This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Approximately 1,200 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the Anfal campaign.—Source: Leezenberg, Michiel (2004). "The Anfal Operations in Iraqi Kurdistan". Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts. Routledge. p. 379. ISBN9780415944304. In these operations alone, an estimated 1200 Kurdish villages were destroyed.
Support as nom. This content is not remotely controversial in academic sources, any number of which could have been cited, and is essential to understanding the topic. I do not understand the rationale for removing it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Buidhe and other editors have pointed out why this and other information are problematic, such as here with a clear solution [1] and other discussions over the last month. Instead, of taking up WP:ONUS as requested [2] and looking into Makiya's claims, you instead counter-productively did the opposite, adding the Leezenberg source which does nothing more than references Makiya's same work Cruelty and Silence[3], just approximating the 1276 to 1200. This is in direct contradiction to previous discussion outcomes and is a case of false confirmation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not have a "summary" section. The lead is supposed to be the article summary, with other information being contained in specific body sections under topical names.
I oppose inclusion of this information as written, since the source says it's an estimate, we should cite the original source and attribute to who made the estimate originally. I see no evidence that this figure is commonly accepted by reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe04:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of text as fitting policy per WP:V. Haven't gone through the entire Talk page argument, but when I saw the revision history it looked like major points were being removed for no reason. I don't see why not to cite and potentially attribute as many academic sources as possible. I also do not see a problem with the linked [120] and [121] revisions (as they display right now, the ones two comments above). If Makiya has a specific POV, then attribute and give description of his POV attribution instead of wikivoice, that takes care of any issue. If the issue is bigger take it to reliable sources noticeboard. Cite and attribute multiple estimates if desired. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(Summoned by bot) oppose as written, since the source says it's an estimate, we should cite the original source and attribute to who made the estimate originally. per Buidhe. There appears to be sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source to handle it with care and no good reason to not use and attribute the original estimator. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on discussions in this Talk page section and others favoring not to include this content and source and this analysis Talk:Anfal campaign#On Makiya and villages. Other editors showed the Century Of Genocide book's claim about 1200 Kurdish villages being destroyed is sourced from Makiya's book, Cruelty and Silence without any elaboration or substantation of the number. Makiya's admits in his book that it is not reliable. He says in Cruelty and Silence that it is a "polemic" which was "never about scholarship in the first place" [4] Another review of the same book goes further and shows that it contains "incompetence in the use and interpretation of evidence" and "reproducing numerical estimates made by individuals in circumstances where accuracy cannot be assumed". [5] Finally, another review describes Makiya usding a technique of "distortion and defamation" in the book as well as how it "suffers from inconsistency and superficiality" [6] There isn't reason to use an unreliable book like this directly or by citation from another work. Bershya (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)— Bershya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is your own original research to claim that this is "widely-accepted information", so you more or less settled this RfC with this admission. A single, extreme, uncorroborated claim by a controversial ideological war advocate whose works have been described as "libel" and has admitted in published work to using "stories and rumours" with no "further basis in fact", referenced by another source at face value is the opposite of "widely-accepted information". You've previously championed claims originating with violent militant groups as factual and reliable in this Talk page, and a few other editors have spent lots of time explaining to you why that's very mistaken. When sources or individuals are consensually demonstrated as questionable and unreliable as has been done in this Talk page especially on particularly problematic details around this topic, your response had been to continue find a source directly referencing what already was agreed to be problematic.[7]
Considering your immediately preceding activity on this Talk page was to make false accusations and attacks on @Buidhe and myself, [8][9], that's a poor manner to go about making your "case". Buidhe has already demonstrated that the WP:ONUS is on you. Let's be reminded your first comment on this Talk page was a slew of off-topic personal attacks and defamation[10], and your Talk page comments, edit warring, and other disruptive editing has ever since followed this pattern. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"[Makiya's] works have been described as 'libel'." Really? By whom? You're probably the only person in the world who thinks this (and you've accused me of "slander" or "libel" 17 times on this talk page alone, so please stop making legal threats). Obviously, you're free to believe whatever you want, but you really should not expect Wikipedia to mirror a super-specific and super-WP:FRINGE personal view such as, e.g., "Makiya's academic/journalistic works libeled the avowedly 'just but firm' ruler Saddam Hussein". (Besides, Makiya is only one of a long, long list of academic sources that you have rejected based on your WP:OR, which is why I tried yet another academic source in this RfC.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The continued sarcasm and false accusations are only proving further that this style of editing is highly disruptive. For one, Makiya himself admits to that, and when he writes in his own book that it is filled with misinformative "stories and rumours" with no "further basis in fact", and as Buidhe has pointed out not an indication of having done research, that's a very poor option. Makiya is not hiding that or claiming otherwise. Makiya has come under fire by globally renowned intellectuals and academics like Said and strongly held criticized delusions demonstrating how little he knew and how out of touch with the country he was such as his "sweets and flowers" statement, was a friend and ally with US neoconservatives planning and executing the Iraq War such as Wolfowitz, a close colleague and supporter of the infamous Ahmad Chalabi (a wanted thief before the Iraq War, and ran a murderous militia following the invasion), and is of course most famously known for his zealous warmongering. Makiya was shockingly silent on the new sectarian and authoritarian rule running death squads under whose rule the same countries that had set up this new rulership estimated over a million civilians to be killed by mid-2007 alone.
Here's a relatively recent (relative because Makiya's works for his war advocacy go back to the late 80s and 90s) example: "Makiya was a former Trotskyite. An Iraqi expatriate, he wrote a book about life under the Ba’th, and, according to him, submitted it to fifty-nine publishers, all of whom turned it down. The book was a magpie’s nest of every libel ever circulated about the Ba’th.10 It contained gruesome accounts of all sorts of alleged crimes (some I’d encountered in my job at Langley, where the tendency was to discount them, as none could be substantiated)."[11]
Are you implying it's a super-WP:FRINGE personal view, to give a couple similar better-known examples, to say that Iraq did not have WMDs and was not behind bin Laden and 9/11, and not fringe or libelous at all to claim they are true despite no corroboration for these claims, for no other reason because of the country it's directed at? This logic is very conspirational, and expresses a strong political bias that is not satisfactory for editing on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BIAS and WP:NOTOPINION.
Given all of the above and elsewhere on this Talk page, the one original source for your claim is one that has been consensually deemed problematic at best by a very controversial, even self-admitted misinformative, individual, and another work with nothing more than a single sentence referenced from Makiya. That isn't a "long, long list". That's one original source for this claim that has been discussed as problematic with Buidhe providing a clear solution, which you are yet to follow. I and others in this Talk page have pointed out this problematic editing style and Talk page comments multiple times, but unfortunately this is a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that Century of Genocide making a single statement referencing from the problematic Makiya's work is not by Leezenberg, Michiel as you write. It's by Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons, Israel W. Charny. You're asking us to talk about a source that I clearly did more looking into than you had, as demonstrated here and by that you were unaware that it referenced Makiya until I pointed it out. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to feed the troll, but when citing book chapters, we list the author of the chapter (i.e., Leezenberg), not the editors of the book. The more you know! Now please drop your WP:BLUDGEON and let the community weigh in.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there it is again with another juvenile response, instead of addressing points refuting false claims. Considering I, buidhe, and others refuted your points and back-handed insults throughout the Talk page, and more correctly the oobsessive WP:BLUDGEONING regarding this point against consensus and to the extent of attacking multiple editors for no other reason but pointing out your original research and disruptive editing. There is no "long, long list" of anything on this as pointed out by multiple editors. There's no use in being disingenuous to try to bludgeon a point, among other false points and accusations made. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly for the inclusion of a phrase on the destruction of the villages but this in the lead which is the section that should summarize the article. Seeing the opposition I suggest expanding on the destruction of villages for the moment. I hope for @TheTimesAreAChanging:, that this is less time-consuming than arguing about the inclusion of one phrase in a certain section. See Destruction of Kurdish villages during the Iraqi Arabization campaign for inspiration. It is referenced mainly to George Black, but it also held new info to me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rauisuchian Hello, just wanted to clarify a few things. The Talk page sections are long but nothing was removed for "no reason". I should also mention that @Buidhe in particular is one of the most experienced editors on such contentious topics so characterizing as "no reason" is not correct. I'd suggest taking a look at the Featured and Good Articles here [12]. The points [120] and [121] were made by Buidhe in opposition to, not for, how TheTimes wants to add the information per this RfC, and echoed in their opposition [13] and mine. As you concur with Buidhe's points "I also do not see a problem with the linked [120] and [121]", this is what is being asked for, which TheTimes is not achieving with the way they're specifically proposing to introduce this information. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Anfal Genocide and its been widely documented as such
.svg){kind=small}
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. Skitash (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)