Talk:Yazidis/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Changes 11.02.2016

I made a new section, Ethnicity and I added all details related to it to the that section. Kurdification claim was falsified and biased. I read the source and added what was mentioned in the source. About marrying: That claim needs a lot of reliable and strong sources. Also, source which was added to confirm it didn't mention it like that. It said it has been part of their culture to marry only Yazidis in Sinjar. This article is about all Yazidis. Before changing or reversing my changes, please provide sources. Ferakp (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The marriage claim has 3 sources. The Time article mentions intramarriage as forbidden as does the everyculture article. However the book says that the rule is sometimes ignored. I will make an edit to clarify this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: My changes were not related to marrying. They were mainly related to ethnicity and new section. Kurdification statement is totally falsified, even the source which is used is against it. Can you change them back? Ferakp (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Let me review the edits and sources. There does seem to be a lot of battleground going on in this article (as evidenced by the talk sections above). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Here is section from the 38th reference which supports my changes: Another of the pillars of arabization was a Baath Party policy, formally introduced in 1997, whereby the government pressured Kurds and other non-Arabs living in government-controlled areas in Kirkuk, Khaniqin, Makhmour, Sinjar, Tuz Khormatu, and other districts to “correct” their ethnicity by registering as “Arabs” on so-called nationality correction forms distributed by the government. The Iraqi government also refused to register newborns with Kurdish or other non-Arabic ethnic names.[32] Those who “corrected” their nationality were also forced to engage in loyalist activities, such as volunteering for paramilitary forces. During the arabization and Anfalcampaigns, minority groups sufferedalongside the Kurds and were similarly forced to “correct” their nationality to identify asArabs or risk expulsion from their home communities. Qusay Abbass, the elected member of the Shabak quota seat on the Nineveh provincial council, told Human Rights Watch.[61] “After 2003, we have been subjected to another injustice, this time at the hands of Kurds through their Kurdisization policy. Ferakp (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I am very unfamiliar with this topic and was brought here by a listing at CAT:ESP. That said, the UN document ([1]) does discuss "kurdification" on p. 88 stating:
  • "Turkmen, Arab, Christian and Shabak parties claim harassment and forced assimilation by Kurdish militias in Kirkuk and other mixed areas such as villages in the Ninewa Plain, with the aim of incorporating these areas into the Region of Kurdistan. Ethnic minorities have repeatedly accused the Kurdish parties and their military forces of acts of violence and discrimination, arbitrary arrests and detention on sectarian basis, political marginalization (including through electoral manipulations), monopolizing of government offices, and changing the demographics with the ultimate goal of incorporating Kirkuk and other mixed areas into the Region of Kurdistan. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) noted that the Kurdish parties “present the threat of soft ethnic cleansing in the area of Kirkuk.”"
The HRW source ([2]) does also discuss "kurdisization" saying:
  • "In a move that disturbingly echoes the “nationality correction” policy of the former Baathist government, minority groups have reported that their members were forced to not identify themselves as a member of a minority community (the two registration options given are Kurd or Arab), in order to get access to education or healthcare.[60] “During the former regime, the census had only two categories: Arab and Kurd. Shabaks were not recognized as a separate ethnicity. We were the victims of arabization,” Qusay Abbass, the elected member of the Shabak quota seat on the Nineveh provincial council, told Human Rights Watch.[61] “After 2003, we have been subjected to another injustice, this time at the hands of Kurds through their Kurdisization policy..."
The 4th section in the HRW source titled "Intimidation by Kurdish authorities" seems to support the statement about Kurdification.
I think your edits regarding Kurdification and ethnicity (reverted here by Chickchick77) are constructive, but I think that there does need to be a mention of Kurdification per the UN source. The statement can be attributed to the UN directly (e.g., "According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Yazidi people claim to be undergoing Kurdification."} As for the section on marriage, I think my edit and addition of quotes to the reference support its current form. Let me know what you think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I accept your marrying changes, it is much better now. As I said, this article is related to all Yazidis. There is Yazidis in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey and Germany... I made new section for this reason. I added them to new section and and explained it much better. There was "According to Human rights" in the statement and that's why I said it is against its HRW source. HRW says they were victims of Arabization and some have told HRW that they are now under process of Kurdification. That's why I said "Some Yazidi organizations have told to Human Rights Watch". We can add according to the UN High Comissioner for Refugees and some Yazidi organizations... to Kurdification statement and put ethnicity details to Ethnicity section. What you think about that?Ferakp (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The UN report has nothing to do with Yazidis. They are related to other minorities. So my previous change was totally right. It's just some organizations that have told the Human rights Watch. The UN report p.88 doesn't mention Yazidis explicitly even thought it somehow "support" that Kurdification claim. Ferakp (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: My mistake, I believe we can use the UN report to support Kurdification even though they don't mention Yazidis directly. I suggest you transfer them to Ethnicity section and add my previous reversed details back and change Kurdification statement to what you suggested: "According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Yazidi people claim to be undergoing Kurdification."}. What you think?Ferakp (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yazidis → Yezidis – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Under Google books, 9,750 for "Yazidis" and 34,400 for "Yezidis". Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Google News search
    So it seems that usage has shifted to "Yazidi" ? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. I'd rather stick with what sources say. However, I'm interested in what others have to say. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Usage appears mixed, and while gnews support "Yazidis" and gbooks support "Yezidis", it is interesting the gbooks asks "did you mean Yazidis" despite the higher hit count for "Yezidis"... Just an observation. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
News sources are sources too. LjL (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@LjL: Yes you're right. My apologies. What I meant was academic or scholarly sources which are more common among published books than news sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources being what they are, academic sources seem rather equal; GScholar search:
combined with your book search, and Google News, it still appears like "Yazidi" is more prominent in sources. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, since most sources as a whole appear to use the current name, but the alternate suggestion certainly warrants a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment I'm glad we had this discussion. There's no denying that Yezidis is also a popular name for them. I'm surprised we haven't had a redirect until now. I just made one. It's better late than never. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It appears that the current name is the more common one.--Cúchullain t/c 21:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does seem the current name is the accepted one in the English-speaking world. Erp (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Fortunately, this seems to be one of the few aspects of Yæzidism that isn't drawn into highly ideological debates. "Yezidi" is clearly prevalent in published books, both older and recent ones. And while it is equally true that news sources favor "Yazidi", and the Britannica does, too, obviously both spellings are equally correct and interchangably used.
    So in the end, we should see how Yæzidis refer to themselves, and while there is also Yazda, most influential organizations seem to favor "Yezidi" or "Ezidi", see Yezidis International, EzidiPress or Yezidi Human Rights Organization. Also UNHCR refers to the group as "Yezidis". --PanchoS (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2016 (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.

Opening sentence

The opening sentence needs work. Yes, it is of interest that the religion is not related to Zoaras.... - but that is not the defining point. Put it in down below, but not here.64.53.191.77 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yezidis are Kurds

yezidi's are ethnically and linguistically Kurds. These are well documented facts. I am not even going to provide sources on their language being Kurdish, as I hope it is obvious to everyone that they speak the same language as the majority of Kurds do. They don't have their own unique language.

The reason why some Yezidis identify as being uniquely Yezidi ethnically, might have something to do with many of them living in Armenia, and having underwent anti-Kurdish policies by the Armenian government (I won't get into detail on why).

Yezidi's have always been a core part of the Kurdish culture. The Yezidi 21-ray symbol (sun) is part of the Kurdistani flag. Hundreds of brave Yezidi men served as Peshmerga under the legendary Kurdish general Mustafa Barzani during the first and second Iraqi-Kurdish wars (1961 - 1975).

I understand if some Yezidis feel disconnected with their non-Yezidi Kurdish brethren because of historical events, but this isn't really ground for distancing yourself from your Kurdish ethnicity.

The only difference between Kurdish Yezidis, Kurdish Jews, Kurdish Muslims, Kurdish Kaka'is, Kurdish Christians, Kurdish Zoroastrians, Kurdish Atheists, etc. is their religion.

83.82.163.173 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hoping something is obvious" and "not being going to provide sources" are clearly not how things are done on Wikipedia, and especially not concerning articles and issues that have been specifically contentious and debated. Provide reliable sources for either point of view, or don't waste time. I am sick of the way this article is handled by several parties. LjL (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yasidi crimes against outmarried Yasidis

The Yasidi peoples kill Yasidis that want to marry non Yasidis. They culture is racist, even German Yasidis of first generation are racists against marrying non Yasidis, and the do not speak to Yasidis they marry with others (in Germany they simply don't kill the outmarried). This is what most Yasidis do. One in many thousand Yasidis doesn't accept Yasidi racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:B300:C5DB:BD26:452E:CB3 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. That sounds quite unpleasant. Do you have details of any reliable sources that document or discuss it? MPS1992 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad robot (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4109:3F00:9DF8:8122:2472:BD02 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Yazidis official flag in iraq international flag

BellaJenner (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2016 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If you are wanting this flag added, instead of the "unofficial" flag currently in the article, you will need to cite an independent, reliable source to show that this is officially accepted as the "official" flag - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"Yazidism is not linked to Zoroastrianism" Huh?

All 3 citations come from the same POV-source (a blog?) and the claim seems dubious because of the shared mythology, geography and ethnicity. Could a more experienced editor take a look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.173.209 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

‘Yazidism is not linked to Zoroastrianism’

The article states that ‘Yazidism is not linked to Zoroastrianism’ but the sources for that claim are extremely feeble and many of the sources which are cited as presumably reliable sources in this very same article claim that Yazidism and Zoroastrianism are related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge article Ezidkhan into this one

There is a proposal in the Ezidkhan article to merge it into this article. It links to this place, but here is actually nothing like a discussion about it. Because of this, I'll start this discussion here now.

In my opinion, there is actually no good reason to merge the articles. Oppose.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I also don't think there should be a merging of articles. Yezidis are a people and Ezidkhan is a place. As there is precedence is not to combine a ethno-religious group into the same article as its homeland (eg. Sikhs & Punjab, Zoroastrians & Ancient Persia - or Pune as well, Armenians (Apostolic Church) and Armenia), I think the articles should be kept separate.) Oppose Steveodinkirk (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Judaism and Israel would be a more absurd (though more debated) example. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yazidi Peoples are classified Iranian peoples

Yazidi Peoples are classified as Iranian peoples based on:

  • Speaking one of the Iranian languages
    • the definition of Iranian peoples: Iranian peoples are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of the Iranian languages[1][2]
  • having a Iranic religion
    • a religion rooted in Iranian religions blended with elements of pre-Islamic Mesopotamian religious traditions[3]
  • previously mentioned on the Iranian peoples article and its template.[4]

the fact of being Iranian peoples must be on the lead like Lurish peoples, Kurdish peoples etc..

Which independent reliable sources synthesize these facts with a conclusion that Yazidi are Iranian peoples? MPS1992 (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Waldman & Mason 2006, p. 692
  2. ^ "IRAN vi. IRANIAN LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS". Encyclopædia Iranica. Bibliotheca Persica Press. 15 December 2006. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
  3. ^ Yazidis
  4. ^ Yazidis

Yazidis

تحية ايزيدية و باختصار، لكي نواجه زوال الهوية الايزيدية عبر فرض الهويات الاخرى علينا، يجب علينا ان نواجه بالمثل. سنبدأ بالويكيبيديا (الموسوعة الحرة) 

اولا اعمل

Yazidis (Ezidis/Êzîdîs/Yezidis) are an ethno-religious group who never feel that they are Kurds even if some Ezidis consider themselves Kurds, it is because they are in those territories which are under Kurdish savage control. Kurds use their power of controlling economics in Ezidi areas since most of Ezidi work in Kurdistan region or Kurdish controlled areas. The language that Yazidi speak is their own which is called Ezidi/Ezidki or Kurmanji in some areas. So Yazidis are not Kurds and we hope that Wikipedia stops depending on Kurdish sources in dealing with Yazidi issues. 

Maankhider (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This has been replied to just above, where another user account said exactly the same thing. MPS1992 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Yazidis are not kurds.. They have appeared many years before kurds.. Every Kurdish is Yazidi but every Yazidi is not kurdish... In some areas yazidis do not speak kurdish .. I am Yazidi from Bashiqa and I do not speak kurdish.. Please change the information ... Maankhider (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want a change made to the article, you will need to provide a reliable source (see WP:RS) to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Heading

Yazidis (Ezidis/Êzîdîs/Yezidis) are an ethno-relgious group who never feel that they are Kurds even if some Ezidis consider themselves Kurds, it is because they are in those territories which are under Kurdish savage control. Kurds use their power of controlling on economics in Ezidi areas since most of Ezidi work in Kurdistan region or Kurdish controlled areas. So Yazidis are not Kurds and we hope that Wikipedia stops depending on Kurdish sources in dealing with Yazidi issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAYERBEBO (talk • contribs)

As I said in the section immediately above, if you want to make any changes you will need to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.radioradicale.it/scheda/490862/intervista-al-professor-azad-baris-sulla-comunita-ezida-a-sengal-nel-nord-iraq

http://www.radioradicale.it/scheda/490862/intervista-al-professor-azad-baris-sulla-comunita-ezida-a-sengal-nel-nord-iraq

I know enough of Romance languages to work out that this is an audio or video interview with a Professor, and it relates to Yazidi people and to northern Iraq. Can you or someone else tell us more about it and how it may be relevant to improving the article Yazidis, please? MPS1992 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As an addendum, it has occurred to me that it may be related to the section immediately above. MPS1992 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Question About Sentence in Intro

Not knowing much about Yazidis, I am afraid to touch the following sentence in the first paragraph: "Soviet Union considered Yezidis as Kurds as well as Sheref Khan Bitlisi's Sheref-name 1597 cites seven of Kurdish tribes as being at least partly Yezidi and Kurdish tribal confederations contained substantial Yezidi sections." For us lay people, could somebody please clean this sentence? I believe it is trying to say something like this, "The Soviet Union considered Yazidis to be Kurds. In his 1597 book, Sharaf Khan Bidlisi claimed there were seven Kurdish tribes that were part Yazidi, a substational amount." Does that seem better? Mvblair (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes that looks much better, though you probably want substantial rather than substational. An argument could be made for not having this in the lede at all, but that's a separate issue. MPS1992 (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, MPS1992. Looks like the change was made (with the correct spelling!) I'm going to throw in the the link to Sharaf Khan Bidlisi. Mvblair (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is an article devoted directly to the Yezidi New Year festival. Could anynone add it to the "citation needed"? http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/1573384x-20160306 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Anna 21 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The current edit war on this article

Rico Alvarez seems to be conducting an edit war as dicussed here & has not responsed to others. There is not a single edit summary for any of this editor's edits, including the 16 (as of this count) on Yazidis. User:Rico Alvarez has removed valid categories from the page & has linked to the deleted Sharfadin article. I am considering reverting the article to the last version previous to User:Rico Alvarez's edits to get it back to a reasonable state. Feedback? Peaceray (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead & rolled it back to the last edit before Rico Alvarez started editing. Peaceray (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Yazidis (Ezidis/Êzîdîs/Yezidis) are an ethno-religious group who never feel that they are Kurds even if some Ezidis consider themselves Kurds, it is because they are in those territories which are under Kurdish savage control. Kurds use their power of controlling economics in Ezidi areas since most of Ezidi work in Kurdistan region or Kurdish controlled areas. The language that Yazidi speak is their own which is called Ezidi/Ezidki or Kurmanji in some areas. So Yazidis are not Kurds and we hope that Wikipedia stops depending on Kurdish sources in dealing with Yazidi issues. 

Maankhider (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Your comment is confusing. "Kurd" is defined as a group of people speaking a kurdish language (an indo-european dialect continuum, related to languages like farsi). The definition is purely linguistic, ignores religion and politics. As you say, Yazidis speak Kurmanji, which is in academic litterature called "Northern Kurdish". Besides the ancestors of many kurds were Yazidis. It is definitely true that Yazidis are an ethno-religious group. This mean they are a subgroups of Kurds, as their mothertongue is kurdish & have common ancestors with kurds, but other kurds are not yazidi due to having another religion. I think these notions are quite simple and straightforward. I understand the political climate is very bad and Yazidis have many rightful grievances against the political class of KRG and I think Yazidis themselves are the ones who must decide about their future. But let's not make basic linguistic notions political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D5F:FB98:C940:A877:DD54:DA42 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can someone please revert recent source misrepresentations by user Ferakp please? Especially this! The source clearly recognizes the Yazidis as a distinc ethnic group but the user modified it. Here is what the source exactly says under the "Ethnic Groups" subtitle on page no 11: "(...)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.". Actually other edits of him are also problematic. He just modified and moved downward the sourced contents that he does not like. 88.254.104.32 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't recognize the Yazidis as a distinct ethnic group, it was misinterpreted. Your way to interpret the source will be WP:ORIGINAL. The source clearly says in page 76:
The Yazidi people can be classified as a distinct religious group. The Yazidi religion is monotheistic and syncretistic, encompassing elements from Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Gnostic beliefs and traditions. It is disputed, even among the community itself as well as among Kurds, whether they are ethnically Kurds or form a distinct ethnic group.354 Most Yazidis speak Kurmanji, a Kurdish dialect.
The previous version had said that the UN had recognized them as a distinct ethnic group which is false because the report is by UNCHR and UNCHR doesn't recognize them as a distinct ethnic group (says it's highly disputed).Ferakp (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Yazidis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Yazidis

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Yazidis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "2011census":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Please do not revert edits to the lead to list the Yazidis as Kurdish. The statement published by the main organization that represents Yazidis, Yazda, clearly states this is incorrect. Additionally, this English version of Wikipedia should more closely match the Arabic version of Wikipedia, which clearly does NOT state that Yazidis are Kurdish. Please bring the discussion here to the talk page versus reverting so this can be a discussion if you disagree. That said, it seems logical that the Yazidi organization's statement should over-ride any classification here. Best, BrillLyle (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue of Yazidis being classified as Kurds is why they are currently being persecuted in Iraq today. It is something that is incorrect on English Wikipedia, and is being used as another way to malign the community, a community which has been traumatized from a human rights standpoint. I think it is dangerous -- especially given the Yazidi organization, Yazda, has clearly made a statement to this effect, that they are not self-identifying as Kurds and reject this classification -- that the facts on the Wikipedia page support that. I am copying my response to the talk page.
Best, BrillLyle (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
First, it's sourced. Not in the lead but that's not required so long as it's sourced in the body of the text. Secondly, it's important so it should be in the lead. Sure, we can state that the main organisation, so long as we can source that it is the main organisation, denies being Kurdish. W are not stating that they are Kurdish if we say it's disputed. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: Forgot. There's no reason why we should match any other language Wikipedia. However, the arab language article[3] says "Belong to a racially Indo - European roots of Kurdish origin " so it isn't clear what your point is. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: My point is that this is a point of contention if you do any sort of reading about the current Yazidi population. Beside the fact -- and I think this is a very important fact -- that the Yazidi community, represented by Yazda, states clearly they are not Kurdish, and reject that claim. See this here, which is a citation in the lead. I am not sure why this is a point of contention here, when it is correcting something that is factually erroneous. These facts are correct on the Arabic Wikipedia. Why should English Wikipedia be wrong here? -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: Your ping didn't work, you need a | not a :. I can't understand you. We both agree it's a point of contention and an important one, thus it should belong in the lead. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "factually erroneous", do we say they claim to be Kurdish? And although it's irrelevant, the Arabic Wikipedia says "Belong to a racially Indo - European roots of Kurdish origin" as a fact. There seem to be reliable sources by our criteria saying they are Kurdish so we have to put both points of view, that's basic policy, read WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: What is the motivation here? It's incorrect, I'm trying to fix it, you are putting incorrect information into the lead. I'm not understanding why this is even a point of discussion from your perspective. This is a community who is being persecuted for this erroneous assumption. What is the motivation on your part to include this fact, that the Yazidis reject as a fact? The problem is the citations that support the Kurdish categorization are also incorrect. That is why, in the interest of balance, I even left them in the article at all, to be 100% transparent. But the fact of the matter is that the information is factually incorrect, the Yazidis are saying it is incorrect, so it should not be in the lead, and it should be framed from what the community is saying. The Arabic Wiki is correct. It is not saying the Yazidis are Kurdish at all. Again, I am wondering why you continue to support this fact, and what the motivation is to include something inaccurate in the article. BrillLyle (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: And actually there IS a reason to match Arabic Wikipedia is it is in fact more correct. That's sort of ridiculous, isn't it, to say, no, we won't consider a language Wikipedia that is part of this community as being possibly more accurate than English Wikipedia -- isn't it? BrillLyle (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle:There's a definite motivation, and that's to follow our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. We go by what the sources say, not our opinions and we where there is a dispute, so long as WP:UNDUE is met we have no choice under policy but to include it. We don't have the right to decide what is more accurate in the way you seem to be suggesting. If the sources meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE we include them, we don't dismiss them because we disagree with them. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: I don't understand. Are we not beholden to try and establish facts here? I again ask what the motivation here on your part to be obstructive about this point. I am trying to make sure this entry is correct, have made a lot of good faith edits to the page. Why is this something that you as an editor are arguing about. I have provided citations to support this fact. No need to throw WikiRULEZ at me. Where is the citation to support your perspective. I have also made good faith efforts to put the inaccurate point in the article, along with the erroneous citations, to be transparent and fair. What is the problem here? I really don't understand why you are defending this. 19:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Are you saying we should ignore our policies? On what grounds do you claim the citations are erroneous? why shouldn't the lead say there is a controversy since it's a fact that there is? Doug Weller talk 20:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Of course I am not saying to ignore policies. But this is about fixing an error on a Wikipedia page that has a very negative impact on a culture and a community. The grounds I am basing this being erroneous is from the statement by the Yazda organization, which represents Yazidis globally. The controversy is actually that the Wikipedia is wrong. That's the crux of the matter. The lead should NOT endorse something that is erroneous, and is not actually in dispute but is incorrect. The controversy is that English Wikipedia is not representing the information correctly. Which is what I am trying to fix here. Why is this so difficult to understand? Again, I don't get why you are pushing back so hard on something that I am trying to fix on this entry. BrillLyle (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Doug and the others are correct here. There is no "error" on the en.wp page. We don't make judgments, we merely reflect what the preponderance of academic sources say. In this case there are many academic sources which state that Yazidis are indeed Kurdish. Yazda is a US-based political organization, not an academic source. According to academic sources, they are genetically, linguistically and culturally Kurdish, only differentiated by the closed nature of their religion -- they are an endogamous group within the Kurdish population. We can only reflect what the sources say, not decide which source is "correct".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been requested by a representative of the Yazidi community to fix this error. I am trying to help and correct what is very clearly a mistake. The English Wikipedia entry has been wrong and has been damaging to their community. Should we just follow this arcane decision to not change this mistake, even though it is a request they have directly made to me, as a contributing Wikipedia editor?!? If this was a BLP and the person was not happy with their entry, or there was a mistake we would fix it. I have provided citations that support this. The citations that claim this Kurdish classification is something that is post-truth, incorrect information. Yes, it is out there. But according to the Yazidis they are saying it is wrong. So how should I proceed. I am trying to do good and assume good faith, but as far as I can tell, this is one editor being obstructive, and I am very baffled as to why. -- BrillLyle (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 01:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, the facts you state are wrong. Have you even read the English Wikipedia entry, or read anything about the Yazidis? They are NOT a political organization!!! That's just plain wrong and I am having a hard time taking anything you say seriously when you say this. They are an ethno-religious group. You are wrong about everything you say about them. Really. I don't get how this is okay. BrillLyle (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Reread what I wrote above a little more carefully. I didn't say the Yazidis are a political organization. I said Yazda is a political organization. Yazda is a US-based political organization with an agenda. They are far from being the definitive neutral source on scientific or academic issues.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
What exactly gives you the right to restore/add an unsourced statement in the lead. It's not fair. It's not accurate. I am really asking that this be removed. I don't think this discussion is fair and I am not sure how this is okay. You know NOTHING about this community. The Yazda is the de facto ex patriot community of Yazidis worldwide. They are not solely political. Don't they also have a right to have the information on this page be correct. I'm reverting this edit. It's unfair, it's incorrect, and it's clear you know so little about the Yazidis this is just obstructive editing. BrillLyle (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It is sourced in the body of the article. Since the lead is a summary of all the important facts of the article, we generally don't duplicate citations in the lead that already exist in the body of the article (see WP:LEADCITE). Also, please don't WP:EDITWAR while discussion is taking place on the talk page, we keep the status quo ante version until a consensus is reached.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Yazidi community has the right to refute facts on this page, especially if they are wrong and harmful to them as a people. Having this incorrect information damages an already vulnerable community. They have a right to have correct information on the page. I know enough about the Yazidis and have added citations to support this information. Please do not change this to be wrong information. I mean, I can't believe I am having to request you not add something that is incorrect to a page that I was fixing to be correct. BrillLyle (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what Wikipedia is. This is not the place to right great wrongs (you might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is written based on reliable sources, not on what I know or what you know (that is considered original research). So how much you or I personally know about Yazidis is irrelevant. All that matters is what mainstream reliable sources say. There are multiple mainstream reliable sources which say that the Yazidis are Kurdish. That has to be reflected in the article (see WP:NPOV). This is not a propaganda page to simply repeat what Yazda says and ignore all of the academic sources.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 04:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Listen, *I* am not the one who added an uncited inaccurate sentence to the lead section of this article. It's laughable. I know what Wikipedia is. Don't say I am the one starting a flame war. I didn't add this statement. You two did. It needs to be removed because it's inaccurate. And why do you care anyway? I am trying to help and fix something that is both inaccurate and actually damaging to a community. What are you two doing beyond bullying me and the subjects of this article out of some high handed Wikipedia editor nonsense. I am being bullied here. Sorry but I refuse to give up. The behavior displayed by the two of you is not collegial, does not assume good faith, and is obstructive and is why people stop editing the encyclopedia. It would be helpful if you examine the motivation here. Are you helping? Are you improving an article? Are you displaying good faith towards another editor? No. And don't you DARE mansplain to me what Wikipedia is. I don't even need to defend myself here, it's just ridiculous. The academic sources are wrong, they are post-truth and fake news that have been discounted and discredited. If you don't know enough about this subject, you should stop obstructing someone trying to fix this issue. I don't see either of you doing this -- Please stop. You're giving Wikipedians a bad name, and you are doing harm. It's really unacceptable. BrillLyle (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to say that I am being harassed and bullied by WilliamThweatt. I am not involved in an edit war. He put a notice on my talk page. It's really not okay. I am trying to fix a page that had grave errors. Please stop. BrillLyle (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You disagreeing with properly sourced and cited material is not "grave errors". I can only point you to the policies and guidelines I linked above and suggest again that you read and understand them before commenting or editing again (perhaps WP:CIVIL as well). And please, in order to have a productive discussion, confine your comments to article content/sources and applicable WP policies/guidelines, not behavior or conduct of other editors. You stated: "the academic sources are wrong", then, frankly, your argument appears to be with the scholars who study these issues and publish those sources, not with Wikipedia whose job it is to merely reflect those sources. Nothing has been "added". You removed cited information because you think the academic sources are wrong. If there are other peer-reviewed mainstream academic sources disagreeing with the current sources then we can indicate that there is a dispute in academia and include the dissenting point of view as well. But you can't remove properly cited information simply because you disagree with it.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle:, you really need stop making personal attacks. You seem to be accusing me of having an agenda without even knowing me. In the past I've had email correspondence with Murad Ismael, the executive Director of Yazda organization and campaign manager trying to help him with an article. I have great sympathy for their plight. But our article needs to show the various points of view, and I'm guessing you might not know that much about them. Apologies if I'm wrong. For instance, one of our sources here quotes: "Titale Kerem, editor of Riya Taze, the world's longest-lived Kurdish newspaper that was founded in Armenia in 1932, described himself as a “Kurd by ethnicity and Yezidi by religion.” "Of course we are Kurds. We speak Kurdish. However, many Yezidis hold grudges due to past massacres against them by non-Yezidi Kurds and therefore will not be associated with them," he said. Aziz Gerdenzeri, an author, playwright and doctor who was born in Georgia but lived for many years in Armenia and Central Asia, said there was pressure on the Yezidis to distance themselves from mainstream Muslim Kurds due to political events. "Yezidi and Kurds are one and the same nation. We share language, history and traditions. But due to historical reasons, people perceive the word ‘Kurd’ as ‘Muslim’,” he said. Others strongly disagree that they are Kurds. If you think an academic sources fails WP:RS you can ask about it at WP:RSN. We really are trying to help improve this article. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect: Both of you need to stop telling me what to do -- as well as stop mansplaining how Wikipedia works. I know what to do and I know how Wikipedia works. I don't see either of you making significant contributions to this article, nor do I see an effort on your part to improve an article that needs significant cleanup. I mean last night I combined a ton of duplicated citations. This article needs a lot of help, just on a basic level. I did the Yazda page in both English as well as Arabic Wikipedia. While I am not an expert, I know enough about the Yazidis from that experience to be able to contribute. I am also working with a person from Yazda who reached out to me for assistance in fixing errors and inaccuracies. This was one of the errors that needed to be fixed. I see nothing wrong with strengthening the accuracy of an article, guided by a main stakeholder's organization. I make sure what I add and improve is notable, etc. Anyway, I've decided to pretty much consider this white noise. I will work to improve the article, which I don't see either of you doing at any significant level. Another experience and argument not to try to edit Wikipedia so CONGRATS on that. There's a reason why when I mention this issue of dealing with deletionist/obstructionist editors to fellow Wikimedia editors I respect they shake their head and laugh. They stay away, and this is EXACTLY why. Well done! -- BrillLyle (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: in Arabic Wikipedia in lead part it was written: ( ينتمون عرقياً إلى أصلٍ كرديٍ ذي جذور هندوأوروبية مع أنهم متأثرون بمحيطهم الفسيفسائي المتكون من ثقافات عربية وسريانية، فأزياؤهم الرجالية قريبة من الزي العربي) means: Who belong ethnically to a Kurdish origin with Hindu and European roots, although they are influenced by their mosaic of Arab and Syriac culture, their male vests close to Arab dress. so if you want to match English and Arabic version why you omitted sources (and they were authentic). of course you can not omit that because of what a member of Yazda told you. so if a member of Longman institute believes that American language is a separate language and it is not a branch of English you cannot omit first paragraph of lead. in Wikipedia we work with reliable sources. yes? --– Hossein Iran « talk » 17:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding my own comments. Yazidis have through history presented as Kurds. Yazidis speak Kurdish, have Kurdish culture and practice their religion in Kurdish. Yazidism itself is not an ethnicity. The only country which recognizes them as an separate ethnicity is Armenia and that's due to Yazidi nationalism. Yazidi nationalists, mainly Arab Yazidis, have tried to claim Yazidis are not Kurds using propaganda. The UN reports say it's unclear even among Yazidis (due to disputed and many sides), are Yazidis Kurds or not and tons of others sources mention them as Kurds. Just because "Arabic Wikipedia" says they are not Kurds doesn't really mean it's right and English Wikipedia is wrong. I am going to restore the section to the previous version which was more neutral until we have reached the mutual understand here. Ferakp (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ferakp:
I don't think this is okay to do this actually until there is consensus and more importantly, citations to support this fact (see below to view the issues with the citation itself that was provide). So I am going to neutralize the lead to the less incorrect state of this section that the other two editors added. And so I don't get accused of reverting (which is not what I am doing, actually is the opposite) I will add this citation (that I think is wrong anyway see below) to the section lower on the page.
To be clear: This classification is damaging to the Yazidi people in a very real and impactful way. I keep saying this and it is being discounted. I think much more care needs to be taken here than this.
This is what the talk page is for and there is no clear consensus -- beyond the fact that the Yazidi community via Yazda clearly dispute this fact. See statement.
So the edit summary that your edit is "Neutralized" is actually incorrect. And because this is the subject of much discussion, it's not okay to just add this hotly disputed fact in.
To address the citation you added: that is not what the UN report says. And the 10 year old (2007) UN report you cite has one footnote that addresses this question, with sources that are websites of unclear notability. So to base this assumption on the question -- and two "sources" that are not above reproach -- is not enough of an argument. If this needs to be brought up at all (which I don't agree it does), an unclear sentence and a footnote do not belong in the lead, but should be in a separate section in the body of the document like it is now, where both sides of the issue can be presented in a clear and balanced way.
Page 76: "It is disputed, even among the community itself as well as among Kurds, whether they are ethnically Kurds or form a distinct ethnic group.354"
Footnote 354: "354 Not all Kurds agree that the Yazidis are members of their ethnic group, considering them as “unclean”; see Middle East Online, Iraq’s “devil-worshippers” seek constitutional rights, 23 May 2005, http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13567. For mainly political reasons, the Kurdish parties, in particular the KDP, have been stressing that the Yazidis are ethnic Kurds; see Eva Savelsberg and Siamend Hajo, Gutachten zur Situation der Jeziden im Irak [in German language], Europäisches Zentrum für Kurdische Studien, October 2005, p. 9-10, http://www.yeziden-colloquium.de/inhalt/gesellschaft/recht/ Savelsberg_Hajo_Gutachten.pdf."
Middle-East-Online.com -- not a notable citation; also, this 2005 article actually does not support the argument Yazidis are Kurds
Further links to another article, this time in German. http://www.yeziden-colloquium.de/inhalt/gesellschaft/recht/Savelsberg_Hajo_Gutachten.pdf Who can excerpt and translate the section where Yazidi are classified and self-identified as Kurds? Quite frankly, to use this article as the basis for the argument is also problematic. There needs to be multiple notable citations to this establish this fact. Where are these supporting sources?
- BrillLyle (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello BrillLyle, please be careful of confusing the concept of a source being reliable, with its being notable. MPS1992 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems like BrillLyle is convinced to pursue personal goals here. First of all, the article has dozens of sources, and in almost all of them Yazidis are seen as Kurds. You have only 4 sources and none of them are reliable and appropriate for this article. YAZDA is newly established NG organization to help Yazidi victims, it is absolute not a source you can use here. Plus, your Yazda source (PDF) is just a statement of some Yazda personnel. Middle-east-online.com is not a reliable source, it's personal news website. The last source you used doesn't support your claim at all. Also, be careful, you deleted the citated UN's statement and replaced it with WP:ORIGINAL section (YAZDA). We have 17 sources that consider Yazidis as Kurds and no single reliable source which see them as a distinct ethnic group. Despite that, I kept the "ethno-religious" section to make it more neutral. As long as, this talk page continues, let the section be as it is now. Your version is not a neutral version. Ferakp (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No, what is clear is Ferakp is conducting and edit war over this very sensitive topic. I am providing good sources that are reliable, established, come from within the Yazidi community and without. Your edit is incendiary and provocative and is not actually part of a conversation -- it seems more like a personal vendetta. I am not Yazidi. I have no professional or even personal ties to the Yazidi people. I have only read and watched the news and educated myself. I am an established Wikipedian adding content that is supported by both reliable as well as notable sources. I don't see anyone else doing much of that -- especially those involved in this talk page section. I object to the edit warring going on here. It needs to stop. Wikipedia is not supposed to be harmful, but continuously making this edit harms the community -- see the newest citation I added to the page. A report that is recent, current, and up to date. Please stop. You are making Wikipedia an instrument of bad information and it is literally hurting people. Beyond the fact that none of this is collegial editing. I don't want to file an edit war claim here. Please consider what the impact of deleting this content has on others beside yourself. BrillLyle (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I actually restored the citation provided by Ferakp, as it actually supports the statement that Yazidis are not Kurds. Thanks for this additional citation. BrillLyle (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
For your information, you have now involved in an edit war, cherry picking, disruptive editing and NPOV dispute. If you continue with this unacceptable behavior, you will be reported. Also, stop pretending to be a victim here, it's not going to help your goals at all. I am going to list all problems with your edits:
You are the one who started the edit war with other Wikipedia users, including Wikipedia admins ([4], [5], [6]).
You added unreliable sources to support your goals ([7]).
Your edit [8] is original research and Yazda's short essay is an unreliable source. The Yazda doesn't officially represent the Yazidis, it's just a new NGO and it has been banned several times in Iraq because of to their political activities ([1][2]). YAZDA is not independent organization, it's politically aligned.
Your edit [9] is cherry picking. I added the UNCHR source and their statement where they say "it's disputed among Yazidis and Kurds whether they are ethnically Kurds or not". You deleted the UNCHR's statement, picked the section from the report which servers your personal goals and added it to support your WP:ORIGINAL edit ([10]). That was a crystal light cherry picking.
Majority of sources see Yazidis as Kurds but yet you deleted the section from the lead section. That's disruptive editing. You can't just delete the sections you don't like, that's not how Wikipedia works. Going to restore the content that were supported by reliable sources.
Ferakp (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's very convenient to accuse me of exactly what you are doing, which is being obstructive and inserting a definitely non-neutral point of view to this entry. I looked at your edit history and it illustrates a pattern of non-neutral point of views on the region, so I am not surprised that this is turning into what seems to be a personal edit war ON YOUR PART. You are wrong and what you are doing is hurting people. If that is a rewarding thing to you, then I give up. I think you are behaving in an unethical manner. It's really sad, because if you had a better argument that was supported by both facts and Yazidi community organizations, then I would definitely listen to what you have to say. But it is obvious that these edits and the intention behind them are full of hate. You are not interested in making Wikipedia better, or even presenting both sides of an issue in a constructive way. Instead you add more incorrect information and brute force push editors off the page. And other editors here, by remaining silent and not objecting, are tacitly endorsing this kind of behavior. It's wrong on all levels and shame on all of you for letting this happen. BrillLyle (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Population

The numbers of total population compared to breakdown by country do not come even close to adding up, and almost all of the sources for these figures are ~10 years old. Does anyone know of a reliable source with more recent and internally consistent data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.3.106 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Percentage female Yazidi fighters

There’s a statement in the article saying that 1/3 of the Kurd-Yazidi coalition forces are female: “Despite the oppression Yazidis’ women have sustained, they have appeared on the news as examples of retaliation. They have received training, and taken positions at the frontlines of the fighting, making up about a third of the Kurd–Yazidi coalition forces, and have distinguished themselves as warriors.” There are two references at the end of that sentence (https://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2014/09/yazidis) and (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11069661/Islamic-State-tore-our-families-apart.-Now-were-fighting-back.-Meet-the-Kurdish-womens-resistance-army.html), but none of them seem to give percentages of Yazidi women among the coalition forces. Is it possible that this statement is meant to refer to ‘’all’’ Yazidi forces, not just female Yazidi soldiers? Even if so, that’s not supported by the references either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.103.85 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Indian origin of Yezidi

User:Aditi Madurai11 has added, and I've reverted, text seeking to say that the Yezidi are of Indian origin. As I've explained in edit summaries, such a claim needs reliable sources. Aditya's sources are:

  • Articles at www.swarajyamag.com website
  • Articles at www.yeziditruth.org
  • A book, B. Acikyildiz, "The Yezidis". (The author's full name is Birgül Açikyildiz).

The first two are websites/magazines and therefore not reliable sources by WIkipedia standards. The third may be different. According to the bio at Amazon, the author is Professor of the History of Art at Mardin Artuklu University. Before taking this post she was Research Fellow in the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford, and taught in the Department of Islamic Art and Archaeology of the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. This is enough to establish credibility. The actual claim being sourced to her book is that the Yezidis claim to have originated in India. Unfortunately there's no page number. The book is available at googlebooks, but when I do a word-search for originated India there's no return. Açikyildiz does, however, have a chapter on origins, and says these are uncertain but probably Kurdish (pages 35-37). So, at this point, there's no verified and reliable source for the claim.PiCo (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Census data

In 1932 the Yezidis in Iraq were estimated at 24,042. In Syria, in 1938, they were estimated at 2,063. --ארינמל (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Claim of Ethno-religious identity

I deleted that part, because there is no academical/reliable source for this claim. There was a link of Yazda community which was broken and actually it is a non-profit organization, not an academic source.--Gomada (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity dispute

It states: According to the UNCHR reports, it is disputed, even within the community, as well as among Kurds, whether Yazidis are ethnically Kurds or form a distinct ethnic group.

Sourced though it is, this makes absolutely no sense. Ethnicity is how you identify, now what your parents are (because they are only what they happen to identify as), and not what your ancestry is (ditto with regards each person). If they declare themselves Kurds, then that is what they are regardless of faith and language. If they call themselves Yazidi by nationality, then that is what they are ethnically. The question is whether the Yazidi community is descended from the same stock at the wider Kurds or the descendant of a separate nation. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yazidis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spelling inconsistency

Hello.

I have noticed an inconsistency in this article. The term "Yazidi" is sometimes spelled "Yezidi", and if anyone had the time and patience to make this edit, it would be greatly appreciated by all the readers of this article.

Thank you.

MouseKoala (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong flag for Syrian Kurdistan

The flag used for Syrian Kurdistan in "Regions with significant populations" is wrong, as seen here. Correct one would be . Can't edit as article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkpm (talk • contribs)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2018

Yazidis in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Syria, can speak Arabic. 2601:2C3:4200:32FD:E198:80C:8F2:5877 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hhkohh (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

Removed the following quoted text, as it was both redundant and contextually irrelevant to the paragraph: "Besides the triad, the second peculiar feature of Yazidi belief is the similarity between Tawûsê Melek and the Abrahamic Satan (the Islamic Iblīs)." Bainst (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

PKK

"Yazidism is not linked to Zoroastrianism but the PKK declared the Yazidis to be Zoroastrians." - I removed the opinion of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, their statement is irrelevant. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of the HPÊ flag

The use of a militia flag (Êzîdxan Protection Force) should not be used as the Yezidi flag. Some users keep re-adding it without explanation. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

the Theosophy section

Reading the Theosophy section, I don't what relevance it has to the Yazidis. If no one is against it, I believe the whole section should be removed. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree: Especially sine the Theosophic Society seems to use only misconceptions about Yazidism and tried to integrates it into their own Theosophical udnerstanding, this does not belong here. There could be a section about "Non-Yazidi-receptions" in the "Melek Taus" article, about how the Theosophic society adapted it, but it does not belongs here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

Editor2020 So, you reverted my edits without explaining the reason(s)[11].

1: the introduction was unsourced: The source given for the Kurdish name for Yazidis and the Kurdish pronunciation did not contain anything.
2: It's redundant to mention that Yazidis are also called 'Yazidi people', since it's common sense that the word 'people' can be put behind every group.
3: The introduction makes it very clear that the ethnic origin of the Yazidis is disputed. Thus, to have any sections that definitively claim that Yazidis are an ethno-religious group is misleading.
4: I see no reason whatsoever to not have the information of the status of Yazidis in Georgia in the article.
5: Since the title of the article is 'Yazidis', it can be confusing for readers when parts of the body text uses 'Yezidis' instead. Thus, the reason I reworded.

--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have restored your changes. OK. Editor2020 (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Editor2020 I haven't, I'm waiting for us to discuss it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
1. The Lead section should be referenced in the article, as the lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the article.
2. Either way is OK with me.
3. "Ethnoreligious group" is referenced.
4. Either way is OK with me.
5. Agree. Consistent spelling where possible. Editor2020 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Explain reasoning behind edits

91.236.142.212, please use the talk-page here to explain your reasoning behind your edits which are making the article disorganized. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

To many information in the introduction

Information about their Origins should be included in the section Origins and not every information regarding their disputed origin in the introduction.

I will do it. 91.236.142.212 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

91.236.142.212 Seek consensus here by explaining your reasoning instead of recklessly moving information around disorganizing the article. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

This is not a new requested move, but simply to provide a pointer in the archives to Talk:Yazidis/Archive 2#Name change proposal, where a previous RM was archived under a different heading. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This article has become a playground for Kurdish nationalists and Yazidi nationalists. Administrators should react and take care here. Currently, according to the article, the Yazidis are being moved more into the Kurdish direction. Opinions of Armenian anthropologists and Yazidi politicians who push the Yazidis into the Kurdish direction should not be included in the introduction of the article. Either they should be removed there or otherwise there should be added also other opinions of anthropologists and politicians, who describe the Yazidis as an independent ethnic group. Only then is the neutral position given.

Also sentences like "...highly critical of any move to recognize Yazidis as an ethnic group." are not neutral. The sentence should be removed. What makes the opinion of the autonomous Kurdistan Region so important? There are also certain people in the autonomous region who are not critical about it.

Shame on the people who abuse the Yazidis here for their personal use. For me personally, it does not matter if they are Kurds or not. But in Wikipedia everyone should stick to the neutral point of view. B9Xyz (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Anthropologist Abrahamian's argument is not a personal opinion but an observation emerging from his work on the topic. Surely, his ethnicity shouldn't disqualify him. Secondly, since there are 100,000s of Yezidis in Kurdistan Region, the official stance on the autonomous region on Yezidis is definitely relevant. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Also the first sentence of the article is "Yazidis... are a mostly Kurmanji-speaking[21] distinct ethnoreligious group,[19] or an ethnic Kurdish minority" which sums up the ethnic question very concisely. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence of Abrahamian is partially fine. But maybe it should be standing elsewhere in the article and not indiscriminately in the introduction of the article.

The fact that 100,000 Yazidis live in Kurdistan region does not mean that everyone agrees and shares this opinion. There are other people in the Kurdistan region who disagree. The sentence is POV and does not belong there.

The opinion of Vian Dakhil is also a POV statement. Either it should be removed or for the neutral point of view it should also be added the opinion of another Yazidi politician who does not describe the Yazidis as Kurds. B9Xyz (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Having the official (and only) stance of Kurdistan Region and the opinion of the only Yazidi MP in the Iraqi Parliament is not a pov-push. It is also very clearly included in the intro that both Armenia and Iraq recognize Yezidis as an ethnic group (unlike Kurdistan), so I don't see an issue here at all. Also Dakhil is the only Yezidi MP in Iraq, so obviously her opinion matters a lot. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The first half of the sentence is ok but the rest is POV. The first part: "In the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Yazidis are considered ethnic Kurds" is fine. But the second part: "and the autonomous region is highly critical of any move to recognize Yazidis as an ethnic group." is POV. And if the opinion of Vian Dakhil is so important, then due to neutrality, the opinion of another Yazidi politician who contradicts Vian Dakhil should be added. Otherwise her opinion should be removed. There are 1 million Yazidis and she is only one. Besides she belongs to a Kurdish party. B9Xyz (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The second half of the sentence is simply a paraphrase of what Majid Hassan Ali writes in his article regarding Kurdistan's (and Yezidi parliamentarians in Kurdistan)' refusal to recognize Yezidis as an independent group. Why don't you explain why the second half of the sentence is POV? Why is it not neutral? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Wait for support before making unilateral changes that are easily contestable. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Because there are over 5 million people and 100,000 Yazidis living in the Kurdistan region and not all share this opinion. B9Xyz (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
So the article can only be neutral if all thousands or millions of opinions are added? Since Dakhil is the only Yezidi MP, her opinion is more notable for Wikipedia. And it's not enough to claim that sentences are POV. You should explain why they are POV (regarding the Kurdistan quote). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
And Majid Hassan Ali have asked every Kurdish politician and every citizen in the Kurdistan region and everyone has answered him that they are against recognizing Yazidis as an independent ethnic group? Definitely not. This is POV and does not belong in the article, especially not in the introduction. There are also definitely Kurdish politicians who are not critical of it and are not opposed to the Yazidis being recognized as an independent ethnic group. Vian Dakhil is not independent, she is a member and works for the Kurdistan Democratic Party. B9Xyz (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. Since when does a Parliament have to approach all of its citizens before making an official statement and carry out policies? With that logic, everything on Wikipedia is POV. This is becoming ridiculous. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
B9Xyz, it seems that the main issue here is that you have no intention of actually resolving anything and this is seemingly a case of NOTHERE issues. The debate here ceased as soon as you added the unexplained templates in the main page. If you don't intend to actually explain your claims of POV without nonsense like "And Majid Hassan Ali have asked every Kurdish politician and every citizen in the Kurdistan region and everyone has answered him that they are against recognizing Yazidis as an independent ethnic group?", the only way forward is to involve admins. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Support @B9Xyz: I agree with you, the sentences should be removed. I don't believe that the entire Kurdistan Region is critical about it. If Vian Dakhil is a Kurdish politician and works for a Kurdish party, then her statement is one-sided. We need people who are not involved for such a statement. If such a statement is written there, then we always need the opinions of two people (who are not involved and contradict each other) because of the NPOV. --Gomaza (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Gomaza, So the opinion of Kurdistan is POV, but the opinion of Armenia and Iraq are not? Removing one but letting the other stay does not make sense in any way. It's not POV if both sides are present, that is Iraq/Armenia vs. Kurdistan. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
And your argument still doesn't make sense. If France declares French the official language, you want another statement saying the opposite because not all French people agree with that? That is not how Wikipedia works. This is clearly just an issue you have with substance itself.
Perhaps others should take a look at this, Doug Weller, El_C, AntonSamuel, Lean Anael --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this disput. I know very little about the Yazidis. They have been in the news very often in recent years, and I've read some sources about them, but I also see the neutrality is disputed. Kurdistan is not a state of its own and belongs to Iraq. In the whole of Iraq, the Yazidis are recognized as an ethnic group. So the sentence about Kurdistan makes no sense if Kurdistan is a part of the Iraqi territory. Iraq and Armenia are independent states, so their opinion is relevant. The following sentence about the politician is also pov-push. Therefore, I also support the deletion of these sentences. 195.208.132.121 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@195.208.132.121 You're right, the Kurdistan Region belongs to Iraq and if the Yazidis are recognized as an ethnic group in Iraq then they should be recognized throughout Iraq. But the Kurdistan Region is autonomous. I don't know if the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq thinks that they don't belong to Iraq and don't respect the laws of Iraq. Some people will be angry if the word Kurdistan is no longer there, even though Kurdistan Region is purely legally part of Iraq. I don't think that the whole sentence should be removed. Only the second part of the sentence and the following sentence. Thanks for the support. I will now remove the pov sentences. B9Xyz (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Where in Wikipedia Rules does it say that anything about Kurdistan should be removed because it's not sovereign? Again an argument which doesn't make sense and go against common sense. Begin to defend your actions academically or your edits will be reverted. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You should rather be fair and pay attention to the neutral position on Wikipedia. B9Xyz (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that of articles about Yazidis really a lot has gotten deleted. But after I pointed it out, it just got worse. From my point of view the Yazidis have had quite a tough time under the Islamic State, a lot of people would like to know more about them, and we should not delete information about them, but add. Lean Anael (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the many of the parts of the article, and the introduction especially, are quite problematic in their current state, and contentious claims such as views regarding Kurds "betraying" Yazidis by converting and opinions of politicians and Iraqi officials should (if included at all) be restricted to a "Identity" section or such. I think it would be best to limit the mention of identity in the introduction to a brief summary. AntonSamuel (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Strongly Support: It is not true that the Kurdistan Region is critical of any move to recognize Yazidis as an ethnic group. I checked it and found this here: "The current coalition government consists of several political parties that reflect the diversity of the Region’s population, which includes Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs, Turkmen, Yazidis, Arabs and Kurds living together in harmony."[12] Vian Dakhil also considers herself as Kurdish, so her opinion is against the neutral position on this article because here the origin of the Yazidis is disputed. Her personal view is not relevant to the entire Yazidi community.[13] 159.118.192.102 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence has been removed. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. El_C 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


Yazidis → Yazidi people – The reason for this request is that it should make a clearer distinction between the Yazidis (people) and the Yazidi religion (Yazidism). Many readers still think that this article treats a religion and not a people. "Yazidis" have only 975,000 Google search results but "Yazidi people" have 2,130,000 Google search results (more than double the number). 181.230.82.136 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). Only in rare cases when the name of the group is adjectival does Wikipedia titles include people. For instance with French people or Portuguese people. Also Yazidi people only has 61.800 results while 'Yazidis' has 885.000 --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes): "In cases where no plural demonym exists, or where that demonym is AMBIGUOUS and not the primary topic, other forms can be used. The most common method of disambiguation is to add "people" to the end of the common singular form to create natural disambiguation, e.g. Chinese people (as Chinese is ambiguous)." The primary topic here is the Yazidi people. Yazidis refers to both —> the Yazidi people and members of the Yazidi religion Yazidism. According to the Article there are some Yazidi Christians and some Yazidi Muslims. The page Yazidis should be a disambiguation page, that says: Yazidis can refer to: *Yazidis, members of the Yazidi people and *Yazidis, members of the Yazidi religion Yazidism Neutrale Person (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed. "Yazidis" is over 40x more common in Google Books than "Yazidi people". There's also not really a risk of confusion with the Yazidi religion, which is confined to the Yazidis.--Cúchullain t/c 14:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: I also looked at Google Books but the problem is the term Yazidis is increasingly used as a religious group in Google Books, for example "The Yazidis are a religious community". But this article does not treat a religious group here, but a group with multiple religions. All Google Books hits that describe the Yazidis as a religious group, do not match the subject of this article. (For example, the Google Books hits, which describe Georgia as a US state can not be count for the country Georgia.) Neutrale Person (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
That's because the religion and ethnicity are intrinsically linked. There are no members of the Yazidi religion who are not ethnic Yazidis. The present title is the way to go.--Cúchullain t/c 18:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yazidis who have married non-Yazidis also exist. Their children, of whom a parent is not a Yazidi, claim to belong only to the Yazidi religion. Again, there are Yazidis who have converted to Christianity and Islam, claiming that they belong only to the Yazidi people and not to the Yazidi religion. Neutrale Person (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I doubt there are any sources out there that intend only Yezidis as a religious group and not an ethnic group. We follow what the sources say, and here, "Yazidis" is far more common than "Yazidi people" in the sources. In fact, "Yazidi people" could also be taken to refer to the religious group if "Yazidis" can. This is a solution looking for a problem.--Cúchullain t/c 19:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can see, most sources describe the Yazidis as a religious group. Which is not the subject of this article. There are certainly irreligious Yazidis who do not pray and do not belong to the religion of Yazidism. Yazidi people is far more applicable to this article than just Yazidis. Neutrale Person (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't get the arguments supportive of a move request. It's like saying that Jews should be renamed to Jewish people because there are ethnic Jews who have left the religion. And yet, that doesn't make sense either. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
In the article Jews, it is more understandable. „Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and a nation.“ In the Infobox for Jews, only Judaism stands as religion, and no other religions. Furthermore, Jews has the infobox ethnic group and this article has the infobox religious group (which is not the topic of the article). This article here only refers to a "group". The infobox contains several religions without any information on how many of them are Yazidis. And since when they are converted and why. The term "group" is total nonsense and does not reflect the topic of the article. It looks like several groups and not like an accurate article like the Jews. Neutrale Person (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How is it becoming more common? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — I also think that the article in this state is very confusing and also support a name change. For example is that the Islamic State persecuted the Yazidi people and committed genocide against the Yazidis because they belong to the Yazidi religion. Why should the Islamic State persecute Muslim Yazidis (as the article misrepresents)? Futebul (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • What evidence is there that there are "Muslim Yazidis"?--Cúchullain t/c 16:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like we're getting some sock/meat puppetry in this discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 16:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Cuchullain, Looks like it. Not sure if action needs to be taken. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the article, then you discover in the info box at religions that Islam is there. Hence the assumption that there are Muslim Yazidis. Or why is it there? Futebul (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Some Yazidis were forced to convert to Islam by ISIS, that's why it's there. Why is the article misrepresenting? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
If forced, there are also Muslim Yazidis. The source for the religion Islam in the info box does not refer to ISIS. The source is from 1999. Where is the meaning if the Yazidis were forced to convert to Islam in 2014 by ISIS? There were already Muslim Yazidis before 2014 according the source. Futebul (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Adding another source still makes no sense and does not answer the question. Why should the Islamic State persecute the Muslim Yazidis who were already Muslims before 1999? Futebul (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PLURAL and WP:CONCISE, both of which oppose this move. Red Slash 23:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no problem with a move. Many sources use Yazidi people. Here are some Books.[14][15][16] There are also many newspapers who use Yazidi people.[17][18][19] 72.24.166.65 (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yazidis had about 4,380 hits in Google scholar while Yazidi people had 209. --Erp (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISION. The focus is not on which term is used more often. It is about creating more clarity. I also thought first that it is about a religious group. But then I saw this discussion. There are Yazidis, a religious group and Yazidi people an ethnic group. 24.20.200.201 (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to confusion. 88.87.83.94 (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

In the Iraq section following this line: "The Ba'athists created collective villages and forcibly relocated the Yazidis from their historical villages which would be destroyed."

Add: "Many members of Iraq's ethnic and religious minorities, including the Yazidis, have traditionally resided in districts straddling the borders between the KRI and the rest of Iraq. But in 2014, ISIS terrorists came into Yazidi communities and demanded the men convert to Islam or die. Over 5,000 Iraqi-Yazidis were killed and thousands of women and children kidnapped. As of 2019, 3,000 Yazidis are still missing." Alishaparikh (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There is already a very large section on persecution by ISIS/ISIL. The forcible resettlement issue already appears covered there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Changed in Subtitle, Origins where referencing Mehrdad Izady, the pronoun used is her, when Mehrdad is a male. "change her to his" Zargham Ali (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To editor Zargham Ali:  done sort of. All I could find was a "she" that needed to be changed to "he". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

Yazidism as ‘one of the oldest Kurdish religions in the East Khider Domle, a Yazidi researcher who has written extensively on Yazidi culture and religion, considers Yazidism as ‘one of the oldest Kurdish religions in the East.’ It is an ancient monotheistic religion. For centuries, Yazidism relied on conveying its beliefs through verbal heritage in the form of hymns, stories and poetry rather than scripture. Gradually however, holy books called Mushafs were written down, albeit with the explicit directive not to be circulated in public and viewed by members outside of the Yazidi community. The language of religious texts, books, songs and prayers is Kurmanji Kurdish. It is widely recognised that the original language of the Yazidi community is Kurdish, but many also speak Arabic as a result of their proximity to Arab neighbourhoods and Ba’athist Arabisation campaigns. Yazidis share a strong connection to their land and geographic location, especially their main temple in Lalesh, as it was built in the place where Yazidis believe creation began after the Great Flood. Later on, as Kurdish speakers, Saddam’s Arabisation campaign did not spare the Yazidis either. During the 1970’s, it was Ba’athist policy to force Yazidis out of their villages and into newly constructed ‘collective towns’ such as Shingal, severely disrupting their traditionally pastoral way of life.

The first time I saw koçeks was in 1957, when I was very young. It was roughly around the same time I was at Pir Jawa’s Tomb. I saw a koçek shivering and acting in a very strange way. He put his coat on and spoke in a language I did not understand. Then he spoke in Kurdish: ‘The fire hit our mountains’. There was a koçek named Sheikh Braimê Awdi. Around twenty years ago he spoke about these fermans. He said there would come a time when there would be a ferman upon Mount Sinjar and the Sinjar region. Nobody would survive. Even the trees would be burnt.

The words "Kurdistan" and "Kurds" conjure up the image of Islam in the mind of most people. However, not all the Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Caucasian states are Muslims, Sunni Muslims to be more exact. There are relatively small but important groups among the Kurds, who still follow creeds that retain religious concepts bequeathed by distant ancestors before the advance of Islam. Yezidis are a case in question. Once a powerful group among the Kurds, if the 16th-century "Sherefname"

Number of Yezidis has dwindled considerably due to repeated persecution and forced conversions. Today their largest community lives in northern Iraq (counting perhaps between 200-300.000 peo­ ple), while there are about ten thousand in Syria and the Transcaucasia, hardly a few hundred in


In this way an ancient myth combined with modern historiography leads to the birth of a new myth. The story of the Tower of Babel, adapted from one of the Semitic religions, is not rejected but retold in a different way. With time and the arrival of the Semi people and the Semitic religions, the number of Yezidi Aryans dwindled and today's Kurdish Yezidis are their only descendants.


Mir Ali Beg, who was assassinated early 1913, or Mir Said Beg, who was only 13 years old when he succeeded his father, would have undertaken such a journey and issued such a ruling. The former was much too preoccupied with "the spiritual and material re building of the Yezidi community" in its Kurdish heartland, while the latter, still a child, could not have acted without his mother and guardian, Mayan Khatun. Her rule is, however, well docu mented and it can, with certainty, be concluded that she never left the Ottoman Empire (ibid.: 159-186


During the selected week the media generally focused on the people displaced to Kurdistan, particularly the residents of Sinjar where the majority were Yazidi, a Kurdish group which follows the Yazidi religion and resides mostly in Sanger. Britain established the Iraqi state after the First World War and obligated the Iraqi components of Shia, Sunni and Kurd to live in harmony in the Iraqi state otherwise the three components will never able to live together in peace in Iraq,26 and keep Iraqi identity.


Today, the nearly forgotten character in the Yezidi tradition, Sex- kiras (mentioned only by J. Furlani)8-<<Sheikh of the Robe>> (Kurd. kiras "shirt, robe" < OIr. *krpa-paOra-"defending the body"), was perhaps responsible for the process of death, and possibly, for reincar- nation, replacement of bodies as change of clothes. A similar parallel is also attested in the Gnostic tradition


BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Report Part Title: Yazidism and its Community in Iraq Report Title: The Yazidis Report Subtitle: Perceptions of Reconciliation and Conflict Report Author(s): Dave van Zoonen and Khogir Wirya Middle East Research Institute (2017)

2. Chapter Title: Palliative prophecy: Yezidi perspectives on their suffering under Islamic State and on their future Chapter Author(s): Tyler Fisher, Nahro Zagros and Muslih Mustafa

3. Book Title: Refuge in a Moving World Book Subtitle: Tracing refugee and migrant journeys across disciplines Book Editor(s): Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh Published by: UCL Press. (2020)

4. Chapter Title: Palliative prophecy: Yezidi perspectives on their suffering under Islamic State and on their future Chapter Author(s): Tyler Fisher, Nahro Zagros and Muslih Mustafa

5. Book Title: Refuge in a Moving WorldBook Subtitle: Tracing refugee and migrant journeys across disciplines Book Editor(s): Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh Published by: UCL Press. (2020)

6. The Lost Sanjaq Author(s): Peter Nicolaus Source: Iran & the Caucasus , 2008, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2008), pp. 217-251 Published by: Brill

7. Notes on the Yezidi Religious Syncretism Author(s): Victoria Arakelova Source: Iran & the Caucasus , 2004, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2004), pp. 19-28 Published by: Brill Stable URL:

8. Religious Oral Tradition and Literacy among the Yezidis of Iraq Author(s): Eszter Spät Source: Anthropos , 2008, Bd. 103, H. 2. (2008), pp. 393-403 Published by: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

9. Reporting the Crisis in Iraq: Media Coverage of the Humanitarian Aid Effort in Kurdistan Author(s): Ahmed Omar Bali and Rinella Cere Source: Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies , Vol. 41, No. 2 (Winter 2018), pp. 85-101 Published by: Villanova University — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaramanM (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Sheikh Adi Ibn Musafir was a Muslim saint and Muslim scholar , I think that this documented fact should be mentioned and repeated in a very clear manner , at least call him " Muslim Yazidi" but not Yazidi alone . here is the documented source of his Islamic faith [3] AleviQizilbash (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It is not clear what the source cited is claiming other than he was a prominent person in medieval Mosul or how it relates to this edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Also he converted from Islam and you can't be both Muslim and Yazidi. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Identity section

We have an Identity section for such controversial sentences. These do not belong in the introduction. I will move these sentences accordingly in the correct section. Alphadon (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

. Moskerhus (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Image

User:Buidhe I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make sense, how was my image related exclusively to the Yezidi religion and not the Yezidi people? Especially if both are interconnected with each other since a Yezidi is an adherent of the Yezidi religion. So my image was totally relevant, I would actually counter-argue that it is in fact more relevant than the image you're trying to keep since it shows us more about the religion and culture of the Yezidis. KurdeEzidi (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

KurdeEzidi, If you're arguing that Yazidis are a purely religious group, that would put you in contrast to most sources that describe Yazidis as an ethnoreligious group (eg [20][21][22]). Furthermore, if you were right this article shouldn't exist in the same way that Methodists is not a separate article from Methodism (because Methodism is a purely religious grouping). Since Yazidis are an ethnoreligious group, this article should maintain a distinct focus from the Yazidism article and headlining it with an image of their religious practice erodes that distinction. (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You're changing the subject now, but it's not "most" sources, and it is highly disputed whether Yezidis are ethno-religious or not, this dispute is mentioned multiple times in the article itself, also, I would argue that most scholars that specialize in the study of Yezidis in fact describe them as a Kurdish religious sub-group, just look up the works of the leading scholars, namely Khanna Omarkhali (Herself a Yezidi Pir), Philip Kreyenbroek, Birgül Açıkyıldız, Sebastian Maisel, Khalil Jindy Rashow, Christine Allison and many more. Not to mention that even the spiritual council in Lalish, that includes the top spiritual leaders, which is the Mîr and the Baba Sheikh themselves, have written in statements that they are a Kurdish religious (Look up page 139 of Yezidis in Syria: Identity Building among a Double Minority). Besides once someone converts from Yezidism, they're not considered Yezidis anymore even by ethnicity, so let's say your claim isn't disputed and that Yezidis indeed are ethno-religious, that still doesn't change the fact that the Yezidi Identity is heavily interconnected with the religion, you can't be a Yezidi without following Yezidism. So this article, whether about Yezidism or not, is still related to the adherents of Yezidism.

So back to the subject, that still doesn't make my image less relevant and yours more relevant. Your image shows nothing about the Yezidi culture or religion, it just shows some random and ordinary family. Mine shows Yezidis practicing their culture and religion, thus, it is more relevant to what the article is trying to teach. KurdeEzidi (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The culture and religion matter, but so does everyday life. The latter is, in my opinion, more relevant to an article that's titled Yazidis, not "Yazidi culture" or "Yazidi religion". (t · c) buidhe 09:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but that makes even less sense for several reasons, that's just like taking a picture of some ordinary and peasant Christian family living in the countryside of Texas, and using it to replace an image of Christians celebrating a holiday in the Vatican. Because it shows more about the "everyday life" and therefore somehow makes it "more relevant". The images in the article of Mandaeans, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs to name, are culturally and/or religiously relevant to their respectively articles, why shouldn't the image in the Yezidi article be too? KurdeEzidi (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing...?

Hey all -

Ran across "...many non-Yazidi people have written about them and ascribed to their beliefs facts that have dubious historical validity."

Um, "facts" which are not factual are not (by definition) facts - save under the heading "alternative facts," which have to place here.

A better word would be attributed, or perhaps characteristics.

Might someone who is sufficiently exalted edit this? Better still, permit non-anonymous edits?

Thanks Bixbyru (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

The Yazidis are not kurdish. Coulant you please remove that? We are ezdiki speakers and not ‘kurmanci’ 84.81.105.241 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2021 (2)

Hello, could you please remove that ezidis are kurds. They are not kurdish. And they speak ezdiki, Not kurmanci. Ezdiki is their motherlanguage. Thank you so much. 84.81.105.241 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

Hello, I've been going around fixing common misspellings and I've noticed one in this page, more specifically in the history section.

"Atleast eight expeditions are recorded between 1767 and 1809"

atleast > at least

Thanks in advance. TheRealDario04 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. KurdeEzidi (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@KurdeEzidi: no, bafflingly, you undid Bookku's correction of the error. I've fixed it again. Wham2001 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah my bad, I didn't see that, thanks. KurdeEzidi (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Link to Dilar Dirik

Please, link the reference of Dilar Dirik to her article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete fake journal

In 'further reading' there is:

Reshid, T. Yezidism: historical roots, International Journal of Yezidi Studies, January 2005.

Such a journal and article does not exist at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.45.44 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Such a journal and article do indeed exist. --Semsûrî (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually the journal seems to be International Journal of Kurdish Studies. It seems to have ceased publication circa 2010 when Vera Beaudin Saeedpour died https://archivesspace.binghamton.edu/public/repositories/2/resources/76 Another journal of the same name started in 2015 https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/details?id=43247 How scholarly is a different question. The fuller cite is Reshid, Tosine (2005-01-01). "Yezidism: historical roots". International Journal of Kurdish Studies. 19 (1–2): 39–47. ISSN 1073-6697. Retrieved 2022-05-30.--Erp (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Please add the following bibliographical links Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press and a link to the author Philip G. Kreyenbroek, Thanks. Doodyalley (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added all instances of Philip G. Kreyenbroek; locations are usually not wikilinked in citations. SWinxy (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Kurds" template addition

pretty self explanatory. Krqftan (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

Remove the word ‘indigenous’ as the Yazidis and Kurds are not indigenous to Mesopotamia. TruthInMesopotamia (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Update to Yazidi population in Australia

Cannot edit myself due to page restrictions, but there is more updated numbers as to the Yazidi population in Australia, as of the 2021 Census, which found 4,123 individuals identifying as Yazidi. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/religious-affiliation-australia#migration-and-religious-affiliation Hailie123213 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

addition of the Yazidi flag as according to https://yezdistan.ucoz.org/index/flag/0-5 Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Semsûrî (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/020120175
  2. ^ http://rojname.com/3030913
  3. ^ الإمام الذهبي. سير أعلام النبلاء. p. 343.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yazidis/Archive_3&oldid=1161967881"