Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert.
Please see here for more information. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
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.
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.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.
The term "genocide" is used too loosely here. They don't even know how many have been killed, and their estimates are of several hundreds. This figure, as tragic as it may be, pales in comparison to the general death toll of this gruesome conflict. It appears that ISIS may be intent on extermination, but fortunately this hasn't quite happened, and let us hope it doesn't happen. I think this term is apploed too hastely without a sufficient factual foundation.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. We cannot invent a "genocide" over the loosely sourced declarations of one or two (UN or not) bureaucrats. The UN itself defined genocides to be recognized by an international or national court. I am moving the page to "Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which is already a section title in another article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought the title "Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" was more tidy and did so. We can always change it if there is a better idea. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
important note The number of deaths has nothing to do with whether or not it's genocide, neither does the "success" of the attempt. If ISIS intend to and are working towards extermination of yazidi, that's genocide. It doesn't matter that they haven't killed them all, it doesn't matter that there aren't very many yazidi. Iliekinfo (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
When RS use the term, especially someone like the UN, then it can be used, but should be attributed properly. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to NOT merge the articles. This article has been sufficiently expanded since the merge nomination...enough that merging into the Islamic State/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page would result in a loss of valuable information, as the merge target is getting excessively long. Several users expressed support for a summary style section should be placed on the ISIL/IS article with a link here. AHeneen (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite the events of recent days, I don't think there is enough content to support a page about the persecution of only the Yazidi. The measures ISIS/ISIL have taken to persecute people and the terror tactics they use are common to all groups they persecute. I believe the best place on Wikipedia for this subject is a new section on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page. I suggest creating a section called "Persecution of religious minorities" or "Persecution of Shia and non-Muslims" (this section can have subsections like "Yazidis", "Shiites", "Christians", etc). AHeneen (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merging this with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page. It would probably be best to merge this page with the Assyrian page, and build on that, adding in the other groups persecuted by the IS. But a summary of this page could be inserted into the ISIS page, under an appropriate heading. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This genocidal persecution is sufficiently notable on its own. The so-called "Islamic State" has announced their intention to exterminate the Zazidis on he false basis that they are "Devil worshippers." The persecution is not just another incident of war. Merger is inappropriate. It would be like merging Armenian Genocide into Ottoman Empire, or any other notable persecution into the article about the perpetrators. Genocide campaigns tend to be notable. Edison (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose First of all, the article was appropriately named as "genocide." The reasons given, much like arguments to for merge border on 'I don't like it." Subject passes notability as a stand alone, merge would be extremely abusive. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Support If the death of tens or even hundreds of of people will be called genocide we will have hundreds of genocide articles. ISIS killed hundreds of Sunni Arabs in Syria and no one wrote an article about it! 3bdulelah (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Support per nominator. While this topic is notable, it is too short to have its own article at this time. When the length of this section grows a wp:split can be performed so that it have its own article when or if the time comes. - Technophant (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the subject should be merged with IS/ISIS/ISIL persecution of others. However, as mentioned in the nomination, I think that the topic should be placed in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page for now. If there is sufficient content, then it can be moved to a separate article. AHeneen (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The ISIS article is big enough already. Add a brief summary in the ISIS article that links to an article about groups persecuted by ISIS. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Merge it,as it is a part of isis attacks --Shyam2432061 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Unless further developments mean there is too much information about the Yazidi persecution to comfortably fit entirely within this article, I think it should be merged. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - this is a notable case of ethno-religious persecution (not a genocide however... yet, and hope it doesn't turn there). We already have Assyrian exodus from Iraq about persecution of Christians by ISI/ISIS/IS, so Yazidi exodus/persecution should also have an article.GreyShark (dibra) 15:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - A separate article of all the genocides and persecutions of ISIL should be created with a summary in the ISIL article of them, as they are "doing" too much to fit in a single article.--Sae1962 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia isn't a news site and there's already too much presentism around here. Ruddah (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose There are serious humanitarian crimes involved such as mass-murder, human trafficking, burying victims alive and exile due to fear of persecution on the discriminatory basis of being so-called 'devil' worshippers. Ethno- religious persecution, even if it might not be a genocide, especially over the last 10 days, is significant enough to Keep as a separate Wikipedia article.:ನಿತಿನ್ (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
oppose : big article in the name of prosecution of minorities should be added, which should have sub subjects of all minorities around the world
Oppose: We'd better a summary of the article to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page. This way, ion of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant will be a sister article. Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: I agree with having a summary section and link to a main article. It is by all international standards a genocidal campaign. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose but summarize in the main article and link: The event apparently represents willingness to act on extreme theoretical principles of a significant quasi-state that has emerged in the region. It may or may not represent a broader political tendency in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) that may possibly manifest in future states. It definitely does not seem to be just a lapse where a local commander acted out of control or in confusion about policy. More than mere sketchy news reports are involved, as it has immediately precipitated condemnation by governments worldwide, and armed and humanitarian response by the USA and other major states. Both the UN, and the principal regional international organization, The Arab League, have condemned the action. These facts, coupled with the potential for more of the same in future from from the Islamic State and possibly others therefore mean the incident is highly significant on its own. Forced conversion, ethno-religious cleansing, and mass murder as policy warrant immediate separate entries in my view. They are far more notable than most entries in Wikipedia. As a practical matter, in any case of attempted genocide or similar emergency I feel Wikipedia should be primarily guided by humanitarian principle -- trying to contribute to halting the action as rapidly as possible--, but at the same time should not divide the information into so many separate and unlinked articles as to leave users confused as this would be a violation of the same principle. Good linking and summation of related entries in the main article on the Islamic State is a priority here. Guided by the humanitarian priority, I feel merger could be seen as de facto complicity in slowing spread of the information by Wikipedia, which outweighs the fact that separation does somewhat divide the information. FurnaldHall (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: for all the good reasons already given. AugustinMa (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: per Edison. Gothbag (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: as above. Merging with proposed article is very inappropriate. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Persecution and the so-called state are different topics. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Islamic State is its on topic and it covers a huge territory across two states. The Yazidi incident is discreet. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC) . ("discrete" --P123ct1 (talk))
Oppose The page on the Islamic State is huge and features all elements of the group. This article is on a notable subject linked to them. Genocide/persecution can exist as an article independent of its perpetrators '''tAD''' (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This article is notable on its own. Especially since the genocide got international attention like US intervention in Northern Iraq. Besides an entire ethnoreligious group is getting wiped out. That is notable in of itself. Clr324 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talk • contribs)
Oppose per the above arguments. It is more than notable to have its own article and is widely covered by RS. Plus, a merge would certainly create a size issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose as an article-worthy, sufficiently sourced item that would be lost in the broader article and will serve that better as a link that can grow on its own.per the above arguments.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There was a new massacre in the village of Kojo on Friday. 80 men were killed and 100 women captured. Should probably be included in this article, although the infobox makes it look like the only event was Sinjar and the main infobox should probably be redone.  --Kuzwa (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the correct plural Yazidi or Yazidis? --Clr324 05:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talk • contribs)
Both can be used but "Yazidis" is more common and more appropriate. Gnostic1349 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Change the name of the article to also include Christians and Shiites?
I provide here some sources that may support such a change: . Turkmen (as a whole) are also mentioned, but Turkmen are an ethnic group, composed by both Sunnis and Shiites, not a religious community.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is a trashy news outlet infamous for it's misinformation.
The Daily Mail simply copied what the Telegraph, which is more reputable, said.
But the Telegraph made a mistake. Nowehere in the UN Report does it say 5,000 Yazidis were killed by ISIS. Instead, that figure comes from a Professor who says between 3-5000 Yazidis were killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Telegraph article says in the title "At least 5,000 Yazidis men shot in cold blood and up to 7,000 women held by Isil, United Nations researchers confirm" and later "Researchers adding together accounts of massacres in Yazidi villages as the jihadists attacked have counted a series of killings of more than 100 men each, with the total gunned down now thought to be up to 5,000", so it does not seem to me to be just this Professor (Matthew Barber). Or maybe Matthew Barber made the research also for the U.N.--Olonia (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)