Jump to content

Talk:Yazidis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.24.166.65 (talk) at 03:24, 28 September 2019 (→Requested move 23 September 2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wait for support before making unilateral changes that are easily contestable. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You should rather be fair and pay attention to the neutral position on Wikipedia. B9Xyz (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."[1] 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.[2] 159.118.192.102 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How is it becoming more common? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yazidis&oldid=918324500"