Talk:Anfal campaign

Saddam Hussein

I'm not sure "Hussein" should be used wherever his name stands alone. See here Avalon 23:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

two articles about the same topic

hi, there is a second article about the anfal campain with the name 1988 Anfal campaign. can anyone put these two articles together? KureCewlik81 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• There were actually several phases to the Anfal Campaign, which took place between 1986 and 1989... I have read that the events of 1988 were the most deadly during the campaign Garr1984 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)§

Figures

This section should be reviewed and updated with better verifiable facts. I just did a quick check of a source and revised the number of churches destroyed during this campaign. I also checked a few other sources that ought to be replaced by better/more trustworthy sources. fno 07:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one side of the story

This article, and the other similar article, only quotes sources from the Kurdish side of the story. What is the context of these killings? How do the Ba'athists explain themselves when questioned on this topic??--84.12.185.56 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I know that at Saddam Hussein's Arraignment, he said regarding the Anfal Campaign and more specifically the poison gas attack on Halabja, that he had "Heard about it" but had no further knowledge of it. I also know that there is an audio tape that has Chemical Ali talking about killing the kurds, saying, and I quote: "We will kill them all. We will kill them with chemical weapons. Who is going to do anything about it? The International Community?!? Fuck Them! Fuck Them And All Who Listen To Them!!! I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days." " and Saddam's voice can be heard on the tape saying something along the lines of "Yes, The Poison is Very Effective". I also know that, at any rate, Saddam thought the Kurds were in league with Iraq's Enemies, namely Iran, but I don't know how best to integrate this information into the article, or if it's even a good idea to do so. Garr1984 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)§

• Yes there is no context here whatsoever. Saddam Hussein acted within the context of an open rebellion against the central government in Baghdad. A better comparison would be what General Sherman did to the South during the American Civil War, rather than the Nazis' extermination of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.80.193.9 (talk) 15:17, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

• There's no body of evidence showing that General Sherman tolerated rape or murder, though I'd suspect that rapes and murder occurred at a somewhat higher level than in civilian life. That's virtually inevitable, and absolutely nothing like a true rape atrocity or true massacre. He destroyed tons of property, and I mean tons. There doesn't seem to be a consensus that this led to the death of many civilians, though I'm sure it contributed to the death of at least a few dozen. In short the General was a proud and honorable soldier, clean as a whistle and no commiter of atrocities, whatever your view of his cause (I view it negatively). There can be no serious doubt that his ferociousness against civilian property shortened the war. He did invent 'total war', but only a fool could maintain that it would not have been invented soon anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.162.72 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article is very one-sided and historically speaking the "information" about Anfal to date are uncorroborated claims from Kurdish officials, in particular from the PUK group and militia, and militia-organized interviews, using HRW and US Senator Galbraith as their soapbox. To my understanding there have been works in the Mideast, but are reserved to universities and libraries. In Western academia and journalism, there have been challenges to the Anfal claims, originating from the Kurdish officials -> HRW claims that form the basis of alleged "knowledge" on Anfal.

If "the other similar article" you refer to is the Halabja chemical attack Wiki article, then yes, it is in equally bad shape. The death counts it has originate from the Iranian government and the PUK militant group, which is very unreliable.

To add to this, another item is that the Iraqi government said some of the documents/recordings were unverifiable or forged. Even prominent Iraq War advocates, like Kanan Makiya, who of his own admission is responsible for making up many "rumors and stories without firmer basis in fact" regarding the Iraqi government, have doubted the authenticity of the more provocative records and more said there isn't evidence of genocide. Also, the alleged tape is without context.

The tape referred to by Garr is problematic for a number of reasons, and doesn't actually prove anything if you read the snippet provided by HRW, whether it is legitimate or not. Assuming this tape from May 26, 1988 is both real and not a convenient forging (the only evidence we have is a translation of a part of it in the HRW report), and that such presumably top secret records would be floating around outside Baghdad that militants could take in the late 80s or in 1991, even what is claimed does not say, what little they got translated for them by the PUK militants and reproduce from the tape, validity aside, is still bizarre for a number of reasons.

• The recording is from May 26, 1988; there are no known (only claimed with no corroboration) chemical attacks on civilians after or before for that matter March 1988 at Halabja, whose article is as one-sided and controversial as Anfal claims.
• The disparate parts quoted by Garr, and the sections in the text around it, are framed as a threat to people not leaving villages in the specific conflict area, not as something that was done or will be done. Considering there is no evidence of chemical attacks around the time or after May 26, 1988, the recording, real or not, is not useful as evidence to any such point.
• Translations for all of the PUK-selected "interviews", documents, recordings were not made by HRW, but rather by the "Kurdish interpreters", which would point to the PUK militant group that they closely worked with in developing the reports in particular supplying many of the "numbers" and the hand-picked "interviews".
• The alleged recording is in some sourcing used as "proof" of Halabja specifically, but HRW claims it is proof of 1987 attacks. This is inconsistent.. Even if the recording is legitimate, it's proof of neither.
• Majid claims to have made a chemical attack on the large city of Suleimaniyah, which never happened nor had ever been alleged.

The Sherman analogy from 2007 is apt, except in the Iraqi case there was much heavier fighting against Iranian forces and KDP+PUK militants than what Sherman faced against Confederates. The 2010 IP comment following it is very wrong. Even in patriotic American accounts of Civil War history, rape, murder, and widespread destruction by Sherman are well-established. Not sure what is meant in the IP reply above of "death of at least a few dozen" and other strange claims, unless meaning to claim that the Iraqi forces were "clean as a whistle" like Sherman, which is not true in either case.

"only quotes sources from the Kurdish side of the story"

To be specific, the bulk of claims are by a Kurdish militant group's, PUK (also repeated by the other main Kurdish militant group KDP), leaders and the "interviews" they selected for HRW, along with HRW's story-telling and extreme interpretations of any data or statement. Let's not make sweeping generalizations about a whole ethnic group, most of whose fighting men fought for the Iraqi government during the conflict at that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

I noticed a link at the bottom of the page to the Halabja massacre. Does the Al-Anfal campaign include the Halabja massacre or is it entirely separate?

Part of the Anfal I. [1] --HanzoHattori 11:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) anwser

Halabja was during the Iran Iraq war, Halabja was a scene of battle not part of An-Fal.

There are true evidences that more than 182 000 innocent Kurdish (Kurdistanian) men, women and children were buried alive in the brutal Anfal-campaign that Saddam's dictatorship made in the (Southern) Kurdistan (in Iraq). More than 4500 villages were levelled with the ground - it is simple a GENOCIDE against the KURDISTANIAN people, who are the Kurds, the Turkomen and the Assyrians.

• History only tells one side of the story... the story they want us to hear... the fact of the matter is that these people were conspiring or at least sympathizing with Iraq's enemies, namely Iran, and Iran was also our enemy at the time. I am not saying that they had it coming, or that it was right for Saddam to commit these atrocities, it was not. It just seems to me that violence is all these people will ever understand... It it even foretold in the bible that as the descendants of Ishmael, Arabs would not be able to get with the descendants of Isaac (Christians and Jews), and that prophecy fulfills itself all over again on a daily basis. They can't even get along with each other. Garr1984 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)§

References

There's a complete lack of references on this page. For something claiming to be a genocide of 182,000 human beings I'd expect a whole lot more than two references. 211.30.73.30 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a claim, Mr. Taliban Supporter from Sydney :). It has been documented extensively by the Human Rights Watch.Heja Helweda 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The anfal-camoaign destroyed more than 5,000 kurdish villiages across southern Kurdistan and more than 182,000 civilian Kurds have been buried alive in huge massgraves in southern Iraq, were the graves have been till today not been found.

Actually many graves were located. Such as this:[2] --HanzoHattori 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we have articles at least on Sultan Hashem Ahmed and Hussein Rashid Mohammed?

--HanzoHattori 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KDP.gif

The image Image:KDP.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Puk.png
• File:Optimized image f9dd4882.png
• Image:Puk.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Anfal1988assyrianchurch.jpg, found on Al-Anfal Campaign, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the operation?

The article does not mention why Saddam launched this attack, what is the background to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.148.130 (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd and confusing wording

Under "Name", we learn that

1. Al-Anfal is the eighth sura or chapter of the Qur'an which explains the triumph of 319 followers of the new Muslim faith over almost 900 pagans at the battle of Badr in 624 AD.
2. Al Anfal literally means the spoils (of war) and was used to describe the military campaign of extermination and looting commanded by Ali Hassan al-Majid.

Now, I happened by this page by accident and know nothing about this. But this wording seems to imply that "the military campaign of extermination and looting" actually took place in 624 AD ("was used" immediately after the mention of the battle of Badr...), which can't be true, since Ali Hassan al-Majid is a 20th century figure. Or were there two people with the same name? And if "the military campaign of extermination and looting" refers to the actual 20th century campaign this article is about, then that part of the second sentence is completely redundant. It should simply say "Al Anfal literally means the spoils (of war)."

Furthermore, there's another article, jash (which, by the way, looks like a candidate for AfD, unless there's a wealth of information on jash units), linked in the same paragraph, which states that "during the Battle of Badr in 624 AD, a military campaign of extermination and looting was commanded by Ali Hassan al-Majid". So were there two Ali Hassan al-Majids after all? --Jashiin (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is deeply one-sided and presents the Kurdish/HRW point of view. A neutral article would also present the Baathist point of view and their reasons for the campaign. In the present form, it is as complete as would be, say, an article about War in Afghanistan (2001–present) if it only focused on the numbers of Afghan civilians and insurgent "massacred" by Americans, without mentioning 9/11. --Itinerant1 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Reagan selling Saddam chemical weapons materials

This article doesn't have a word about the Reagan administration selling biological and chemical weapons to Saddam. The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5,000 men, women and children died. The following article cites investigations by the U.S. Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm Somehow I get the feeling that if Carter or Clinton had done this, Wikipedia would report it in detail. But when it comes to the GOP presidents, Wikipedia always whitewashes the record and gives them a pass. So much for "neutral point of view." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The truth doesn't need to be embellished

I feel the numbers in the second paragraph of the Summary are sensationalist and in part, self contradictory.

"The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed approximately 4,500 Kurdish village in areas of northern Iraq and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 1,100,000 to more than 2,150,000 deaths and as many as 860,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans."

The first sentence establishes an estimated 3.5m pop, from which up to 2.15m or more are killed, leaving (a remaining?) 860K widows and 860K plus orphans. Applying the lower of two totals leaves only 380K or less in an 'other' category. If the higher of the two death statistics is taken then the combined total exceeds the 3.5m pop background figure. It’s also not clear what portion of the 1m displaced are included or excluded.

Other reputable sources cited within the article are nowhere near these numbers which seem to come from a single source. Exceptional claims should be substantiated by exceptional or multiple sources.

Skeptiod60 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Anfal campaing area.PNG

The map in the infobox which aims to show the areas targeted by al-Anfal operation are wrong.

I know, that at least the areas south of Kirkuk as well as the Makhmur district of Erbil governorate suffered under a heavy destruction during Anfal campaign by the Ba'ath regime. As sources, there is a case study by HRW (https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/iraq0804/8.htm) as well as visual evidence by https://www.bing.com/mapspreview Many villages north and south of Makhmur are still today little more than dust and ruins.

Either we remove this map, or replace it with a better one.

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2018

Anfal genocide → Kurdish genocide of 1986-1989

The "Kurdish genocide" is probably the second most common name for this event; the yearing format is inspired by the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 article. the "Anfal genocide" titling is odd particularly the lower casing of genocide. It would be more typical to refer to the event as simply "Anfal" or "Kurdish genocide" and mixing them together like that just sounds unnatural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoBotsters (talk • contribs) 13:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This RM didn't use the correct template, which was why it didn't go through. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Did Sweden recognise Anfal?

The Pravda source says that a unanimous decision to recognize the Anfal genocide was made December 5th, 2012, together with a decision to recognize West Sahara. However, the Riksdag protocol from the occasion says that the parliament decidet to (exhort the government to) recognize West Sahara, but that all other bills were turned down, including the ones about Anfal.

I have no explanation to the seemingly false statements of the Pravda source, and where similar claims on the web originates from. The other source gives a security warning when I try to access it. The same claim is on the Swedish Wikipedia, and I will raise the same question there. --St.nerol (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The MoM from Riksdagen (link above) is clear. Sweden did *not* recognize Anfal as a genocide. Howcome the source mentioned (Pravda) falsely claimed this one can just speculate. The MoM from Riksdagen is the authorative source. V29 (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The current replacement source provided from "gulanmedia" is worse than the Russian Pravda. Given this has been proven with the Swedish government's records that Sweden did not make an official legislative recognition or any recognition, I agree we can remove that. The claim for South Korea is a website peyamner.com that no longer exists. We should consider that for removal later. The recognition from Norway as claimed by a poor source was not a legislative action either, but a statement from a minister in "a parliamentary debate". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The only other source for South Korea other than the defunct peyamner.com site [3] is a copy and paste a day later to gulanmedia.com [4]. I asked Korean speakers to see if they could find anything regarding this from Korean media or government records and minutes, but nothing. This claim seems to only originate from a relatively unknown local Iraqi Kurdish group. The KRG website does not report such an event either.

Norway did not recognize it either. While the source provided [5] is admittedly very biased and uses incorrect wording, what it does claim, assuming if true, is not a formal recognition or legislation, but that it was mentioned in a debate with no further detail on any vote, legislation, or other: "The Norwegian Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, in a recent parliamentary debate recognised the judgement of the Iraqi High Court that Saddam Hussein’s’ Anfal campaign, including the chemical weapons attack on Halabja, constituted genocide."

Fair warning against future circular reporting. There are news articles that got their information from this Wikipedia article that Anfal was recognized by 4 countries, as seen in this 2019 MEE article, with no reference and no further detail. [6]

To date, the UK is the only country to recognize it and news and reports on this abound, unlike in the other 3 cases. The other cases have been single disproven or unsupported claims, or an editor's good faith misinterpretation of a poorly-written KRG website release. I'll leave this comment up for some time, but if we can't find reasonable claim to support these, then I or someone else can take the action of removing them. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 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: Not moved. No prejudice against speedy renomination should any supporting evidence be provided. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Anfal genocide → Kurdish genocide of 1986-1989 – See above Adam9007 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence presented that "Anfal genocide" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, and the article's sources seem to call it variants of that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 13 May 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.

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:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2020 (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:

• Flag of the People's Mujahedin of Iran.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2021

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Anfal genocide → Anfal campaign – This name is much more common in reliable sources, for instance see NGRAMS[7] Google Scholar results as follows:

• "Anfal campaign" 2,500
• "Al-Anfal campaign" 381
• "Anfal genocide" 292
• "Al-Anfal genocide" 29

It is unlikely that there could be separate articles Anfal campaign and Anfal genocide, as the campaign was conducted in such a brutal way that many reliable sources consider it to be genocidal. However, "Anfal genocide" is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME and should not be the article title. (t · c) buidhe 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The subject was in fact called a "campaign" until 2017, when a now-blocked sock boldly moved it to use the "genocide" name. We should only be using titles like that if they're supported by reliable sources, and are the WP:COMMONNAME though, something which the nom demonstrates is not the case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per Amakuru. BD2412 T 02:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hamlat or harakat al-anfal?

The Arabic name in the beginning of this entry says حملة “hamlat” but the romanized transcription says “harakat” so that’s inconsistent. 195.169.148.102 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Preventing future circular reporting

This article makes a number of claims going as far back as 2005 that were originally unsourced and since are still either unsourced, a source added that doesn't support or cover the claim, or poor sourcing of similar nature. Over the years, various media and even academic literature have stated figures that originated from Wikipedia. Some media have verbatim copy-pasted snippets of information from this article. For example, the claim of 1,754 schools destroyed, 2,450 mosques destroyed, and so on was put on this article in an IP edit from June 2005 [8] with the number of churches added in March 2006. [9]. A subsequent "source", a PDF with nothing more than a table with a source listed as "Assyrian Patriotic Party" and with no detail or verification of the claims or any evidence of the claimed perpetrator, was added on the churches line. [10] The number of churches destroyed was then "corrected" in July 2006. [11] To add to the messiness, in September 2006, the schools, hospitals, mosques, churches destroyed lines were merged into one line item, with the same non-"source" about the churches seemingly covering them all. [12]

This specific example regards content that has been unverifiable and unsourced since 2005. It has not become victim of circular reporting on Wikipedia yet, although other statements and claims on this article may have and I only looked into this one particular example for circular reporting, but it may in the future. Why? Both unreliable sourcing such as the PUK political party and militant group's media website [13] and ostensibly 'reliable' sourcing such as Huffington Post [14] have already taken these numbers, in the same ordering too, from this Wikipedia article. In the future, editors should be careful about adding sources that would lead to or would advance circular reporting or restoring content that was originally sourced because of circular reporting, which could happen with the provided example.

Circular reporting "is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source", and on Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is sometimes criticized for being used as a source of circular reporting, particularly a variant where an unsourced claim in a Wikipedia article is repeated by a reliable source, often without citing the article; which is then added as a source to the claim on Wikipedia." Topics regarding Iraq are infamously plagued by circular reporting of claims and many unsubstantiated claims getting repeated, understandably as a result of the Gulf War, sanctions, and Iraq War period, and the Wiki article on circular reporting lists 2 such very famous Iraq-related events that have since been discredited, primarily because of US officials admitting their falsity, and not because of the work of more substantiated academia or criticism like on topics such as Anfal and others which often goes ignored. If I could in a few minutes locate and verify a significant error existing for 17 years, it would seem a more educated and lengthier effort would lead to a wide reformation of this article.

---

The following warrants its own sections, but just food for thought that the article has a number of other significant issues. To point out one, the US government sponsored 1990s HRW reports from which almost the entirety of this Wiki article directly or indirectly stems from have had many of their claims, including some in this article, since been refuted or challenged by later literature, or otherwise were unsubstantiated or self-contradicting to begin with, and worse, their numbers of dead, villages destroyed, and other figures and information listed here come from a single PUK intelligence officer named Shorsh Resool, PUK being a militant group aligned with Iran's military forces against the Iraqi regime at the time. The resulting level of bias, exaggeration, and other unsubstantiated information is expected, much like in the case of the Katyn massacre which was considered a German atrocity due to Soviet claims which were admittedly far more substantiated than Resool's, before Soviet admission of Soviet responsibility with the USSR's collapse 50 years later, the curious omission of any mention Iranian and Peshmerga attacks on civilians in this same time period, and many other things. Resool claims to have had written a book with those details and HRW mentions this, but HRW later admitted Resool's book was not published and likely doesn't exist, which discredits many of the claims made on Anfal originally by Resool and by extension HRW. Many details are off, like HRW claims Anfal started in 1988, but this article claims it started in 1986? The claim on this article of as many as 250 separate chemical attacks nevermind the claim specifically being on civilians as an example is dubious at best and more likely egregious fiction. Such a significant and shocking event would have more than a few words on it in the limited available sourcing. Despite being a minor detail in what little sourcing it does exist, a couple books on Anfal has specifically challenged this among other claims too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 Thanks for working on this article. I agree that high-quality sourcing is essential and I would like to see a variety of scholarly sources used. You mention books about Anfal, which do you think should be more heavily employed in the article? They could be added to the further reading section. (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe Thank you. Before I continue, could you please later give feedback on the bullet points further below? I added a source to the "Further Reading" section already which is a book "Oil and the Kurdish Question" dedicated to critiquing and correcting some of the points made by the HRW, with most of the information supplied by the Kurdish PUK organization, reports especially Genocide in Iraq published in 1993, and by its extension its immediate successor reports which make the same claims. Subsequent works, news articles, etc mentioning Anfal have drawn on these HRW reports, adding little or nothing new in the process (an earlier 1991 HRW report was made largely on the status of refugees in Iran and Turkey although it includes its share of dubious claims like the later 1993 report, largely sourced from the PUK and KDP groups) For example, the "Oil" book refutes the claim of 40 towns destroyed by chemical attacks, which this Wiki article and its source incorrectly cite HRW saying 250, again another issue with the article. It proves Resool's book, used as a golden goose of information by HRW, as unpublished and unavailable, possibly nonexistent, that the limited number of interviews HRW drew most of their narratives and information from were anonymous except for 3 and were all organized by the local Peshmerga forces and calls into question the HRW report's legitimacy, among many other things. Sources like this [15] also criticize HRW's and US government's politicization and skew on captured Iraqi government documents and forgeries, which these documents HRW claims is the main cornerstone of their Anfal report, along with the anonymous interviews organized and held at gunpoint.

A point on context is important. Unfortunately the primary basis for the content on this Wikipedia article is on the surface decent quality, but in reality poor quality sourcing, that was produced with deep political involvement, especially from the Kurdish PUK and KDP groups and US government, that being the original HRW reports of the 1990s in particular "Genocide in Iraq". This was after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War and during the sanctions regime, which you may recall led to possibly the greatest political and media campaign in US history against an individual nation in modern history [16] (PS: this source makes a few regrettable errors like claiming the Bush administration never directly tied Iraq with Al Qaeda or 9/11, but the overall point of the article is made well). This is the political environment in which the original HRW reports and subsequent literature was based on. HRW worked closely with the Pentagon and got most of its "information" on Anfal and especially numbers from a pro-Iran political and militia groups which had spent, including the KDP, since the 1940s fighting against the Iraqi government. Most of the information in the 1993 article for example comes directly from Resool or from anonymous interviews coordinated by the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, and from historically unrealized directives among captured but allegedly tampered documents. As a result, much of the article's content is dubious at best and a number of egregious claims exist.

The largest underlying issue you may find evident if you dig into this article and sourcing beyond this article is that that the overwhelming bulk of it, directly and later sourcing repeating the claims, derives from three individuals and anonymous militia-organized interviews: 1) George Black and Joost Hiltermann, especially the latter, responsible for the HRW works, who draw their information mostly from 1a) Shorsh Resool from whom the lion's share of the numbers (dead, villages destroyed, and more) and more provocative details of Anfal originate and as mentioned, HRW at the time claim were from his alleged book, and 1b) the dubious interviews organized by Peshmerga; and 2) Hiltermann's individual works which at times go beyond the excessive claims he made with HRW. Resool, an agent of the PUK organization that was taken at face value, would be similar to taking a Free Syrian Army officer at face value regarding the Turkish and Syrian governments and their atrocities, of which informal claims in their local media had included the killing of 3-5 million Syrian civilians. According to Hiltermann himself, "Very little has been written about Anfal." While true in the English language, more though not by much exists in Arabic and possibly other languages, but such works are seemingly isolated in-print only to universities and libraries in Iraq, Egypt, and other MENA countries as is common for academic literature in that region. However, the sources I noted earlier among potential others are a big step towards further details and criticisms around what exists in the Wikipedia article.

Here are a few points I see for improvement and I'd appreciate your commentary. This includes around framing, narrative, and very dubious claims:

• Proper attribution. The HRW, specifically Joost Hiltermann and George Black, reports admit to information in their report deriving from Shorsh Resool who they repeatedly mention in their reports, the dubious interviews, and, as criticized, a skewed interpretation of captured documents and possible forgeries. Despite this, not a mention is made of HRW's methodology and origin of their information is mentioned in this Wiki article.
• International recognition has been a mess. See the "Did Sweden recognise Anfal?" talk section. It's a shame that provably wrong or unverifiable information in this Wiki article has since been used in news media pointed out by people in that and this Talk sections.

The "Statistics" section says "According to Human Rights Watch", and then has claims and sources not from HRW.

• "Destroyed about 4,000 villages (out of 4,655) in Iraqi Kurdistan" - The 4,000 is in the HRW report but it is according to "Kurdish rebels has spoken of" and Shorsh Resool; this number of 4,655 is not in the HRW report or anywhere it seems
• "Between April 1987 and August 1988, 250 towns and villages were exposed to chemical weapons" - with a Michael Rubin as a source, citing the HRW report, which claims 40 so it's not clear where this 250 number comes from, and regardless this claim has since been challenged/refuted by "Oil" and at least another source I've seen.
• "Wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in the targeted areas." - Sourced from PBS not HRW, but the overall content in this source looks to be based on the HRW report
• "Made 2,000 Assyrian Christians, along with Kurds and others, victims of gas campaigns." HRW says nothing about this, and this claim on its own is very unique and dubious at best, nonsensical at worst, and HRW, despite other flawed claims regarding Assyrians, makes no such mention of "gas campaigns" or similar on Assyrians. The source claiming it is unfortunately inaccessible, being sold out in online bookstores and unavailable at libraries I've called despite Worldcat saying otherwise. Such claims, especially around something as extreme as the use of WMD, should not be mentioned so uniquely and casually. It merits a dubious tag if not removal.

Other refuted and dubious claims:

• The "concentration camps and extermination" section is very problematic. More on it HRW claiming, among other sources, a force of 250,000 Kurdish militants on the Iraqi government's side dedicating to fighting against the Peshmerga militants, not including Kurds part of the regular Iraqi armed forces, but claiming the fulfillment of extermination of *all* Kurdish fighting age men and that this very large pro-Iraq Kurdish forces was critical in such an action and at one point HRW seems to imply this was against themselves too without further explanation. There's little explanation other than some dramatic prose and conjecture explaining the absoluteness of this, despite the overwhelming majority of Kurdish fighters fighting on the Iraqi side, and in histories on the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi side having the biggest stake in reducing civilian casualties in their own territory without a mention of civilians killed by the other warring factions, who especially for the Iranian forces which carried out very bloody military campaigns in north-eastern Iraq during this time and had been committing atrocities, similar to Black/Hiltermann claims regarding Iraq, against their own Kurdish population, had no incentive or motivation to prevent any casualties of Iraqi civilians, Kurdish or otherwise. "Oil and the Kurdish Question" is one source that questions and refutes this in detail. The HRW report makes many extreme assertions without nuance as part of this, even likening it to the Holocaust which among many other errors and unverified claims based on information from politically-motivated militants, severely weakens the quality of the HRW and related sources. The HRW report does not stand up to the basest scrutiny as "Oil and the Kurdish Question" shows, and most likely would not exist, or would exist in a significantly different form, without the anti-Iraq craze in the US political and by extension media and academic sphere following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and through the 2003 invasion and beyond. That whole section Concentration camps and extermination is solely based on shaky HRW claims.
• Origins of casualty figures. 100,000 dead is a number that comes from Shorsh Resool, according to the 1993 HRW report states, and is not made on any particular basis from reading the HRW report, like a bingo number. The 50,000 was Hiltermann and Black (HRW) cutting that in half. If Resool said 20,000, they'd likely have given 10,000. The 182,000 figure is made on no basis, which the article attributes to "Kurdish officials", namely specifically KDP leader Masoud Barzani. I'm fine with these numbers remaining because it is the *only* claim that has bothered to provide a number, but I think the KDP officer Resool's role should be made clearer and the lack of academic basis taken to this, in contrast for example to surveys and studies on Iraq War civilian casualties.

The Choman Hardi book is full of substantial errors and extreme statements.

• For example, it claims that "Human Rights Watch was able to collect over 50,000 names", yet the HRW report makes no such claim at all. It just calls 50,000 an "estimate" without further discussion. Easy to miss errors like this are rife.
• Hardi's book overwhelmingly relies on the 1993 HRW report and later Hiltermann works and Resool, among other dubious cites, which is inherently problematic. The references in the Wiki article for pages 19-21 regarding the Anfal campaigns are short passages originating from the author, and in the few instances something in those passages is cited, it is the 1993 HRW report. These passages are used in "Military operations" section.
• One of the controversial passages in the 1993 HRW report, and mentioned in the Wiki article referencing Iraq's Crime of Genocide (a republishing of the 1993 report, with another report included), is HRW's assertions based on little more than an alleged, unique order (seemingly no other captured Iraq document is so extreme; see the source about forgeries) stating to indiscriminately kill people in a zone of villages and kill all males between age 15 and 70. Hardi takes this further with the Wiki article stating "The male population between 15 and 50 had either been killed or fled", in the book referring to the Kurdish population in general. This very extreme claim used in the Wiki article comes without further elaboration in the source. For example, there's no case of an extreme change in demography and provably this claim is false, and like mentioned in sources would be impossible in any case with most Kurdish fighting men under arms on the Iraqi side.
• "In 1989, army engineers destroyed the last major Kurdish town near the Iranian border. Qala Dizeh had a population of 70,000 before it was razed. Afterwards, the surrounding area was considered a "prohibited area"." - This cites a source that cites HRW which is the only original claim of this. HRW does not claim the destruction of other "major towns and cities" including the major city of Slemani. HRW offers no citations to support the extreme claim that this city was entirely demolished for unknown reasons, not even Resool or the anonymous interviews.

Lots of other issues to point out with some of the sources and content in this Wiki article, but this is getting long. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe I noticed you've committed substantial effort and work to the Assyrian genocide article. To use it as an example, unlike Anfal, there has been significant, varied research and discoveries on the Assyrian genocide. Most sourcing I've seen, especially claims by Assyrian and Armenian groups, claim 750,000 deaths in that event. It's only because other people publishing works contesting that number, for example, and the efforts of editors that it appears accepted that there is to be no mention of 750,000 is on that Wikipedia article despite 750,000 being the most common figure provided in various media and publications. That's one of many such considerations of factuality regarding that topic. If you may be thinking the topic of Anfal is similar, unfortunately it is not. Anfal has only a fraction of English-language works related to it, and most, like discussed above draw largely on a single poor source. According to the topic's most zealous and dubious writer too, Hiltermann, it has generally been treated unimportantly by academia, so the lion's share of what we "know" about it is the demonstrated politically motivated reports of HRW which worked closely with the Pentagon and got most of its information and especially numbers from a couple political/militia groups which had spent since the 1940s fighting against the Iraqi government. The only casualty figures provided were done on no academic basis. While dozens of separate researches make educated and surveyed estimates on the Assyrian genocide, Anfal is quite different: an unsubstantiated and randomly picked 182,000 from a militant leader, an equally unsubstantiated 100,000 from a militant officer, and 50,000 by the rights activist working with the Pentagon who thought the officer's figure was far too high and felt half of that was a compromise. While this is still extreme and merits discussion and scrutiny, there's no other estimates regarding casualties, and it seems entirely ignored of how many of that estimate were caused by Iranian and Peshmerga forces. Speaking of Assyrians, why has the killing and expulsion of over 1.3 million Assyrians from Iraq since 2003 unfortunately not been the subject of any English-language literature I've been aware of, except various news reports briefly noting the population drop? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Especially where ostensibly reliable sources disagree—or red flag claims are made by one source without corroboration—I would like to see more attribution and explanation of where information comes from. (Reliable sources in other languages can also be cited) If it's impossible to verify info such as alleged international recognitions or 2,000 Assyrian deaths, it needs to be removed at once. Better not have information than mislead our readers with inaccuracy.

Later researchers like Hardi may take HRW at face value due to lack of other sources for the information they did not verify themselves through their research. The value of their books is potentially the original contribution in studying Anfal survivors (the article should have a section on this), not regurgitating the HRW report. I would cite the original source where possible and attribute as necessary. I also think that a historiography/legacy section covering primary sources and Kurdish "memory" of the event would help put the article into context.

I agree that there is not enough research into the Anfal campaign to really definitively say how many deaths—you would need serious demographic research like that which was done on Rwandan genocide and resulted in lowering the death estimate by a lot. The original 1999 HRW report on Rwanda is still well regarded today but has been superseded by more recent research that sadly does not exist on Anfal. I completely disregard any purported death toll that comes from a government, lobby group or non-academic website—it is not a reliable source for that type of information. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe Thank you. Another issue with Hardi is the many one-off extraordinary statements like "The male population between 15 and 50 had either been killed or fled" in this Wiki article, which in the Hardi book is without citation or substantiation. I looked into this more and this seems to be drawn from a specific section of the HRW report based on an event at Topzawa from a couple of the controversial interviews, and in the full passage: "A little later, the men were further divided by age--small children kept with their mothers, the elderly and infirm shunted off to separate quarters, and men and teenage boys considered to be of an age to use a weapon herded together. Roughly speaking, this meant males of between fifteen and fifty, but there was no rigorous check of identity documents--and strict chronological age seems to have been less of a criterion than size and appearance." Hardi somehow takes this to mean killed and extrapolates to the whole Kurdish population, which is problematic for many reasons, a couple of which were noted before. Agreed there may be other value in the book, in particular on victims and survivors, but claims on the operations and deaths and related topics are not one of them.

The problem with Anfal deaths is the only death toll only comes from government, lobby groups, etc. Here, it comes from the groups PUK and often repeated by KDP, who are not only the two main Kurdish government parties but also the two primary Kurdish militant groups. In 1975, PUK split off from KDP, which had been engaged in active warfare in Iraq since the 1940s.

With regards to the original HRW claims, there's two original bases for the 100,000 figure.

• The first is a "remark was reported to Middle East Watch by Kurdish officials present at the meeting" between Kurdish leaders and Ali Hassan al-Majid in 1991, in which the "Kurdish officials" claimed that when charging the 182,000 number, they claim al-Majid responded "It couldn't have been more than 100,000". There's nothing to corroborate this meeting happened in the first place, that this was said at all and if so that this was said as a dark humor to annoy the "Kurdish officials", or if he said something like 10,000 or 1,000 or anything at all. The fact that HRW uses this claim in the first place as their evidence for the 100,000 figure is reaching far.
• The second are sources directly attributing this to the PUK officer Shorsh Resool who worked closely with HRW and provided them with many of their numbers/statistics. [17]

The 50,000 figure? HRW made no explanation for this. They cut the 100,000 in half, and called it a "conservative estimate". Along with the many problems in their report, including the deep political involvement and errors and egregious methodology and extrapolations, I'm curious why HRW in any of its reports never mentions Iranian and Peshmerga actions against civilians during the same period?

It gets murkier. Much later in 2007 and 2008, Hiltermann retroactively and very confusingly claimed that "HRW's" estimate of 50,000-100,000 in its 1993 report (and by extension, the 1995 re-publish) actually came from an organization under the PUK domain in Slemani called "Committee for the Defence of Anfal Victims’ Rights". This is confusing because Hiltermann claims they completed their survey in 1995, yet Hiltermann and Black were already claiming in the 199e report it was HRW's estimate, without any attribution or mention of this other organization. Seemingly this organization was under enormous political pressure to exaggerate numbers and it was still not enough, considering their director was forced to flee Iraq according to Hiltermann. [18] I would relegate them to the same category, if not worse given the PUK oversight, as the Assyrian groups and other lobby groups claiming 750,000 dead in the Assyrian genocide.

What do we do here considering there isn't a proper death toll for Anfal? Do we scrap death tolls altogether? Do we keep HRW's claim based on its poor sources but include the caveats and specifying the origins for their numbers?

Since I've seen several criticisms regarding the claims made by HRW, including the "40 villages gassed", the methodology, and other things, I think we can at least add a "Criticism" section.

The HRW report is confident that the true number is locked away in "a Baghdad archive": "Somewhere in a Baghdad archive there exists, almost certainly, a complete dossier of the missing Kurds: some may still be alive, five years after their capture." We are in the year 2022, 19 years after the US invasion of Iraq, and just like critics noted in the 1990s regarding the captured and forged documents, we still have nothing about deaths and missing Kurds, and even as late as 2007, Hiltermann, claimed "It is not known how many Kurds died during Anfal", proceeded by repeating the original tolls.

Tangentially related, the Halabja massacre is equally bad in this respect. The oft mentioned number of 5,000 dead came from other Iranian government at the time, along with figures such as 4,000, 7,000, etc because evidently it was difficult to keep the numbers straight. Ex: "Iran's delegate to the United Nations said Monday that 5,000 people had been killed and 5,000 wounded in a chemical attack on Halabja." [19] The claim of 3,200 was, you guessed it, Shorsh Resool claiming to have collected exactly 3,200 names from refugees in Iran, and this at least in English from what I can find was originally mentioned in the 1993 HRW report, citing Resool. Reporters at the time flown into the city by Iran reported around 100 or "more than 100", and noted the lack of verification of the Iranian claims. [20][21] The culpability of the massacre is a whole other issue, and the Western narrative actually changed without new evidence or details following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and suffers from many of the same issues that the general HRW Anfal claims do. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

What I would do is not try to have death toll in the infobox as that seems too definitive. I started a death toll section in the body where each of the proposed figures for the death toll can be given with appropriate attribution and explanation of where numbers come from. Then let the reader decide what to make of it. (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I added clarification on the death toll section to make it clearer what evidence is provided for the numbers. I will likely remove the retroactive Hiltermann claim, which is particularly problematic. The only mention of the "Anfal Victims’ Rights" organization and their claim is Hiltermann, and another source that mentions it, likely learned from Hiltermann which it cites, but doesn't appear to use it. Hiltermann makes a critical error, anachronism, or disingenuousness that what HRW claims was their estimate in 1993 (again, the 1995 report was a publishing of HRW's 1993 report and including another report; no difference in information or studies) without any mention of such a survey, Hiltermann a decade and a half later claims the 1993 estimate was based on an unpublished survey done in 1995. The survey itself was not published, adding to the problem, and nothing is known about the "Anfal Victims’ Rights" group other than it appears to be a political or lobby group under enormous political pressure to produce very high numbers, seeing as the authorities still were not happy with an already exaggerated result and forced the director out of the country. From Hiltermann's vague framing and anachronism, it would seem the "survey" drew from the HRW report rather than the other way around.

Going back to your great statement, "I completely disregard any purported death toll that comes from a government, lobby group or non-academic website—it is not a reliable source for that type of information", I'll repeat that original death tolls given are directly based on government and lobby groups according to HRW. All other claims either repeat the "50,000-100,000" and "182,000" originally claimed by Kurdish opposition political leaders to HRW or round figures, like sometimes the 182,000 is rounded down to 180,000 or up to 200,000. If anything we should disregard all death tolls since there is nothing academic in nature, but to have something, the original claims (from "Kurdish leaders" to HRW) can be kept. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

An intriguing statement made in the HRW report is: "Somewhere in a Baghdad archive there exists, almost certainly, a complete dossier of the missing Kurds" (referring to the Anfal deaths). This view serves as part of their basis of confidence of their claims made in the report. Unfortunately to date, including after the 2003 invasion of Iraq when Coalition forces took control of all Iraqi records and most officials of interest, such a dossier or anything related does not exist. If anyone is aware of such an item, it would be helpful to have. However, the last 30 years have turned up nothing and it's as "real" as most of the questionable claims made in these HRW reports which suffered from heavy US government and PUK interference, drawing the extent of its information and narratives from militant-organized "interviews" and claims made by the militia group's officials, and other unique claims and stretches.

Another intriguing statement from HRW is that the name "Anfal" was not used by Iraq, according to HRW, which calls into question who made up the name "Anfal". Likely a name invented by the controversial Kanan Makiya in a 1992 article "The Anfal" but it obviously was not a name given by Iraq/Iraqi government. HRW writes: "Although there is no definitive evidence that the Iraqi army was yet using the word "Anfal" to describe its operations, these artillery shells may be considered to all intents and purposes the first shots fired in the Anfal campaign."

The "First Anfal", "Second Anfal", etc used in the Wiki article are likewise not names for operations or campaigns from the Iraqi government. These are invented by HRW, assigning a town/region and dates for "each" Anfal with narratives based on the "interviews". From a historical and military perspective, the naming of separate operations, or the use of the name Anfal in general which did not come from Iraq, have no basis since it originates from HRW. The only adds to the enormity of issues with the HRW report. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Another intriguing statement from HRW is that the name 'Anfal' was not used by Iraq, according to HRW, which calls into question who made up the name 'Anfal'. .. HRW writes: 'Although there is no definitive evidence that the Iraqi army was yet using the word 'Anfal' to describe its operations' ..." Please read more carefully. HRW clearly attributes the Anfal name to the Iraqi military, and does not suggest that it was "made up" by others. The use of "yet" in the quoted sentence simply indicates that earlier phases of repression against the Kurds may have predated the formal initiation of the operation dubbed Anfal. You should (and probably do) know better.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

(inserted comment):
TheTimesAreAChanging, you should be the one asked, "Please read more carefully." Saucysalsa30 above seems to personally present a view that as the name 'Anfal' was not used by Iraq" this "calls into question who made up the name 'Anfal'". You should strike your above unfounded attack above (of which, if I were to echo an element of your WP:TPG violation, I'd say "You should ... know better.") GregKaye 09:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see you here, GregKaye, considering that I believe these are your first edits on a topic unrelated to Depp v. Heard in at least two months: It's great to see an editor expand his area of interest/expertise! Unfortunately, Saucysalsa30's description of the contents of the HRW report is a truly surreal misrepresentation of the source: "Anfal—'the Spoils'—is the name of the eighth sura of the Koran. It is also the name given by the Iraqis to a series of military actions which lasted from February 23 until September 6, 1988. While it is impossible to understand the Anfal campaign without reference to the final phase of the 1980-1988 Iran–Iraq War, Anfal was not merely a function of that war. Rather, the winding-up of the conflict on Iraq's terms was the immediate historical circumstance that gave Baghdad the opportunity to bring to a climax its longstanding efforts to bring the Kurds to heel." (p. 3); "The Iraqi regime may have selected this sura to legitimize its war on the Kurds by invoking a battle between two regular armies, and against a numerically stronger adversary." (p. 31); "All of the tendencies that had been implicit in earlier phases of Iraq's war on the Kurds reached their culmination in 1987-1988 with the endgame of the Iran–Iraq War and the campaign known as al-Anfal. In the captured Iraqi documents that are now being studied by Middle East Watch, the term crops up with great frequency: villages are 'purified' in the course of 'the Heroic Anfal Operation'; the reason for the flight of villagers into neighboring countries is given as 'Anfal'; an 'Anfal' oilfield is inaugurated and a special 'Anfal Section' of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party created in commemoration of the event; one of the government contractors hired to work on the drainage of Iraq's southern marshes is the 'Anfal Company.' It is evident from the documents, and from the supporting testimony of those who survived Anfal, that the resources of the Iraqi state were deployed and coordinated on a massive level to assure the success of the operation." (p. 51) None of that is remotely consistent with Saucysalsa30's observation that "Another intriguing statement from HRW is that the name 'Anfal' was not used by Iraq, according to HRW, which calls into question who made up the name 'Anfal'."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Insert: thanks TheTimesAreAChanging, nice to be here. It's a bit of a home coming after historically being a significant contributor to ISIL related topics.[22]
Please strike comments such as "You should (and probably do) know better". Please ping on your replies. GregKaye 18:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear your analysis is surface-level. These statements are claims made by HRW without substantiation or evidence. They even admit to their own conjecture regarding Anfal, like making up the start and end dates on their own with "these artillery shells may be considered to all intents and purposes the first shots fired in the Anfal campaign." They didn't claim any Iraqi documents set the start of Anfal. This is in stark contrast to any other military operations, where we have significant evidence from political and military records, public government statements, etc of the start of an operation. For Anfal, it's HRW making the clais. HRW claims Anfal started in 1988, while also claiming genocide and chemical attacks on civilians in 1987, only adding to the mess. They didn't want to include genocide from 1987 or as they claim went on into 1989?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but they provide no evidence at all. They state this as matter of fact. Strangely in this claim, unlike in other claims where they sometimes at least state one of the Peshmerga-sourced interviews as their source, they provide nothing. Or in other claims they may reference documents, but here they don't either. It's a claim made without merit, and when they do have to say anything about it, they admit no such name existed even by the time the operation started. Then again, the report is full of all kinds of outlandish assertions that have been questioned or refuted in other sources, and the deep political interference from the PUK and USG certainly don't diminish the issues. They claim "the term crops up with great frequency", but despite reproducing many documents, none of them reference an "Anfal", and they provide no footnote explaining this like they do for many other items either. Like with many of the claims they make, this was probably something they were told by the PUK group and went with it, like the egregious and uncorroborated "40 chemical attacks" claim that other sources have slammed.

If the Iraqi side was not using the term by Feb or March 1988, then when were they? HRW never answers their own doubts. They say there's no evidence it was being used at that point, and then continue on.

Having actually read the report in full multiple times instead of a few Ctrl+F's without understanding of the source or topic, other sources criticizing HRW exactly for this claim, the complete lack of substantiation by HRW for the claim, and (although not relevant for Wikipedia editing) having contacted co-writer Joost Hiltermann on Twitter regarding this claim which he confirmed it's still up in the air, it's definitely not a certain name. Now 30 years after this report, and we still don't have records allegedly referencing Anfal, embarrassingly. @GregKaye made a good point, and you could probably learn from him. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There are absolutely no reliable sources presented to substantiate (or falsify) any of your WP:OR criticisms of "Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds" above, or for the Twitter thread in which you supposedly reached out and got Hiltermann to confess to being dishonest. I have little confidence in the veracity of your analysis, and it is not usable in article space in any case. Either way, you are moving the goalpost: I never argued that HRW's report is flawless, but rather that it directly, unambiguously, and repeatedly attributes the name Anfal to the Iraqi military—which you are now conceding (while strongly criticizing the report's evidence). Why did you seek to mislead other editors unfamiliar with HRW's findings, including one that you pinged from a separate dispute at the Depp v. Heard article, to think that "Another intriguing statement from HRW is that the name 'Anfal' was not used by Iraq, according to HRW, which calls into question who made up the name 'Anfal'," if (as you are now saying) you had thoroughly read the report and were fully aware of passages like "In the captured Iraqi documents that are now being studied by Middle East Watch, the term crops up with great frequency: villages are 'purified' in the course of 'the Heroic Anfal Operation'; the reason for the flight of villagers into neighboring countries is given as 'Anfal' ... "?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

insert: TheTimesAreAChanging I hope you are not implying a negative sense in your mention of "WP:OR criticisms". The specific remit of the WP:OR policy takes the stand that: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. We should still fairly research, for instance, to check that materials presented not are WP:NOTFALSE, WP:UNBALANCED or WP:UNDUE. The only relevant question is whether the criticisms are good.
I don't think you can criticise pinging following your selective canvassing of editors in your "WP:SANCTIONGAMING" efforts at ANI.[23] Fortunately for me, whether pinged or not, contributors can be judged on the validity of the things they say. GregKaye 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is where you're clearly mistaken. I've linked quite a number different reliable sources throughout this thread, and which buidhe agreed with and made corresponding changes. Your consistent attacks, false accusations, and slander are disruptive and unconstructive. Then again, considering your idea of a "reliable source" is a someone's personal blog website, as I pointed out earlier your very aggressive defense of iranchamber.com last year, that you engaged in so much harassment and meatpuppetry against me, an admin EvergreenFir had to sternly warn you to stop harassing me.

Misleading editors? By providing sources and information? Just more of your slander. Just because you're clearly new to this overall topic but have extremely strong WP:OR opinions doesn't discount realities. Even this article [24] among others linked earlier tears down your arrogant claim that "there are absolutely no reliable sources presented" when it demonstrates HRW was deliberately disingenuous and were sponsored by the US government to formulate particular narratives. Even the proprietor of the captured documents, the famous Iraq War advocate Kanan Makiya, absolutely tears into HRW and their deceitful claims.

I linked other sources in this thread that criticize how the "interviews" that HRW based their storytelling on were organized by militants with those same armed militants in the room, the sources pointing out that the interviews were done at gunpoint, making them of little to no value. Even with that, HRW filled in many holes of their own making, also pointed out in reliable sources linked earlier.

None of my criticisms are WP:OR, on the contrary, you regularly misrepresent and miscontextualize sources to push extrapolated claims on this site. I understand you have an extreme hatred of me and anyone else for having proven wrong your WP:FRINGE theories and obsessive defense of the worst possible sources wrong with the help of discussion boards, which is why you stalked me to this Talk page and your first comment [25] was not to add anything related to the discussion, but making personal attacks, misleading editors with your very skewed interpretations of edits having nothing to do with this topic, and so on is unacceptable.

As @GregKaye pointed out, stop making personal attacks and learn to collaborate with people instead of always aggressively attacking and bludgeoning. If Wikipedia is this much of a heated battleground for you, consider taking a break. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Even the proprietor of the captured documents, the famous Iraq War advocate Kanan Makiya, absolutely tears into HRW and their deceitful claims." As someone who has read every word of Makiya's Republic of Fear, twice, I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to. To the contrary, Makiya has much praise for Human Rights Watch's "in-depth account" (xiii). Again, where are you getting your information?
• "you stalked me to this Talk page". To the contrary, I have been watching/editing this article since February 2013, long before your account was created. You are the one who has aggressively stalked my edits to articles as diverse as 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, Depp v. Heard, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, and Max Blumenthal (e.g., [26], [27]), despite making no other edits unrelated to the Middle East. You even pinged an editor who has exclusively contributed to Depp v. Heard-related articles for the past several months to come here and act as your proxy. How can you defend this behavior?
• "I understand you have an extreme hatred of me and anyone else for having proven wrong your WP:FRINGE theories". It is textbook WP:FRINGE to suggest that Saddam sought to avoid war with Iran in September 1980, that the Iran–Iraq War was an "Iraqi victory," or that Halabja was inflated by a factor of 50 (if it happened at all). Conversely, Murray and Woods, Hiltermann, Makiya, et al. represent the mainstream view on Ba'thist Iraq—which Wikipedia is obliged to report, whether you personally accept it or not. If any of this is unclear to you or if you are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia's content policies, including those related to neutrality, original research, and synthesis, then you should remove yourself from this topic area: A direct statement that you disavow the views in question would go a long way. Additionally, you should immediately cease accusing Murray and Woods, Hiltermann, Makiya, et al. of professional misconduct without any secondary sources to substantiate these allegations. (If you persist, then others may ultimately have to decide your continued participation here.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  More twisting and slander from someone who simply can't engage in a civil manner. Ironically, you're guilty of all the behavior you accuse of, and I've already pointed out you're guilty of [28]. You've become desperate and resorting to "No you" type claims. That's obvious across Wikipedia where you remove anything not to your liking while simultaneously adding in your own fluff. You should practice self-reflection considering your first activity on this Talk page here was an irrelevant, off-topic comment full of personal attacks and deliberate twisting of edits going to 2020 and early 2021 to make demeaning, slanderous claims [29] It had no relation at all to this topic or Talk page, and worse, breaks WP:NPA, WP:TPG, WP:STALKING.

  When you claimed before that Iraq was behind 9/11 because it was in a "reliable source", you lost any credibility with such accusations (which are wrong in any case). That is as WP:FRINGE conspirational as anyone can possibly get, not unlike Alex Jones. You vehemently defended for months, a plagiaristic blog website iranchamber.com, as a reliable source, (e.g. [30]) and vehemently defended that and still did so after RSN decided against your case.[31] In response to your being wrong and this statement "Ultimately the WP:ONUS to prove RS is on the party seeking to use the source, and there's zero evidence that this really is a RS (and plenty to the contrary)", your response was to say it's used on other Wikipedia articles, therefore it's not clear if it's unreliable. Wow.

  You even claimed there were no sources implicating Josef Stalin in genocide, and remove sources that support this uncontroversial claim. Incredible.

  Remember the last time you insulted and harassed me because you were pushing a mostly uncorroborated, and when mentioned, substantiated with no more than a sentence or two, fringe claim that the unquestionable motivation of the Iran-Iraq War was the annex the Khuzestan region? When I provided many sources dedicated to refuting this fringe claim, much to your displeasure, your response was to call me a "small child" among other demeaning language. [32] You treated it like losing a competition and being a "sore loser", and there appears to be consistent and serious issues of WP:COMPETENCE in your editorial decision-making.

  Remember when you and Qahramani44 were stalking and harassing me on several completely unrelated pages and making various personal attacks, and the admin EvergreenFir had to sternly warn you to stop? [33]

  You hold other paranoid conspiracy theories and demonstrate clear bias/agenda like: "Note that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by pro-Iraqi/Arab nationalist accounts is common in this topic area."[34]

  Not sure about your other charges and the twisting there, but academic histories on the conflict between Iran and Iraq, including by Iranian historians, note the Iranian military collapse and Iraqi sweep including into Iranian territory that ultimately ended the war and forced the Iranian leadership to sue for peace, which they compared to "drinking poison". If that's what you call winning, then that's not a "fringe theory". That's not controversial history. You're really stretching here with your slander, and you're making it painfully obvious you're not educated on these topics.

  I have no activity on 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, Depp v. Heard, or Max Blumenthal. Why do you lie so blatantly? I understand you're desperate to make a point to attack me with, but you're reaching far and it's getting pathetic. Regarding [35], in the weeks following the 2021 United States Capitol attack, I browsed Trump-related pages. I made a comment in response to a couple users providing comments, and unaware you were part of that discussion. I didn't even name you.

  I periodically look at the ANI board. In bold letters I saw "Harassment by TheTimesAreAChanging", in, to no surprise, a section you made filled with lies and slander against GregKaye. I looked at a few of your recent contributions, and yes, it was the standard aggressive and disruptive TheTimesAreAChanging behavior. Recall that everyone in that discussion was rallying against your claims against GregKaye. There's good reason for that. :)

  I've provided sources criticizing all 3 of those in various Talk pages, and have in this Talk page too. The bigger issue though is you very clearly mischaracterize the content, or take individual sentences out of context, especially when the context refutes it, to make a point. Very elusive. Also, it's interesting you mention Makiya, as his writings in general are certainly controversial, especially given his very overt political motivations. In Republic of Fear, which was turned down by a number of 59 publishers for obvious reasons, has been characterized as "libel" and Makiya himself notes in the book that he includes "stories and circulating rumours" that have "no firmer basis in fact". It's no surprise then that his book of half-truths, falsities, and his own brazen opinions is as such by his own admission. As he acknowledges, his writings no longer were considered farcical only because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait where anything and everything became legitimate, like claims of killing babies in incubators, something you've said is still true..

  I understand you don't like being wrong. I understand you're on this website pushing narratives daily. You have harassed and stalked me for 2 years for no other reason because you got proven wrong on some of your deeply-held political beliefs, especially when discussion boards get involved. It's time for you to get over it.

  I suggest you review What Wikipedia is not, WP:NPA, WP:TPG, and it would behoove you to have a more neutral point of view instead of, by your own admission, blunt agendas. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for conspiracy theories and your other original research, nor is it a battleground. Here's to hoping you're able to improve as an editor.

  I'll repeat the very valuable advice that @GregKaye gave you: you need to learn to be civil and stop making personal attacks and demeaning people, and again, if Wikipedia is this much of a heated battleground for you, consider taking a break. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"When you claimed before that Iraq was behind 9/11 ... claims of killing babies in incubators, something you've said is still true." Those are two obvious lies presented without diffs. Diffs or it didn't happen.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing I said was a lie, and I provided diffs I had on hand for your other conspiracy theories you push, and other behavior including your admitted political agendas and stalking on the website. You can look for your edits where you profusely defended Con Coughlin and his fringe claims, when I pointed out his pedaling of 9/11 conspiracy theories, incubator story, etc. So you're saying you apologize for defending a yellow journalist and war advocate with no business writing history pieces and that Coughlin is not a reliable source? I accept your apology and I expect you'll never defend Coughlin again. Meanwhile, you do not provide diffs as I have, and what little you do, as in your original slander comment, you lie about the diffs entirely, as I've refuted. Your repetitive slander and stalking backfired hard.

With that, thank you for the admission in response to my evidence provided that you deliberately lie and slander people, that you stalk and harass me repeatedly as even admins have directly told you to stop doing, spend untold hours to make personal attacks on editors for proving you wrong and hold grudges for years, staunchly defending blog websites as reliable sources, your adamant defense of fringe theories, having little to no understanding and knowledge of this and related topics, and that as you admit push personal political agendas on this site. Here's to hoping you can become a constructive editor in the future. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

User behavior is probably off topic for an article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, I respect many of your deeply-researched edits on the Holocaust (although they often seem intended to protect the "singularity" of the Holocaust, Guenter Lewy-style) but you should be wary of engaging with Saucysalsa30 and his endless walls of text (almost all of which constitute original research that is effectively unusable in article space). Saucysalsa30 has a long history of mindlessly regurgitating official Iraqi Ba'th Party propaganda in a totally uncritical fashion, citing statements by Saddam Hussein as credible documentation, while inappropriately labelling reliably published (if flawed) material as WP:FRINGE, and even casting doubt on Russia's role in hacking the DNC in 2016 (though this may have been more to "retaliate" against me rather than on the merits). To give just one example, Saucysalsa30 repeated apeshit claims by the Iraqi front-group Democratic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Arabistan (DRFLA) to be "a purely Iranian group (...) undermined by allegations that it was backed by the Iraqi government" without a source or adequate contextualization to clarify that the DRFLA in fact relied on Iraqi sponsorship (and disappeared almost immediately after said sponsorship ceased). Moreover, Saucysalsa30 has been known to unnecessarily inject race/nationality into content disputes, as seen when he baselessly referred to Iranian editor Qahramani44 as being engaged in "an ideological battle (...) against 'Arabs'" (despite this being a wild distortion of Qahramani44's statements) and in his attempt on this article to label Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi "an Iraqi Kurd," rather than the more neutral "who is of Kurdish descent" (which you appropriately reverted). Now, you might think that Saucysalsa30 is just skeptical of big, conveniently round numbers in a narrow, apolitical sense, but this is not borne out by the record. To the contrary, Saucysalsa30's incredulity disappeared when discussing claims that Iran suffered a staggering 1 million troops KIA during the Iran–Iraq War; in that discussion, Saucysalsa30 described the "1 million" figure as plausible, likely because it comports with his primary source for factual information—i.e., official Saddam-era Ba'th Party propaganda—despite being familiar with an academic source establishing that "In internal memoranda, Iraqi intelligence estimated Iranian losses from the beginning of the war through August 1986 as: killed or missing, 228,000—258,000". Such selectivity and evasiveness are the hallmarks of Saucysalsa30's editing style. There is a reason why he has taken 35,000 bytes to repeat himself about some cited Iraqi documents from the 1990s that may not be fully authenticated (e.g., "skew on captured Iraqi government documents and forgeries, which these documents HRW claims ... "; "captured but allegedly tampered documents"; "a skewed interpretation of captured documents and possible forgeries"; "just like critics noted in the 1990s regarding the captured and forged documents") and to hint that the death toll in Halabja may have been 100 or so, while ignoring the fact that fully authenticated Iraqi archives declassified after 2003 put the death toll in Halabja in the vicinity of 2,000–3,500 (mostly civilians but including military casualties as well) (according to a source that, again, Saucysalsa30 is familiar with and has cited many times in the past). Sure, the "5,000" figure may not be exactly right (and the uncertainty is probably even greater in regards to the entire Anfal campaign), but the order of magnitude is more or less clear: For Saucysalsa30 to maintain that there were actually only 100 deaths and that Iran caused many of them is not dissimilar to Holocaust deniers who say that the Jewish death toll was 600,000 rather than 6 million and that Allied bombing exacerbated conditions in the concentration camps. In sum: Honest, good faith editors generally do not engage in this level of rhetorical obfuscation. Please be aware of who you are engaging with, and how they might seek to manipulate you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC) @Buidhe, unfortunately this user has stalked, harassed, and slandered me in the past, including engaging in attacks and meatpuppetry, for doing nothing other than proving him wrong a couple times and dispute boards taking my side on the matters. This is another such instance of unprovoked harassments, lying, insults, and slander. This is a pattern of regular behavior too, and when editors bother to report him, he does get blocked. [36] As I'll demonstrate below, this is an aggressive user that resorts to twisting and slander against anyone who has ever had the misfortune of proving him wrong on some of his personal biases with regards to Wikipedia editing. Within the last month, a user @GregKaye has asked him multiple times to stop attacking people, including GregKaye himself. [37][38] TheTimesAreAChanging's aggressive behavior is very common, and he'll make personal attacks as he sees fit against anyone who contests anything he says like he is doing here. While I'm impressed he's spent potentially hours putting together this slander piece, it's so misframed and such a blatant attack as to have no value at all, by a user with a long track record of blocks and harassing users. To give one example, in one of the last times I was very active on Wikipedia, he embarrassingly fought hard to claim that a user-generated content website https://iranchamber.com/, whose articles are copied from from existing works or original pieces without any citation or reference by the website itself such as this. https://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war1.php When I made a change to remove a claim made by a user-generated website, which is textbook not reliable under any circumstances [39]. TheTimes' response? Refusing to defend the use of this textbook unreliable source and engaging in meatpuppetry and edit warring right alongside Qahramani44, as done here. [40] and on the Talk page[41][42] and making edits with an edit note to defend this bad source [43]. I took it to RSN [44], in which consensus was that this was not a reliable source: "Ultimately the WP:ONUS to prove RS is on the party seeking to use the source, and there's zero evidence that this really is a RS (and plenty to the contrary)". Despite this conclusion, TheTimes was not having it. He was still trying to defend the use of this source with "Iran Chamber Society seems to be widely used on Wikipedia articles related to Iran and its history". [45] The result of all this? The unreliable source was removed from the Iraqi invasion of Iran article [46]. Just pointing out that this is typical behavior for TheTimes. Aggressively pushing narratives to the point of defending extremely unreliable sources, before and even after there's external discussion on it. As part of that, BOTH Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging stalked me on other Wikipedia articles such as Ba'athism to harass me further. It was at this point as part of the various harassments on me in January 2021 that administrator EvergreenFir had to intervene and issue TheTimesAreAChanging a stern warning. [47] To TheTimesAreAChanging and this disgusting, slanderous comment, first, I'd like to point out that you're wrong and twisting things on each allegation you make, your insults are disgusting, and you're obviously still upset because you were proven wrong multiple times in 2020-2021, which you link to edits from then, and this is you trying to get your "payback" because you're not too great at this whole editing thing. Even buidhe has been involved in a discussion proving your point wrong where you still tried to defend an unreliable source after attacking me so much over it (more on that below). Secondly, this has nothing to do with the Talk page or article at all. It's irrelevant and nothing more than childish insults. After the extended slander and harassment comment full of misframings and cherry-picking, unrelated with anything to do in this Talk page or article, which is not the first or even tenth time you've engaged in such behavior against people, I'd suggest firstly improving on your behavior. You were just recently asked directly to not attack or demean people.[48] Regarding "Saddam Hussein", last I checked, the Washington Post isn't Saddam Hussein, and yes, it is common on Wikipedia to attribute statements made by figures. This overall matter was about the very minority and largely uncorroborated claim that "annexation of Khuzestan" was a goal in the war, with plenty of evidence and academia to the contrary. Why didn't you link the dozen academic sources (which is a small sampling) I gave in this diff putting this uncorroborated claim you were aggressiving defending? [49] Your response to being proven wrong and your ego bruised? You called me a "small child" and other denigrating language in your sarcastic response.[50] The end result of all this? The "annexation of Khuzestan" claim was removed from the Iran-Iraq War article, much to TheTimes' dismay. Apparently, things are all a conspiracy to you as in this diff[51] where you claim: "Note that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by pro-Iraqi/Arab nationalist accounts is common in this topic area." Thanks for confirming your deeply-held personal biases with this conspiracy theory. "Casting doubt"[52] No, I did not cast doubt. Again with your misframings and bad tone. I simply noted that 2 users were providing sources, while others (which include yourself) were adding nothing of value at all. Attacking users with Wikipedia policies is not constructive. You should learn to be more collaborative instead of always attacking and bludgeoning. Regarding DRFLA, "repeated apeshit claims"? Nice personal attack, but no, I read through the source and edited to what it states. That's what the source said. The fact you claim "without a source or adequate contextualization to clarify that the DRFLA in fact relied on Iraqi sponsorship" is purely disingenuous on your part. You are embarrassingly wrong. There was nothing baseless regarding you and Qahramani44, given both you and Qahramani44 were stalking and harassing me across multiple articles, and given him calling me an "Arab nationalist" (a white American guy, right) and other related insults [53] with dozens of other comments making similar personal attacks, Qahramani's edit notes and comments at the time that everything is some form of "propaganda" by Arabs and Arab countries, including his (and yours) stalking and harassing me across multiple articles and personal attacks, my comment on a simple observation was justified. You had engaged in meatpuppetry with him, engaging in stalking, harassment, and edit warring. Very shameful behavior on your part. You then tried to get me blocked, with your meatpuppetry for support, and that backfired. The admin EvergreenFir sternly warned you to stop. [54] Qahramani44, like you, adds nothing to the discussion except personal attacks and his own personal opinions, and even copywriting, followed by denial and more personal attacks. [55]. Both of you in your meatpuppetry made dozens of such attacking comments. Unlike you two, I actually read through sources. You both were engaging in being disruptive, and EvergreenFir had to get involved to end your harassment. As part of this, EvergreenFir removed TheTimesAreAChanging's comment, telling him to "Stop the bullshit". [56] If I'm being blunt, the only "wild distortion" is the diff you hyperlinked[57], just like the rest of your insults and slander. You're wrong about the "inappropriate labeling" because JBchrch made an error which you linked[58] which was corrected on the noticeboard by Hemiauchenia. [59]: "Its not an academic press. Popular press publications spout all sorts of crap. A book should never be considered reliable simply by the virtue of being published by a well known press. Chariots of the Gods? was published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, a reputable publisher. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2021" Also, JBchrch clarifies himself, "Saucysalsa30 is not challenging the reliability of the source in general, though, he is challenging the coverage of a specific quote." Again, you are wrong, Times, and apparently you still need to learn what that meaning of a reliable source is as with the iranchamber.com example. In any case, the overall discussion was specifically with regards to a specific red flag claim (like many others in Coughlin's extreme book claiming such conspiracy theories as Iraq being behind 9/11, the WMDs, etc), which was so extreme that the Wikipedia article for it was deleted. [60] The end result of all of this? Con Coughlin's outlandish claim, whose only evidence of existing is from a single sentence from a 1989 book, was removed from the Ba'athism article. > "label Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi "an Iraqi Kurd," rather than the more neutral "who is of Kurdish descent" That is what the source said, he is an Iraqi Kurd. Why leave out his nationality and the country he was born and raised in? Also you're wrong. It doesn't look like it was reverted. If you look at the diffs [61], there were within minutes of each other was reverted and you can see that a paragraph was moved, so it looks like that wasn't reverted but was was overwritten if Buidhe and I were editing at the same time. You should do your research before making an attack. Regarding 1 million Iranian casualties, for example, here is an Iranian historian Arvand Abrahamian [62] in an academic source in which 1 million is sourced, and was present on the Wikipedia article you mention diff until some people upset about academic sources removed it. You are calling an Iranian historian basing his claim from Iranian officials as "Saddam-era Ba'th Party propaganda" as an attack on me? You realize how ridiculous your claim is? This is very embarrassing for you. Yes, there are sources, including by the person who is the director of these records, Kanan Makiya, claiming forgeries especially for the most provocative documents, and that there's no 'smoking gun'. I already linked this in the Talk page. Why do you claim I didn't? [63] Your biased and unacademic approach to your editing mixed in with this skewing to back up your attacks is exhibited further. Equating me with Holocaust deniers? What kind of sick insult is this? You really are behaving out of line. For one, the 5,000 number originates from the Iranian government, which is uncontroversial, and I provided a source for that in the Talk page edit you link. I realize you didn't know that, but that's not an excuse to insult people. [64] As @Buidhe pointed out in this Talk page[65], such sources are not reliable for this type of information. The Iranian government is the origin of this figure. That you're defending this demonstrates further you advocate for unreliable and unfounded claims. Yes, there's plenty of coverage of the same journalists Iran organized them and brought into the town and reporting 100 to 200 [66][67] among many other sources, and stating that Iran's claims could not be "verified", which aren't to this day. Just because you have very limited knowledge of this history, instead of spending time to learn, you prefer to attack and insult people so persistently. This slander, lying, harassment, personal attacks is absolutely unacceptable behavior. You speak of honest, good faith editors, but someone who makes such a toxic attack and slander and who exhibit very poor analytical and editing skills is the definition of a very vitriolic, poor editor. Please reconsider and work on your behavior or consider taking a break from this website considering this is normally how you engage with people. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC) @TheTimesAreAChanging: please strike PA comments such as on "selectivity and evasiveness". There is an amount that could be said on this in the other direction. Please consider talking to editors such as Saucysalsa30 more directly and engage less in talking to others about them. GregKaye 09:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC) People in glass houses ([68], [69], etc.)...TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging, From the heart, please edit debate with kindness. I'm pretty cool, at least, with the passion side of my defence of issues like accurate representation of cited material and editing according to BLP without personal attack involved. Please, you have a history of blocks for your harassments and attacks[70] yet these continue[71] even as evidenced in the dialogue above. Please, TheTimes - consider changing. Please talk with people personally and directly. Please be kind as you edit and debate. GregKaye 21:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) @GregKaye The whole comment is personal attacks, slander, and regardless is an absolute violation of WP:TPG. Talk pages are not a place at all to lie, misrepresent, slander, and insult people. The "Holocaust denier" line was particularly disgusting nor is this the first or even fifth time he's attacked me, for no other reason but being proven wrong and discussion boards not going his way. I made an ANI report because this is out of hand. [72] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Correcting the record

I'm concerned that two statements above, for whatever reason, are extraordinarily false or misleading, and need to be corrected:

• Statement 1 ([73], [74]) "Tangentially related, the Halabja massacre is equally bad in this respect. The oft mentioned number of 5,000 dead came from other Iranian government at the time, ... Reporters at the time flown into the city by Iran reported around 100 or 'more than 100', and noted the lack of verification of the Iranian claims. The culpability of the massacre is a whole other issue, and the Western narrative actually changed without new evidence or details following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and suffers from many of the same issues that the general HRW Anfal claims do."—Saucysalsa30, 22:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC).
  • As a source, the editor links (twice) to a March 24, 1988 article in The Washington Post titled "POISON GAS ATTACK KILLS HUNDREDS". For context, the Halabja massacre occurred on March 16, and the WaPo article documents that an entire week later "More than 100 bodies of women, children and elderly men still lay in the streets, alleys and courtyards of this now-empty city". Contrary to what the editor leads others to believe, neither this reporting, nor any other contemporary reporting, nor more recent retrospective sources, suggest that the entire death toll in Halabja could have possibly been as low as 100. Fully authenticated Iraqi archives declassified after 2003 put the death toll in Halabja in the vicinity of 2,000–3,500 (mostly civilians but including military casualties as well). The WaPo report continues:

Iraq denies responsibility for what happened in this valley 150 miles northeast of Baghdad last Wednesday at 2 p.m. when, according to survivors, a single warplane appeared from the west and dropped one or more chemical bombs that dispersed a deadly yellow-and-white cloud through the Kurdish city, killing hundreds and perhaps thousands of residents. Iran has estimated that 4,000 civilians died in Halabja either from gas poisoning or from the intensive Iraqi bombing that followed. The figure could not be independently verified. ... [Contrary to Iraq's denials,] [e]vidence is plentiful that the Iraqi Army was here in strength. ... Halabja survivors said in interviews that they were certain the gas attack was launched from an Iraqi warplane because it came after the battle for the city was over and Iraqi ground forces had withdrawn or surrendered.

• Statement 2 ([75]) "Another intriguing statement from HRW is that the name 'Anfal' was not used by Iraq, according to HRW, which calls into question who made up the name 'Anfal'."—Saucysalsa30, 18:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC).
  • Even a cursory examination of "Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds" would show the above statement to be false:

Anfal—"the Spoils"—is the name of the eighth sura of the Koran. It is also the name given by the Iraqis to a series of military actions which lasted from February 23 until September 6, 1988. While it is impossible to understand the Anfal campaign without reference to the final phase of the 1980-1988 Iran–Iraq War, Anfal was not merely a function of that war. Rather, the winding-up of the conflict on Iraq's terms was the immediate historical circumstance that gave Baghdad the opportunity to bring to a climax its longstanding efforts to bring the Kurds to heel.—Page 3

The Iraqi regime may have selected this sura to legitimize its war on the Kurds by invoking a battle between two regular armies, and against a numerically stronger adversary.—Page 31

All of the tendencies that had been implicit in earlier phases of Iraq's war on the Kurds reached their culmination in 1987-1988 with the endgame of the Iran–Iraq War and the campaign known as al-Anfal. In the captured Iraqi documents that are now being studied by Middle East Watch, the term crops up with great frequency: villages are "purified" in the course of "the Heroic Anfal Operation"; the reason for the flight of villagers into neighboring countries is given as "Anfal"; an "Anfal" oilfield is inaugurated and a special "Anfal Section" of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party created in commemoration of the event; one of the government contractors hired to work on the drainage of Iraq's southern marshes is the "Anfal Company." It is evident from the documents, and from the supporting testimony of those who survived Anfal, that the resources of the Iraqi state were deployed and coordinated on a massive level to assure the success of the operation.—Page 51

It is extremely difficult to square these misrepresentations as being consistent with the conduct expected of good faith contributors to our encyclopedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeoning when proven wrong on a topic you've shown not to be familiar with, and right after making a terribly slanderous comment full of personal attacks is a very poor approach to Talk page discussions.

Your Statement 1 is proving my point. The (ironically inconsistent) high numbers of deaths originate from the Iranian government. You were not aware of that before I pointed it out, so I set your flawed record straight previously. As buidhe put it, "I completely disregard any purported death toll that comes from a government, lobby group or non-academic website—it is not a reliable source for that type of information."

Why are you implying that the Iranian government making up numbers on the spot against their enemy in a war, without yet the slightest clue what had happened at that, is a reliable source? Didn't you just say in your PA comment that Iraqi officials quoted by WaPo cannot? Why are you now fine with it? And why are you always fine when it's Iranian officials' propaganda? That is the mark of very poor editing. Please review WP:NPOV because you demonstrate enormous bias on many occasions in these matters.

Further, you're misframing the source which is not good faith editing, your claim is from a on March 20, 4 days after the event,. The Iraqis weren't in Halabja in March 20 to know anything so the memorandum is conjecture and as "useful" as the Iranian claims. In fact, we know that both sides used chemical weapons in the area of Halabja[76], and the full document in question that the source you mention cites accuses Iran as well, which is strange Murray/Woods don't point that out and prefer to be deliberately vague.

Why did you leave out the part that the source of the information is: "The source of the information was a Kurdish informant" and the part "Due to the bombing of Halabjah city by the airplanes and our artillery, the casualties of the enemy were large and reached around 3,000 slain guards and Iranian volunteers, whose bodies were transported to Alvar City." Your point, then, is that casualties were mostly military, contrary to your previous claim. Also in neither of the passages is the use of chemical weapons mentioned. Sure, they used both conventional and chemical explosives, but neither is specified. Your original research here is not needed. This, again, is not including the bombings and artillery by the Iranian side. This is not good faith on TheTimesAreAChanging's part. Your claims are self-contradicting with other claims you've made in this same Talk page.

You add in your own original research with claims like "fully authenticated" (no, it's not necessarily, and has been criticized, eg. [77]), and you claim that Iraqi sources are not valid in one comment calling it "Saddam-era Ba'th Party propaganda", then here claim they are valid when only a few days after the event and have no data except a "Kurdish informant". This is not excluding Iran's attacks, including chemical, on civilians, in the events as well. It was a random note with no investigation, data, and even the full note accuses Iran too of attacks on civilians, which is curious why Murray/Woods left that out.

"[e]vidence is plentiful that the Iraqi Army was here in strength" - Yes, because there was a battle between Iraqi and Iranian forces. This is not an evidence in any way to support the outlandish Iranian claims, or even to assign culpability for civilian victims of chemical weapons as you're stating. Please stop misrepresenting sources.

With regards to Statement 2, I've already addressed this shallow analysis and HRW's contradictions and inconsistencies above.

Unfortunately, you didn't correct any record, as already proven by your very slanderous comment full of personal attacks earlier in the Talk page, where you even claimed that user-generated content blog websites count for good sources among many other failed assertions. That among many other things made it clear that your contributions are neither WP:GF nor demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE. It's unfortunate when aggressive users who slander and make personal attacks on editors, calling them "small children" and "Holocaust deniers" (on matters having nothing to do with the Holocaust) when proven wrong are full-time on this website. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

2007 appeal ruling on van Anraat case

After the initial 2005 ruling in which a court in the city of The Hague (not to be confused with the ICC) [78] convicted van Anraat of complicity in genocide and considered Anfal as genocide, the Hague Court of Appeal made a following ruling on van Anraat's case in 2007. [79] They removed his complicity with regards to genocide and rejected that Anfal was a genocide. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

english text The court admitted genocidal intent and only rejected the term genocide because of insufficient evidence. That's a bit more nuanced. Semsûrî (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This is from 2006. It's not an English text of the 2007 appeal case. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

@Saucysalsa30, please stop removing referenced and sourced info on exterminations per so-called consensus. You do not have consensus for that. Your edits are rather long, I sincerely do not recall having seen such long edits in any discussion on an article talk page and the expectation that some editor read the lines where you might have mentioned some opposition to a phrase between the repeated insult, lying, harassment and slander accusations etc. does not amount to consensus.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle There was consensus already. Specifically, see discussions with buidhe, his agreement on issues with the article, and his subsequent edits on the article. Perhaps you should tag TheTimesAreAChanging for making changes without any consensus, and leveraging a volley of personal attacks.

As already explained to you in response to my Talk page [80], TheTimesAreAChanging, someone who has been periodically harassing me for the last couple years, stalked me and insulted me [81] with a comment having nothing to do with with the Talk page discussion or article subject. Making insults like "Holocaust denier" among other things, and linking to edits from 2020 and early 2021 on entirely different articles to then mischaracterize and lie about them to slander me, is textbook WP:NPA. You likewise thanked me for making an ANI discussion regarding his very unruly behavior[82], which was also reprimanded by @GregKaye. [83][84]

In September 2021 for example when I was last able to be more active, in response to one of his WP:OR being proven wrong, he decided to make an insulting comment, calling me a "small child" as part of that.[85] It's no coincidence when I'm active again, he violates WP:STALKING and his first comment here is to not add to the discussion at all, but to insult me because he was proven wrong multiple times, with the support of discussion boards, in 2020-2021. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That answer above is at first glance just another edit with thousands of bytes. You might be right in the conflict with the other editors, maybe not, but this has no place on the talk page of Anfal campaign. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for. Someone who has been harassing, making personal attacks, and threatening me for the last 2 years decided to do the same here. Their first activity on this Talk page was an off-topic slander with personal attacks and insults. Last time I was active in Sept 2021, he insulted me then too. If you're still confused, let me know. If you're not reading the comments and don't understand the situation, why make make incorrect allegations? Are these two links regarding you related? [86][87] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I just do not give consensus to an editor who cast doubts on the name Anfal or the Halabja chemical gas attack which you did here in the case of Anfal and here in the case of Halabja. Here is the Washington Post article you brought as a source for your claim foreign reporters flown in by Iran wrote of a 100 or more than 100 in relation to the Halabja massacre. The article reports on thousands of deads (yes not independently verified but still, not 100 or more than hundred, but thousands) and that more than hundred possibly still remain on the streets. That just doesn't raise trust in your edits. Explain each phrase you contest edit by edit and with accessible source given. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

On Buidhe I of course give consensus on any of their edits, as they have built on a reputation that if they appear on an article, this leads to a qualitative expansion of the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle In that case, thank you for giving consensus to both buidhe and I, because in the discussions between buidhe and I had, we both agreed. We were not having a conflict, so what you're saying is not correct. The section you created on my Talk page and your other comments in this section are equally confused. buidhe and I had a discussion. buidhe made edits resulting from that, and I made a couple too in the same vein. Those edits have nothing to do with the other editor making personal attacks later on. I recommend you read the discussion between buidhe and I, and take a look at buidhe's edits, because you're stating the opposite of what's happened. What you're linking are not edits on the article, but Talk page comments. Your language is incorrect too. Making an observation on a statement in a source is not "casting doubt". There are sources that call out this oversight by HRW, such as "among the many citations, none specifically references the Anfal. This would appear to indicate that no matter what HRW may claim, the term wasn’t in general use".[88]

If you say you give consensus, then why did you make edits going against consensus, including buidhe's? You added the exact type of information he removed earlier.[89][90] buidhe removed the shoddy parts with statistics, "not really statistics and accuracy/source/context is questionable (see talk)", and unfortunately looks like some of that removed content was added back in a slightly different form by you and another editor. Going by your comment, your edits should be reverted.

Why did you make this edit to the "Criticism" section? With the changes to the wording[91], that sentence doesn't make sense anymore. Why did you put a "dubious" tag on Kanan Makiya? Unlike many other points on the article, it's not in the slightest controversial or challengeable that he is the director of the Iraq Research and Documentation Project, and later Iraq Memory Foundation, owning the archives. [92] It's not an extraordinary or contentious statement either, but mundane.

On the topic of raising trust, before casting aspersions[93] and giving orders, please try to understand what's going on. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30, removing information on the mass killings is really bad. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

To correct the record I do not want information removed from the article, unless it has to go for conciseness reasons. I simply would like better sourcing, more clarification and attribution where appropriate as to where the information comes from. For example, "based on interviews with eyewitnesses, HRW concluded that...". On a topic like this certainly there should not be unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as well as questionable/redflag type information discussed before. This is why I suggested for PC to more clearly understand the discussions that had taken place before. @Buidhe, you've likely realized too there isn't a whole lot of overall research on this topic as even its primary advocate Hiltermann has said. There's the original, unfortunately politicized HRW reports of questionable reliability, and other sources are derivatives or repeat that lead back to it. Since you have more experience on these kinds of topics, what approach do you suggest taking? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, attribute and pay more attention to source of info. As well as round out the article with less contested info about aftermath, impact on Kurdish culture and politics, legal processes, and so forth. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Saucysalsa30 On Kenan Makiya I added the dubious tag because the files HRW was working on which included the PUK files, it was mentioned in the Montgomery source (a source not yet included in the article before.) that per the Senators Jesse Helms and Joe Biden the ultimate proprietors of the files airlifted to the USA were the Kurdish parties KDP and the PUK. Either the research on the files "owned" by Kenan are the product of only a fraction of the ones HRW investigated or Kenan is not the proprietor of the files airlifted from Iraq in 1993. Per your source he is in charge of documents in Baghdad not the ones in the USA. He attempts to make the files in the USA available for research and I guess those are the ones owned by the PUK and KDP. And I did not remove the same info as Buidhe removed. Yes sure, it also mentions HRW, but so far most papers I read on Anfal included the HRW since they have made a lot or research on it. Since your recent entry to the article I have updated sources, made use of a source formerly not used and added a section on HRW cooperation with the USA. What do you want to revert? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle Please read the source again. It's in the USA too. Quoting: "He also directs the Iraq Research and Documentation Project at Harvard University where he is attempting to make available for scholarly research some three million pages of official Iraqi government documents captured by the Kurds following the Gulf War in 1991." This wasn't and isn't in Baghdad. Also the Iraq Memory Foundation, a separate project, contains archives taken after 2003, and after the 2003 Iraq invasion, the management of the organization was moved to Baghdad.

Kanan Makiya directs the IRDP, founded in 1992 and is at Harvard University. That isn't dubious, a significant claim, or controversial. What Montgomery says is not conflicting or binding. It's a political opinion (Montgomery gives no context, but likely a generic response to a letter by Montgomery) in a 1997 letter from Helms and Biden to him, and one that has never been realized nor is there indication of having been put forth in US government legislature. In practice and reality as sourced, these IRDP archives contain and analyze the documents. There's a profound difference between reality of a situation, and a personal political opinion explained in one sentence. Hopefully that is clear now. If you read through the Montgomery paper, you may have noticed it relies almost entirely on the original HRW works, an issue I pointed out in my last comment. Anyways it looks like the dubious tag had been removed anyways.

"And I did not remove the same info as Buidhe removed." - Technically yes, such as the "villages destroyed" figures, with diffs pointed out in my last comment. That needs more discussion, as well as fair contextualization (if possible) as others pointed out before. Unfortunately, there's definitely a dearth of reliable information on Anfal, unlike say, the American Revolution which has large-scale active and new scholarship to this day. Neither has there been the "dossier" that HRW said almost certainly exists, nor, strangely, any extensive study or report captured from or produced by the former Iraqi government.

If you're still confused, please ask questions. Thanks for your discussion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The IRDP was established in 2002 according to this website of the Iraq Foundation and not in 1992 as you claim. And per the Harvard Gazette Malkiya has access to the files only since 1999. And that Kurdish sources mention 4000 destroyed villages is an easy to source fact with numerous sources. It was sourced by not very known sources, now we have a professor Montgomery who gives the numbers, why hide the figure 4000? The lower one was also included. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll assume your comments are in good faith, but the consistent confusion and getting things wrong is less than ideal. First, let me point out the fact that the Harvard Gazette article is from the year 2000 and already mentioning the IRDP. How can you claim that the IRDP was created in 2002 then?

That "Iraq Foundation" website does not say it was established in 2002. It was in 1992 [94][95][96] and so on. and that's not in the slightest controversial. The Harvard Gazette says less than 400 villages were destroyed. This isn't a typo, because later it reiterates "several hundred". Should we go with this, then?

No, it's not easy nor a fact, nor "numerous sources" but instead a case of circular reporting. It's not generalized "Kurdish sources" either. The origin of this, as noted by HRW whom they got it from, is Shorsh Resool, an agent from the militant/political group PUK, which on top of that historically is aligned with the Iranian government against Iraq. Quoting Buidhe: "I completely disregard any purported death toll that comes from a government, lobby group or non-academic website—it is not a reliable source for that type of information." I agree, and this goes for other such "statistics" too.

Montgomery did not do any research as you imply for this claim. He didn't claim to be giving the numbers either. He's clear it comes from "Kurdish leaders claimed", with a later citation to HRW who itself got it from Shorsh Resool from whom this originates. You're giving another evidence to my earlier point of why this is problematic. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess then some findings of the IRDP were published in 2002 - 2003. Per the Harvard Gazette Malkya didn't get access to the files airlifted in 1993 to the USA until 1999. So since 1992 the IRDP must have conducted research on other Iraqi Gov. files and I guess this is remarkable info to mention on Kanan's work. And let's end these long discussions and work on the article. Let's not remove sourced info on human rights violations because you claim the original info comes from the HRW. If academics work on files that the HRW formerly also had access to and come to similar findings like the HRW before, their findings have to be refuted by other means than suspecting a circular reporting originating from Kurdish accusations. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Quoting Buidhe: 'I completely disregard any purported death toll that comes from a government, lobby group or non-academic website—it is not a reliable source for that type of information.' I agree, and this goes for other such 'statistics' too." Interesting analysis from an editor who just a few days ago cited a long-discredited "study" from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency as though it is factual, without mentioning the U.S. government's extensive political and military alignment with Iraq at the time it was produced. Regardless, though technically a lobbyist organization, Human Rights Watch has a reputation for fact-checking and should be perfectly fine for use with in-text attribution, just like the similar human rights advocacy organization Amnesty International, which has a "green" entry at WP:RSP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

When I said "lobby group" I was thinking of those associated with a specific ethnic group or political cause, which reduces the reliability. I guess HRW and Amnesty are technically lobby groups but they also have a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy so can be used (with attribution as appropriate) imo. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case, HRW did not do fact checking. Maybe they have such a reputation in the year 2022, but what they did in this case in the 1990s was poor. That's already been discussed and pointed out ad nauseam.

The problem is two-fold here. It's not HRW acting independently. As already discussed, HRW worked with the US government on the goal, which goes beyond being a lobby group. "Mouthpiece" is a common word used to describe such a relationship. The other problem is HRW's claims and figures come from the PUK militants, taken at face value, whether Shorsh Resool, or the mostly anonymous interviews organized by the PUK with militants overseeing them, etc. What we end up with is claims by a government/political group (PUK, and the vague "Kurdish leaders"), and a lobby group working with the US government (HRW) propagating them and adding its own storytelling to it.

__

Regarding TheTimesAreAChanging, considering you were reported for personal attacks, harassment, misrepresentation, and libel regarding off-wiki actions as an act of desperation on your part that was so extreme it mandated admin intervention and in-progress investigation [97], I'd advise against continued misrepresentations and attacks. Speaking of sourcing, as already demonstrated earlier, you claim that personal blog websites are reliable sources such as iranchamber.com. @GregKaye and other editors have pointed out your harassment and disruptiveness here and on Depp v. Heard too.

US and Israeli government support to Iran was far more significant than to Iraq, including "$2 billion each year" of US arms from Israel alone [98], not including Irangate, the full extent of which is not known, and other assistance. From Razoux's book, support to Iraq amounted to $250 million in comparison. By your logic, that means the US was far more closely aligned with Iran, as well as close Israeli alignment. Regardless, your point is clearly mistaken because Iraq was already the "bad guy" in US politics and media before the DIA study, and a separate SSI study, were conducted, with US Congress already voting for sanctions against Iraq in September 1988. Whatever you claim during the war certainly did not exist afterwards. US government was publicly hostile towards Iraq by Sept 1988, after which the studies were conducted.

Those two links do little to discredit anything. One was saying that Iran didn't use chemical weapons because Islamic government, which is laughable and implies Islam encourages all kinds of atrocities and running children into minefields, and his other single-line unsubstantiated assertions are in contradiction to claims made by Iranian government at the time and other info pointed out before. The other is an opinion/observation by the same Hiltermann responsible for propagating claims by unreliable militant groups. Yes, actual investigations and studies are more valuable than that. It was only after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that US government and media adopted, with no new information or evidence, the Iranian government's tagline[99] verbatim as its own. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"original info comes from the HRW" - More specifically, comes from the PUK organization. HRW is conveying that information. The villages claim as they point out comes from Shorsh Resool. Should we use your claim of less than 400 from the Harvard Gazette instead? What evidence is there that claims from a violent political and militant group, especially against the country it lost armed conflict against?

"If academics work on files that the HRW formerly also had access to and come to similar findings like the HRW before, their findings have to be refuted by other means than suspecting a circular reporting originating from Kurdish accusations." - This claim is wrong too. Montgomery did not have his own "findings" or do any further investigation in Iraq. As already noted, he plainly writes: "Kurdish leaders claimed that Iraqi government forces had destroyed 4,000 villages".

"And let's end these long discussions" - The discussions have been helpful in improving your understanding and comprehension of sources, or at that least is my hope. It's been a back and forth of your erroneously claiming something that a source says, and my pointing out what the source actually says. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Unfortunately in this case, HRW did not do fact checking. Maybe they have such a reputation in the year 2022, but what they did in this case in the 1990s was poor. That's already been discussed and pointed out ad nauseam." Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources that support your counter-factual WP:FRINGE views regarding Ba'thist Iraq, or your suggestion that HRW may be reliable on other topics but not on Ba'thist Iraq. Many scholars and experts lauded HRW's reporting both at the time and since, and HRW's main findings have been largely corroborated by Iraqi archives declassified since 2003 (as cited in the highest-quality academic scholarship available, such as A Poisonous Affair: America, Iraq, and the Gassing of Halabja and The Iran–Iraq War: A Military and Strategic History, both from Cambridge University Press). While academic consensus can change, there has been no sustained challenge to the credibility of "Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds" in mainstream academic or journalistic sources in recent years. You can repeat yourself "ad nauseam" about perceived weaknesses that you believe yourself to have found in the report, but unless you get published, this original research is not permissible in article space—period.

"From Razoux's book, support to Iraq amounted to $250 million in comparison." Please keep in mind that you are not dealing with someone unfamiliar with the literature. Anyone remotely familiar with the academic literature on the Iran–Iraq War would instantly recognize $250 million as the figure for direct U.S.-Iraqi arms sales during the war, which were quite rare. Nevertheless, we already know from senior Reagan administration NSC official Howard Teicher's testimony that "Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required" (p. 3) [emphasis added], and there is just no way that anyone informed about this factual record would accept clear misrepresentations like "the US was far more closely aligned with Iran" during the 1980s. Again, I don't know why you would assert something so counter to the reality documented by all reliable sources, but it won't work here. Even if all of the RS are somehow wrong, and senior Ba'thist official Tariq Aziz was telling the truth when he said that "the whole period before August 2 (1990) witnessed a negative American policy towards Iraq. ... Because the American tendency ... was to untie Iraq," Wikipedia still has to go with the reliable sources, rather than the perceived "truth" recounted by Aziz or by individual Wikipedia editors.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There are reliable sources, as already posted, showing how HRW's works in the 1990s were problematic and unreliable, including their collaboration with the US government to build a case against Iraq, and their information deriving from a militant group with no reliability. Your continued falsities on matters already discussed and resolved is WP:BLUDGEONING at this point. You have a tendency to go on circles on matters you were already proven wrong on. Meanwhile, you have shown nothing at all to prove the "reliability" of said reports.

And, you're clearly mistaken again, because in September 1988 the US Congress (both House and Senate) overwhelmingly voted for sanctions on Iraq, and were already publicly accusing Iraq of atrocities and other negative actions and media. [100] Your assertion claiming otherwise is clearly wrong, and the rest of your assertions and miscomprehension of literature are wrong, but unfortunately you insist on pushing WP:FRINGE theories like we've already proven earlier in this Talk page. Neither have you refuted at all the billions Iran was receiving annually from the US/Israel as already demonstrated. In fact, you conveniently ignored it because you know you're wrong. There's books such as Treacherous Alliance detailing the very close military, political, and economic relationship between the US, Israel, and Iran, including against Israeli and Iranian foes such as Hezbollah and Iraq, through the 1980s and beyond.

On topic, do you have any sources to support your claim that works produced in collaboration with a national government as part of a very overt political propaganda campaign, and whose bulk of claims derive from a violent militant group with a political wing, are reliable? You nor anyone has produced anything to date to support this WP:FRINGE claim. Would you say groups like the Free Syrian Army or Army of Islam are reliable if, hypothetically, HRW working with the US government took the bulk of information and and "interviews" organized and overseen by them as a basis for propaganda against the Syrian government to justify embargo and war? If not, then why do you hold this double standard? It looks like HRW has learned their lesson from before, which is exactly why they haven't engaged in this type of disingenuous behavior in Syria and other places since. I and other editors have pointed out why this is problematic already, so please refrain from going in circles. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As I'm sure that you already know, the Reagan administration's State Department opposed (and successfully lobbied against) congressional sanctions; it has long been clear that the publicly-released "intelligence" alleging partial Iranian culpability for Halabja was politicized as part of this effort (much like the subsequent Republican administration's PR campaign against Iraq during 2002–2003), as "CIA and military documents from this period (March 1988) do not even hint at this." Indeed, arguing with you on this point is like arguing with someone who still believes, in 2022, that there is substantial evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. Textbook WP:FRINGE.

Israeli support for Iran began in 1980 over strong U.S. objections; President Carter is famously said to have speculated that by supporting Iran (and thereby preventing an arms-for-hostages deal that might have resolved the Iran hostage crisis), Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was attempting to thwart Carter's re-election campaign. Given that U.S. and Israeli policy on the war were frequently at loggerheads, your conflation of "the US/Israel" as a single entity is merely a rhetorical slight of hand, and easily discarded. As someone familiar with the literature, I've certainly not seen the argument that the U.S., Iran, and Israel were all part of a vast conspiracy against the peace-loving regime in Baghdad in reliable sources. The willingness of the U.S. administration to excuse (and, again, even to blame Iran for!) the USS Stark incident certainly suggests otherwise, that is if we allow the factual record to shape our analysis rather than going in reverse.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You wrote this to not even address my previous comment. Anyways, you claimed that the US government did nothing against Iraq until 1990. I showed why you were wrong, with legislation voted on for the exact purpose of sanctions against Iraq, and your response was to write this comment casting aspersions and unrelated points. And yes, as previously pointed out and with regard to your ironic analogy, you have defended sources claiming that Iraq was tied to 9/11, and blog websites as "reliable sources" when fitting your claims, so at least now you're admitting your subscription to fringe theories. If this is an apology, I accept it. I know you can be better.

Assuming in good faith you won't go with an off-topic, sarcastic, demeaning comment again, I'll repeat myself, and try to answer this question. If you're unable to again, you will only be demonstrating further that goal of your editing here is disruptive, just like your original comment which was to do nothing but call me various insults such as Holocaust denier, and which other editors have asked you to stop doing.

Quoting: Do you have any sources to support your claim that works produced in collaboration with a national government as part of a very overt political propaganda campaign, and whose bulk of claims derive from a violent militant group with a political wing, are reliable? You nor anyone has produced anything to date to support this WP:FRINGE claim. Would you say groups like the Free Syrian Army or Army of Islam are reliable if, hypothetically, HRW working with the US government took the bulk of information and and "interviews" organized and overseen by them as a basis for propaganda against the Syrian government to justify embargo and war? If not, then why do you hold this double standard? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"you have defended sources claiming that Iraq was tied to 9/11". No, actually, I haven't, and I've already asked you to provide a diff substantiating this aspersion, which you still haven't done. Nobody called you a Holocaust denier; you're the one who falsely (and, again, without diffs) labelled me "a Stalinst genocide denier". That said, I would advise you to stop saying that the Halabja massacre was inflated by a factor of 50, because that's not supported by the sources and tends to invite comparison to other cases of atrocity denial/minimization. I won't respond to loaded questions or engage in WP:OR comparisons with you, because original research is not permissible in article space, but yes, I consider reports by HRW and Amnesty to be generally reliable, in agreement with Buidhe and the overall sitewide consensus. After all, it's not for individual volunteer editors like us to second-guess the sources in the interest of "truth".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember what I said about going in circles? You're doing it again. I've already explained all this with diffs, but you feel a profound need to WP:BLUDGEON the same things over and over again as if it will somehow make you right. Yes, you did call me a Holocaust denier[101] among other things and were called out for that and other insults by other editors, the last time you harassed me you called me a "small child" because you were upset your fringe theories were proven wrong[102], and other occasions of harassment before that in 2021 and 2020 with admin intervention to warn you. It was reported to ANI, and the extent of the poor behavior was to the point that admins escalated the ANI report to ArbCom.

One example regarding Stalin, you removed content and a source accusing Stalin of genocide and in your diff made an angry personal attack on the editor .[103] They rightly said you were being ham fisted in removing such content.[104]

And again you unfortunately cannot answer a few simple questions I've asked twice about why you believe that violent militia groups are reliable sources of information. It's not a loaded question. You know this fringe theory has no bearing but you don't want to admit to it. Disappointing to see you do exactly what I warned against in my last comment, but not unexpected.

--

@GregKaye, as you and other editors have pointed out on ANI and the Depp v. Heard Talk page, TheTimesAreAChanging engages in disruptive comments and editing, and has no admitted as much. As you know and also called out on this Talk page, his first comment in this Talk page was a litany of personal attacks and other slander, and completely off-topic. My thanks to TheTimes for the continued admission of this behavior. All I needed to know. I'll adhere to WP:DFTT and figuratively "stop feeding the troll". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

(While an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article, in light of arguments here presented, it's perhaps worth noting that TheTimesAreAChanging has history in defending sources, even extending to Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-a in Gawker (later repeated) and is also a staunch defender of one-off, not elsewhere quoted, opinion.)
Wikipedia (as an encyclopaedia) must be careful in presenting balanced information that for instance fits WP:NOTFALSE. I hope that a reasonable solution can be found for the presentation of, for the time period involved, the seemingly questionable HRW information. Perhaps a concise footnote on the reliability of HRW at this time might be in order. Good luck. GregKaye 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stay on topic, what have Israel, Menachem Begin, Carter's reelection campaign and Stalin to do in a discussion on Consensus of the Anfal campaign article. This is not WP:TPG, take editorial conflicts other than those in the Anfal campaign article to the corresponding or your personal talk pages. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

For my 2¢'s worth, I'd tend to favour the views of buidhe as of 18:47, 5 August 2022 above, to "not want information removed from the article, unless it has to go for conciseness reasons." That said, I'd hope that all reasonable argument might still be presented with regard to that information presented per MOS:INSTRUCT "Simply present sourced facts neutrally and allow readers to draw their own conclusions." I've found that footnotes can work in some circumstances. GregKaye 10:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works on Wikipedia. Removing poorly sourced content is typically seen as a good thing regardless of the subject matter. (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Gilgul Kaful, this comment does not add to the discussion, and it's casting false aspersions at buidhe and I. You're also making a false representation of what the removals were for. No, neither buidhe nor I were "removing information on the mass killings" in several edits buidhe made and a couple subsequent ones by myself. Please look through the discussion that buidhe and I had before and review WP:TPG before making ignorant accusations. Regardless of behavior, one-liners that do not add value to a discussion are not a good practice on Talk pages. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(Intervention adding template <small> to sections of Saucysalsa30's response to Gilgul Kaful. Comments about comments not adding to the discussion may be valid even while, themselves, not adding to the discussion. Let's all try[105] to keep/get our article talk pages to policy and on topic. GregKaye 11:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC))

Death toll

Is the death toll section still considered unbalanced? Numbers range between 50'000 and 182'000 and the sources mentioned are the Kurdish, the HRW and Kanan Makiya. Is there any other estimate needed? Else, I'd like to remove the tags. Thanks. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the origin of the death tolls come directly from vague "Kurdish leaders", taken up by Hiltermann/Black. It's all from the same viewpoint and original claim which is naturally unbalanced and repeating something also known as circular reporting, "where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source.". Were there other, especially independent, unpoliticized studies and information on death tolls, or first-hand information such the "dossier" that Black/Hiltermann were confident existed but unfortunately seems like Iraqi government records and studies turned up nothing of the sort, there would be more balance.

As buidhe and I pointed out in our discussion earlier, and others like Hiltermann have admitted, one of the issues with Anfal is there's little research done on it, and what was done was a report with deep involvement with the US government and a militant group. @Buidhe What do you think about this and the existing tags? Unlike your work on Seyfo which has hundreds of mutually exclusive, independent, unpoliticized works and studies on deaths, all we have regarding Anfal is a couple unsubstantiated figures from vague "Kurdish leaders" with HRW taking those up in a report relying on very unreliable information as previously discussed, followed by other sources mentioning the same since. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Circular reporting is possible but on the other hand all we can do is report what the best available sources say, with appropriate attribution. Removing tags (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that HRW is reliable with attribution, so there really is no basis in policy for tagging content sourced to it (or the "Death toll" section as a whole). Obviously, if there are reliable sources with different estimates, then they can also be cited (with attribution as needed). However, Wikipedia maintenance tags are ill-suited to resolve any real or perceived weaknesses with the underlying scholarship. To be sure, the scholarship might look substantially different (and be substantially stronger) in 50 years (or not—we don't have a crystal ball). However, Wikipedia articles can only ever be based on the sum of current knowledge in reliably published material, even if that knowledge is necessarily more limited on some topics than others. I agree with Buidhe's removal; the tags should not be restored without consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, buidhe. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am agreeing with most the statements made in comments above. Unfortunately I have to correct that it's not HRW originating these claims, and anyways individual works are to be considered which is part of RS policy, not considering everything from a given organization as a same level. There's substantial variation in quality. That is, it's not HRW we're discussing, but particular works, and more specifically, information that does not originate from HRW even. As discussed and sourced previously, it's a case where the best available sourcing for this is vague "Kurdish leaders" i.e. politicians involved in an armed conflict, to whom HRW attributes figures provided (both 182,000 and 100,000) and then Hiltermann/Black give a range from half of the latter up to it on no further substantiation. This being in a report where they got the bulk of their information from an unreliable militant/political group and done in tandem with the US government as a case against an enemy state, so the best sourcing we have is a case of self-admitted soapboxing on behalf of two political entities.

There have been sources including a few I posted that poke holes in the HRW report including among other things its parroting unreliable information fed to them by a government/political organization and its militant wing, so to call their writings on this topic as "reliable" is questionable and stretching at best. As noted in my last comment, even the firebrand on the subject matter states there's very little actual research or information on it other than the problematic report he was part of (that is, he means later works point back to it for such information and figures), and in literature to date, it's not so much a lack of interest as it is an inability to corroborate the more eyebrow-raising numbers and claims made by Resool and PUK/KDP to Hiltermann/Black and the US government. I agree that more scholarship is needed.

TL;DR: The best available sourcing we have is a politicized report whose numbers and information come mostly from an unreliable militant group taken at face value with involvement by a national government. From an academic standpoint (assuming others also have some background in academia, this is clear), it's egregious at best. My hope also is that there is more original, and for the first time independent and objective, scholarship on the topic and especially many of the claims and numbers so that there can be more of WP:NOTFALSE, but given the nature of the topic and the extent and degree some of the original claims, this may be unlikely. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

To contextualize, buidhe's commendable work on Seyfo would have been impossible if hypothetically like with this topic there was an original source (with involvement by a national government engaged in sanctioning and warring against Turkey) that said "Assyrian leaders say 1 million died" or "Assyrian leaders claim that a government official said 'It couldn't have been more than 750,000' so we'll give 700k-750k" along with, among some true uncontroversial things, a barrage of other outlandish claims and hyperbole provided by a hypothetical Assyrian militant group, with no other work nor deep independent research done on the topic regarding that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the various arguments above perhaps a wording such as either, "According to investigations conducted by Human Rights Watch" or "Investigations conducted by Human Rights Watch have indicated" might work, but even this may give too strong a presentation of the situation. In practice most of the action of HRW, in this situation, could better seem to fit a description of Human Rights (Ask and) Listen. The reporting wasn't direct and an indication of the information gathering process is warranted. Would "investigations" beneficially describe HRW actions or would another description better serve? A footnote on HRW's practices at the time could certainly be warranted. Subsequent wording should be of a form such as, "Kurdish officials have stated ..." as per MOS:CLAIM. GregKaye 12:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye You couldn't have put it better with "could better seem to fit a description of Human Rights (Ask and) Listen." The reporting wasn't direct and an indication of the information gathering process is warranted.. As already discussed, the deep politicization in the creation of the report and controlled information provided from an unreliable militant group taken at face-value and embellished upon limits the veracity and reliability of the report substantially. It's the kind of source that should either be used very carefully of which some progress has been made to making that clearer, or not at all, not unlike the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an organization that has given legitimacy for claims of varying degrees of extremity made by militant and opposition groups in neighboring Syria. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

On Randal

I think we can do better than what seems to be a travelogue published in 1997. Furthermore, there is nothing mysterious about the use of Islamic symbolism by Baath. It's well known that the Baath government embraced Islam more over time (well, maybe not known to Randal). The book comes with the following bizarre introduction: "This book is about the Kurds and Kurdistan, discussing Kurdish nationalist aspirations, the repeated Kurdish revolts, and the rogue chromosome in Kurdish genetics causes what Indians, with their love of fancy words, would call "fissiparous tendencies.""

Also, IDK why vague claims like "Some say the government chose the term" from the pbs documentary are helpful to our readers. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Randal has another redflag assertion made on the Wiki article, that the "jash" were told it was legal to steal livestock, money, weapons, and women."Jash (Kurdish collaborators with the Baathists) were told that taking cattle, sheep, goats, money, weapons and even women was halal (religiously permitted or legal).[better source needed]" Randal gets this from the 1993 HRW report from a single one of the controlled interviews, so with no actual substantiation for an extraordinary claim.

@Buidhe I'm noticing information you had removed before following discussions is getting added back in on the article. [106][107]. A couple of these statements had been added in another section in [108]. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30, I'm not particularly interested in any more unsourced/WP:OR walls of text from you, but please note that "There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts" per WP:RSP (which has been reaffirmed by several contributors here, Buidhe included) and that multiple editors have also accepted Kanan Makiya as an admittedly biased subject matter expert (yourself included, when you cited Makiya for statements that you agreed with), so there is no good basis for you to repeatedly remove content attributed to those sources with vague edit summaries (e.g., [109]; [110]) such as "Restoring last good version". When neither the facts, nor the sources, nor community consensus, nor local consensus is on your side, you really need to do better than that. If this content in particular is more problematic than other material from Amnesty/Makiya, it shouldn't be too much to ask for you to explain why.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, first, I've observed you have been edit warring on this article and have already engaged in 3 reverts in little over 24 hours [111][112][113] contrary to lengthy discussions and research, and with no explanation. Your edit warring revert was reverted, putting the WP:ONUS on you.[114]. Instead, you chose to continue edit warring, with a source referencing the same issue and original source @Buidhe and I have pointed out [115]. If you're not particularly interested (in constructive editing), you're more than welcome to disengage from this and other articles.

Secondly, 3 lines is not a wall of text, nor is there OR (this and more has been previously pointed out, sourced, etc), and the continual harassment, false accusations, and back-handed insults to myself, Buidhe, GregKaye, and others in this page are not welcome.

Thirdly, your activity on this Talk page started with very overt and unacceptable personal attacks [116] and have been called out as such by multiple editors, and continued with off-topic back-handed attacks like you make in this and plenty of other comments on this Talk page and disruptive edits on the article.

Fourthly, I'd be careful about painting wide brushes given for example it's already been established with sourcing and discussion that the HRW reports specifically around this topic have deep political interference, sensationalist, and not so reliable, but unfortunately it's all we, or anyone, has (and probably will ever, given the questionable nature of many of the details and claims), among other problematic sourcing, even if HRW is better than average on many other topics.

Fifthly, the facts, the sources, community consensus, local consensus have been 'on my side', to use that expression. Other editors are reverting your edits for being disruptive too.

And sixth, I and others have explained why already. Thanks! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

SAUCYSALSA is suggesting that the content about the jash should be attributed to the original source (the hrw report). This is not unreasonable imo.

Re Makiya, I don't see why his estimate needs to have a separate sentence in the death toll section. Unlike hrw, Hilturmann, or the Anfal victims committee, as far as I can tell, Makiya did not do any research on which an estimate might be based. We should cite + attribute the original source instead (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe, the content that you removed is "Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" in 1988. Kanan Makiya estimates that 1,276 Kurdish villages were destroyed in the course of the 1988 campaign (and 3,500 over the entire period 1968–1988)." I don't know if this was just an uncharacteristically careless mobile revert on your part, but your comment above ("about the jash") is not related to the content being disputed. Moreover, you are single-handedly responsible for removing/challenging all of the other sources discussing Kurdish villages ([117], [118], [119]), which is why Makiya was being used in the first place. (Also, Makiya had already been moved out of the "Death toll" section, contrary to your statement above—did you even look at what you were reverting?)

I don't know if you are fully aware of this, but over the course of several edits you have WP:BOLDly removed all article content concerning the destruction of Kurdish villages during Anfal—content that had been stable for well over a decade and which is considered essential to the topic—in a blithe, casual fashion, barely deigning to provide an explanation, despite dozens of sources attesting to the widespread destruction of infrastructure. You cherrypicked a few sources saying that the death toll was slightly exaggerated, and then proceeded to say, in effect, that "if the death toll was less than 70,000 yet the Kurds claimed over 100,000, then, by golly, we can't trust anything about villages destroyed, either!" Now, thanks to you, readers will come away thinking that zero villages were demolished—was that your intention? It reminds me of when you overstepped your expertise to turn the lede of Rwandan genocide into a mini-WP:COATRACK about how the death toll in that tragedy was also allegedly exaggerated (e.g., [120]), going beyond the summary style expected in the lede and unbalancing the article, all to make a largely unrelated point about how the Holocaust is the only "true" genocide. No matter how sincere you are in that view, editorial decisions like these undermine your credibility and diminish your (generally positive) reputation as an editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The solution is clear: find where Makiya got the information (I believe from the HRW report), cite and attribute that correctly. Although I would put village destruction in a separate section since it doesn't inherently involve death and in fact, according to Hiltermann, not all the Anfal campaigns involved killing of civilians.

I don't believe the Holocaust is the only true genocide and I ask that you focus on the content of the article, rather than editors. But if you're going to go there... the death toll of the Rwandan genocide being exaggerated by the Rwandan government for political ends is not controversial in RS sources and indeed the political use of the genocide merits mention in the lead of that article due to its long-term and ongoing significance.

Just because text has stayed in an article a long time does not mean it's policy compliant, correctly sourced, etc. Any editor can challenge material in good faith and WP:ONUS applies.

If there are specific removals that you disagree with, let's see if there is a better source for the information and we could attribute it to the original source. (t · c) buidhe 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe It appears they're continuing their edit warring to bring back Makiya's claim through another source. [121]. I checked the book and it rounds the "1,276" to "1200", then specifically has Makiya as one of its only couple references for that chapter. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Chronological error

@Buidhe, I mentioned this in earlier discussions but it may have been missed. The 2008 article by Hiltermann makes a verifiable error in claiming that the 1993 HRW report's casualty figures "relied on" a survey by the obscure "Committee for the Defence of Anfal Victims' Rights" or "Committee to Defend Anfal Victims' Rights". He says in the 2008 article that this group's survey was released in 1995, and that, contradictorily, the HRW's claimed figures relied on this. However, HRW's report was released in 1993, and republished in 1995 with the inclusion of another shorter report (Hiltermann says the same), and neither version include anything about this organization's survey or that HRW relied on this survey so the retroactive claim is strange. That is, Hiltermann is retroactively stating in error that the HRW report released in 1993 relied on a later survey from 1995, when no such claim is made in the report itself and is secondly chronologically wrong. To make matters worse, he makes out that the survey was under immense political pressure and that the number provided was still "low" enough such that the director was forced to leave the country. This information appears to be erroneous and problematic to leave in, where it is mentioned article in the article such as "This figure was based on an earlier survey by the Sulaymaniyah–based Kurdish organization Committee for the Defence of Anfal Victims’ Rights.". What are your thoughts on this, and more generally on Hiltermann given he and Black are the source of most of the problematic claims and information?

Also, information about Shorsh Resool, an officer at the time of the PUK organization and who individually is the source to HRW for many of the questionable statistics, was removed. Do you think this should be added back in some form or another given he's a key figure on this topic? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source that contradicts what Hiltermann is saying, I would assume that there is multiple reports / data coming from CDAVR. For example they may have shared some data with HRW and then published their final report later.

The article can incorporate information on Resool, provided it comes from a reliable source. I don't think that https://kurdistanmemoryprogramme.com/ counts as a reliable source on this topic. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe If we are to assume were multiple reports from CDAVR, where are they and why didn't Hiltermann mention this? If no such other surveys exist, how can we assume they do? Further can we assume this, especially given the highly controversial nature of the topic and how controversial and sensationalist Hiltermann's claims have been independently and with HRW?

Technically Hiltermann contradicts himself. He says a previous work contains and is even based on something, but it makes no mention of it. The only reference to a 100,000 that HRW makes its estimate on is based on the alleged statement provided by Kurdish leaders regarding Ali Al Majid. A more likely assumption is that Hiltermann made a statement in error, being 15 years after that work, and given his works independently and with HRW have been as discussed problematic.

Speaking on reliability, it's been established that Hiltermann is controversial at best, unreliable at worst. The HRW reporting on the topic is already problematic, but Hiltermann independently as in the 2008 write-up doesn't have the cover under HRW to grant him some form of reliability discussed earlier. Regardless of Hiltermann's (assuming Hanlon's Razor, honest) mistake, what do you think of also including his elaboration that the CDAVR survey was under political pressure and whose director had been punished for still providing too low of a figure, assuming the CDAVR information on the article isn't removed? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already attributed what Hiltermann says where necessary. If there are any criticisms of his reliability covered in RS they can also be covered in the article. Likewise for Resool as a source, it just needs a reliable source.

what do you think of also including his elaboration that the CDAVR survey was under political pressure and whose director had been punished for still providing too low of a figure, assuming the CDAVR information on the article isn't removed?

No objection assuming this can be worked in in a concise way (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe Fair point regarding attribution, despite Hiltermann's shaky reliability and a noted error on his part.

I did find something else in contradiction to his self-contradicting claim. From looking further, there's almost nothing available on this obscure CDVAR organization (can we take it reliably?). However this chapter, written by Choman Hardi, does at least contradict Hiltermann's claim that the HRW report was based on CDAVR. [122]. She describes the CDAVR survey as something independent of HRW's estimate, only noting that it is "consistent" with HRW and not that one was based on the other. The citation 50 is "50. Interview with Najmadeen Faqe Abdullah, Rotterdam, August 2006." Like in Gendered Experiences (remember the problematic writing there on Anfal?), you may notice after this part about CDAVR that she adds her own embellishment and shocking statements on pages 120-122 of the book I linked. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

RFC: Should the "Summary" section include the following information on Kurdish villages destroyed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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. ISBN 9780415944304. 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)
• Oppose Buidhe and other editors have pointed out why this and other information are problematic, such as here with a clear solution [123] and other discussions over the last month. Instead, of taking up WP:ONUS as requested [124] 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 [125], 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)

Discussion

It seems that other editors have asked me to do my own original research and "look into" the widely-accepted information from the academic literature. I do not see why that would be necessary in this (or any) case, since Wikipedia does not publish original research.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-addition of detention camps

I have re-added some detention camps which were removed by Buidhe asking for a better contextualization. I have just added the existence of the camps but not much on the detention conditions there. Anyone is welcome to reword the section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)