Talk:Anfal campaign

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)

Should go with the highly regarded track record of Human Rights Watch for that, as mentioned. The political interference argument doesn't make a lot of sense and approaches WP:OR, a 1993 report is way different than a 1990-1991 report or a 2002-2004 report. The 1993 report is being treated in this thread as if it was produced 1990-1991 or 2002-2004. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rauisuchian There's already been sources posted such as this [1] regarding political interference so it is not WP:OR. I'd recommend taking a look through the article and Talk sections instead of an individual comment.

The HRW work and missions started in 1991, according to their own report, so this confusing point around year is incorrect regardless. It's just that it was released in 1993. This kind of work doesn't happen and finish immediately.

How is the year relevant? Not understanding this point. It's also not "way different", because 1990-2003 (or more accurately, 1988-present) was all the same regarding this context. There's still reports adding research and claims regarding the Armenian genocide a century later. Well after the invasion of Iraq and clearing up beyond any doubt of "WMDs" with its top claimants, acclaimed books such as this[2] were pushing the conspiracy theory that all kinds of WMDs still existed and that they were moved to Syria. If you're unfamiliar with the history, the Gulf War wasn't the end of conflict between the US and Iraq. Iraq was under sanctions and no-fly zones, with regular US air and missile strikes and near-escalations. Political and media hostility between the US (and some other nations) and Iraq was very hot throughout this period. It got to a point that the US Congress passed an act in 1998 authorizing regime change in Iraq. 1990-2003 was one long period of the same, not different, but the year doesn't matter anyways. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:18, 30 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. [3][4]. A couple of these statements had been added in another section in [5]. 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., [6]; [7]) 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 [8][9][10] contrary to lengthy discussions and research, and with no explanation. Your edit warring revert was reverted, putting the WP:ONUS on you.[11]. Instead, you chose to continue edit warring, with a source referencing the same issue and original source @Buidhe and I have pointed out [12]. 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 [13] 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 ([14], [15], [16]), 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., [17]), 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. [18]. 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)

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 [19] and other discussions over the last month. Instead, of taking up WP:ONUS as requested [20] 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 [21], 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)

The article should not have a "summary" section. The lead is supposed to be the article summary, with other information being contained in specific body sections under topical names.

I oppose inclusion of this information as written, since the source says it's an estimate, we should cite the original source and attribute to who made the estimate originally. I see no evidence that this figure is commonly accepted by reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of text as fitting policy per WP:V. Haven't gone through the entire Talk page argument, but when I saw the revision history it looked like major points were being removed for no reason. I don't see why not to cite and potentially attribute as many academic sources as possible. I also do not see a problem with the linked [120] and [121] revisions (as they display right now, the ones two comments above). If Makiya has a specific POV, then attribute and give description of his POV attribution instead of wikivoice, that takes care of any issue. If the issue is bigger take it to reliable sources noticeboard. Cite and attribute multiple estimates if desired. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose(Summoned by bot) oppose as written, since the source says it's an estimate, we should cite the original source and attribute to who made the estimate originally. per Buidhe. There appears to be sufficient doubt about the reliability of the source to handle it with care and no good reason to not use and attribute the original estimator. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose based on discussions in this Talk page section and others favoring not to include this content and source and this analysis Talk:Anfal campaign#On Makiya and villages. Other editors showed the Century Of Genocide book's claim about 1200 Kurdish villages being destroyed is sourced from Makiya's book, Cruelty and Silence without any elaboration or substantation of the number. Makiya's admits in his book that it is not reliable. He says in Cruelty and Silence that it is a "polemic" which was "never about scholarship in the first place" [22] Another review of the same book goes further and shows that it contains "incompetence in the use and interpretation of evidence" and "reproducing numerical estimates made by individuals in circumstances where accuracy cannot be assumed". [23] Finally, another review describes Makiya usding a technique of "distortion and defamation" in the book as well as how it "suffers from inconsistency and superficiality" [24] There isn't reason to use an unreliable book like this directly or by citation from another work. Bershya (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)— Bershya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

It is your own original research to claim that this is "widely-accepted information", so you more or less settled this RfC with this admission. A single, extreme, uncorroborated claim by a controversial ideological war advocate whose works have been described as "libel" and has admitted in published work to using "stories and rumours" with no "further basis in fact", referenced by another source at face value is the opposite of "widely-accepted information". You've previously championed claims originating with violent militant groups as factual and reliable in this Talk page, and a few other editors have spent lots of time explaining to you why that's very mistaken. When sources or individuals are consensually demonstrated as questionable and unreliable as has been done in this Talk page especially on particularly problematic details around this topic, your response had been to continue find a source directly referencing what already was agreed to be problematic.[25]

Considering your immediately preceding activity on this Talk page was to make false accusations and attacks on @Buidhe and myself, [26][27], that's a poor manner to go about making your "case". Buidhe has already demonstrated that the WP:ONUS is on you. Let's be reminded your first comment on this Talk page was a slew of off-topic personal attacks and defamation[28], and your Talk page comments, edit warring, and other disruptive editing has ever since followed this pattern. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"[Makiya's] works have been described as 'libel'." Really? By whom? You're probably the only person in the world who thinks this (and you've accused me of "slander" or "libel" 17 times on this talk page alone, so please stop making legal threats). Obviously, you're free to believe whatever you want, but you really should not expect Wikipedia to mirror a super-specific and super-WP:FRINGE personal view such as, e.g., "Makiya's academic/journalistic works libeled the avowedly 'just but firm' ruler Saddam Hussein". (Besides, Makiya is only one of a long, long list of academic sources that you have rejected based on your WP:OR, which is why I tried yet another academic source in this RfC.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The continued sarcasm and false accusations are only proving further that this style of editing is highly disruptive. For one, Makiya himself admits to that, and when he writes in his own book that it is filled with misinformative "stories and rumours" with no "further basis in fact", and as Buidhe has pointed out not an indication of having done research, that's a very poor option. Makiya is not hiding that or claiming otherwise. Makiya has come under fire by globally renowned intellectuals and academics like Said and strongly held criticized delusions demonstrating how little he knew and how out of touch with the country he was such as his "sweets and flowers" statement, was a friend and ally with US neoconservatives planning and executing the Iraq War such as Wolfowitz, a close colleague and supporter of the infamous Ahmad Chalabi (a wanted thief before the Iraq War, and ran a murderous militia following the invasion), and is of course most famously known for his zealous warmongering. Makiya was shockingly silent on the new sectarian and authoritarian rule running death squads under whose rule the same countries that had set up this new rulership estimated over a million civilians to be killed by mid-2007 alone.

Here's a relatively recent (relative because Makiya's works for his war advocacy go back to the late 80s and 90s) example: "Makiya was a former Trotskyite. An Iraqi expatriate, he wrote a book about life under the Ba’th, and, according to him, submitted it to fifty-nine publishers, all of whom turned it down. The book was a magpie’s nest of every libel ever circulated about the Ba’th.10 It contained gruesome accounts of all sorts of alleged crimes (some I’d encountered in my job at Langley, where the tendency was to discount them, as none could be substantiated)."[29]

Are you implying it's a super-WP:FRINGE personal view, to give a couple similar better-known examples, to say that Iraq did not have WMDs and was not behind bin Laden and 9/11, and not fringe or libelous at all to claim they are true despite no corroboration for these claims, for no other reason because of the country it's directed at? This logic is very conspirational, and expresses a strong political bias that is not satisfactory for editing on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BIAS and WP:NOTOPINION.

Given all of the above and elsewhere on this Talk page, the one original source for your claim is one that has been consensually deemed problematic at best by a very controversial, even self-admitted misinformative, individual, and another work with nothing more than a single sentence referenced from Makiya. That isn't a "long, long list". That's one original source for this claim that has been discussed as problematic with Buidhe providing a clear solution, which you are yet to follow. I and others in this Talk page have pointed out this problematic editing style and Talk page comments multiple times, but unfortunately this is a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I should add that Century of Genocide making a single statement referencing from the problematic Makiya's work is not by Leezenberg, Michiel as you write. It's by Samuel Totten, William S. Parsons, Israel W. Charny. You're asking us to talk about a source that I clearly did more looking into than you had, as demonstrated here and by that you were unaware that it referenced Makiya until I pointed it out. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not going to feed the troll, but when citing book chapters, we list the author of the chapter (i.e., Leezenberg), not the editors of the book. The more you know! Now please drop your WP:BLUDGEON and let the community weigh in.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And there it is again with another juvenile response, instead of addressing points refuting false claims. Considering I, buidhe, and others refuted your points and back-handed insults throughout the Talk page, and more correctly the oobsessive WP:BLUDGEONING regarding this point against consensus and to the extent of attacking multiple editors for no other reason but pointing out your original research and disruptive editing. There is no "long, long list" of anything on this as pointed out by multiple editors. There's no use in being disingenuous to try to bludgeon a point, among other false points and accusations made. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I am certainly for the inclusion of a phrase on the destruction of the villages but this in the lead which is the section that should summarize the article. Seeing the opposition I suggest expanding on the destruction of villages for the moment. I hope for @TheTimesAreAChanging:, that this is less time-consuming than arguing about the inclusion of one phrase in a certain section. See Destruction of Kurdish villages during the Iraqi Arabization campaign for inspiration. It is referenced mainly to George Black, but it also held new info to me.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rauisuchian Hello, just wanted to clarify a few things. The Talk page sections are long but nothing was removed for "no reason". I should also mention that @Buidhe in particular is one of the most experienced editors on such contentious topics so characterizing as "no reason" is not correct. I'd suggest taking a look at the Featured and Good Articles here [30]. The points [120] and [121] were made by Buidhe in opposition to, not for, how TheTimes wants to add the information per this RfC, and echoed in their opposition [31] and mine. As you concur with Buidhe's points "I also do not see a problem with the linked [120] and [121]", this is what is being asked for, which TheTimes is not achieving with the way they're specifically proposing to introduce this information. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thanks @Paradise Chronicle. Demonstrably, Buidhe does not remove content without good reason. @Buidhe, are you fine with these edits[32][33] in part bringing back a topic you had removed?[34] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

On Makiya and villages

I looked into the source so we can put this issue to rest without the beating around the bush by an editor bludgeoning it for inclusion. As @Buidhe correctly observed, there isn't indication of Makiya having done research on which his claimed figure of destroyed villages is based in Cruelty and Silence and that there isn't evidence of being commonly accepted [35][36][37], especially given such a strong claim by Makiya on a very controversial subject (Anfal). Following various discussions and consensus, Buidhe advised for the original source to be provided [38], believing Makiya may have gotten it from HRW [39], but this is not the case. The problem is that Makiya is the original source of this claim, and without indication of having done research as previously noted by editors.

After checking the source, Makiya says the "1276" is his figure according to himself based with no further explanation, description of details or research, or reference. It's clear TheTimesAreAChanging knows this, explaining forgoing to point this out and the reluctance to engage constructively with other editors on the topic. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)