially given the discussion about the name. This area is not a historical part of Kurdistan by any means, and this should be clear. If Kurds live here, so they do in Istanbul, Damascus, Beirut, Adana, etc., and this does not make any of these areas part of Kurdistan. This quote is an important historical reference, and hiding it does not help the reader understand the context of the problem here. I will keep it visible to the reader, not as a note. Cheers.    
 :::: Hey Amr, I understand your points but, the note is visible in the article, just not in the history section, and the first sentence of the history section give the summary of the quote which still exist and visible at the end of the article.. please avoid edit warring, and lets keep the things as they are now, a summary of the quote in the beginning of the history section, and the quote itself can be read and unhidden in the notes section at the end of the article.... I will interfere in this no longer, I hope you and the other editor settle this and keep my edit which is a half way between you two, if you choose not to do that, then it concern me no more, I shall interfere in the is article no more   
 ::Hey Aram, thanks for your intervention. As you can see, I have always been avoiding edit-warring. This article is full of crap, you read it and you would think yourself in Utopia. There is no mention of all the atrocities PYD militias are committing against civilians, Arabs and Kurds alike. [http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria0614_kurds_ForUpload.pdf "