Talk:Yazidi genocide

Peshmerga withdrawal

User:Konli17, everyone agrees that the effect of Peshmerga withdrawal was to leave the Yazidis exposed - the text has always said that. Only one individual, speaking in a partisan source, makes claims about confiscated weapons. One of the sources used states explicitly that "Some Yezidi activists go further, accusing the KRG of various discriminatory policies that have led to the deaths of Yezidi. These groups accuse the Peshmerga of looting Yezidi villages in the Sinjar region, of detaining Yezidi activists and political leaders, and of preventing food and supplies reaching IDPs. A particular point of contention (detailed later) is the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmer-ga’s role in the 2014 assault and subsequent massacres. The Peshmerga is accused of confiscating Yezidi arms, telling Yezidis not to flee, and then suddenly withdrawing".

Later:"Yezidi activists and NGOs have claimed that KRG Peshmerga disarmed the Yezidi population in advance, prevented families from evacuating on August 2 and in one incident killed two Yezidis in Zorava who attempted to seize weaponry to defend themselves.These incidents fueled grievances towards the KRG and the wider Kurdish community, felt by some Yezidis."

ie the 'betrayal' scenario implied by your edit is treated by a better source as a claim, not as proven facts.

If these claims are included, they should not be in WPVOICE and should probably not be in this particular section but in some later section. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A range of sources confirm this activity, including the KRG who have promised to prosecute those responsible. Peshmerga confiscation of Iraqi Army weapons from civilians was standard when they occupied areas abandoned by the Iraqi Army, at least in Yazidi and Assyrian areas. I don't know what was intentional and what wasn't, but the following sequence seems unchallenged (even by the KRG) except for you:

1. The Peshmerga occupy the territory abandoned by the Iraqi Army. They promise to defend it, and disarm civilians who had appropriated abandoned Iraqi Army weapons, promising them they wouldn't need them now the Peshmerga were there. 2. The Peshmerga suddenly decide to retreat. It's not yet clear at what level this decision is reached, but all Peshmerga units withdraw. The massacre is worsened by false promises of reinforcement to Yazidis after the IS attack begins, at the very time the Peshmerga flee. 3. Yazidi Peshmerga members who attempt to block the removal of the confiscated wepaons are shot.

I don't believe there was a secret plan to facilitate the massacre, rather that it was a combination of military corruption, cowardice, and bigotry. But you've now removed multiple sources that lay out what happened, justifying this by reading an implication into it. In your earlier revert, you also include part of the massacre in the Background section. Konli17 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO the article is a mess which fails to convey what happened accurately and neutrally. The sources you added, and those already there, establish great bitterness post-conflict, they don't particularly establish any agreement about the various accustations. Your text quotes one man in a partisan source but says it as fact. No one disputes that the effect was to leave Yazidis exposed. In so far as this content deserves to be included, I think it needs to separate the sequence of events from 'blame' and claims from established fact. Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say (especially about establishing a sequence of events), but I've given you multiple sources, not just one. My main point is that a lot (possibly most) of the Yazidi accusations aren't denied by the KRG. Unless you can show they are denied, you seem to be implying a conflicting storyline where none exists. Konli17 (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Turkish aid

Why was this removed? VR _talk 04:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent- I can't really see too much of a problem. That also seems to be the IP address' only edit so far, without ever offering a proper explanation, so I think it should be returned, but preferably in a section about humanitarian aid in general. Dunutubble (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dunutubble: thanks, I have restored it.VR _talk 05:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is Turkish aid especially notable? The text merely supports that some airdrops probably came from Turkey and some refugees escaped there. The first source used is VERY POOR and has an explicit disclaimer about its verifiability. Later sources are not great either. A section devoted to foreign aid might make more sense and context as suggested by Dunutubble.Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I misread Dunutubble. I'll change the heading to "Humanitarian aid". And, if its with you, I'd also like to change the heading of "Western military intervention" to just "Military intervention". There were plenty of Middle Easterners who were involved in the fight against ISIS (including Turkey, Jordan, Kurdish forces, Morocco).VR _talk 19:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sunni collaboration

User:KurdeEzidi, in this text, you are misrepresenting the content of your source - the main drift of which is to warn of the danger of sectarianism and other topics. In some parts of your text you are factually falsifying content.

Firstly, the source does not speak of "one report of Sunnis helping Yazidis to escape", what it says about that is " in some cases, Arabs risked their lives to save persecuted friends" - "in some cases, Arabs risked their lives" isn't "one report of Sunnis helping Yazidis to escape".

In the other direction, there is ONE person reporting that his one-time friend had joined the militants "Soon afterward, he said, he found out that Mr. Mare had joined the militants and was helping them hunt down Yazidi families". Clearly there is widespread mistrust reported, but THAT MISTRUST and FEAR of sectarianism is the main thrust of the source - not actual widespread persecution, which your text implies. … One instance isn't "In several villages local Sunnis were reported". There are a few other claims about Sunnis allegedly flying black flags, which obviously contributes to fears, but which isn't persecution or betrayal as such.

You are turning singular into plural and plural into singular, all based on a single source and not even attempting to indicate either the scale or background to the tensions. I'm not trying to whitewash this subject, but your text misrepresents the source by selectively including a very unbalanced reading of the article which explicitly states "The extent of the collusion is hard to map." In plain English the report doesn't know whether or how much 'betrayal' is actually happening and is principally concerned with recording the fears Yazidis had - but that isn't recorded.

Either the subject of sectarian tension is represented in a balanced fashion (which my edit was a clumsy attempt to start at least) or it should go IMO. We aren't here to take sides or make accustations. Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum, after posting the above, I realised that the misrepresentation of the source is actually WORSE than I claim above. The main witness (Dakhil Habash) left his home town for fear of what his neighbour might do - he was 'proved right' only to the extent that he later heard his friend had joined the militants. But the article text reports this as several instances of actual deceit, betrayal and violence by Sunnis, as though the man's fears had happened to him and others. I have no way of knowing, nor does the source claim to know, whether Habash's fears were well-grounded. It is primarily concerned with documenting fears not deeds.

I don't pretend to know the details of this topic and there may be other sources documenting bad treatment by Sunnis of Yazidis, I don't know, but it is very clear that THIS SOURCE does not even come close to supporting the text to which it is attached. The source certainly speaks of the IS being attractive to some Sunnis and it speaks of fears and tensions, but it does not event pretend to report actual collaboration. Source used here. Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, firstly, let me paste the paragraphs that caused me to revert your edit:

“Our Arab neighbors turned on all of us,” said Mr. Habash, who recounted his story from a makeshift refugee camp on the banks of a fetid stream near the city of Zakho, in Iraqi Kurdistan. “We feel betrayed. They were our friends.”

So here he's clearly not just talking about his friend alone, he's talking about being betrayed his Arab neighbours in plural. And this article doesn't take into account Habash's experience alone, it writes down about a couple other Yezidis' experiences also, namely that of Haso and Qasim Omar. So moving on to the next two statements by those two persons respectively:

“I called my closest friend after we fled, an Arab man who owned a shop in our village,” said a Yazidi man who identified himself only as Haso, declining to give his first name out of fear of reprisal. “When I asked him what he was doing, he told me he was looking for Yazidis to kill.”

And Qasim Omar:

Another Yazidi refugee, Qasim Omar, said that just before ISIS reached his village, Arab neighbors began flying the group’s black flag from their homes.

“Before ISIS came, the Arab villagers had already helped them,” said Mr. Omar, 63. “I couldn’t believe it. They were our brothers.”

So it is not merely one person reporting being betrayed by their Arab neighbours (again, plural) who collaborated with ISIS, but it's multiple Yezidi witnesses reporting so.

I do agree about there not only being one report of Arabs saving Yezidis, and that should be changed. But the article clearly does report and state witness accounts of local Sunni collaboration with ISIS. Same Sunnis who had been neighbours to Yezidis and some of whom were actual friends prior to collaboration with ISIS. KurdeEzidi (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

KurdeEzidi, short answer, of course I read those, but you cannot turn one or two people making claims or expressing their fears into a general statement of fact. All these accounts confirm is an atmosphere of fear and mistrust, which is exactly what NYT is reporting, the source explicitly says that it does not KNOW what is happening. It would sound pathetic would it not if we said Mr Habash (who wasn't actually present at any violent events) reported speaking on the phone to a neighbour who said he was killing people, leaving his home town because he was afraid of what his neighbour MIGHT do, whilst somebody else reported black flags being flown (all of which events are very understandable as causing Yazidi fear, but all could mean 1,000 things apart from plotting betrayal or violence, let alone carrying it out).

As I said, the only thing this source confirms and the only thing it is really claiming is an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and specifically a fear of a return to sectarian violence, with some Sunnis having some IS sympathies. Even if there were many, many more witness accounts than there are here - that is what these would be, claims not facts unless many, many news agencies were reporting the same thing and were reporting actions, not fears or feelings.

We're neutral here, which means we expect a very high burden of proof from reliable, independent sources WHOEVER the claimants are before we record something as fact, as having happened. This source doesn't come anywhere nesr to supporting the claims the text makes, it DOES support an atmosphere of fear pervading the Yazidi community - which is what our text should report. If there are stronger sources, supporting sectarian violence, the text could be modified and added to, but we report what the best sources say, we don't write the text and then try to find the sources to justify what we have written. That's almost text book non-neutral behaviour. Pincrete (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

These accounts also do report the neighbouring Sunnis collaborating with ISIS. Omar reports that the Arab neighbours flew the group's (ISIS) flag right before ISIS reached their village, he also reports that those Arabs had helped ISIS. Haso reports that his Arab friend told him on the phone that he was looking for Yezidis to kill. Habash reports that his Yezidi neighbours turned on them. Then onto the next part of the article, a checkpoint, manned by, again Local Arabs together with some ISIS fighters, is reported stopping a Yezidi. The local Sunni collaboration is with ISIS is reported numerous times. For the sake of preserving the neutrality, we could add that displaced Yezidi, including witnesses, reported local Sunni-ISIS collaboration. But If an alternative/additional source helps, I've been planning to add some new content to this article for some time, so I've been gathering some sources and I think for this piece of information, this source would be good addition because it also mentions witness accounts reporting local Sunnis collaborating with and joining ISIS, so if it would be any improvement, we could add it. KurdeEzidi (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

KurdeEzidi, even if everything you said were true - it would not justify that text. If one paper finds 5 or 6 people making claims, much of which neither the paper nor the witnesses is able to corroborate - it is exactly that, one paper quoting claims none of which either the paper nor the witnesses can corroborate, and the paper makes that explicit. The format anyway would be "the NYT reported that … … , then the specific reports, and frankly they would be pathetic like that. You cannot extrapolate general truths from such scant information - it is not even pretending to be neutral, nor to accurately reflect the content of the source. It is trying to do the complete opposite, a small number of examples of fears in order to make general claim about deeds. We aren't a tabloid newspaper and we don't start off deciding what we want to write and then use the source to justify it. It's clear that the main story of that article is the mistrust and fear of sectarian violence returning with a few examples of why people were afraid, and mistrustful.

If you can't agree to work towards very substantial changes - I'm going to have to take this to one of the arbitration procedures, probably WP:RSN. In my opinion, there is not a cat in hell's chance of present text being endorsed. Even the section heading is not neutral - the source isn't about collaboration - it's largely about the fear Yazidis had that the Sunni community would collaborate. That fear is very understandable, but you can't turn fears that something might happen into claims that it has happened, and has happened on a widespread scale. I've just noticed that this collaboration section is under a main heading of massacres - so the clear inference is that Sunnis took part in massacres. That idea is so far from what the NYT source says that it would be comical if the subject matter itself were not so serious.

I'm afraid that the only claim is about one person in another village, which the other person explicitly denies, and it's words not deeds. Then a friend told a witness that a neighbour had joined IS - even the witness doesn't know whether this story is true! We don't take sides by assuming the villager friend is lying or assuming the story that the witness heard is true. Even if the black flags claim is 100% true - is it not obvious that this may be to save their own skins rather than to plot to kill and betray their neighbours?

I haven't looked at your new source yet, but the existing source doesn't come within light years of justifying the claims made. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum, I've now read your new source and think I can see a way forward. Whether you'll like it or not I don't know, since it will focus on the fears/perceptions rather than actual violent acts, but hopefully can be phrased neutrally such that the fears are neither endorsed nor questioned. If at a later date info is available about the extent to which ACTUAL violence is known to have occurred, it can always be added then. Pincrete (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, the source DOES report claims of collaboration, they're not merely fearing that the neighbouring Sunnis possibly collaborating, they are explicitly claiming that those Arabs, who were their neighbours and former friends, collaborated with ISIS before, during and after the genocide and takeover of the city. They're not just claiming to be afraid, they are straight up saying that they did it. I was not suggesting we take sides or conclusively assume one side is saying the truth and the other us lying, as I said, we could add that it was Yezidi witnesses who reported this. So moving on to the next point, which is about that source I suggested, I would be happy adding it. It's more neutral, straightforward and yet detailed. It explicitly mentions that Yezidi witnesses reported local Sunni Arabs collaborating with ISIS, cooperating with them during the massacres and making up a large portion of the attackers. It is also relevant to the heading that the aforementioned piece of information is written under. Again, we don't need to take sides or base our conclusions on these witness accounts. But it is still important that we take them into account in an as neutrally as possible manner, if you have any suggestions on how we should rephrase the piece of information, please do share, I would suggest specifying who the claimants and witnesses (Yezidis) are, without disregarding the fact that the local Arabs were and are widely reported and accused of having cooperated with ISIS and partaken in the massacres. KurdeEzidi (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing the Update 2017 banner

Starting a discussion if more information needs to be added before removing the banner. I have been updating the article and think the issue related to the banner has been adequately addressed per WP:WTRMT. Besides, there has not been a discussion initiated on the article’s talkpage when this date=May 2017 was added. I will check with the editor who added the banner too.Petra0922 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)