Wikipedia

Talk:Yazidi genocide/Archive 1

< Talk:Yazidi genocide
Latest comment: 4 years ago by David Gerard in topic Unreliable Sources tag
Archive 1

Title

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The term "genocide" is used too loosely here. They don't even know how many have been killed, and their estimates are of several hundreds. This figure, as tragic as it may be, pales in comparison to the general death toll of this gruesome conflict. It appears that ISIS may be intent on extermination, but fortunately this hasn't quite happened, and let us hope it doesn't happen. I think this term is apploed too hastely without a sufficient factual foundation.--46.117.36.181 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We cannot invent a "genocide" over the loosely sourced declarations of one or two (UN or not) bureaucrats. The UN itself defined genocides to be recognized by an international or national court. I am moving the page to "Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which is already a section title in another article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought the title "Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" was more tidy and did so. We can always change it if there is a better idea. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
important note The number of deaths has nothing to do with whether or not it's genocide, neither does the "success" of the attempt. If ISIS intend to and are working towards extermination of yazidi, that's genocide. It doesn't matter that they haven't killed them all, it doesn't matter that there aren't very many yazidi. Iliekinfo (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
When RS use the term, especially someone like the UN, then it can be used, but should be attributed properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the correct plural?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the correct plural Yazidi or Yazidis? --Clr324 05:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talk • contribs)

Both can be used but "Yazidis" is more common and more appropriate. Gnostic1349 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Latest comment: 9 years ago39 comments35 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to NOT merge the articles. This article has been sufficiently expanded since the merge nomination...enough that merging into the Islamic State/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page would result in a loss of valuable information, as the merge target is getting excessively long. Several users expressed support for a summary style section should be placed on the ISIL/IS article with a link here. AHeneen (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite the events of recent days, I don't think there is enough content to support a page about the persecution of only the Yazidi. The measures ISIS/ISIL have taken to persecute people and the terror tactics they use are common to all groups they persecute. I believe the best place on Wikipedia for this subject is a new section on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page. I suggest creating a section called "Persecution of religious minorities" or "Persecution of Shia and non-Muslims" (this section can have subsections like "Yazidis", "Shiites", "Christians", etc). AHeneen (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose merging this with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page. It would probably be best to merge this page with the Assyrian page, and build on that, adding in the other groups persecuted by the IS. But a summary of this page could be inserted into the ISIS page, under an appropriate heading. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I also support the proposed move. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with consideration to keeping the Battle of Sinjar 2014 Northern Iraq offensive and Yazidi pages up to date as well with this info (mostly done already).Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This genocidal persecution is sufficiently notable on its own. The so-called "Islamic State" has announced their intention to exterminate the Zazidis on he false basis that they are "Devil worshippers." The persecution is not just another incident of war. Merger is inappropriate. It would be like merging Armenian Genocide into Ottoman Empire, or any other notable persecution into the article about the perpetrators. Genocide campaigns tend to be notable. Edison (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, the article was appropriately named as "genocide." The reasons given, much like arguments to for merge border on 'I don't like it." Subject passes notability as a stand alone, merge would be extremely abusive. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If the death of tens or even hundreds of of people will be called genocide we will have hundreds of genocide articles. ISIS killed hundreds of Sunni Arabs in Syria and no one wrote an article about it! 3bdulelah (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. While this topic is notable, it is too short to have its own article at this time. When the length of this section grows a wp:split can be performed so that it have its own article when or if the time comes. - Technophant (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a distinct subtopic from the overall 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. --Article editor (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is quite an important topic and shouldn't be crammed into a broader article. It needs to be developed as a standalone article. Everyking (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merge until the subject becomes more notable, with many more RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge as it reads like a short stub of a news article as opposed to an encyclopedic one. Feudonym (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per not paper. The daughter article is meager for now but easily warrants separate consideration. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge with Persecution of Iraqi Christians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to create a separate article, which I'd title "Persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (or something similar). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the subject should be merged with IS/ISIS/ISIL persecution of others. However, as mentioned in the nomination, I think that the topic should be placed in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page for now. If there is sufficient content, then it can be moved to a separate article. AHeneen (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The ISIS article is big enough already. Add a brief summary in the ISIS article that links to an article about groups persecuted by ISIS. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Merge it,as it is a part of isis attacks --Shyam2432061 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Unless further developments mean there is too much information about the Yazidi persecution to comfortably fit entirely within this article, I think it should be merged. 206.132.97.4 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is a notable case of ethno-religious persecution (not a genocide however... yet, and hope it doesn't turn there). We already have Assyrian exodus from Iraq about persecution of Christians by ISI/ISIS/IS, so Yazidi exodus/persecution should also have an article.GreyShark (dibra) 15:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as this genocide is exactly the kind of thing to get the ISIL ranked among the most evil people in history and therefore is historically notable. --173.241.225.165 (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the ISIL article is too long already. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A separate article of all the genocides and persecutions of ISIL should be created with a summary in the ISIL article of them, as they are "doing" too much to fit in a single article.--Sae1962 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia isn't a news site and there's already too much presentism around here. Ruddah (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are serious humanitarian crimes involved such as mass-murder, human trafficking, burying victims alive and exile due to fear of persecution on the discriminatory basis of being so-called 'devil' worshippers. Ethno- religious persecution, even if it might not be a genocide, especially over the last 10 days, is significant enough to Keep as a separate Wikipedia article.:ನಿತಿನ್ (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article is getting too long already, and both of them might get even longer. This is also notable enough to be its own article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose... The persecution of even such a small group is notable and aught to be its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.30.247 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is already very long and will only get longer over the next weeks and months. 124.179.130.40 (talk) 10:11, 13 August

2014 (UTC)

  • oppose : big article in the name of prosecution of minorities should be added, which should have sub subjects of all minorities around the world
  • Oppose: We'd better a summary of the article to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page. This way, ion of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant will be a sister article. Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with having a summary section and link to a main article. It is by all international standards a genocidal campaign. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose but summarize in the main article and link: The event apparently represents willingness to act on extreme theoretical principles of a significant quasi-state that has emerged in the region. It may or may not represent a broader political tendency in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) that may possibly manifest in future states. It definitely does not seem to be just a lapse where a local commander acted out of control or in confusion about policy. More than mere sketchy news reports are involved, as it has immediately precipitated condemnation by governments worldwide, and armed and humanitarian response by the USA and other major states. Both the UN, and the principal regional international organization, The Arab League, have condemned the action. These facts, coupled with the potential for more of the same in future from from the Islamic State and possibly others therefore mean the incident is highly significant on its own. Forced conversion, ethno-religious cleansing, and mass murder as policy warrant immediate separate entries in my view. They are far more notable than most entries in Wikipedia. As a practical matter, in any case of attempted genocide or similar emergency I feel Wikipedia should be primarily guided by humanitarian principle -- trying to contribute to halting the action as rapidly as possible--, but at the same time should not divide the information into so many separate and unlinked articles as to leave users confused as this would be a violation of the same principle. Good linking and summation of related entries in the main article on the Islamic State is a priority here. Guided by the humanitarian priority, I feel merger could be seen as de facto complicity in slowing spread of the information by Wikipedia, which outweighs the fact that separation does somewhat divide the information. FurnaldHall (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: for all the good reasons already given. AugustinMa (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per Edison. Gothbag (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as above. Merging with proposed article is very inappropriate. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Persecution and the so-called state are different topics. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Islamic State is its on topic and it covers a huge territory across two states. The Yazidi incident is discreet. 68.50.116.60 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC) . ("discrete" --P123ct1 (talk))
  • Oppose The page on the Islamic State is huge and features all elements of the group. This article is on a notable subject linked to them. Genocide/persecution can exist as an article independent of its perpetrators '''tAD''' (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is notable on its own. Especially since the genocide got international attention like US intervention in Northern Iraq. Besides an entire ethnoreligious group is getting wiped out. That is notable in of itself. Clr324 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose per the above arguments. It is more than notable to have its own article and is widely covered by RS. Plus, a merge would certainly create a size issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an article-worthy, sufficiently sourced item that would be lost in the broader article and will serve that better as a link that can grow on its own.per the above arguments.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kojo Massacre

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There was a new massacre in the village of Kojo on Friday. 80 men were killed and 100 women captured. Should probably be included in this article, although the infobox makes it look like the only event was Sinjar and the main infobox should probably be redone. [1] --Kuzwa (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been added in the article.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Change the name of the article to also include Christians and Shiites?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I provide here some sources that may support such a change: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Turkmen (as a whole) are also mentioned, but Turkmen are an ethnic group, composed by both Sunnis and Shiites, not a religious community.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

UN did not say 5,000 Yazidis killed by ISIS

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop quoting the following Daily Mail article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792552/full-horror-yazidis-didn-t-escape-mount-sinjar-confirms-5-000-men-executed-7-000-women-kept-sex-slaves.html

The Daily Mail is a trashy news outlet infamous for it's misinformation.

The Daily Mail simply copied what the Telegraph, which is more reputable, said.

But the Telegraph made a mistake. Nowehere in the UN Report does it say 5,000 Yazidis were killed by ISIS. Instead, that figure comes from a Professor who says between 3-5000 Yazidis were killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.121.46 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Telegraph article says in the title "At least 5,000 Yazidis men shot in cold blood and up to 7,000 women held by Isil, United Nations researchers confirm" and later "Researchers adding together accounts of massacres in Yazidi villages as the jihadists attacked have counted a series of killings of more than 100 men each, with the total gunned down now thought to be up to 5,000", so it does not seem to me to be just this Professor (Matthew Barber). Or maybe Matthew Barber made the research also for the U.N.--Olonia (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

abduction ≠ killing

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

7,000 abducted was listed under 'Deaths', which is not correct. Adding to the infobox a line 'Abductions' appears impossible, so I've had to improvise with the incorrectly placed information. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update deaths in infobox?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the infobox, it shows data from the Iraqi government from August showing hundreds of deaths. It also shows data from a later date from the UN showing thousands of deaths. Should we just use the more up to date UN data?--ZiaLater (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Treachery or not

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It may be that there were different scenarios, but some reports say that the Islamic State lied to get the males to leave villages, saying they were taking them somewhere safe but then shooting them. This says the executed males dug their own graves: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3244795/This-revenge-Yazidi-girls-three-brave-female-fighters-killing-10-ISIS-brutes-day-frontline-Iraq.html (Source: female Yazidi fighter) 2601:600:8500:5B1:B4AA:BB07:C33F:D816 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

PKK Not mentioned

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone involved in the escape from Sinjar will mention that it was the PKK who opened a safe corridor for their escape, yet the group is not mentioned anywhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.193.179.5 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The article in the below section mentions that the featured fighters, who went to help the Yazidis on 5 Aug 2014, are members of the PKK for anyone who wants to use it as a reference. 2601:600:8500:5B1:B4AA:BB07:C33F:D816 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not genocide, violation of NPOV

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Genocide is

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
   (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

the relevant issues here are 'intent to destroy' and 'in whole or in part' There is no evidence of 'intent to destroy'. IS has never made any statements, any declarations, at any point, that is wished to destroy Yazidis as a religious group nor is there any evidence that this was its intent in private. Secondly, 'in whole or in part' it has been stated "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The highest estimates of deaths from IS against Yazidi is 5000, with 5000-7000 enslaved. The Wikipage for Yazidi estimates that there are 650,000 in Iraq alone as 2005. (So says the source)

This means that: 10000 is what percent of 650000 = 10000 / 650000 = 0.015385

Converting decimal to a percentage: 0.015385 * 100 = 1.54%

the population affected was a mere 1.5% of the total not a 'substantial part of that group' or 'significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole'

Therefore this is clearly not genocide and any reference to genocide must be removed from the article.

Any insistence that this is genocide is evidence that an editor is harboring NPOV feelings against IS and should not edit this article because the are incapable of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Assuming Good Faith is a central tenet of Wikipedia policy, so your last statement is highly inappropriate. Secondly, what you aren't realizing is that the question of whether or not to call it genocide is not based on whether or not we as editors feel it meets the criteria, that would be Original Research which is against Wikipedia policy, but rather whether or not reliable sources describe it as such. We as editors may feel that they are incorrect in their doing so, we are all entitled to our opinions, but we must put our personal assessments aside and report what reliable sources say. In this case it appears that several reliable sources refer to this as a genocide, so that is the nomenclature we must adhere to, regardless of whether or not we feel it is correct. That is how we actually maintain a Neutral Point of View. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

there are only 2/3 sources for the claim of 'genocide' their reliability, and neutrality is disputed one is in russian rather than english for such a controversial word without any evidence, you cannot definitvely state in the lede that it is 'genocidal' it is a legal term that really has to be proved in court i think they idea this is genocide is a fringe theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.152.21 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

discrepancy in death toll of 2007 Yazidi communities bombings

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lists elsewhere on wikipedia put the death toll at 796: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks#Iraq_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq

I have found sources for this number (though none is given on those pages): NBC News, The Telegraph

Influence Warfare: How Terrorists and Governments Fight to Shape Perceptions ... By James J.F. Forest

http://www.yezidisinternational.org/displaced-yezidis/ Yaakovaryeh (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent mass removals of sourced content

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reverted. Perhaps some of that should be modified or better sourced, but mass removal seem completely unjustified. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Genocide

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now that more groups including the United States are classifying this as a genocide, should we possibly rename this article to something like the "Yazidi genocide"? I think we should take a better look at this.--ZiaLater (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Unambiguous title

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone moved this to Yazidi genocide which could suggest that Yazidi's were the perpetrators. Please people, common sense. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, well, I have no opinion on the title, but I really doubt anyone reading "Yazidi genocide" would think Yazidis are the perpetrators. It's common enough terminology to refer to the victims of genocides, not the perpetrators. LjL (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments10 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title or a version without caps at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL → Yazidi Genocide – WP:CONCISE 2600:8806:6400:1440:A8A9:1106:CEFC:76E5 (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @2600:8806:6400:1440:A8A9:1106:CEFC:76E5, Andy Dingley, and DBigXray: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Case is wrong, should be Yazidi genocide (no objection to that as a redirect) but I oppose a move here as it's not over-long anyway and we should be clear that this was not a genocide by the Yazidi.
  • As we've already been here before (Talk:Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL#Unambiguous_title) this isn't uncontroversial. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Andy Dingley, this current title is descriptive per WP:NDESC, I am not sure if there were any past genocides of Yazidi's but in any case this would need an RM discussion. IP please start an RM discussion if you still insist on renaming the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose could be misunderstood as genocide by Yazidis In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There aren't any genocides of Yazidis not carried out by ISIL, so this is unnecessary disambiguation. Koopinator (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The shorter, the better. This is the language used for titles such as the Armenian genocide, Greek genocide, Cambodian genocide, Rwandan genocide, etc. And as previously stated, there is no need for the "by ISIL" since there was no other genocide committed against Yazidis. VwM.Mwv (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support to Yazidi genocide, no need to capitalize genocide.--Staberinde (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose The parts that are not about the Genocide of Yazidi by the ISIL could be included in other articles and the other articles could be interlinked with this one. Some parts could be included as background in this article, too. Lean Anael (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Article move

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've undone this 2016 move: [[6]]. It was asserted to have been uncontroversial; however, a statement from the US administration and the UN where it "accused" ISIL of genocide is not sufficient. The initiator of the 2016 move (Special:Contributions/Article_editor) was subsequently been indef blocked for abuse of the RM process. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Status quo ante

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have moved back to the Status quo ante. The previous move was made without a requested move and it is recognized as a genocide by the United Nations[7][8] and the European Parliament[9] and also Scottish Parliament recognizes genocide against the Yazidi people and Armenian Parliament recognizes Yazidi genocide and Australia parliament recognized Yazidi genocide[10]. Nathan Annick (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources tag

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Put this on here because there are a ton of Daily Mail refs, and I'm not expert enough in the area to research, check and replace or remove them. Maybe later - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yazidi_genocide/Archive_1&oldid=1182599262"