This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Syrian Democratic Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
According to [1], Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa isn't part of the SDF. David O. Johnson ( talk) 07:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I will clean this item because more than half that are listed on that groups are on the thirteen groups signed the founding document!!! That thing has no logic!!! They are not one thing in Idlib and Aleppo and other in the rest of Syria!!!
I´ve had a source to prove that, an interview to Col. Talal Silo, spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces, that spoke with Al-Monitor about the coalition by phone Dec. 10 and 12 and explain: "Fifteen factions did join in Aleppo’s countryside, but nine of those were already key members of our coalition, meaning that only six new factions joined our ranks. We call on all military factions to join us, and we welcome them as partners in the Syrian Democratic Forces, as long as they believe in our goals and aspirations to fight IS."
I have also clean the "Various tribal forces in Aleppo Governorate" and "Regiment 102" because there are no support for the two designations/groups!!!
Best regards -- Geosapiens ( talk) 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Well PanchoS were are the "Regiment 102" designation to be correct? I dont find them in any place? Do you? You added Al-Tawhid Brigade were are the support to that add? Because if you read the wikipedia article of that group is said that: "(...)the Ahrar al-Shamal Brigade, was reportedly "superseded" by the Northern Sun Battalion (Shams al-Shamal)." and if that is true ( http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/profile-tajammu-alwiya-fajr-al-hurriya/ ) that is not correct!!! Like the designation of "fifteen rebel groups" if like Col. Talal Silo, spokesman for the Syrian Democratic Forces explain: "Fifteen factions did join in Aleppo’s countryside, but nine of those were already key members of our coalition, meaning that only six new factions joined our ranks. We call on all military factions to join us, and we welcome them as partners in the Syrian Democratic Forces, as long as they believe in our goals and aspirations to fight IS." is better to write only "rebel groups" no? Or "new six rebel groups"? Best regards-- Geosapiens ( talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
A minor question: has anybody had any luck adding the Syriac name in Syriac letters? -- Simha ( talk) 13:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Syrian Democratic Forces. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Because this chapter is a bit out of date I will in the next days change it to be up to date with other articles of the Wikipedia that are linked to this article, like Rojava–Syrian government relations. Best regards Geosapiens ( talk) 11:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "vice":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Syrian Democratic Forces. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have always been highly sceptical with listing militias ethnically as "Kurd" or "Arab" in the box. At least I could change it to "mainly Kurd" and "mainly Arab" some days ago to make it more realistic. However, as I had now added the two most prominent sub-groups of the Army of Revolutionaries (third largest SDF component after YPG/YPJ and Shammer), one co-editor moved Jabhat al-Akrad away from its place up into the "mainly Kurd" section. Technically-ethnically probably correct, I would suggest. However, does it really make sense to follow this ethnic approach in general? Jabhat al-Akrad's sister group in the Army of Revolutionaries, the Northern Sun Battalion, might well be pretty much 50/50 Arab/Kurd. Shouldn't we just further soften these ethnic categorizations, in order to keep the integrity of meta-groups in the presentation intact? What sense does it make to enforce this radical ethnic separation which people on the ground themselves apparently do not make? -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 09:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Recent reports in media (apologize for not adding any source, but you could find some easily) indicate that Turkish army is now cooperating with the SDF against the YPG. Now, Turkey is counted as the SDF opponent. The YPG is virtually part of the SDF. Also, the SAA (meaning, Syrian government forces) are not mentioned as opponents or allies of the SDF. So, I would thank to anyone who can clarify who are the SDF allies and opponents today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 ( talk) 09:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Should this "Neutrality flag" by an IP-editor without reason be removed as abusive? -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 19:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
See here: /info/en/?search=Template:POV#When_to_remove Removing the "Neutrality flag" now because even now no explanation is given. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I have now reported the abusive "POV" flagging and edit-warring about it by 213.74.186.109. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 13:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Correcting an edit by IP 213.74.186.109 which apparently sought to manipulate how a reader would understand the discussion on this talk page section. Correct chronology of comments now. -- 217.251.99.234 ( talk) 21:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be serious contradictions regarding the actual strength of the SDF. The SDF-infobox puts their strength at 40.000 (including 30.000 YPG), while the article itself states: "Although estimates of the size of the SDF's component forces vary significantly, their total number at founding may already have been as high as 55,000.[54]" I also remember that someone recently lowered the strength of the SDF from 80.000 down to 40.000, just because that's the number used in the source.
However, if we look at the YPG article, we can see their estimated strength at 50.000. And according to the Infobox of the Syrian civil war, the strength of the YPG/YPJ is roughly 57.000-60.000. The Belligerent section puts the strength of the SDF at 55.000-80.000. (Though it uses the same source as the SDF-infobox)
How can this be possible? As it is right now, it's just plain confusing and misleading information shouldn't be present on Wikipedia. Maybe someone should search for a better source regarding the SDF strength (unless, of course, the strength of the YPG is grossly overstated) 79.246.4.219 ( talk) 08:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The same IP-editor who has several times put up the "POV" flag which every time was removed because he did not offer any reasoning (see talk page above) has now put up an "unbalanced" flag. Without offering any reasoning. Remove? -- 217.251.99.234 ( talk) 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
We should note somewhere in the article that the YPG dominates the SDF. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 12:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
New flagging without a reasoning by the same IP-user. Now it comes as an "advertisment" flag. And you guess right: No hint whatsoever what element/aspect of the article it is supposed to refer to, so no discussion possible. Dear 213.74.186.109, please add a talk page point what element/aspect of the article it is supposed to refer to, to make a discussion possible, because otherwise this flag must be removed without discussion. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@ 213.74.186.109 I removed the only element of the article I find arguably "advertisement-like" as well as the flag. Please understand that this article cannot calibrate "balance" around the public opinion and media of Turkey, which has a very unique view on the issues concerned. 91.61.71.101 ( talk) 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Removing "advertisement flag: After a week, still no resoning given by the flagging editor what exactly he thinks to be "mission-statement like claims" in the article. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As IP 213.74.186.109 keeps up the abusive flagging and edit warring about it, I have now reported it again and asked for semi-protection of this article. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 12:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello all, User:2A1ZA is at it again with his incessant abusive behaviour. Please take note. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 12:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The myth that the PYD is the only force able to effectively deal with Daesh has gone up in smoke as the Turkish Armed Forces has demonstrated it is way more capable of eliminating terrorist targets if the need arises. It is clear now that the PYD is no match for ISIS when it comes to hard battles. The PYD's sole aim is to use American weapons to grab Arab and Turkmen land in northern Syria. This information should replace or be added next to the pertinent paragraphs in the article. - 213.74.186.109 ( talk) 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This is nonsense. 2003:77:4F14:1172:1D60:4420:778F:ECFD ( talk) 10:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with having more sub-headings? Alfie Gandon ( talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
An user insert this info to article about manpower. I have read the source (Reuters) and there is clearly nothing about "manpower" in the source. Additionally, The Nation is not a proper source (a politically motivated magazine claiming YPG was organized by Qasem Suleimani and Assad "regime"). Can someone fix these edits? 79.137.76.41 ( talk) 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion was started by sockpuppet "Wikisiki999" of "Human like you" evading indef block. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The SDF is seen by Turkey to be affiliated with the PKK and being the Syrian front of the PKK, since the YPG has ties. [1] Arab elements withtin the SDF also refuse to fight against Turkey. [2] Perhaps this info should be added in a subsection under Criticism. Wikisiki999 ( talk) 06:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "twitter.com3":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "assad":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The Euphrates Jarabulus Brigades are one of the oldest and most politically prominent militia factions in the SDF. [1] I have no idea why user:Eik Corell seeks to delete them from the list, but I consider it deeply inappropriate to do so. While it is true that there are many additions of component groups to this article which are poorly sourced, a clean-up should be done not bulk but with knowledge and care. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 16:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Another notable group that user:Eik Corell deleted from the component group list is Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa, a major fighting force which also recently gained international prominence by 18 fighters of theirs being the victim of the friendly fire accident near Tabqa on 11 April. I do really wish that user:Eik Corell would go through his bulk deletions and reverse the inappropriate ones. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear User:Editor abcdef, now it is you who deleted two notable SDF component groups from the infobox list, namely Liwa Suqur ar-Raqqa and Raqqa Hawks Brigade. Is there a reason why you remove two of the recently most reported groups from the list (in the case of the Raqqa Hawks, this is particularly disturbing to me, as they are prominently featured even in the text body of this article), or was that an unintentional mistake? -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 13:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Isn't قوات سوريا الديمقراطية properly translate ro "forces of democraric syria"? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned? Adonoto ( talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Article has a discrepancy that needs a clearer statement about fact to qualify under Encyclopedia:
"multi-religious alliance of predominantly Kurdish, but also Arab and Assyrian/Syriac militias, as well as some smaller Turkmen, Armenian, Circassian and Chechen groups/participation[81] in the Syrian Civil War .... The SDF is mostly composed of, and militarily led by, the People's Protection Units (YPG), a mostly Kurdish militia .... According to the Pentagon, Kurds made up 40% of the SDF and Arabs 60% in March 2017, although other sources estimate the Arab components of the SDF to be at a significantly lower number"
Please improve quality of the article by resolving this discrepancy or correcting its written convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.10.8 ( talk) 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Article freshly create. Do someone know where is should appears ? Yug (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Several users, including honorable User:Editor abcdef, keep adding the private military contractor under the name of PMC Wagner as alleged "opponent" of the SDF to the infobox. This is not appropriate. Private military contractors are service companies which provide a military service to a party which pays for it. They are not a party in their own right to a conflict, cannot be listed as "allied" or "opposed" parties. They might be listed among "units involved" in a battle article, but certainly not in the infobox of this article. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 10:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The cite note #149 is false: /info/en/?search=Syrian_Democratic_Forces#cite_note-149
It says that "The SDF release more than 400 Syrian members of ISIS including commanders and more than 120 members of them join the SDF in Deir Ezzor".
However, if you browse the citated source, http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=84789, there is NO mention of such ever happening!
Can somebody approved please remove the false citation and the referencing parts in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.75.1 ( talk) 12:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add a "suicide bombings" section for simple lack of relevance and due weight (it has neither any significant military relevance nor is it otherwise notable), certainly not with the POV text that this persistently inserted section has, and most certainly not with the insinuation of a relation to the issue of "minors" as it is done now. Please stop edit warring, and remove that subsection, Marjdabi, and argue your case here on the talk page. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 23:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Syrian Democratic Forces's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "hrw":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I saw Trump latest tweets just 1 minute after he posted them. I don't find them saying anything about not being an ally for the SDF. IP has been adding that the US is now a former ally, yet no source for that. The U.S is still an ally with these miltants and still secretly supporting ISIS-- SharabSalam ( talk) 15:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This information needs to be added, particularly in the light of the vigorous support given to it by several western countries and media outlets. This was published by no less a source than the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
The third wave of attacks by the TAK has seen a growing operational connection to the Kurdish Rojava, with the attacks being planned and prepared in the Kurdish majority cantons in northern Syria. The perpetrators involved in the February 17 and March 13 Ankara attacks as well as the April 27 Bursa attacks received military training in camps in northern Syria for lengths of time spanning eight months to two years and participated in clashes in that area. For instance, Abdulbaki Somer, the perpetrator of the February 17 Ankara attack, spent 10 years in northern Iraq and Turkey before joining the TAK in 2014. Later that year he moved to northern Syria and joined the YPG for a year and a half. He then assumed the identity of Syrian refugee Salih Neccar and “legally” entered Turkey in July 2015, thus erasing his incriminating record in Turkey and arming himself with a new identity. After returning to Turkey he kept a low profile and did not even contact members of his own family. Cagla Demir, the female suicide bomber who carried out the March 13 Ankara attack, and Eser Cali, the female suicide bomber who carried out the April 27 Bursa attack, each spent more than six months in Syria
Link - https://ctc.usma.edu/the-kurdistan-freedom-falcons-a-profile-of-the-arms-length-proxy-of-the-kurdistan-workers-party/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insidethelight ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The link writes of assumed and believed... And that the attackers received a training between 8 months and two years. This contradicts many, many, many reports of trainings in the YPG. I have only read of such long trainings in articles by Gürcan where he supports the thesis that the YPG trains TAK militants. So this is one report against many. And the article is from Metin Gürcan, who is diplomatically said rather pro-Turkish, cites Gazete Vatan (its about citing like the Bild in Germany or 20min. in Europe) and numerous Turkish and own articles as sources in this article. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 03:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The Source is from 2016 moreover the TAK and PKK are different organizations that split from the PKK, while the PKK are communist the TAK are nationalists and are far more brutal they are not active in the PKK moreover the SDF although arguably does have links to the PKK, such as idealizing Abdullah Öcalan the SDF is not directly linked to PKK and is more solidarity towards the PKK in Turkey then direct links between the two. Vallee01 ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I removed the Propaganda template from the Syrian Democratic Forces article because said template is irrelevant and not supposed to be there.
If anyone wants to explain to me why the Propaganda template is there prior to me removing the Propaganda template, I'll listen to what you people and guys will have to say about that matter.
Scarlet Marines ( talk) 15:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Needs a unbalanced warning template until resolved. I'm adding it. Please neutralize article before removing template. 46.31.118.93 ( talk) 06:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It is biased on the side of the SDF with its rhetoric. Anyone with some knowledge of the subject can notice it.
I thought you were not supposed to remove such templates before discussing it here. Thanks.
46.31.118.93 (
talk)
10:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll prove it to you. Watch. :)
There is no military necessity of Arab displacement by SDF, any Syrian will disagree with the UN's findings. This is bad faith. Many syrians were displaced by SDF on unreasonable and bigoted grounds. Not to mention the racist expat card Arabs are required to carry.
https://archive.is/qCcFXhttps://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/01/syrian-kurdish-forces-require-displaced-arabs-obtain-expat-card-remain-their 2607:9880:4277:FF02:D4FC:13D2:B368:82C7 ( talk) 06:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Mistreatment of Assyrians should be part of it's criticism.
https://twitter.com/AssyriaTV/status/1612229218833768448?t=sHujLs080CR316wrGasnaw&s=19
https://twitter.com/AssyriaTV/status/1610998203758874627?t=OTmS88MM0Spc5nrGTsOvlg&s=19
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396703734400286720/707349521688166501/ace201701.pdf 2607:9880:4277:FF02:D4FC:13D2:B368:82C7 ( talk) 06:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Since a few days ago at the time of writing, there has been a wave of clashes between Arabic tribal militias and SDF forces ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/30/several-killed-in-fighting-between-sdf-and-tribesmen-in-eastern-syria). I don't have a good understanding of the situation, but the fightings was apparently sparked by the SDF arresting a militia leader of questionable loyalty for insubordination. Since then, there has been a wave of clashes between rebelling tribal militias and SDF loyalists, and it seems to have killed a minimum of ~22-50+ people. Should we make a separate wikipedia page for these clashes? Randomuser335S (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomuser335S ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
@
Chafique: To avoid any edit warring, I will start this discussion here. First of all, I have adjusted the intro in an attempt to find a compromise. I have changed the wording to "official military wing of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria", a phrase supported by several refs which I added. These refs also include a rage of political views, as enabbaladi.net and the Middle East Institute are both opposed to the SDF and use the description "military wing". Your wording, "occupies North Eastern Syria" is factually wrong, as the SDF was organized by the AANES and thus cannot occupy the AANES.
You also considered "US-backed" very important. Mind you, this was already included in the intro before your change; however, it was in one of the later paragraphes. I agree that it is very important to mention, thus I have moved "The SDF is allied to the
United States-led
CJTF–OIR international alliance" to the intro's second sentence. It's important to include the CJTF–OIR here, as non-US countries like France and Great Britain have also supported the SDF.
To describe the Syrian government as a "primary opponent of the SDF" is wrong. The SDF and Syrian government often fought together, including against the Islamic State and Turkey.
I hope this helps to outline my reasoning. If you desire further changes, please explain your wishes here and we can work toward further compromise solutions.
Applodion (
talk)
13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Your wording, "occupies North Eastern Syria" is factually wrong, as the SDF was organized by the AANES and thus cannot occupy the AANES.
thus I have moved "The SDF is allied to the United States-led CJTF–OIRinternational alliance" to the intro's second sentence. It's important to include the CJTF–OIR here, as non-US countries like France and Great Britain have also supported the SDF.
To describe the Syrian government as a "primary opponent of the SDF" is wrong. The SDF and Syrian government often fought together, including against the Islamic State and Turkey.
The AANES is not an occupation, because it is literally locals ruling the territory they were born in. The AANES is a self-declared, unrecognized political entity which has its government and army.
Just because the United States are a major backer does not mean that we should portray the SDF as being only backed by the United States.
As per the cited sources, not all SDF groups are led by Kurds. There are also Arab, Arab-Kurdish, and Arabized Kurdish leaders. This is supported by many academic sources cited in the article.
Arab nationalists were involved in the war, including on the rebel and government side (see for example the Arab Nationalist Guard; the Syrian National Council
technically the same can be said about HTS and ISIL. But we can skip this for now.- Yes, and Wikipedia treats them similarily with IS being described as a proto-state and the HTS-aligned Syrian Salvation Government being described as an "alternate government".
there is a consensus among all reliable sources, including academic sources, that SDF is kurdish-led- Not exactly. Also, I never said or believe that "since it is your own conclusion that 'since much of SDF soldiers are arabs then it is not kurdish-led' which itself contradicts all reliable sources". However, is indeed true that most sources describe the SDF as Kurdish-led. For the sake of compromise, I will restore this part.
The second sentence of the intro literally says " The SDF is allied to and supplied by the United States–led CJTF–OIR international alliance"