Talk:Anfal campaign

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 [1] and other discussions over the last month. Instead, of taking up WP:ONUS as requested [2] and looking into Makiya's claims, you instead counter-productively did the opposite, adding the Leezenberg source which does nothing more than references Makiya's same work Cruelty and Silence [3], just approximating the 1276 to 1200. This is in direct contradiction to previous discussion outcomes and is a case of false confirmation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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" [4] Another review of the same book goes further and shows that it contains "incompetence in the use and interpretation of evidence" and "reproducing numerical estimates made by individuals in circumstances where accuracy cannot be assumed". [5] Finally, another review describes Makiya usding a technique of "distortion and defamation" in the book as well as how it "suffers from inconsistency and superficiality" [6] There isn't reason to use an unreliable book like this directly or by citation from another work. Bershya (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)— Bershya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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.[7]

Considering your immediately preceding activity on this Talk page was to make false accusations and attacks on @Buidhe and myself, [8][9], that's a poor manner to go about making your "case". Buidhe has already demonstrated that the WP:ONUS is on you. Let's be reminded your first comment on this Talk page was a slew of off-topic personal attacks and defamation[10], and your Talk page comments, edit warring, and other disruptive editing has ever since followed this pattern. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"[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)."[11]

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

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

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 [12]. The points [120] and [121] were made by Buidhe in opposition to, not for, how TheTimes wants to add the information per this RfC, and echoed in their opposition [13] and mine. As you concur with Buidhe's points "I also do not see a problem with the linked [120] and [121]", this is what is being asked for, which TheTimes is not achieving with the way they're specifically proposing to introduce this information. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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 [14][15][16], 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 [17], believing Makiya may have gotten it from HRW [18], 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)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It was the Anfal Genocide and its been widely documented as such

this is whitewahsing and endorsing genocide denial of kurds in iraq and should be renamed as such Monochromemelo1 (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

80 villages destroyed in Anfal 2

US denial of genocide in support of Iraq to fight Iran? Vanisherman (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skitash (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

References