Talk:Anfal campaign/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chronological error

@Buidhe, I mentioned this in earlier discussions but it may have been missed. The 2008 article by Hiltermann makes a verifiable error in claiming that the 1993 HRW report's casualty figures "relied on" a survey by the obscure "Committee for the Defence of Anfal Victims' Rights" or "Committee to Defend Anfal Victims' Rights". He says in the 2008 article that this group's survey was released in 1995, and that, contradictorily, the HRW's claimed figures relied on this. However, HRW's report was released in 1993, and republished in 1995 with the inclusion of another shorter report (Hiltermann says the same), and neither version include anything about this organization's survey or that HRW relied on this survey so the retroactive claim is strange. That is, Hiltermann is retroactively stating in error that the HRW report released in 1993 relied on a later survey from 1995, when no such claim is made in the report itself and is secondly chronologically wrong. To make matters worse, he makes out that the survey was under immense political pressure and that the number provided was still "low" enough such that the director was forced to leave the country. This information appears to be erroneous and problematic to leave in, where it is mentioned article in the article such as "This figure was based on an earlier survey by the Sulaymaniyah–based Kurdish organization Committee for the Defence of Anfal Victims’ Rights.". What are your thoughts on this, and more generally on Hiltermann given he and Black are the source of most of the problematic claims and information?

Also, information about Shorsh Resool, an officer at the time of the PUK organization and who individually is the source to HRW for many of the questionable statistics, was removed. Do you think this should be added back in some form or another given he's a key figure on this topic? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source that contradicts what Hiltermann is saying, I would assume that there is multiple reports / data coming from CDAVR. For example they may have shared some data with HRW and then published their final report later.

The article can incorporate information on Resool, provided it comes from a reliable source. I don't think that https://kurdistanmemoryprogramme.com/ counts as a reliable source on this topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe If we are to assume were multiple reports from CDAVR, where are they and why didn't Hiltermann mention this? If no such other surveys exist, how can we assume they do? Further can we assume this, especially given the highly controversial nature of the topic and how controversial and sensationalist Hiltermann's claims have been independently and with HRW?

Technically Hiltermann contradicts himself. He says a previous work contains and is even based on something, but it makes no mention of it. The only reference to a 100,000 that HRW makes its estimate on is based on the alleged statement provided by Kurdish leaders regarding Ali Al Majid. A more likely assumption is that Hiltermann made a statement in error, being 15 years after that work, and given his works independently and with HRW have been as discussed problematic.

Speaking on reliability, it's been established that Hiltermann is controversial at best, unreliable at worst. The HRW reporting on the topic is already problematic, but Hiltermann independently as in the 2008 write-up doesn't have the cover under HRW to grant him some form of reliability discussed earlier. Regardless of Hiltermann's (assuming Hanlon's Razor, honest) mistake, what do you think of also including his elaboration that the CDAVR survey was under political pressure and whose director had been punished for still providing too low of a figure, assuming the CDAVR information on the article isn't removed? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already attributed what Hiltermann says where necessary. If there are any criticisms of his reliability covered in RS they can also be covered in the article. Likewise for Resool as a source, it just needs a reliable source.

what do you think of also including his elaboration that the CDAVR survey was under political pressure and whose director had been punished for still providing too low of a figure, assuming the CDAVR information on the article isn't removed?

No objection assuming this can be worked in in a concise way (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe Fair point regarding attribution, despite Hiltermann's shaky reliability and a noted error on his part.

I did find something else in contradiction to his self-contradicting claim. From looking further, there's almost nothing available on this obscure CDVAR organization (can we take it reliably?). However this chapter, written by Choman Hardi, does at least contradict Hiltermann's claim that the HRW report was based on CDAVR. [1]. She describes the CDAVR survey as something independent of HRW's estimate, only noting that it is "consistent" with HRW and not that one was based on the other. The citation 50 is "50. Interview with Najmadeen Faqe Abdullah, Rotterdam, August 2006." Like in Gendered Experiences (remember the problematic writing there on Anfal?), you may notice after this part about CDAVR that she adds her own embellishment and shocking statements on pages 120-122 of the book I linked. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

On Randal

I think we can do better than what seems to be a travelogue published in 1997. Furthermore, there is nothing mysterious about the use of Islamic symbolism by Baath. It's well known that the Baath government embraced Islam more over time (well, maybe not known to Randal). The book comes with the following bizarre introduction: "This book is about the Kurds and Kurdistan, discussing Kurdish nationalist aspirations, the repeated Kurdish revolts, and the rogue chromosome in Kurdish genetics causes what Indians, with their love of fancy words, would call "fissiparous tendencies.""

Also, IDK why vague claims like "Some say the government chose the term" from the pbs documentary are helpful to our readers. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Randal has another redflag assertion made on the Wiki article, that the "jash" were told it was legal to steal livestock, money, weapons, and women."Jash (Kurdish collaborators with the Baathists) were told that taking cattle, sheep, goats, money, weapons and even women was halal (religiously permitted or legal).[better source needed]" Randal gets this from the 1993 HRW report from a single one of the controlled interviews, so with no actual substantiation for an extraordinary claim.

@Buidhe I'm noticing information you had removed before following discussions is getting added back in on the article. [2][3]. A couple of these statements had been added in another section in [4]. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30, I'm not particularly interested in any more unsourced/WP:OR walls of text from you, but please note that "There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts" per WP:RSP (which has been reaffirmed by several contributors here, Buidhe included) and that multiple editors have also accepted Kanan Makiya as an admittedly biased subject matter expert (yourself included, when you cited Makiya for statements that you agreed with), so there is no good basis for you to repeatedly remove content attributed to those sources with vague edit summaries (e.g., [5]; [6]) such as "Restoring last good version". When neither the facts, nor the sources, nor community consensus, nor local consensus is on your side, you really need to do better than that. If this content in particular is more problematic than other material from Amnesty/Makiya, it shouldn't be too much to ask for you to explain why.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, first, I've observed you have been edit warring on this article and have already engaged in 3 reverts in little over 24 hours [7][8][9] contrary to lengthy discussions and research, and with no explanation. Your edit warring revert was reverted, putting the WP:ONUS on you.[10]. Instead, you chose to continue edit warring, with a source referencing the same issue and original source @Buidhe and I have pointed out [11]. If you're not particularly interested (in constructive editing), you're more than welcome to disengage from this and other articles.

Secondly, 3 lines is not a wall of text, nor is there OR (this and more has been previously pointed out, sourced, etc), and the continual harassment, false accusations, and back-handed insults to myself, Buidhe, GregKaye, and others in this page are not welcome.

Thirdly, your activity on this Talk page started with very overt and unacceptable personal attacks [12] and have been called out as such by multiple editors, and continued with off-topic back-handed attacks like you make in this and plenty of other comments on this Talk page and disruptive edits on the article.

Fourthly, I'd be careful about painting wide brushes given for example it's already been established with sourcing and discussion that the HRW reports specifically around this topic have deep political interference, sensationalist, and not so reliable, but unfortunately it's all we, or anyone, has (and probably will ever, given the questionable nature of many of the details and claims), among other problematic sourcing, even if HRW is better than average on many other topics.

Fifthly, the facts, the sources, community consensus, local consensus have been 'on my side', to use that expression. Other editors are reverting your edits for being disruptive too.

And sixth, I and others have explained why already. Thanks! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

SAUCYSALSA is suggesting that the content about the jash should be attributed to the original source (the hrw report). This is not unreasonable imo.

Re Makiya, I don't see why his estimate needs to have a separate sentence in the death toll section. Unlike hrw, Hilturmann, or the Anfal victims committee, as far as I can tell, Makiya did not do any research on which an estimate might be based. We should cite + attribute the original source instead (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, the content that you removed is "Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" in 1988. Kanan Makiya estimates that 1,276 Kurdish villages were destroyed in the course of the 1988 campaign (and 3,500 over the entire period 1968–1988)." I don't know if this was just an uncharacteristically careless mobile revert on your part, but your comment above ("about the jash") is not related to the content being disputed. Moreover, you are single-handedly responsible for removing/challenging all of the other sources discussing Kurdish villages ([13], [14], [15]), which is why Makiya was being used in the first place. (Also, Makiya had already been moved out of the "Death toll" section, contrary to your statement above—did you even look at what you were reverting?)

I don't know if you are fully aware of this, but over the course of several edits you have WP:BOLDly removed all article content concerning the destruction of Kurdish villages during Anfal—content that had been stable for well over a decade and which is considered essential to the topic—in a blithe, casual fashion, barely deigning to provide an explanation, despite dozens of sources attesting to the widespread destruction of infrastructure. You cherrypicked a few sources saying that the death toll was slightly exaggerated, and then proceeded to say, in effect, that "if the death toll was less than 70,000 yet the Kurds claimed over 100,000, then, by golly, we can't trust anything about villages destroyed, either!" Now, thanks to you, readers will come away thinking that zero villages were demolished—was that your intention? It reminds me of when you overstepped your expertise to turn the lede of Rwandan genocide into a mini-WP:COATRACK about how the death toll in that tragedy was also allegedly exaggerated (e.g., [16]), going beyond the summary style expected in the lede and unbalancing the article, all to make a largely unrelated point about how the Holocaust is the only "true" genocide. No matter how sincere you are in that view, editorial decisions like these undermine your credibility and diminish your (generally positive) reputation as an editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The solution is clear: find where Makiya got the information (I believe from the HRW report), cite and attribute that correctly. Although I would put village destruction in a separate section since it doesn't inherently involve death and in fact, according to Hiltermann, not all the Anfal campaigns involved killing of civilians.

I don't believe the Holocaust is the only true genocide and I ask that you focus on the content of the article, rather than editors. But if you're going to go there... the death toll of the Rwandan genocide being exaggerated by the Rwandan government for political ends is not controversial in RS sources and indeed the political use of the genocide merits mention in the lead of that article due to its long-term and ongoing significance.

Just because text has stayed in an article a long time does not mean it's policy compliant, correctly sourced, etc. Any editor can challenge material in good faith and WP:ONUS applies.

If there are specific removals that you disagree with, let's see if there is a better source for the information and we could attribute it to the original source. (t · c) buidhe 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe It appears they're continuing their edit warring to bring back Makiya's claim through another source. [17]. I checked the book and it rounds the "1,276" to "1200", then specifically has Makiya as one of its only couple references for that chapter. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-addition of detention camps

I have re-added some detention camps which were removed by Buidhe asking for a better contextualization. I have just added the existence of the camps but not much on the detention conditions there. Anyone is welcome to reword the section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Paradise Chronicle. Demonstrably, Buidhe does not remove content without good reason. @Buidhe, are you fine with these edits[18][19] in part bringing back a topic you had removed?[20] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Death toll

Is the death toll section still considered unbalanced? Numbers range between 50'000 and 182'000 and the sources mentioned are the Kurdish, the HRW and Kanan Makiya. Is there any other estimate needed? Else, I'd like to remove the tags. Thanks. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the origin of the death tolls come directly from vague "Kurdish leaders", taken up by Hiltermann/Black. It's all from the same viewpoint and original claim which is naturally unbalanced and repeating something also known as circular reporting, "where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source.". Were there other, especially independent, unpoliticized studies and information on death tolls, or first-hand information such the "dossier" that Black/Hiltermann were confident existed but unfortunately seems like Iraqi government records and studies turned up nothing of the sort, there would be more balance.

As buidhe and I pointed out in our discussion earlier, and others like Hiltermann have admitted, one of the issues with Anfal is there's little research done on it, and what was done was a report with deep involvement with the US government and a militant group. @Buidhe What do you think about this and the existing tags? Unlike your work on Seyfo which has hundreds of mutually exclusive, independent, unpoliticized works and studies on deaths, all we have regarding Anfal is a couple unsubstantiated figures from vague "Kurdish leaders" with HRW taking those up in a report relying on very unreliable information as previously discussed, followed by other sources mentioning the same since. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Circular reporting is possible but on the other hand all we can do is report what the best available sources say, with appropriate attribution. Removing tags (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that HRW is reliable with attribution, so there really is no basis in policy for tagging content sourced to it (or the "Death toll" section as a whole). Obviously, if there are reliable sources with different estimates, then they can also be cited (with attribution as needed). However, Wikipedia maintenance tags are ill-suited to resolve any real or perceived weaknesses with the underlying scholarship. To be sure, the scholarship might look substantially different (and be substantially stronger) in 50 years (or not—we don't have a crystal ball). However, Wikipedia articles can only ever be based on the sum of current knowledge in reliably published material, even if that knowledge is necessarily more limited on some topics than others. I agree with Buidhe's removal; the tags should not be restored without consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, buidhe. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am agreeing with most the statements made in comments above. Unfortunately I have to correct that it's not HRW originating these claims, and anyways individual works are to be considered which is part of RS policy, not considering everything from a given organization as a same level. There's substantial variation in quality. That is, it's not HRW we're discussing, but particular works, and more specifically, information that does not originate from HRW even. As discussed and sourced previously, it's a case where the best available sourcing for this is vague "Kurdish leaders" i.e. politicians involved in an armed conflict, to whom HRW attributes figures provided (both 182,000 and 100,000) and then Hiltermann/Black give a range from half of the latter up to it on no further substantiation. This being in a report where they got the bulk of their information from an unreliable militant/political group and done in tandem with the US government as a case against an enemy state, so the best sourcing we have is a case of self-admitted soapboxing on behalf of two political entities.

There have been sources including a few I posted that poke holes in the HRW report including among other things its parroting unreliable information fed to them by a government/political organization and its militant wing, so to call their writings on this topic as "reliable" is questionable and stretching at best. As noted in my last comment, even the firebrand on the subject matter states there's very little actual research or information on it other than the problematic report he was part of (that is, he means later works point back to it for such information and figures), and in literature to date, it's not so much a lack of interest as it is an inability to corroborate the more eyebrow-raising numbers and claims made by Resool and PUK/KDP to Hiltermann/Black and the US government. I agree that more scholarship is needed.

TL;DR: The best available sourcing we have is a politicized report whose numbers and information come mostly from an unreliable militant group taken at face value with involvement by a national government. From an academic standpoint (assuming others also have some background in academia, this is clear), it's egregious at best. My hope also is that there is more original, and for the first time independent and objective, scholarship on the topic and especially many of the claims and numbers so that there can be more of WP:NOTFALSE, but given the nature of the topic and the extent and degree some of the original claims, this may be unlikely. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

To contextualize, buidhe's commendable work on Seyfo would have been impossible if hypothetically like with this topic there was an original source (with involvement by a national government engaged in sanctioning and warring against Turkey) that said "Assyrian leaders say 1 million died" or "Assyrian leaders claim that a government official said 'It couldn't have been more than 750,000' so we'll give 700k-750k" along with, among some true uncontroversial things, a barrage of other outlandish claims and hyperbole provided by a hypothetical Assyrian militant group, with no other work nor deep independent research done on the topic regarding that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the various arguments above perhaps a wording such as either, "According to investigations conducted by Human Rights Watch" or "Investigations conducted by Human Rights Watch have indicated" might work, but even this may give too strong a presentation of the situation. In practice most of the action of HRW, in this situation, could better seem to fit a description of Human Rights (Ask and) Listen. The reporting wasn't direct and an indication of the information gathering process is warranted. Would "investigations" beneficially describe HRW actions or would another description better serve? A footnote on HRW's practices at the time could certainly be warranted. Subsequent wording should be of a form such as, "Kurdish officials have stated ..." as per MOS:CLAIM. GregKaye 12:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye You couldn't have put it better with "could better seem to fit a description of Human Rights (Ask and) Listen." The reporting wasn't direct and an indication of the information gathering process is warranted.. As already discussed, the deep politicization in the creation of the report and controlled information provided from an unreliable militant group taken at face-value and embellished upon limits the veracity and reliability of the report substantially. It's the kind of source that should either be used very carefully of which some progress has been made to making that clearer, or not at all, not unlike the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that has given legitimacy for claims of varying degrees of extremity made by militant and opposition groups in neighboring Syria. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Should go with the highly regarded track record of Human Rights Watch for that, as mentioned. The political interference argument doesn't make a lot of sense and approaches WP:OR, a 1993 report is way different than a 1990-1991 report or a 2002-2004 report. The 1993 report is being treated in this thread as if it was produced 1990-1991 or 2002-2004. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rauisuchian There's already been sources posted such as this [21] regarding political interference so it is not WP:OR. I'd recommend taking a look through the article and Talk sections instead of an individual comment.

The HRW work and missions started in 1991, according to their own report, so this confusing point around year is incorrect regardless. It's just that it was released in 1993. This kind of work doesn't happen and finish immediately.

How is the year relevant? Not understanding this point. It's also not "way different", because 1990-2003 (or more accurately, 1988-present) was all the same regarding this context. There's still reports adding research and claims regarding the Armenian genocide a century later. Well after the invasion of Iraq and clearing up beyond any doubt of "WMDs" with its top claimants, acclaimed books such as this[22] were pushing the conspiracy theory that all kinds of WMDs still existed and that they were moved to Syria. If you're unfamiliar with the history, the Gulf War wasn't the end of conflict between the US and Iraq. Iraq was under sanctions and no-fly zones, with regular US air and missile strikes and near-escalations. Political and media hostility between the US (and some other nations) and Iraq was very hot throughout this period. It got to a point that the US Congress passed an act in 1998 authorizing regime change in Iraq. 1990-2003 was one long period of the same, not different, but the year doesn't matter anyways. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)