Talk:Yazidis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The Ézidí in Hamduna and the saving of an US-Soldier during WW2

A friend told me a story. During WWII an US-Soldier got down in the area of the town Hamduna wich mostly inhibts Yezidi people. The Inhabitants saved him, and hold him hidden or, i barely remember this story, brought him back to his unit. After WWII he came back and helped the people to establish a water supply and other thing. Does any one has heard of this story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.103.73 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

hamduna is the town where i born .my grandfather was the leader and he is now over 100 years old. i konw every thing about the true story. because my family is a part of it .i like to write a book about the story, but i live in germany and my english spech is not good enough.

kindly regards r.y

r.y i am from germany too, maybe we are from the same town. when you answer i log in witzh my account and we can try to make contact. greetz t.s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.41.252 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I am also from Germany and my father told me this story, too. The man visited my family in Germany and we still have a picture of it in our living room. I would like to talk about it and share our experience. Let me know whether you are interested. Selav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neya01 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Links with Freemasons

I have read various theories which try to link Yazidis to what is known as Freemasonry [1]. Are the yazidis similar to what is known as secret societies ? Links and sources are welcomed of course.

The Ézidí

Judging by the picture, the Ezidis have worn traditional clothes that are similar to the Turcoman tribes. I assume this is because of the geographical location in which they reside. Can anybody suggest something on this to enlighten me?

Mustafa

People tend to adapt local customs, to fit in. In my hometown in Germany Bergen near Celle, some of my yezidi friends wore Baseball-Caps, Baggy Pants. Typical Hip hop dress. In middle east the customs a different. Pork is a no go. But the Meshefa-Resh their holy book says nothing. Also honour killings ar not part of their religion. But they adopted local customs. hope that helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.103.73 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Photographs

The following link is to a site which has photographs of a Yezidi village, nothing sensational, could be any other village, I wish the article carries the link. WP discourages external links, I wonder how to go about it.

Many photographs of a Yezidi village

Yogesh Khandke (talk)

There's no problem with posting external links in an "External links" section. But the photos seems to have vanished from the link..? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No pics of Yazidi women? Odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.208.60.95 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Picture captioned 'Yazidi men' has little authenticity metadata. As one of the majority who is unable to evaluate its veracity, how are we to know if these men are Yazidi or not? ie, cite references, or annotate the photo appropriately to indicate why the men are believed to be Yazidi (and preferrably add more copyright information, or else remove the photo, since I am also questioning whether the uploader has ownership or permission to use it...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.3.246 (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio?

It seems to me that much of the text is taken literally from Encyclopaedia Iranica, with little or no rephrasing (though other parts explicitly contradicted it; I've fixed some of that). --Anonymous44 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Split 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oppose On 15 November 2009, Rago suggested that the section /* Religious beliefs */ be split off into a separate article entitled: Yazidism. (Yazidism currently redirects to this article.) So far as I can see, there has been no discussion of that proposal to date (3 April 2010). While the lead indicates that the article is about a Kurdish religion with ancient Indo-European roots, in fact the article has a broader scope dealing with concomitant culture. It seems that this may be why Rago suggested a separate article just for Yazidi religion beliefs. All-in-all, right now, I don't think that this article has strayed too far, and it is not too long, so that such a split is unnecessary. --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose too at the moment. There is no sign that this article will be expanded anytime soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus there would be 2 articles to police against the frequent vandalism this page suffers. Oppose as well, until someone can come up with a decent start class article on the ethnicity. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who ran into a quote from the Black Book on Tumblr in a Satanic context and wound up here, I think it would be best if you didn't split the article, considering it must get many such visitors and they really should have to get through the cultural context to get to the religious beliefs. 74.180.69.189 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Split declined. No consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 11:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Contradiction and inaccuracy? Not indo -european

The article states that the religion is Indo European. After reading the article , it seems hard to believe that a religion with so little in common with other Indo European religions, such as Greek, Roman, or Vedic, would be Indo European. in fact he article contradicts itself by saying Yazid is influenced by middle eastern religions, and the constant reference to middle eastern mythology is at odds with an Indo European origins. Middle eastern religions share nothing in common with Indo European religions, having completely unrelated origins. Millueradfa (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that it started as a cousin religion to Zoroastrianism (the heptad of angels that emanate from God compares with the Amesha Spentas), and that names and terms have changed over the years because the dominant language of the area has changed, and also to avoid persecution. The Taus in Melek Taus is related to the Greek Theos, the Germanic Tiwuz, and the Hindi Dyaus. The religion believes in reincarnation, which tends to be more of an Indo-European belief than a Semitic one (Gnostics, Kabbalists, and Sufis tend to be the Semitic groups that have some folks that accept reincarnation, otherwise it's either sheol, gehenna, or heaven). An ox is sometimes sacrificed in Yazidi rites, a carry over from Mithraism (where Mithras creates the world by slaying the cosmic bull). In Zoroastrianism, Ahriman (the devil), slays the cosmic bull as part of ruining God's creation of the world, creating the world as we now know it. Yazidiism provides a link for how the cosmic bull slayer goes from being a villain in Persia to a demiurge in more Western Mithraism. Although not present in its current form at the same time, the belief that the angel that opposed God is actually a benevolent demiurge acting for God would be a bridge, and the Yazidi got their beliefs from somewhere, be it from some proto-Mithraism or from synthesizing the two views. The schema of the four elements and their sacred purity is also inherited from Zoroastrianism. Semitic cosmologies tend to not use the four classical elements (the Sefer Yetsirah has three elements, for example). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a religious expert and mostly have the article on my watchlist because I watch a fair number of Kurdish related articles. But the above seems odd to me as a linguist; I'm very familiar with IE as a linguistic concept but is it a valid cultural concept? After all, IE languages are spread across a vast cultural range, historically from Iceland to Southern India and more recently of course the spread of IE languages as part of the colonial period. It seems so vague a term at best. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Language and culture are related. The culture that spoke proto-Indo-European had their beliefs, which developed into Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc. The Yazidis stopped using only IE words to express their theology, but the actual beliefs have more in common with beliefs in cultures that spoke IE languages than with beliefs in cultures that spoke Semitic languages. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Language and culture may be related, and are sometimes related, but they are not necessarily related. This is especially the case over long periods of time and it is especially evident when one tries to parse out what may have happened during a pre-historical period. One of the best known examples is that of the Mitanni, who had a language similar to the non-Indo-European Hurrian language but who nevertheless displayed notable elements of Indo-Iranian culture. The Romans are another notable example, because they spoke an Indo-European language of the Italic family, while important aspects of their religion and culture appear to have originated with the Etruscans, who spoke a non-Indo-European language possibly originating in Asia Minor (where the Romans placed their own cultural origin, according to the Aeneid). In the English-speaking world, Halloween customs are Celtic in origin even though they are typically practiced in the English language. European May Day customs are similarly Celtic in origin, even though the only Celtic speakers on the Continent are the Bretons, who moved to Brittany from Great Britain after the Norman Conquest. In the United States, the English language predominates even though the largest white ethnic group is German; and German origins are very noticeable in local cultural traditions, particularly in terms of cuisine and particularly in the Midwest. On a separate note, though I hesitate to mention it, it is important never to forget that one of the premises of the national socialist movement in Germany during that 1920s, '30s and '40s was that there is an essential identity to language, culture and ethnicity. The national socialists were wrong about this (even by their own terms they were wrong), and it is appropriate to be extremely skeptical about anything they believed. -- Bob Bob99 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Hindu I find many similarities between the religious, cultural and social practices of the Yazadis and Hindus. See for example the architecture of the places of worship of the Hindus and Yazadis and Hindus which looks similar and the Muslims which is markedly different. There are many other similarities. I will get back. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Hindu, I find many customs similar to Hindus. I watched a video on Yezidi religion.

They have many similarity in their customs and rituals with the Hindus. 1) They go around a small white mound outside their temple 3 times- we Hindus have an ant hill in front of every temple where snakes reside and we circulate around it 3-5 times. In respect of Naga devata (snake God) 2)Not stamping the first step into the temple. Every Hindu follows that even in their respective house.This is because Lord Narasimha (avatar of Vishnu) killed the demon King Hiranyakashyap , who had a boon that no one can kill him inside his house or outside. 3)That holy ash dot that the priest puts on everyone's forehead is Bhasma or tilak. We Hindus wear it always.Its akin to opening or activating the pineal gland which is the seat of third eye. 4)That lady in half-saree(traditional dress of south Indians) esp the flowers on her hair (its the jasmine flowers) it is typical of south Indians.[That attire you can see in Chennai Express movie (Deepika Padukone)]. That lady in mural is lighting a lamp, again a typical South Indian lamp. Every house has it. 5)Plus some kind of Varna system (like a caste system) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herms16 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Now the only thing you have to do is write an article on those similarities, but not here, in WP, in an academic publication. And then we refer to those similarities here in this article, using that source. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Hindu troll, Firstly read the article of Caste. It is practices by many different ethnic groups such as East Asians, Africans, etc. And your other "claims" are informal and seems forcing to similarity. And another argument that use by some Hindu nationalist just like you is the "peacock angel". It is ridiculous because this cult found in many religions and cultures except your society:

• The Truth Behind the Christ Myth: The Redemption of the Peacock Angel (Mark Amaru Pinkham)

page no: 44 "Messiah and his church further linked to the Peacock Angel through their association with both the IHS, the "Chrismon" or "Signed of God", and the many eyed peacock. IHS is an ancient symbol for the Cosmic Fire, the three letters symbolizing creation, (I, the symbol of the One creative God), preservation..."

• [http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=GF4XDp-eSTwC&pg=PA23&dq=peacock+is+symbol+of&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=GhHvU8jAOsqxPIrXgdAP&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=peacock%20is%20symbol%20of&f=false

Signs & Symbols in Christian Art (George Ferguson,George Wells Ferguson)]

"In Christian art the peacock is used as the symbol of immortality. "

• Celtic Symbols (Sabine Heinz)

"The peacock, primarily beloved in the East (Persia, China), is one of the birds most frequently used in heraldry. It is associated with the sun cult. Its impresive feathers can stand either for the firmament or path of the sun. (...)"

• Medieval Islamic Symbolism and the Paintings in the Cefalù Cathedral (Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen)

"Both the peacock and the dove very common Islamic bird motifs." "The peacock is one of Anahita's holy creatures. It is often found in a context familiar Greco-Roman and Christian art in which the bird is a symbol of the soul that drinks water at the fountain of life. The Iranian peacock derives from this same background" "...As noted above, the custom among modern Iranians of giving peacock feathers to their friends at Nawroz could be the expression of a distant connection with the rebirth symbolism of times long past."

• The Continuum Encyclopedia of Symbols (Udo Becker)

" Likewise, there are representations of peacocks in early Christianity as sun symbols as well as symbols of immortality "

and bla bla.

Your additions are just WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Don't tire yourself so much just like your fellow above. 31.177.169.125 (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Western Literature References

Someone could add the reference in the Tom Knox novel "Genesis Secret" where the Yazidi play a prominent role and their Black Book is a main feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrn0074 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom who? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I read that book a few years ago. The book is just a novel, not an academical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.169.125 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anton LaVey

In "Wanted! God, Dead or Alive", an essay in The Book of Lucifer (the second volume in The Satanic Bible), Anton LaVey refers to the Yazidi as "a sect of Devil worshippers", and interprets their beliefs as follows:

They believe that God is all-powerful, but also all-forgiving, and so accordingly feel that it is the Devil whom they must please, as he is the one who rules their lives while here on earth.

Is this a reliable source, especially for so controversial a claim? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If the claim is that LaVey said it, it is reliable.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anton LaVey is not a reliable source for anything. Additionally, there is no indication why his claims about a Middle Eastern religious group are notable. And just mentioning the essay in the "Satanic Bible" is essentially using a primary source for a contentious claim, which is also a no go.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Anton LaVey is a reliable source for what Anton LaVey said, irrespective of the truth of his assertions. The claim that AL said X is not contentious, if sourced to his writings.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how is what Anton Lavey says important to the subject of the article? He's certainly not an authority in the field, or even particularly well known for his writings on the Yazidi. The Christianity article is notably free of quotes from LaVey.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably because what LaVey wrote about Christianity has been said before, many times, down the ages. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

His comments on the Yazidi are not important enough to include in the Yazidi article. The fact that they exist is not enough to include them here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is that LaVey's opinions are reasonably notable. They are also typically stupid, offensive and ill-informed but that is a separate matter. I doubt he bothered to look into any Yazidi source material. He probably just took some mistaken external source(s) and spun it the way he wished it to be. LaVey certainly doesn't tell us anything real about Yazidis but he does show us something about western perceptions of Yazidis. I am not a fan of LaVey, but quite a lot of people are, making him more notable than he deserves to be. As Yazidis do not have a high profile in the west, there may be LaVey fans out there who know nothing of Yazidis other than what LaVey wrote about them. I don't think there is an absolute need to include his opinions here but if it is possible to weave them into a valid context then that is worth doing. That valid context would have to be an explanation of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Yazidi beliefs by outsiders. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, if you're so convinced that Lavey's comments are notable, find a real reliable secondary source demonstrating that they are. Simply quoting his own book (or not even quoting it, as here) is not sufficient for this. Specifically, you will need to find a source showing that Lavey's comments on the Yazidi are notable in the context of a discussion of the Yazidi. Additionally it will need a real inline citation, not just a mention of the book. We don't need a random selection of every time this Middle Eastern religious group has been mentioned offhandedly in Western ephemera.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've changed your tune quite few times here, haven't you, as you dream more and more reasons for exclusion? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ps plenty of sources here --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. My first comment was: "Anton LaVey is not a reliable source for anything. Additionally, there is no indication why his claims about a Middle Eastern religious group are notable. And just mentioning the essay in the "Satanic Bible" is essentially using a primary source for a contentious claim, which is also a no go." And you haven't addressed any of those points.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be repeating myself to point out that we've already seen that ALV is a reliable source for himself. And so on. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

But why would quote him? How are his comments important to the subject of this article? And what justifies using a primary source in this circumstance?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find anything reliable and useful let us know. But the Google Books results for Yazidi "Anton lavey" gave me exactly 12 hits, nearly all of which are about occultism or satanism rather than the Yazidi themselves (except for one which is an uncredited printout of this Wikipedia article), and none of which appear to be reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a major revamp

It is amazing that wikipedia tolerates such nonsense against a community. So many repetitions of the Satan allegations and devil worshipping. And that nonsense about honour killing controversy. The Yazidis are a miracle, just surviving in such adverse conditions for so long. In 60 years Hindu women in Pakistan have been hounded to giving up wearing their traditional forehead mark. (look up if you want). Population is 10 percent of what it was in 1947, the year India was partitioned. Amazingly resilient Yazidis. And all this article carries is Satan and more Satan. Disgusting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war

I don't want an edit war. The sandbox is here: Yazidi. Please do the needful. In say 15 days. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what this section is trying to do. Are you trying to make the claim that the Yazidi religion originated in India? If so I think we'd need much better sources than the ones provided. I think we're going to need better sources all around, actually.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the message I took from it. Responded on the sand box talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything, expect for the existance of claims that the Yazidis make of an Indian connection. Now for the quality of sources. I want the strictest standards applied. I respect Wikipedia too much for it to be filled with trash, a pity there is so much of it around. Please use the sand box discussion page or this space. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More discussion at User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke/sandbox_Yazidi

Except for one - Kreyenboek - which mentions the already-established Indo-Iranian origin of the Kurds! - the other sources are of direly dubious quality. The spiritualist ramblings of modern new age thinkers are not reliable sources for history, nor are the suppositions by the Reverend from the 1850s that suggest the Yezidis are Hebrews, Indians and Atlanteans. On the other hand, there are many reliable modern sources that discuss the origin of the Yezidis as an indigenous Iranian faith parallel to others such as Mithraism and Zoroastrianism and influenced by contact with other faiths. Ogress _smash! 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Arguments

There are three editors in agreement that the claim by Yazidi's that their religion has Indian roots cannot be taken in this article. Let us examine the sources quoted by me one by one

1. First reference: http://www.yeziditruth.org This source of mine has been quoted elsewhere in this article see references 20, 21, suddenly the source has become untouchable and elicits comments like "The spiritualist ramblings of modern new age thinkers are not reliable sources for history", then how is a Orthodox convert to Islam full of fantastic ideas himself - wears them on his home page: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, a good source, and quoted 8 times. This site has been quoted by Foreign Policy for information about Yazidis [[2]]
2. Second reference: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/Worldandnation/In_Iraq__ancient_sect.shtml This is from a Times correspondent, what is wrong with it, perhaps religion is not her field of expertise but then other similar sources are allowed see references (3), (12), (22) and (23)
3. Fourth reference: Why is Tamoyan's statement coming from a Yazidi of some standing, any poorer than any one else's.
4. Sixth reference: Is www.mideastyouth.com a $100 website?
5. Seventh reference: Badger is old because he is based in 1850, are sources circa 1911 Joseph, (15) (16) (17) in diapers?

Other comments on sources used in the article:

1. References (19) (a) (b) are pure original research and synthesis based on primary sources.
2. Encyclopaedia are not considered as good sources however they have been heavily quoted in this article reference (1) 15 instances, (13) a copy paste from some tame encyclopaedia, (14), (18) (19), (24), (29)
3. Edmond in A pilgrimage to Lalish sees pilgrims with Hindu like forehead marks [[3]]

Please we need an objective appraisal of the issue. And not prejudice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point we're trying to make is not that the current refs in the article are good but that we don't want to make it worse! Akerbeltz (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please personally I too hate to use the argument "see it is good there so it can be acceptable here." Please look at the sources and if you think they hold good then we can have the statements here. Don't just brush them off because the concept goes against your personal fads. If Foreign Policy can quote the so called plastic shamman sock puppet, perhaps he is misjudged and perhaps he is good enough for Wikipedia too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand that. I have no personal fads or anything against the topic; the only reason it's on my watchlist is because it's a Kurdish related topic that is frequently vandalised. I personally don't have the sources to improve the article, it's way out of my area. But that does not detract from the fact that some of the sources on the page are, well, junk. If I had the sources and the time, I'd improve the article sources first, then expand it but I have neither. But I'm hesitant to watch more unreliable sources being added. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please evaluate source one by one and then strike it right or wrong. yeziditruth has been quoted by Foreign Policy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yezidi script

There is evidently an alphabet of some sort used to write the Yezidi scriptures, at least some of the time. Little seems to be know about it... What I have got distilled into this chart. Does anyone know more? -- Evertype·✆ 04:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Islam...?

Are the Yazidi a sect of Islam?--Splashen (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the lead section. 89.178.245.208 (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC) No they aren't, the belief of them being Devil worshippers arose because they are an old faith with a very similar creation story, except that instead of getting banished the angel(often considered to be Satan by other people) that refuses to bow to Adam is venerated.

Please use the word "Shia" plural "Shias", instead of "Shiite" or "Shiites"

misleading article

• While it is true that Yazidism contains traces of Zoroastrianism, most of their literature and tradition is Sufi Islamic. The Encyclopaedia of Islam even calls is a "heterodox Muslim sect". See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28686607
• "Yazdânism" is a neologisms coined by a non-expert and should be used with caution.--Rafy talk 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also question the accuracy of this article. I have met Yezidis, including the religious leader of one of the larger Yezidi communities in Canada, and the story of Melek Taus they told me is far more consistent with that described in a Daily Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1560714/The-Devil-worshippers-of-Iraq.html) As in this article, what I was told was sort of a twist on the tale of Lucifer: That Melek Taus was an angel sent to hell after his prideful rebellion against God until he was ultimately forgiven 40,000 years later and placed in charge of the earth as the primary angel. Completely left out of this Wikipedia article is any mention of his imprisonment in Hell. Also requiring emphasis is the fact that Melek Taus was placed in charge of the earth by God. There's a very gnostic aspect of the religion that this Wikipedia article fails to mention: According to what I have been told, they believe that God has abandoned our flawed physical world and left Melek Taus in charge, and that is why their worship is directed at Melek Taus, and not God. God is entirely disineterested in the physical world. That belief is something that likely contributes to their persecution, as well as the fact that they direct worship to Melek Taus (with his parallels to Lucifer) instead of God. Furthermore, while they do not see Melek Taus as evil (something this Wikipedia article sort of gets right), he is neither all good. He is flawed, embodying both the good and the bad of the physical world. They do not have another figure, like Satan as depicted in other religions, who embodies outright evil, so it is up to Melek Taus to represent the struggle between the two. I suspect that in public the Yezidis fail to emphasise these facts in order to distance Melek Taus from comparisons to Lucifer and to avoid the perception that they dishonour God. 211.26.193.93 (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to trust a 19thC European source on what the Yezidi believe more than I would trust a 21st-Century one. The 19thC ones were written in an era when religion was still of crucial importance and something that was believed in. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Shaushka's edits

@Shaushka, i told you several times, please stop your POV-push. If you have sources, show us. Otherwise dont deform articles/categories please. Dont delete sources.--Gomada (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are enough sources about Yezidi Kurds.--Gomada (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You can find dozens, thousands of sources that call the Mexicans "Hispanics", "Latins", etc. So what now? Are they Latinas? Are they relatives of Spaniards, Portugueses, Italians, Catalans? Their language is Spanish- a Latin language- but they are not Spaniards. Do you see my poit? Shaushka (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I change the page? Because of you(Gomada and Ahmetyal) Yazidi gypsies! Both of you Yazidi gypsies who hate their own gypsy identity. Therefore you want to be Kurdish, Arab, etc! You are from India dude. Shaushka (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just need one reliable source for your statement. --Ahmetyal (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Go read some book about them. In addition, I have explained my argument above. And you are a Yazidi, admit it. Shaushka (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yazids flee Sinjar in face of ISIS takeover

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/islamic-state-seize-town-of-sinjar-pushing-out-kurds-and-sending-yazidis-fleeing/2014/08/03/52ab53f1-48de-4ae1-9e1d-e241a15f580e_story.html “In our history, we have suffered 72 massacres,” Yazidi parliamentarian Haji Ghandour said as he tried to leave the town on Saturday night, but was stuck on the road because of fighting. “We are worried Sinjar could be a 73rd.” 74.60.161.158 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Name

Yazid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_I) is the name of a kalif who beheaded Hussein, the grandchild of the Islam's profit Muhammad. Therefore, Yazid is hated by Shia Muslims. Ézidí people are not Arabs and have nothing to do with Yazid. I suggest to change Yazidi to Eazadi which sounds more correct. Your write the name in Arabic alphabets like ایزدی and Yazidi like یزیدی. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.156.90.55 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is Manicheanism in the See also section?

They seem to be the opposite of Manicheanism, not having a powerful evil devil figure standing as the opposite and foe of the good god.

Melek Taus/Shaytan

The reference to the article Allison C 1998 The Evolution of Yazidi Religion From Spoken Word to Written Scripture is a little dubious. This article only makes a single setence on the subject of Melek Taus, that "non-Yezidis" associated him with Satan. However http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28686607 states that Shaytan is an authentic alternative name for Melek Taus. I think it is certainly plausible that Yezidis made the association with Satan before outsiders did. Does anyone have reliable info on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yintov (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Name change proposal

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved to "Yazidis". DrKiernan (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Yazidi → Yazidis or Yazidi Kurds – I think the page's name should be in plural as in Kurds, Germans, Italians. So I propose that we change it to Yazidis. Another change could be Yazidi Kurds, like Feyli Kurds. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC) --Ahmetyal (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yazidis per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:PLURAL (Exceptions: "Articles on people groups. Americans, Canadians, and French people are all acceptable titles."). —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yazidis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support Yazidis Charles Essie (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Question. Is not Yazidi already plural, as well as singular? Is not the "Yazidis" we read in vthe pop media currently less correct?--Wetman (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yazidis appears to be the most common plural form used by sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose if Yazidi is already plural rather than adjectival, support Yazidis if not. We need a subject-matter expert to answer Wetman's question, since it's unclear whether Yazidi is plural, like Baghirmi and Ashanti, or adjectival like Iraqi (thus plural Iraqis). I think this matters, because while we follow the sources on facts generally, and we give solid weight to the most common name in evaluating how to apply the naming criteria, we are not stupid robots and are not going to push a double-plural redundancy error on our readers just to make a rule-bound point. Any rule can be set aside when necessary from time to time, and everything we do here is moderated by common sense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• I am pretty sure "Yazidis" is the plural form. No one has opposed it, so I am going to change it soon to Yazidis. --Ahmetyal (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • At the very least, most sources I've seen use Yazidis as the plural form. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2014 (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.

Vandalism

The change I keep making always gets removed [4]. Yazidis are not only speaking Kurdish as mother tongue, but they are in fact Kurds. Something vandalisers can't change. --Ahmetyal (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Guardian newspaper [5] expresses that Yazidis are "predominately" a Kurdish nation. If no one opposes me changing the intro to The Yazidis are a predominately Kurdish ethnoreligious group, then I'm going to change it. --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Better find an academic source, not a newspaper. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Here [6].

"The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims. There are also Shi’a and Yezidi Kurds, as well as Christians who identify themselves as Kurds. Yezidis are Kurds who follow a religion that combines indigenous pre-Islamic and Islamic traditions. The once thriving Jewish Kurdish community in Iraq now consists of a few families in the Kurdish safe haven. " --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ezidinasi.com/en/archives/16

There are many Yazidis who don't identify themselves as Kurds. See above. Some claim that their orijinal language is Aramaic. Linguistic =/= ethnicity. And also not all of them speak Kurdish as native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.122.174 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Better find an academic source. --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not add this as an "academic source". I know it is not. That is the reason why I did not add it to the article. My point is that, there are Yazidis who do not identity themselves as Kurds. 149.140.122.174 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that. Lots of Yazidi Kurds in Armenia say they are not Kurds. But that does not mean they aren't. --Ahmetyal (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, we shouldn't add absolute sentences such as "They are Arabs", "They are Kurds", "They are Assyrians", etc since there are no consensus about it both among the Yazidis and academic circles. Instead, we should use terms such as "...-speaking". Regards...

PS: Actually I didn't want to add sources about it because the word "...-speaking" is not problematic. If this word is will not be changed anymore, there is no need my addition. Again, regards. 149.140.122.174 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We could change it to: Yazidis are predominately ethnic Kurds[7][8][9], but some are also ethnic Arabs, like Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir. Some Yazidis even perceive themselves as an isolated ethnic group.[10]

The wording can of course be changed. --Ahmetyal (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Some sources are not reliable, therefore i didn't add them but I have added your sentences. Thank you for your effort to reaching consensus. Regards...149.140.122.174 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean correct. Modern Kurdish irredentism considers all Yezidi to be Kurds (along with all Zaza). And some Kurdish nationalists consider the Yezidi follow what was the original religion of the Kurds (and a religion that should be returned to because Islam has been the reason behind Kurdish divisions and lack of statehood). However, there is no genetics behind the idea of "nations" or "nationhood", it is all a human construct. The self-identity of those who call themselves Yezidi needs to be noted - if some of them do not consider themselves to be Kurds, and consider many so-called Kurds to be merely Yezidi who converted to Islam due to persecution, then that needs to be properly taken note of and not dismissively ignored. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The article could include Aziz Tamoyan - The Yazidi leader in Armenia who claims that Yazidis aren't Kurds, and that Yazidis speak Ezdiki, not Kurdish. [11][12]

It is not academical source. We cannot pollute the article by adding whatever we find about Yazidis on the Internet. (see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE). My point is that, origin of Yazidis is obscure so I am against adding "Yazidi Kurds", "Yazidi Arabs" etc as user Ahmetyal did before. But now, he give up adding such terms. 149.140.122.174 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"It is not an academical source." - but neither is the Guardian source in your edit that claims they're predominantly Kurds. Whereas in this report, the UN defines and identifies them separately. A few examples:

"A number of different ethnic groups exist in Iraq, including, for example, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, ethnic-based Christian groups (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Armenians), Yazidis, Shabak and Roma.

It is disputed, even among the community itself as well as among Kurds, whether they are ethnically Kurds or form a distinct ethnic group.

Only about ten percent of the Yazidis live in the Kurdish-administered areas, mainly in the Governorate of Dahuk

Some Yazidis expressed concern over forced assimilation into Kurdish culture and identity.

For mainly political reasons, the Kurdish parties, in particular the KDP, have been stressing that the Yazidis are ethnic Kurds

The Yazidi religion is closed to outsiders as Yazidis do not intermarry, not even Kurds, nor do they accept converts.

The Yazidis are born into any of the three castes: the Murids (the laity) and the Sheikhs and the Pirs (the clergy), and, as mentioned earlier, marriage across classes is forbidden."

Claiming they're predominantly one ethnicity obviously isn't cut-and-dried unless there's solid evidence to prove it one way or the other. But taking the above into account, they're clearly very endogamous, which is why I find it hard to assign them to any ethnic group other than simply "Yazidi"--So linear (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not my source, Ahmetyal's source. He try to Kurdify the article and changed the "Kurdish-speaking" to "Kurds". I reverted them and he called me "vandal". I have added a source that embodies Yazidis' ethnicity is obscure but I was sure that he is going revert it again. Thus, I wanted to reach a consensus with him. Thats the reason why I added these sentences. I am going to delete them and add my source again, if everybody agrees with me. 149.140.122.174 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Added my source again and deleted non-reliable source. Regards. 149.140.122.174 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't spot the source he used earlier. This "Kurdifying" tit for tat has to stop and a number of recent overzealous edits need to be addressed. Ahmetyal also removed the Arabic name completely instead of correcting it using the wiki name that's linked in the sidebar, which I thought was weird. I can't fix them right now but maybe someone else can have a look.--So linear (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop monopolising wiki talks please. Yazidi are Kurds, they speak kurdish , kurmancî and soranî dialects. The celebrate all kurdish fests... According to all reporters and journalists of the world the yazidies are kurdish by roots [13]. According to scientists [14], and the Iranian institute Yazidies are Kurds [15].

I am afraid to see someone saying that Ahmetyal wants to kurdifiying the yazidi... is it a joke or? They are kurds. If you have 2 or 3 releable sources on "whether" yazidi" is not kurdish so show its to us: if not, stop trolling here. Alsace38 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Monopolising"? I think it's obvious who's guilty of that here. I've given my opinion and backed it up. Like I said, it's not cut-and-dried. [16][17]

This US government commissioned religious freedom report states point blank: "Yazidis have claimed that the Kurds have tried to “Kurdify” them in an effort to extend their control over Yazidi areas."

And this State department report makes the distinction between Kurdish and Yazidi: "During the year there were allegations that the KRG continued to engage in discriminatory behavior against religious minorities. Members of these groups living in areas north of Mosul, such as Yazidis and Christians, asserted that the KRG encroached on their property and illegally built Kurdish settlements on the confiscated land."

And this UN report is absolutely crystal clear: "Yazidis of Sinjar complained of intimidation, detention and extrajudicial killings at the hands of the Kurdish forces as part of an ongoing forced “Kurdification” campaign. ... According to the US military, “(W)e hear allegations all the time. You’ll hear about Kurdish pressure; it will be everything from economic and political pressure to more concerning forced apprehension and murder.”"

Etc.

I stand by my previous comment. You prefer to stick to news articles instead of Government-commissioned and United Nations-authored studies. It's glaringly apparent that certain users here are pushing an agenda.--So linear (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

some followers of other monotheistic religions of the region

"some followers of other monotheistic religions of the region" This veiled euphemism avoids the identification of Islam, the only persecuting monotheism in northern Iraq, and surrounding regions. The handful of Yazidi in Georgia, for instance, live in peace. But can Islam be mentioned?--Wetman (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The only use of that line is not discussing persecution, but equating Melek Taus with Satan, which some Christians in the are do as well. The sources would be valid for something about ISIS's persecution, but we really need a religious studies source for the bit about equating Melek Taus with Satan (I know they're out there, I've seen sources stating that many local members of Christianity and Islam make that mistake). My internet is acting up (saying it's gonna take me 11 hours to download a 500 MB file, which is a damn lie), but I'll see if I can get Google books to cooperate. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've got:

• "Kurdish Society" by Martin Van Bruinessen, in The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview, ed. Philip G. Kreyenbroek, Stefan Sperl, Routledge, 17 Aug 2005, p. 29 "The Peacock Angel (Malak Tawus) whom they worship may be identified with Satan, but is to them not the lord of Evil as he is to Muslims and Christians."
• The Yezidis: The History of a Community, Culture and Religion, by Birgul Acikyildiz, I.B.Tauris, 30 Sep 2010, p. 2 "Muslim and Christian neighbors of the Yezidis in the Middle East consider the Peacock Angel as the embodiment of Satan and an evil, rebellious spirit."

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Population Count not Adding Up

First post, no biting! Is it worth looking at the infobox and coming up with some agreed numbers on Population? Currently Total is 700k but split by country it sums up to c855k! Appreciate these figures are rough and backed by sources but I think these should tie up roughly? I feel that being 20% out with either the total or the split is too much. 193.130.234.15 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

73 massacres

An Iraqi MP points out there have been 72 massacres carried out against the Yazidis prior to 2014. Do we have a list article for this? --Makkachin (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ibn Muljam and Yazidis?

I have asked this in Template talk:Yazdânism either and I wanted to ask it here too:

who says Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam is a blessed person in Yazidi? is there any proof? ibn Muljam is not related to yazidi people, he was a muslim, not yazidi. he is the assassin of "Ali ibn Abi Talib" (the first Imam of shia muslims). It doesn't seem logic that yazidis like someone who shias hate him that much! (It looks like to be a plan to make shias hate them) if there is no acceptable proof for it, please remove it from the Template:Yazdânism. thank you :) Ashkan P. (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"the angel Iblis, who proudly refused to violate monotheism by worshipping Adam and Eve despite God's express command to do so"

I wonder about this. First, the Koran is much more recent than the Yazidi, unless "ancient" means something new in this context. Second, Iblis was a jinn, not an angel - angels do not have free will. Third, as far as I can read it, the Koran makes it clear that Iblis was not motivated by monotheism, but rather pride: "It does not befit me to prostrate myself to a human whom You have created from sounding clay made out of black smelly mud." (al Hijr 33 --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim to be most ancient of religions

On the YadziTruth.org website here it says "The Yezidis, who originally migrated to Iraq from India, are currently the caretakers of the oldest religious tradition on Earth." It also says that "A vestige of the Yezidis' Garden of Eden era is reputed to be Gobekli Tepe" (a very ancient site). This would be very interesting if true, however I don't know enough to verify this. ~Technophant (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This website is not an academical- reliable source and has no academic credibility. Nevermind it. Read WP:RS. Gnostic1349 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Prohibition

My Yazidi friend told me that wathching TV is prohibited in Yazidism. ḝAnd also, l wathched some news that claim the same thing. ls it true? Gnostic1349 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Century of origin

The most basic piece of info on any given religion - when it was born - seems to be lacking in this article. We're told in the entry that this is a an "ancient" religion, but this is not very informative by itself, and it's a bit of a weasel word. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2014

I request that the term "ISIL" be changed to "ISIS". The information present is misleading. ISIL is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This includes all the regions in the mideast around Iraq down to Africa but Excludes Israel. This is not where or how ISIS was formed. ISIS "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" was actually formed from "freedom" fighters coming out of Syria that were battling the Syrian Government. These fighters mixed with other radical fighters from Syria and Iraq and pushed to remove the government in Iraq. Their belief is total removal of any government that is not Islamic in nature. Raptor13fox (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion in spite Theroadislong did understand that it was a "good faith edit"

Dear fellow, I've corrected an obvious logic mistake in the "Yazidis" page:

- "worshipping Adam and Eve despite God's express command "not" to do so (Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC))

. Please take time to understand or discuss in the talk page, according to the wiki rules, instead of engaging in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you added your signature which is not required, I'm also not sure that your addition was necessary. Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, since nobody ever heard of a "God's command to worship Adam and Eve", I was just stating the obvious and you may not accuse me of engaging into an edit war. However, I should not have done an addition but merely deleted: "despite God's express command to do so". However, since you semi-protected the article, it is now impossible to do that very necessary edit. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The correctly referenced sentence in the lede "refused to violate monotheism by worshipping Adam and Eve despite God's express command to do so" which you refer to is a summary of the referenced content in the body of the article. I'ts not clear what you are suggesting? Please also note that I have never accused you of edit warring and I did not semi protect the article as I am not an admin please assume good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Origins and religion

Hello! I think that "origins" and "religion" sections are quite repeating themselves. I'm translating this article to eu:Yezidi and I can see how the same idea is being repeated again and again. -Theklan (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

There was a section of the article which requested an IPA transcription of the word 'Yazidis'. In the English IPA, this word is transcribed as /jəz'i:di:z/. I hope this may be added to the article.

Wikigeekeditor (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Suppressing something weird from the first paragraph

"despite God's express command to do so" must be rubbed out. Indeed, there has never been a God command either to worship or not to worship Adam and Eve!?Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC) "

The references say otherwise and Wikipedia merely reports what the references say. 07:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In Western literature

My first introduction to the Yezidi was in the movie "Meetings with Remarkable Men", by G. I. Gurdjieff. I possess the movie, so I can at least reference that. I went on to buy an early edition of the book Meetings with Remarkable Men, where that section was referenced in the eponymous movie. The section of the book (hence, my recommendation that it be mentioned in the "In Western Literature" section) is where a young Gurdjieff observes a gang of school children harassing a young Yezidi boy by inscribing a circle around him in the sand, where the belief was that the Yezidi, being "devil worshipers" (as explained by Gurdjeiff's uncle during a conversation at the tavern), are unable to escape from the circle. I would add this to the In Western Literature section, but I no longer have my copy of Meetings With Remarkable Men, so I am unable to apply the proper reference.giggle 23:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

Dear Wikipedia,

I wold like to draw your attention to the fact that you have left out some basic books on the Yezidis in your bibliography of the Wikipedia entry “Yazidis.” These include Christine Allison, The Yezidi Oral Tradition in Iraqi Kurdistan. Richmond: Curson Press, 2001; and Eszter Spät, The Yezidis. London: Saqi Books, 2005. (This is all the stranger as your bibliography to the related entry on “Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir” included Eszter Spät’s The Yezidis.)

You may also consider mentioning Nelida Fuccaro, The Other Kurds: Yazidis in Colonial Iraq. London: Tauris, 1999; and Eszter Spät, Late Antique Motifs in Yezidi Oral Tradition. Piscataway (NJ): Gorgias Press, 2010.

Best wishes

Eszter Spät

81.182.109.78 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Exogamy or Endogamy

The article claims say Exogamy and Endogamy at different points. They cannot be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case relating to this page filed

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ezidishingali. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph is kind of bad

Why would we discuss accusations of satanic worship in the intro paragraph? It seems unlikely that it would be tolerated for, e.g., the "Jews" page, to say: "Jews have been accused for centuries of murdering Christian children. This has led to centuries of persecution"

See my point? Just because it's a true fact, doesn't make it appropriate to be included as one of the introductory facts that people should initially learn when they first come to the page.

Someone fix it IMO, I am a bad writer so that's why I'm just putting this here, hope someone will agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.98.73 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Page needs some kind of protection!

Every other day the first sentence if changed. One day it say they are Kurdish the next day it is something else. The sources are the same but one word is added or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karremanchill (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

About the whole Ahriman discussion

Deleted discussion to protect yazidis from the potential dangers of the present civil war. i suggest to only restore symilar discussion contents after the civil war ends.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

The last paragraph of Persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has refrences to both IS and ISIS. I am not trusted enough to make this edit, but I noticed the inconsistency. Placeybordeaux (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Would seem like a clear matter of consistency, but at the same time, as far as the one mention of "ISIS" is concerned, every source cited for it does call it "ISIS". Thoughts? LjL (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: no response. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 19:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

There is incomplete information on this page. I want to edit it to improve it. My proposed edit to the introductory paragraph:

The Yazidis (also Yezidi, Êzidî) are an ethno-religious community. Although some of them have adopted the Kurdish identity, such as the Yazidis living in Syria, some of them are very strong about their Yazidi ethno-religious identity, such as Yazidis living in Armania. There are profound similarities between the Yazidi religion and Zoroastrianism and ancient Mesopotamian religions; still, Yazidism is a distinct, syncretic religion. There are different Yazidi communities living in Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. The current number of Yazidis living either in these countries, except for Armenia, or elsewhere is unknown, mostly because they are accepted as a part of the Kurdish and/or Muslim communities whom they live together. However, the most widely accepted estimate is that there are around 500,000 Yazidis living around the world. According to Yazidism, the God created the world in seven days, and placed it under the care of seven holy beings or angels, the chief of whom is Melek Taus, the Peacock Angel. Yazidis have seven sanjaqs, each with a burner, kept by seven clergies, representing seven tribes of Yazidis. Yazidis have two sacred books: The Book of Revelation and the Black Book. However, the community does not read these books; their religious practices and prayers are totally based on their oral traditions. The Yazidis are known as a peaceful yet closed, secretive society. It is not possible to convert and become a Yazidi. Moreover, they have a very strict cast system- similar to Hinduism. Their being against serving in the military has caused a lot of trouble for them during the Ottoman Empire and also in Iraq.”

Resources: Fuccaro, Nelida. 1997. “Ethnicity, State Formation, and Conscription in Postcolonial Iraq: The Case of the Yazidi Kurds of Jabal Sinjar”. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 559-580. Fuccaro, Nelida. 1999. “Communalism and the State in Iraq: The Yazidi Kurds, c.1869-1940”. Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 1-26. Khenchelaoui, Zaim. 1999. “The Yezidis, People of the Spoken Word in the Midst of People of the Book”. Diogenes, Vol. 47 Issue 187, p. 20. Valadbigi, Akbar and Bagrat Harutyunyan. 2012. “Social Trust: A Confusion Between Lost and Won (A Comparative Encounter With Social Trust Among The Yezidis of Armenia and North Iraq)”. Studies of Changing Societies: Comparative and Interdisciplinary Focus, Vol. 2'(3). Nicolaus, Peter. 2008. “The Lost Sanjaq”. Iran and the Caucasus 12, pp. 217-251. Arakelova, Victoria and Tereza Amrian. 2012. “The Hereafter in Yezidi Beliefs”. Iran and the Caucasus 16, pp. 309-31. Spat, Eszter. 2002. “Shahid bin Jarr, Forefather of the Yezidis and the Gnostic Seed of Seth”. Iran and Caucasus, 6, 1-2. ( NSD 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nia.dallas (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please clean it up a bit. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 19:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Population makes no sense

I shouldn't have to point out that you can't have 1.2 million combined in Iraq and Germany is the global population is 0.2 million. screenshot - LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ)

Sadly some people keep messing with the figures, someone (cough) should look at what the cited sources actually say and restore some order. LjL (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, about a year ago in 700,000 as per the Guardian here. with Pew Research saying at about the same time that 700,000 was the estimated Iraqi Yazidi population here. I have trouble finding more recent statistics. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reversal of sourced content

@Zerevanberg: in removing sourced content, and replacing it with unsourced content that state opposite claims, you asked "Where's the proof? Which Yezidi leader is supposedly making statements to this fact?". First, let me note that statements from "leaders" aren't necessarily required; Wikipedia employes reliable sources (please read that to learn the standards adhered to), and to be sure, sources were provided for the original claim, while you provided absolutely none for yours. But in addition, you may not have read the provided sources at all, because in fact, one stated “We are not Kurds,” insisted Aziz Tamoyan, director of the Yezidi Union in Armenia. “They speak Kurdish, we speak Ezdiki. They come from the Middle East, Yezidis come from the ancient Babylonians.”. Looks like a leader to me! The article already mentions (at the very top) that Yazidis are ultimately a Kurdish ethnicity, and insisting on removing the claim that they don't consider themselves Kurdish is not useful, when reliable sources report prominent Yazidis stating the contrary. In any case, please do withdraw your current claims from the article, unless you can provide reliable sources for them - you have already reverted me once without any explanation, and then reverted someone else who clearly took issue with your edit warring. LjL (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Number of Yazidis Worldwide/in certain areas

The numbers in the info-box seems to not quite add up. How can there be over a million yazidis in Iraq and Germany combined but only a total of 200-300.000 worldwide? I thought that this was due to a simple spelling mistake somewhere, but I looked at the sources and it appears that there exist incredibly varying accounts of the numbers of yazidis worldwide and in the particular regions. I don't know how exactly this problem is handled in other articles, but I think it would make sense to at least try to not make the info-box look like obviously contradictory mistake by either always going with lower or higher numbers. The approach at the moment seems rather random, sometimes going for a lower and sometimes going for a higher number, which creates the contradictions. Like I said I don't know specific policies on how to handle numbers here so it would be nice if someone else could clean this up a bit.90.206.48.52 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

See this section for a possible explanation... Of course the main policy is to use reliable sources as with all things, anyway. If those sources don't contradict each other, that would be ideal, but I think in this case, it's more an issue with people changing numbers without any regard to the sources. LjL (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indiscriminate reverts of edits incorrectly marked as "vandalism"

@Gomada: I have already sent a notice to your talk page about why you should definitely not call good-faith edits vandalism, which you did at [18] and [19], but aside from that, here I will ask you which statements and sources you found have been deleted. I'm not sure I see them, while at the same time, I see many other changes that you reverted indiscriminately without support for each individual change (you even removed a "citation needed" tag, for instance, something which definitely should not be done in general). Speaking of the specific example you made in your revert rationale that a BBC source had been added instead of an academic source, I see BBC being used as a source in the exact same places before and after the revert. So, do elaborate on which changes exactly you are objecting to. LjL (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello LjL, if you check the history of edits, you will see some IPs or sock-puppets accounts are regularly deleting the part "Yazidis are a Kurdish religious community"" (which has academic sources) and replace "Yazidis are an ethno-religious group" The sources for the second statement are only biased on Garnik Asatrian's propaganda (Yerivan State University) Because of this so-called scholar , now there is a minority language in Armenia, named Yezidki (Yazidi language, together with Kurmanji. But the fact is; those are not two different languages, the language which Yazidis speak is Kurmanji.). This is just a tactic to categorize Yazidis different than Kurds. I don't know, if you are aware of this propaganda in Armenia. That's a reason why I said vandalism when the academic sources were deleted. I'm not against any contribution with reliable sources. But, I can't read everytime all contributions. Therefore, it's possible that I've deleted some necessary part. Cheers!--Gomada (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean "an edit I don't agree with", even when it's a very WP:POV-pushing edit, and even when it pushes sources that may be less reliable than other sources. Claiming that edits tweaking several points in the article, many of which with seemingly good reason (like adding "citation needed" tags or removing needled WP:NOTBROKEN pipes), will just draw attention towards your reverts. And I'm sorry, but if you don't even have time to read the contributions you are reverting (as you say above), then you shouldn't revert them. You should generally WP:PRESERVE content: a revert is a WP:BOLD action, which should be done with good reason, not simply because you disagree with one part of an edit, regardless of other parts. LjL (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gomada: I agree with LjL. For good reasons, "vandalism" has a narrow definition that does not include "I don't agree." It does not even include "something I consider wrong." Even if you have good reasons, the other side might have good reasons, too. An edit has to be both obviously wrong and obviously bad-faithed to qualify for "vandalism".
Regarding the topic of the debate: I tend to consider Yezidis a Kurdish religious community, too. However, while the definition of an ethnoreligious group requires a distinct religion, it doesn't require a distinct language, as you suggested. Other aspects of distinction may be enough to consider a religious group "ethnoreligious," and in case of doubt, it is upon the Yazidis to decide. I'm quite supportive of the Kurdish cause, but am very wary of the widespread idea that non-Yazidi Kurds can dictate whether Yazidis are Kurds or not. Following a long history of persecution and mistreatment by fellow Kurds, if they have good reason to abandon their Kurdishness, the day will come that a majority of them does so. Even with the same language, you can't lock them in. The only solution is: do your best so they want to keep considering themselves Kurdish!
PanchoS (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. As I said, I'm not against any reliable sources. I understand your concern. But if you look at last edits, again some user who has only 3 contributions, teaching us, that 'Yazidis don't consider themselves as Kurdish'. These user has deleted sources about term of Yazidis' Kurdish identity and replaced sources which -3 of them point out Asatrian's propaganda- and 1 is a "womenacrossfrontier organisation". @PanchoS: Thank you for your opinion too. I can't/don't force anybody to consider themselves as Kurdish. But, I'm against such political-propagandas too. The situation of Kurdish people is difficult and it's normal, if some of them say, I'm not Kurdish. Even some Kurmanj Kurds in Turkey say, that they are Turks. Assimilation or other political/financial reasons can cause such things. And it's their own problem. I can't force those people to make a decision about their identity. But on wikipedia, we can't let such a propaganda. If somebody wanna add a term as "ethnoreligious", why are they deleting term of Kurdishness?--Gomada (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gomada: Again, I mostly agree with you. If someone not only replaces a definition by an alternative one, but also removes valid sources supporting the foremer definition, then very likely it is indeed vandalism. If that was the case here, then that's your argument.
However, from what I researched, there are both conflicting definitions around, and the interpretation of them being an ethnoreligious group is not completely unfounded. For example, the distinct settlement areas and the high rate of marriage within the religious community do indicate they do have assumed certain characteristics of an ethnoreligious group, rather than being a mere religious group of Kurdish ethnicity. By all definitions, they seem to be something in between, so – as I said – their self-perception does play a central role, even in scientific assessment.
Now from what I know, a majority of them still considers themselves Kurdish. But this has further changed after being let down by the peshmerga during the Fall of Sinjar, and it will further change if continued to being sidelined. PanchoS (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Numbers

Total numbers 200-300k, population in Iraq 800k, Germany 500k? Holy crap! This urgently need corection!--94.112.30.129 (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that these numbers are terribly unclear. Even worse is that the cited article giving Iraq's population clearly stated that there are 650,000 was of 2005. I've updated the page to at least make that match but something is still wrong somewhere. JMV290 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

500k for Germany are terribly wrong. Even the Sources (one of which isn't avaiable anymore) state only 100k to 120k. Where are the 500k from?! (129.217.129.134 (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC))

Kurdish speaking vs. Kurdish identity

@Hebel: as you corrected yourself here, the sources are about Kurdish identity, not just a Kurdish speaking community.--Gomada (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Ezdiki" language

@NightShadow23: I don't know if you added the source as you say, but the first source says Езиды говорят на своем родном языке, который они сами называют «эздики», which translates to Yazidis speak their own language, which they call "ezdiki". Why wouldn't we mention that? I think the source definitely does say it, contrary to what you claimed in the edit summary. And Ezdiki redirects to where it should, anyway. LjL (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"In order to underscore their separate identity the Yezidis call their language Ezdiki although it is a pure Kurmanji patois." Document. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A "pure" "patois"? That seems contradictory. Is it identical to Kurmanji, or does it have patois-like differences? If it has differences, we should acknowledge them, even though they may seem minor or "patois-like". LjL (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please use your own words. Lone links to random policy pages mean nothing. (You are the one insisting on writing something different from what one reference says, anyway, so it's ironic you'd mention original research.) LjL (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"A "pure" "patois"? That seems contradictory. Is it identical to Kurmanji, or does it have patois-like differences?" — Islamization of the Kurds (including the language). Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's a simple question: is their language (vocabulary, grammar, etc) different to any extent from plain Kurmanji? I don't care why it's different, if it's because of Islamization or whatever. On Wikipedia, we don't exclude valid information based on why facts have taken place. LjL (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"is their language (vocabulary, grammar, etc) different to any extent from plain Kurmanji?" — I don't know. However, it must be proved. Are you a linguist? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It must be proven using sources, not using the fact that an editor like me is a linguist. I thought you knew this, since you linked to WP:NOR. (I am quite a bit into linguistics, incidentally, but I regret to inform you that I'm not knowledgeable on this particular linguistics topic.) So far, we have some sources in the article that endorse use of the term "Edziki language", so there is that. Do you have sources stating that they are one and the same language, without differences? LjL (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. I do not deny that there are differences in their language. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it then... why do you object to recognizing that in the article? You do not deny there are differences, and the sources agree in calling it with a separate name. What's the stumbling block? LjL (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"Yazidis speak their own language, which they call "ezdiki"". "In order to underscore their separate identity the Yezidis call their language Ezdiki although it is a pure Kurmanji patois". Maybe it's a dialect (Yazidis Kurmanji — Muslim Kurmanji. For example, dialects of the English language). Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In linguistics, the difference between a "dialect" and a "language" is always very hard to define. It'd be best to sidestep the question, and call it a "language variety" (that's a commonly used term) or, if all we need to do is put it in the infobox, we can surely just say "Ezdiki" without specifying what exactly it is. LjL (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I will also add that in a source that just underwent a removal attempt from the article, [20], the director of the Yezidi Union in Armenia stated "They speak Kurdish, we speak Ezdiki", which, while quite possibly a political stance, should be acknowledged as perception of language self-consciousness (not necessarily by claiming it's a distinct language, but at least by recognizing the name their speakers want to employ, as Wikipedia does with other varieties). LjL (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Write me a -so called- Ezdiki text please and I'll write it in Kurmanji. A language or a dialect named Ezdiki doesn't exist. What Yazidis speak is Kurmanji.--Gomada (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

. LjL (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Added Specified as the selfname. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@NightShadow23: I am appalled that you will revert my edit calling it a vandalism while I gave my reasons in the summary line and while according to this discussion, there was no consensus to remove "Ezdiki language", I will suggest that you revert yourself and call it a vandalism because according to this discussion your edit qualifies more as a vandalism than mine. I don't care what your personal POV says about whether that language exists or not. Wikipedia is run by its policies. "Ezdiki language" is supportable by sources and you have no right to remove it while a disagreement exists already. Sheriff | report | 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"supportable by sources" — Where are these sources? Dear Sheriff, there is no source that proved the existence of the "Ezdiki" language. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Religion

Yazdânism or Sharfadin? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

None of them. The correct name is Yezidism/Yazidism (Kurdish: Êzdîtî). I commented here about Sharfadin. It's not the name of religion. And Yazdanism includes some other Kurdish religions, not only Yazidism.--Gomada (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

"Edizi are not Kurds" image

@Chickchick77: it is utterly inappropriate for you to add an image of yourself (that's what the description lets one infer) claiming it to be "a Yazidi girl" (whether you are one or not is irrelevant as we don't have reliable sources to assert any such thing) holding up a sign with a political slogan (which is arguably false, the article discusses the issue as you well know). Wikipedia is not a means of promoting your own political ideas so you should definitely desist. In addition, per WP:BRD, your addition was revert and now you should be here discussing why you think your edit was appropriate, instead of just reverting back] which amounts to edit warring. LjL (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the lead without removing the sources (although ideally they shouldn't be in the lead as well). Wikipedia doesn't get to decide this. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Chickchick77: your further edits are even more problematic. The edit summary on this one reads appalling, and if "you [Yazidis] have no book", then you should perhaps file a WP:AFD for the article aboout the Yazidi Book of Revelation, but not simply suppress the information from this article based on your own convictions alone. This encyclopedia isn't written based on people not liking what they read, but on reliable sources, which you have repeatedly seemed to contradict. LjL (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the ultimate genocide really - without the messy and time consuming and somewhat illegal murdering or deporting. Your community does not exist unless sources have written that it exists, and what you actually think you are is unimportant: it is only what the sources say about you that matters - and if you and the sources disagree, well tough. Get organized, produce your own sources, that's all I can suggest. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Total population

Something does not add up — literally. It says the total population is between 200 000 and 300 000, yet the sum of the individual populations in the various countries is far larger than that. Just Iraq alone is three times larger than the total. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I came here to talk page to notify of the same problem. Russian Wikipedia has more realistic figures: 650,000 in Iraq and 100,000−120,000 in Germany.--Dorpater (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Canonical definition wanted: Kurdish religious group, ethnoreligious group, something in between, or simply contested?

Following a number of bold, controversial edits, the current version is disputed. While at first sight not everything Chickchick77 added resp. changed should be discarded, much of it seems to be POV, and overall the article seems unbalanced now. I need some hours to figure everything out, and don't know if I'm gonna dedicate my evening hours to this dispute, but feel free to discuss. From what I researched, the status of Yazidis being an ethnoreligious group vs. a Kurdish religious group is contested, both within the Yazidi community and in scholarly literature.
As you'll find many sources – including scholarly and other more or less reliable sources – stating one, the other or something in the middle, we need to rely on the best sources, meaning the most reliable and independent scholarly sources to find a canonical definition here. --PanchoS (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia articles may not be the source of our reasoning (WP:CIRCULAR), it would be helpful to have an article about the clearly notable, though highly controversial Garnik S. Asatrian (Yerivan State University), on whose work much of the ethnoreligious argument is based. This interview and his book The Religion of the Peacock Angel can be starting points on his particular perspective on the topic. --PanchoS (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, if reliable sources simply disagree with each other, I think the correct course of action is not finding "the most reliable among the reliable" and discarding the rest, but it is to describe the situation as there being WP:Conflicting sources. from WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.", "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone", "Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.". Of course this does not mean that if some sources are in fact more solid than others, they should have equal WP:WEIGHT. LjL (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• @LjL: Agree with that, though I think we need both. What I wanted to say is: we need to check the reliability of all sources, at least in regard to the most controversial aspects, so we can tell apart what can be used as part of a canonical definition (if any), and what can be presented as representing a specific viewpoint. --PanchoS (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think, we can mention: "according to Garnik S. Asatrian" (if you really think his work is reliable) . There are 4 links (on article) which mention Yazidi as an ethno-religous group and as I said before, all cited Asatrian. That means, it's just Asatrian's theory. Here

1. V.Arakelova, his assistant at YSU,
2. his own work with V. Arakelova,
3. B.Rezvani cited Asatrian,
4. I can't read cited part of this book anymore. Not allowed. Can you?

and there is of course a man named Aziz Tamoyan (again from Armenia) who thinks, he representes Yazidis and said They (Kurds) come from the Middle East, Yezidis come from the ancient Babylonians. Should we really talk about this man? :)

1. Armenia: Yezidi Identity Battle: This can help why only in Armenia there is such a propaganda and a political mission.

On other side (sources supporting Kurdish identity of Yazidis);

1. a work of Prof. Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Yezidi academic and researcher Khalil Rashow
2. Who are the Yazidis? a yazidi: Jan Ilhan Kizilhan actually a well-known psychologist but at same time orientalist who has books about Yazidis
3. The Other Kurds: Yazidis in Colonial Iraq by Nelida Fuccaro
4. 1 2 Christine Allison, Professor of Kurdish Studies at the University of Exeter.
5. David Szakonyi
6. Michael M. Gunter
7. THE YEZIDI KURDS AND ASSYRIANS OF GEORGIA
8. THE KURDS OF IRAQ
9. Martin van Bruinessen

There are actually so many sources. But we can't full Wikipedia-article with a list of sources. We should choose some reliable sources among them.--Gomada (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What about sources that date from an era before Kurds aspired to having a political identity. From before it was advantageous for Kurdish activists to make claims on the Yezidi as a group and on their religion. Presumably Kurds in the 19th century thought it OK for Kurds to massacre Yezidi when they were not considered to be Kurds by those Kurds doing the massacring. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield:What are you talking about please? You are mixing battle of religions with battle of nations. It was not battle of two different nations. They were Muslim and Yezidi Kurds. (There is/was same problem between Sunni-Shia-Alevi Kurds too) Not even all Kurds (some tribes) took a part. If you want to see that your theory is just a propaganda, I recommend you to read Sharaf Khan's book Sharafnama which is written in 1597. Sharaf Khan Bitlisi identifies six important Kurdish tribes as Yezidi in the sixteenth century....--Gomada (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yazidis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080320070927/http://www.yeziditruth.org:80/yezidi_reformer_sheikh_adi to http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_reformer_sheikh_adi

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yazidis "forced" to accept Kurdish identity

Some edits, mainly by Chickchick77 I believe (who has made very problematic edits on this article before), have changed existing text and removed existing citations, to replace them with text and citations that purportedly show that Yadizis were "forced to accept Kurdish identity". I have looked at these sources and found no such claims there. They should be clearly indicated and substantiated.

So I reverted those edits, but I was in turn reverted by a user who I do not care to engage with, because of previous personal reasons. So, I give up: if someone else wants to fix this mess, go ahead, otherwise let the trolls win. Bye. LjL (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: you need to review the Wikipedia policy of being WP:CIVIL. Using a forum for calling people "trolls" or any other name-calling instead of adding to a discussion is in fact an abuse of the WP:TALK page guidelines under "behavior that is unacceptable [[21]]. If you continue such behavior I will have no option but to issue a warning on your page, then possibly report this to the WP:ANI board.Trinacrialucente (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is full of falsifying as many other articles on EN-Wikipedia. I would like to ask @Trinacrialucente: why do you delete this part?:

"The issue is controversial and highly politicized. However, The Yazidis' cultural practices are observably Kurdish, and almost all speak Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish). The Soviet Union had considered Yezidis as Kurds; Sheref Khan Bitlisi's Sharafnama of 1597 cites seven Kurdish tribes as being at least partly Yazidi and Kurdish tribal confederations as containing substantial Yazidi sections."

• Another question about source (page 76) which you used for claim of ethnic identiy ; There is written: "The Yazidis can be classified as a distinct religous group" Is this sentence mean, They are a distinct ethnic group? --Gomada (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gomada, the issue of "forced" is not one of "do so under pain of death". It was because In Iraq and Syria, they had no other options on their identity card (there was no "Yazidi" check box). They finally won this "check box" only in Armenia, which is the only nation as far as I am aware which allows them this separate ethnic identity from Kurds (and there are also Kurds in Armenia). This is the "forced" issue, as in they have no other choice.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about please? Who is forcing whom? Don't forget, you are contributing on Wikipedia not on your own blog. You should prove with reliable sources what you claim. Maybe you think, you know about Yazidi Kurds, but what you are telling is just nonsense for me. You didn't even answer my questions. You can't falsify source according to your POV. I'm really bored of the Armenia-biased propaganda about Kurds. That's why I don't wanna discuss anymore about armenian nationalist politics. I would like to write some well-known Yazidi people for you: Feleknas Uca and Ali Atalan were living in Germany and now are members of Turkish parliement from pro-Kurdish party HDP (maybe you can read this), Khalil Rashow and de:Jan Ilhan Kizilhan are 2 Yazidi scholars from Germany. Jalile Jalil and Têmûrê Xelîl are writer/Kurdologist from Armenia, Qanate Kurdo was a linguist from Soviet Union. Do you think, those people are/were forced, that's why they say that they are Yazidi KURDS? Sorry, but you know really nothing about Kurds. Here is a source from 16th century. Interesting, since when Yazidis' so called-ethnic identity is forced? As several other users you are mixing battle of religions with battle of nations.--Gomada (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Rule #1; when resorting to responses such as "Sorry, but you know really nothing about XXXX" chances are you have already lost the argument. Rather than going off on a rant, you could simply have asked your questions and requested citations, which I would have gladly given you. In the example of Syria, ID cards have "Arab" or "Kurd" on them...there is no group for "Yezidi". Same with Iraq, which gives ID cards in Arabic, Kurdish and English ...not "Yezidi". In both countries, Yezidi are "forced" (not at gunpoint, but if they want to get an ID card) to put "Kurd" as their ethnic group, since there is no recognized "Yezidi" ethnic group. Can't get more specific than this.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: My questions are simply above. You didn't answer any of them. You are still talking about ID-stuff. Tell us please: why do you delete part about Yazidis' Kurdish identity which has reliable sources? Were there ID cards in 16th century? Falsifiying of UN source: "The Yazidis can be classified as a distinct religous group". Does this mean "The United Nations also recognized the Yazidis as a distinct ethnic group"?--Gomada (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm compelled to inform you that you are lacking in basic English grammar and comprehension. "My questions are simply above" makes no sense. Options would be; "my questions above are simple", "my questions above are simply stated" etc. Then "why do you delete (THE) part about the Yazidis" is of course missing an article, which is essential for that sentence. Those are just two back-to-back examples, which tells me this conversation is not going to be very fruitful given your level of English proficiency. I may have to go over your edits to ensure proper grammar AS WELL AS the clear WP:POV issues. Unfortunately, anyone with an internet connection can edit on Wikipedia, and there are far too many editors who have English proficiency which may be fine for certain environments, but not for editing an encyclopedia or a complex discussion.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Thank you for the correction :) I didn't claim that I'm a native English speaker and I don't create articles on En-Wikipedia. But I'm allowed to use EN-Wikipedia like everybody. I see that you understand my poor English, but I wonder why you can NOT answer those simple questions. Do you believe that you can falsify sources and give wrong informations just because you are a native speaker (or speak better)? If you want to help to improve my English, you can write on my talk page, I'll be glad ;) But we're talking about your falsifying.--Gomada (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Noticed a couple minor grammatical errors (contained within brackets). Recommended changes contained within quotes. See below:

[to the northern Mesopotamia whose strictly endogamous.[22][23] And ancient religion Yazidism[24] (or Sharfadin) is not linked to Zoroastrianism] should read, "...to northern Mesopotamia whose strictly endogamous and ancient religion Yazidism[24] (or Sharfadin) is not linked to Zoroastrianism..." additionally; [Yazidis who marry with non-Yazidis are expelled from her family and may not even more call themselves Yazidis.] should read, "Yazidis who marry with non-Yazidis are expelled from their family and may no longer call themselves Yazidis." 132.3.41.79 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Matt

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)