Talk:Yazidis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Yazidi or Yezidi

In the Kurdish language (Latin script), this word is written as Yezîdî. Its transliteration into English would be Yazidi. The Yazidis themselves prefer the former, since it is in Kurdish-Latin script.

Heja Helweda 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How is Yezidis treated? -- Lupinoid

The Yezidi have a history of being persecuted - often due to the mistaken belief that they worship Satan. As far as I know, there is no history of them being persecuted in recent times, although I imagine that in Iraq they, along with Iraqi Christians, are rather worried about the possibility of Islamic fundamentalists coming to power. -- Michael Voytinsky

Its not a mistaken belief they admit to worshiping saten.The same angel that rebelled agenst god in all three abrahmic religions, only differance is they say it was done out of love rather than pride. The peacock refers to saten going back into heaven,hidden in the feathers of a peacock to decieve adam into eating the forbiden fruit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.35.69 (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2007

The connection of the Yazidis to the Ummawiy khalif Yazid is a common folk etymology, but almost certainly false. The Pahlavi (Ancient Persian) word for angel is "yazd", an element common, for example, in the names of Sassanian shahs, such as the three Yazdegerds. The Kurds are a Persian speaking people with strong Persian cultural ties predating the rise of Islam and the Arab ascendance in the Middle East and the name most likely arises from this background.

I will change the article accordingly. If this is problematic for anyone, please talk to me before editing. Thanks. Ddama

As far as I know, Kurds arenot persian speaking. Their language is Kurdish, which has some common roots with persian, but it isnot intelligible to persians nowadays. Heja Helweda 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heja is right, Kurds do not speak persian but kurdish. they have their own language and culture. However, kurdish has close ties to persian, arabic and turkish 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

What's the deal with Yazidi vs. Yezidi? It just sounds like a transliteration difference to me and not a plural pattern in either Arabic or Medieval or Modern Persian. Further, the 'Yazidi' themselves seem to prefer the Yezidi pronunciation.

I am removing the claim that Yezidi is plural. However, I would like a consensus of contributors to this article before changing every use of Yazidi in this article and the entire Wiki to Yezidi. Please let me know if this is a problem. I probably won't be making the change for some time, at least a month, so I hope everyone has a chance to respond.

Thanks. Ddama

I don't agree that any such changes should be made until we have some documentation (a citation?) one way or the other. IMO lack of info isn't a good reason to change article content. On the other hand I have no info to offer on the subject, just my opinion as I have stated it :) Sam Spade 04:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm not sure which of the two changes you're referring to, although I guess I didn't distinguish them very well in my prior talk entry.

If you refer to the change on plurals, I'm reasonably comfortable with Arabic, a language with pluralization rules so complex that linguists coined the term "broken plural" to describe them, but I don't really know Persian. From what I've seen, Persian plurals are traditionally formed by adding an -an to the end of the word in Pahlavi (Middle Persian), which evolved into -ha in Parsi (Modern Persian). Persian also accepts some Arabic plurals, due to cultural exposure, but uses them weirdly. If the word falls into this category, or some weird category of Persian loanwords in Arabic that pluralize even more abnormally than usual, or one of the many ways that Kurdish differs from mainstream Persian, than I may be wrong. However, I would err on the side of needing to see positive proof for such a claim, rather than negative proof that it does not exist.

If you refer to whether this article and all of Wikipedia should refer to Yazidi or Yezidi, it is not the biggest deal, and is likely only a transliteration issue. However, both of the external links in this article, which point to Yezidi webpages, use the term Yezidi. Further, the unscientific, but generally accurate, technique of polling Google showed three times more hits on Yezidi than Yazidi. Also note that a significant number of the Yazidi hits come from sites that mirror or filch from Wikipedia, and should thus be regarded statistical noise.

I'm not absolutely sure the change is the correct thing to do, but I definitely feel the issue should be raised. Wow... ten minutes ago I didn't even realized I had any feelings at all on the issue ;)

Regards. Ddama

Hehe.. I still almost don't. I just liked the idea of such an unusual plural, and I have seen it spelled the one way, and also the other. Considering how insular the Yezidi are, its entirely possible they have evolved their own curious variations on typical kurdish pluralizations, but if they did I can't imagine how it would be transliterated to being the difference of a or e in that way. I guess my main point is that I'd like it to be true, even tho I doubt it is, and I appreciate you bringing it up since it is such an odd particular. Cheers, Sam Spade 08:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Only few refugees in Germany?

I have read somewhere that actually the largest community of Yezidi is now in Germany, similar to the Alewis. This is maybe hard to confirm. Cheers, Gerhard

Adam

The article says they claim descent from Adam only. Would I be correct in the assumtion that they believe that there exist people not descended from Adam? --Tydaj 01:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read that they believe all non-Yezidi to be descended from Adam and Eve. Only the Yezidi are descended from Adam alone. Xnoubis

Beliefs: How many angels again?

There is possibly conflicting information on display under Religious Beliefs. In paragraph one, it says that the world is in the care of a "Heptad of seven Holy Beings, often known as Angels", but in paragraph 3, it says that God created Melek Ta’us (interesting that compared to paragraph 1, this being's name has an apostophe), the pre-eminent of the Holy Beings (paragraph 1), and "the other seven archangels were created later on." Uhhh, now hang on. That would mean there is EIGHT of these beings. Should that say "the other SIX archangels"? Aragond 12:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is an apparent disjoining in paragraph 3 regarding the refusal by Melek Ta’us to bow to Adam. Earlier in the chapter, "God ordered Melek Ta’us not to bow to other beings." but then apparently God inquired of Melek Ta'us why he wasn't bowing, to which the Holy Being said his bit. This COULD be just an inconsistency (so to speak, without wanting to offend any Yazidi amongst the readership) in the texts of belief or God just testing Melek Ta'us, OR (and here is my question) someone is transcribing incorrectly. Can I get a witness confirmation that it is one or t'other?

No tears?

In earlier versions of the Yazidi article, I read the following:

"According to the Yazidi, Malak Ta'us is a fallen peacock angel who repented and recreated the world that had been broken. He filled seven jars with his tears and used them to quench the fire in Hell."

I realize that the current article describes Malak Ta'us as the leader of archangels and not a fallen angel, but why has the tears part been omitted from the current version? Was this false or just accidentally deleted out of the article? Thanks, Crushed Obsidian 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing out anecdotal information.

I don't know enough about the subject to be able to make corrections but the additions to beliefs strike me as being overly POV, anecdotal and confusing.

For example: Allah is characterized by ninety-nine [99] names, amoung them "the tyrant"&"the wily One".Certain qualities associate by Christians with "evil" are thus divinized by the Quran as attributes of God's majestic or "terrible"aspect.In this context,Satan cannot aspire to a separate or substantial autonomy-hispower cannot oppose Allah's but must instead derive from & complemeny it.Islam admits no 'original sin",only forgotfulness of the Real;likewise,cosmos/nature cannot be considered "evil" in itself,since it is a reflection or aspect of the Real. David Cheater 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The section you deleted was badly proofread and seemed to be cut and pasted from a website (copyright?). I would have delete it myself but I didn't want to interfere in something I also know little about. Castanea dentata 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tattoos

We were talking about this religion in our class and we brought up the point that Kurds would have tattoos of the peacock angel on their necks, but I do not believe that this is possible since the religion was persecuted and the followers did not want to give away their identity. Sandy June 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yazidi

Yes Yazidis do consider Zoroastrain as originally Yazidi. It is not a surprise; every religion has its own beliefs. http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_3218.shtml 66.79.163.189 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that source reads "It is even possible as Yazidi say that Zoroaster was a Yazidi." but it also says ". "Others say that their religion come from Zoroastrians." Every religion has its own beliefs, but these seem to be rather personal beliefs which have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Plus thats not an academic article, infact I dont know what it is -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica and Plagiarism

A large section of this article is lifted verbatim from a recent edition of the Encyclopedia Iranica. While the Iranica project allows free viewing, I belive that they have not surrendered copyright and the material is not in the public domain. This is a potential problem for WP.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the Iranica article's claim that the consensus of modern scholars is that the name Yezidi comes from Yazid I is utter and complete bunk and I will take it up with the editor when I have a chance. If no one here objects within the next week, I will change the entry. Ddama 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ddama, you should just change it when you have the time, if its in someone elses work. Who added the stuff that was lifted from it? I agree with the idea that their name is from Yazid I, to think that he ran off and ends up amoung kurds in what was old assyria and convinces them to worship a peacock god out of nowhere is....odd, to say the least Nygdan 1-18-2006

Discussion of the See Also Information

The druze and kizilbash aren't related to the yezidis anymore than the zoroasterians. I'd think that it'd make sense to include under 'see also' groups that are similar to the yezidis, no? nygdan 1-22-06

I assume they're included because they're minority indigenous religious groups of the middle east. Tomer^talk 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tshilo: that and also that they have paganistic roots. These groups or at least portions of these groups, are similar to the yezidis, in so far as they have 'adopted' islamic ideas and added it to their native religion. The yezidis have only a veneer of islam covering them, the kizilbash of cappodocia are noted as having paganistic rites and practices (very similar to the ones practed in the same region before the advent of islam), and the alawis' theology is, in essence, a stellar cult with neoplatonic influences, indeed, another name for them, the nosairi (and variations there of), are what the pre-islamic religions of that same region were once called. So its all part of this idea of cypto-paganism Nygdan 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry and previous comments mention Yezidi come from Persia. Did they originally come from Yazd (Yezd), Iran?

Yazidism and Zoroastrianism

Funnily enough the sources of this "legend" do not seem to talk about this legend!

First source says: "Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion; the Kurds are also Iranian"

How does this support the section where it says "According to a Yazidi legends Zoroaster was a Yezidi who left them."?!

Second source is the same as the first source. However it is being treated like it is an important legend which has been put on this article even though it is totally un-important and it is contradictory to Zoroastrian's beliefs -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It may very well contradict Zoroastrian belief, but this page is about Yazidi belief. Please don't delete entire sections until a consensus is reached on the talk page first.--WilliamThweatt 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter if it is or not. Read my above statement to understand that such thing may don't even exist, or if it does, its not a legend with such importantance to be mentioned on Wikipedia. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yazidi Legends are worth mentioning on this page. It may not be important from your personal point of view (or Zoroastrian for that matter) but from a Yazidi point of view it is important, since that's how they understand and intrepret the history of their faith.Heja Helweda 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to understand, your source does NOT claim that it is a legend. Stop adding it to the article -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

temple picture

the temple picture ("40 men")seems to be missing from commons. --Vindheim 10:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yezidis

Thia article covers Yezidis as adherents of a belief not as a separate ethnic group. In Armenia they are counted officially on the census and regarded as a separate ethnic (not religious) group separate from Kurds.--Eupator 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources for this? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the following personal comments from Rafael1930 (talk · contribs) here - Skysmith 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in Kurdistan, north west Iraq, not far from the Iranian border, in the camp of Mustapha Barazani (Pesh Merga)in the winter of 1966-7. There were poeple who called themselves Yazidis among the Kurds we (Israel) helped in several ways. Detailed description of this help can be found in two Hebrew book:

• 1.Tsafrir Eliezer (Geizi) Ana Kurdi (I am a Kurd)

Hed Arzi Publishing House, Or Yehuda 60376 Israel 1999

• 2. Nakdimon Shlomo: A Crashed Hope: The Israel Kurdish relations, 1963 - 1975. Miscall 1996.

I was an MD with the Israeli delegation & became very friendly with the locals. Some of them, Yazidi, told me that they worshipped Shaitan, but this, according to literature above might have been derived from Zeus. Others told me they were of Ashoori origin. They definitely had Hebrew sounding names, such as Itzhak, Yakoob & one was called Kaissar. They had European looking faces. At that time I kept a detailed diary, but it was lost over the years. I do, however, have photos, copies of which can be displayed. In their book Williams, Kayla, and Michael E. Staub. 2005. "Love My Rifle More Than You." (W.W. Norton, New York. ISBN 0393060985) I remember to have read, among other things, that the Yazidi sympathize Israel. The above might explain this point. At the moment I'm unable to find the exact reference. Dr. Rafael Springmann-Ribak, formerly Springmann, 6 Klee Street, Tel Aviv 62336, Israel

SUCH AN LIAR! The yazidis never say the word "sheytan" it is like spitting them in the face. And i have never heard any shit of what you are writing. YOu know that according to their beliefs, if you say sheytan in front of a yezidi, he must either kill the one who said "sheytan" or kill himself. And Shaytan hasn't arrived from Zeus, it's the arabic word for Satan. And they have nothing to do with AShoris, and i have never seen a yezidi with Hebrew names....

Move from Yazidi to Yezidi

I don't know how the article originally got its name, but in Armenia this group is always referred to as Yezidi. The Yezidi in Turkey apparently spell it Yezidi, and on google, there are 3 times more references to Yezidi than Yazidi. I think it only makes sense to move the page to Yezidi, and make Yazidi (if anyone is spelling it based on how it sounds) point to Yezidi. Votes, thoughts, comments, objections? --RaffiKojian 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Both words have the same spelling, but in two different alphabets. Yazidi is the transliteration of the local name in English alphabet, while Yezidi(or more correctly Yezîdî pronounced as YAZEEDEE ) is the Kurdish spelling. E in Kurdish Latin alphabet has the same sound as A in FAT. So sometimes, Kurds who write in English, use the Kurdish spelling, and others may have copied from them.Heja Helweda 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Tears

In a section above someone asked why a legend about Satan putting out the fires of hell with 7 jars of tears was removed. I just came to this article because someone in my college classes mentioned this story, and there is still nothing about it. Let's discuss this issue. Academic Challenger 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That story is repeated at Melek Taus. I've heard it mentioned often, but I've never found a source for it. I've read the Black Book, and it's not in there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yazidi/Yazdanism?

The claim that Yazidism is a minor branch of "Yazdanism" I have never seen made in any other article or text outside of wikipedia. This claim needs a citation to substantiate it. This appears to be a leap in trying to connect the Yazidi religion with other isolated Kurdish/Middle Eastern faiths. The Alevi faith I have also never seen connected with "Yazdanism" but only viewed as an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and there seems to be nothing in common with their beliefs at all and those of Yazidis or Yarsans. Yarsans and Yazidis seem to have some commonalities in their beliefs, ie, the various avatars and beings associated with God and the universe; beyond these however, it seems that the claim of these religions having some common origin is, for the most part, complete speculation based on the proximity of their geographic origins along with the isolation they all share in common in a mostly Islamic region.--Masterryux 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually read it in several places, but I haven't really looked on the internet. The idea is that there was once a widespread, Kurdish-based faith centered on the worship of the angels. With the rise of Islam most converted, the ancestors to today's Yezidi did not, and still others incorporated their old practices into their new religion. This is what the Alevi did. I don't think it's fair to count them as a "branch" of Yazdanism, since they are practicing Muslims, but their ancestors were and their current practices retain traces of that. I'll try to find the books I found that in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kayla Williams' account

I have removed from the paragraph on Kayla Williams' account the statement that the shrine she visited was the Chermera Temple-- it may well have been (the photo looks similar to one in her book), but Williams makes no claim to that effect, and if an editor thinks that it was, some verifiable source should be provided. Further claims about the temple being related to Jesus I have separated as a distinct paragraph-- these claims are not in Williams' book. In fact, these claims are utterly unsourced, and my first inclination was to remove them. However, much of the article is unsourced, and a consistent application of that policy would leave a much shorter article. MayerG 03:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiz-Les-Loo

• Does this supposed Yazidi "fighting ritual" or martial art, "...that most efficient form of jujutsu", really exist? Is it documented in any credible reference sources on the Yazidis?

For anyone who is baffeld by this, Fiz-Les-Loo was mentioned by Gurdjieff. - - - Hmm, haha :P. I've never heard of it (im not yezidi though). Well kurds are famous for being good fighters, but i don't think there is a special fighting system, it's mostly "free style". --Kurdalo (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien

The Yazidi beliefs seem to bear a striking similarity to Tolkien's Silmarillion. Is there any connection?

• In what way? - Skysmith 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

????1Z 09:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article larger than the Yazdansim article?

Shouldn't quite a bit of this be there and not here? Zazaban 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what, stuff from all three articles on the denominations should be moved there. Zazaban 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is dishonest

The article leads one to believe that the description of the Yazidi as Satan-worshipers or devil-worshipers is utterly erroneous: "Pre-eminent among these is Melek Taus (Tawûsê Melek in Kurdish), the Peacock Angel, who is equated with Satan or Devil by some Muslims and Christians. According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, "The reason for the Yazidis reputation of being devil worshipers, is connected to the other name of Melek Taus, Shaytan, the same name as the Koran's for Satan."[2] However, according to the Kurdish linguist Jamal Nebez, the word Taus is most probably derived from the Greek and is related to the words Zeus and Theos, alluding to the meaning of God. Accordingly, Malak Ta'us is God's Angel, and this is how Yezidis themselves see Melek Taus or Taus-e-Malak ([3], page 21)."

Though well-intentioned, this is a complete sacrifice of truth to what the writer considers to be good public-relations for a minority religious group. It is no linguistic mix-up that has led to the Yazidi association with "devil worship". As John Bruno Hare writes in his foreword to "The Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yezidiz" by Isya Joseph, "[...] it would be intellectually dishonest to try to gloss over the devil-worship aspect, and to do so is to miss one of the things that make Yezidi beliefs so unique and worth studying. First of all one must put aside preconceived notions as to what 'devil-worship' means. As Joseph says (p. 155) "It is interesting to note that, in the history of religion, the god of one people is the devil of another." Their cosmology is so radically different from the dominant paradigm that it is hard to translate the concepts. The Yezidis believe in a single creator, who created a set of other deities which could be just as well be called demons, angels, or gods. The primary one of these, and the one that the Yezidi worship, is called Melek Ta`us, who is represented as a peacock. One scholar (whom Joseph disagrees with) traces this name to that of Tammuz, the ancient Syrian deity. Joseph states, and most other scholars would agree, (p. 148) "[Melek Ta`us] denotes the devil and nothing else. This is so clear to the Yezidis, or to anyone acquainted with their religion, as to leave no need for further discussion". So why do they worship the devil? In some polytheistic religions good and evil deities are worshipped equally; the good gods so that good things will happen, and the evil ones also are propitiated so that bad things won't happen. The Yezidi theology differs in that God is so good that he has no need of worship; the Devil is sort of a firewall between this imperfect world and the perfection of the supreme being. This is similar to the Gnostic concept that God, being purely good, had to create a set of intermediaries, the Aeons, so that they could create a world which includes evil."

Lacking the time to do it myself, I hope someone revises the article as needed. JDG 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is true, as you write, that one group's god is another group's devil, you will still by using the word "devil-worship" side with one group against another, i.e. you take a stance anti-yezidi. Labelling them "satanist" as you seem to want begs the question: do they worhip what they themselves perceive as evil ? If not, that label is utterly false and misleading. --Vindheim 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two valid arguments here. On the one hand, there is a lot of evidence to show that the Yazidi deity is historically identified with the "Satan" of Christianity or Islam (perhaps influenced by Gnostic or early heterodox Christian traditions). On the other hand, the Yazidi see this deity as benevolent rather than as an evil, corrupting figure. I think it's probably a bad idea to use the word "Satanist" to describe them since that's such a loaded word for most readers. Hopefully there's a way to describe the historical connection between their deity and the Christian Satan, while emphasizing the completely different moral dimension. I think it's instructive to look at the article on Mandaeism, another minority religion of the Middle East: in that religion, Jesus (the Christian Messiah) is seen as a false prophet or even a malevolent figure... it's clear that different religious groups made can make different judgments about deities and leaders that they share. MOXFYRE (contrib)

"who created a set of other deities which could be just as well be called demons, angels, or gods"

Or Archons, as in Gnosticism.1Z 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't deal with the dishonesty of the article. It presents the 'devil-worshipper' view as a misunderstanding. However, it is not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement. The Yazidi tradition clearly relates to the Jewish/Christian/Islamic tradition, and the Peacock Angel clearly relates to the Fallen Angel/Lucifer figure. The writing of this article is - very understandably - trying to deny this obvious fact and it provides the motivation for persecution. This is not valid for an encyclopedia and in the real world counterproductive, since the fanatics know the facts anyway.--Jack Upland 08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no dishonesty. Yazidis are not devilworshippers, Though Melek Tawus may be identified with SH**TAN, he is not identified with evil, and the implication of the word "devilworshipper" is precisely this: worshipping what is perceived as evil. Many christians consider Allah to be Satan. That does not make muslims into devilworshippers.--Vindheim 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That comment just demonstrates ignorance. Arab Christians worship "Allah" too (it's just Arab for "God" - cognate with Hebrew Elohim). It's also evasive: the issue isn't whether "devilworshipper" is an appropriate term or whether the Yazidi are in favour of evil (or even if they are evil). The issue is being honest about the history of the religion. The religion is an offspring of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam matrix with their "deity" being an interpretation of Satan in this tradition. Similarly Jews and Christians have a different interpretation of the Messiah; Easter is a radical reworking of the Passover; Muslims venerate Jesus as a prophet, not the Son of God; the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran cover the same narratives with different emphases and interpretations etc, etc, etc. Wikipedia is about being correct, not being nice.--Jack Upland 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to write weather if the muslims or christians sees them as bad. THE YEZIDIS THEMSELF DONT SAY "we worship "sh*ytan", THEY SAY WE WORSHIP 1 GOD, BUT MALAK TAWUS IS NOT A DEVIL. It shouldnt be written "they are devil worshippers" cause thats what you christians and muslims see about them. If i consider myself to be the blasphemous, mocking, scoffing fool I actually am... then, would you believe my abominable LIES??? --Kurdalo (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously missing the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent History NPOV?

The first sentence of the Recent History section, listing allegations of Yazidis maneuvering against the Kurds, appears to be exactly what the following sentences imply came from the Baathists - propaganda. I am by NO means an expert on this, and don't presume to be correct, this is simply something that seems to be a fairly strong statement to be making without a citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.184.208 (talk) 05:30, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Concerned with purity eh?

http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htm

Geez. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.152.171.153 (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

This image?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69277150@N00/409282484/

Would this be good for the article? gren グレン 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

a discussion in Lalish

I had the opportunity to visit the Yazidi community in Lalish, Kurdistan in November 2007. I spent close to two hours visiting the shrine and community. Our young guide was a member of the community and very kind to answer our questions. When I asked him "Who do the Yazidis worship?" He very simply answered "Allah". When I further asked "Who is Allah to you (the Yazidis)?" He responded with, "He is the Only God, the same God of Muslims, Christians, and Jews." He continued on to explain Malik Ta'us as the prince of the seven angels. When I asked if they worship Malik Ta'us, he said "No, we worship Allah." He kindly showed me each room of the shrine including the tomb of Sheik Adi and the holy baptismal room where a spring of water comes out of the ground. I was invited to stay for the daily lighting of the 365 lights in the shrine from 3:30 to 5 pm when the entire community comes to pray. I found the Yazidi community to be very kind and welcoming. They were more than willing to allow me to take photographs and ask questions. When I visited Lalish I had no idea how few Yazidis there were in the world. I do not know if the conversation I had with my guide is representative of all Yazidis, from what I read it seems it is not, but I know the young man was speaking from some level of authority as a believer of his faith. Occidentally East 10:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask them whether they view themselves as Kurds or as separate ethnic group? --Koryakov Yuri 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurds are essentially a linguistic group, speaking a language radically different from Arabic. The Yazidi follow an interpretation of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, worshipping Allah but appeasing the Peacock Angel who a.k.a. Lucifer who according to worldwide extrabiblical legend was head of the angels (see Milton's Paradise Lost, for example). Under the current adverse conditions - especially in Iraq - the Yazidi are hardly likely to come out and say they venerate Satan, or rather massage his ego so that he doesn't wreak havoc on the world. But that is the case.--Jack Upland 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what i know

I am an Ezid was born in Soviet Union. These are the facts:

1. The name is Ezid not Yazid or Yezid or Yazidi. Those names are different versions in different countries I think.

2. We do not worship the Devil; there are old folks who still worship the sun that’s all.

3. The people who speak Kurdish, speak in Muslim states languages, or converted to Islam are no Ezid. Also to note that Ezid's from Soviet Union are different to those who live in Muslim states. In time they merged with Islamic traditions and language.

My father told me: Long time ago Ezid's were and are prosecuted for not believing in Islam so they fled to Russia-Soviet Union where many still live there.

4. People say that we are Kurds, but we are not they are very different cultures and have nothing in common. Russia-Soviet Union accepted us as an Ethnicity, rather stating Kurds or none at all. (on a Soviet passport stated ezid).

The reason I sad that Ezid’s from Russia-Soviet Union are different because, we were given freedom to exercise in our belief .In time we also picked some Orthodox Christian traditions

If more information needed just ask Sorry if i offended someone

As this commentator says, she/he is distant from the tradition, geographically and ideologically, and is relying on vague second-hand information. At the same time she/he is unable to be objective. The Ezid/Yazidi are undoubtably related to other Kurdish speakers. And if the Ezid did "worship the sun", how does this relate to the Peacock Angel tradition? What precisely does this mean anyway? And, once again, saying they don't "worship the devil" is evading the point. It's setting up a strawman: the serious issue is the historical relationship of their angelelogy to that of the "Abrahamaic faiths".--Jack Upland 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lettuce? "koasasa"?

There's mention that eating lettuce might be forbidden b/c the word resembles the word "koasasa". Shouldn't the article say or broadly describe what "koasasa" means, since that would explain why it's avoided? For example, does "koasasa" mean feces or does it indicate something from a conflicting religion? 198.151.217.26 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --MosheA 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"koassa" is a missspelled word in kurdish, the correct spelling (and pronouncing) is "xas" (pronounced: khas). Some guy wrote "koassa" maybe so others would prounounce it right. --Kooroo (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Blue

I've never heard that the Yazidi are prohibited from wearing blue. Can someone please find an outside source for this? --MosheA 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Telegraph (August 19th 2007) mentions this taboo - but there's no source given. It must have some foundation though.Malick78 15:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the Tele made it up(!).--Jack Upland 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Myths

Is it proper for an article about a religion that currently exists to be associated with the Inforbox "Myths of the Fertile Crescent"? This seems disrespectful, -- Pokeyrmb 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yazidi persecution

After the recent bombing where hmm 200-500 people died, I was wondering if there was any major effort to remove the Yazidis to a safer location...Europe etc. I would think that as a non(People of the book) they probably never had Dhimmi status.. DomDomsta333 11:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What European country would want hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Th answer is noNe . However, more To the point, the Kurdistan Region wants to expand into the Sinjar area, and after the recent attack a group of Peshmerga were indeed posted to Sinjar.--Vindheim 09:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Malak Taus, or however it's spelled

I first removed what I felt was personal bias creeping into a quote. Blavatsky was not so inept a writer as to use the clause however in any way other than to prepare the reader for a contradiction. Then I decided to look up the quote itself:

This is a view from Secret Doctrine-II by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky:

Yezidis (Arabic) [possibly from Persian yazdan god; or the 2nd Umayyad Caliph, Yazid (r. 680 - 683); or Persian city Yezd] A sect dwelling principally in Kurdistan, Armenia, and the Caucasus, who call themselves Dasni. Their religious beliefs take on the characteristics of their surrounding peoples, inasmuch as, openly or publicly, they regard Mohammed as a prophet, and Jesus Christ as an angel in human form. Points of resemblance are found with ancient Zoroastrian and Assyrian religion. The principal feature of their worship, however, is Satan under the name of Muluk-Taus. However, it is not the Christian Satan, nor the devil in any form; their Muluk-Taus is the hundred- or thousand-eyed cosmic wisdom, pictured as a bird. (the peacock)

I cannot find that statement anywhere in The Secret Doctrine. In the online copy, found here, I looked through the index and only found two references to the Yezidi: here and here. The first section I linked to, has this to say about the Yezidis and Malak Taus:

As said: "The Christians -- far less clear-sighted than the great Mystic and Liberator whose name they have assumed, whose doctrines they have misunderstood and travestied, and whose memory they have blackened by their deeds -- took the Jewish Jehovah as he was, and of course strove vainly to reconcile the Gospel of Light and Liberty with the Deity of Darkness and Submission." ("War in Heaven.")*

That asterisk points to a footnote:

By Godolphin Mitford, later in life, Murad Ali Bey. Born in India, the son of a Missionary, G. Mitford was converted to Islam, and died a Mahomedan in 1884. He was a most extraordinary Mystic, of a great learning and remarkable intelligence. But he left the Right Path and forthwith fell under Karmic retribution. As well shown by the author of the article quoted "The followers of the defeated Elohim, first massacred by the victorious Jews (the Jehovites), and then persuaded by the victorious Christians and Mohamedans, continued nevertheless. . . Some of these scattered sects have lost even the tradition of the true rationale of their belief -- to worship in secrecy and mystery the Principle of Fire, Light, and Liberty. Why do the Sabean Bedouins (avowedly Monotheists when dwelling in the Mohamedan cities) in the solitude of the desert night yet invoke the starry 'Host of Heaven'? Why do the Yezidis, the 'Devil Worshippers,' worship the 'Muluk-Taoos' -- The 'Lord Peacock' -- the emblem of pride and of hundred-eyed intelligence (and of Initiation also), which was expelled from heaven with Satan, according to an old Oriental tradition? Why do the Gholaites and their kindred Mesopotamo-Iranian Mohamedan Sects believe in the 'Noor Illahee' -- the Light of the Elohim -- transmitted in anastasis through a hundred Prophet Leaders? It is because they have continued in ignorant superstition the traditional religion of the 'Light Deities whom Jahveh overthrew' (is said to have overthrown rather); for by overthrowing them he would have overthrown himself. The'Muluk-Taoos' -- is Maluk -- 'Ruler' as is shown in the foot-note. It is only a new form of Moloch, Melek, Molech, MaIayak, and Malachim" -- Messengers, Angels, etc.

So, I would love to know who added the original quote, and where the heck they claimed to have found it. I'll start by going through the history of the article, slowly and painstakingly.--Vidkun 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is when it was added. No page reference, no edition info, I can't accept this as having come from SD. I googled some of the phrases in this "quote", and they all point to this wikipedia page. No other source. It's bogus.--Vidkun 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NOW I'll re-add it, because I finally found the reference: electronic version of the Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary.--Vidkun 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Russian population

no Yezidi figure in the 2002 Russian census: see Demographics_of_Russia#Ethnic_groups. It is possible that there are some communities in the Russian Caucasus, but 30,000 seems greatly exaggerated. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They might be counted for being Kurds... --Vonones 11:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up and the distribution of the Yezidi (and Kurds) within Russia is surprising. They are very widely dispersed. According to the census spreadsheet I have the total figure in the 2002 census for the Yezidi was 31,273, of whom only 9804 lived in South Russia (incl a mere 98 people in the seven autonomous republics in the Caucasus!). The census was based on self-declaration of nationality. Oblasts with over 500 were:-

Tula 608 Tambov 1024 Yaroslavl 2718 Moscow (city) 1643

Kaliningrad 504

Krasnodar 4441 Stavropol 2417 Volgograd 1116 Rostov 1631

Bashkortorstan 577 Nizhny Novgorod 3076 Samara 555 Saratov 942

Sverdlovsk 929

Novosibirsk 1987

NB - Of the total Kurdish population of 19,607, 11663 live in South Russia, again a smaller proportion than I thought.

Orel 740 Tambov 688 Moscow (city) 695

Adygea 3631 Krasnodar 5022 Stavropol 1259 Rostov 562

Jameswilson 01:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

so, can you explain why they are missing from Demographics_of_Russia#Ethnic_groups? Is this a mistake? dab (𒁳) 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its just that that list doesnt include all the smaller ethnic groups. On that language-based classification presumably they should come under Indo-Europeans. The www.perepis.ru census site is down but here are the relevant ru:wiki pages:-

full list of ethnic groups rcognised in the census (see Езиды)

and Yezidi article (see table under Россия)

PS - I wonder if a lot of the Yezidi in Russia are recent refugees from Georgia where the population fell sharply after the break-up of the Soviet Union according to the article. That might explain why they are widely dispersed. On the other hand, if I understand the Russian article correctly it seems to say that the main cultural centre of the Yezidi in Russia is Yaroslavl with some sort of official "cultural autonomy" status.

Jameswilson 22:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet ethnic policy saw a lot of population transfer - both benign and malign. With any industrialising society we would expect a cosmopolitan mix in the major cities, regardless of the distance from the ethnic groups historical homeland. Despite erratic episodes of "dogwhistling" persecution (anti-cosmopolitanism etc), the official policy was always the equal status of all nationalities, however small. (See above comment about "Ezid" being listed as a nationality on a Soviet passport.) This was particularly favourable to the tiny minorities who were politically insignificant (unlike the Jews, the Volga Germans etc who had international ties). However, since the collapse of the USSR, nationalism has been given open imprimator in all the constituent republics, leading to civil war in Chechnya etc, various secessionist tendencies, legal discrimination, the rise of fascist groups etc - all of which has led to an escalation of ethnic tension. In this environment, vulnerable minorities - particularly non-whites in European areas - have every reason to assimilate, at least nominally. I wonder how many Ezid, Kurds etc register as such on their passport? I wonder whether it is even still possible to do so??--Jack Upland 22:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't it rather be a religious group template than an ethnic group template? Most Yazidis are usually ethnic Kurds anyway. Funkynusayri 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is many if not most Yezidi don't consider themselves as Kurdish, but rather as an ethnic Yezidi, similar to Jewish being considered an ethnicity as well. Chaldean 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro Text Why is it relevant if this religion pre-dates the majority religions of Iraq. The lead paragraph should be focused on this religion solely, not immediately clash it with Islam. 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware we have a "religious group template", but of course you could create one. If you do, you'll unleash a whole bunch of dispute over which template to use in particular cases, so I suggest you consider this our "religious and/or ethnic group template" instead. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is one actually, it is used on for example the Druze page, and many others. I think it is more appropriate for the Yazidi page to use the religious group template, as their religion is what defines them, and using it wouldn't imply that they are solely Kurdish, for example. Funkynusayri 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Religious_groupFunkynusayri 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

right. I have no opinion on this. I think it is pointless to distinguish between two different templates that essentially have the same slots. But why, I cannot help asking myself, does the "infobox religious group" sport a "religions" parameter? --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems pointless, yes, and it seems like it was modeled heavily on the ethnic group box, but with an important difference, the "scriptures" parameter, where for example Kitêba Cilwe could be placed, if we had some sources on it. I didn't create the box anyhow, but it's better than having a "related ethnic groups" parameter, which refers to the ethnicity of the majority of the adherents of the religious group itself. Funkynusayri 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the infobox for the Copts, makes sense there. I even believe it was a Copt who made the box. Funkynusayri 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Melek Ta'us or Malak Ta’us or Melek Taus

Name is spelled inconsistently in article. I am standardising them all as Melek Taus, purely for consistency's sake, and because there is a link to an entry "Melek Taus", so spelled. If anyone more knowledgeable thinks it should be something else, then go for it. Myles325a 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistensy is the key. I don't know that there's a prefered spelling for the word.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "correct" transliteration, but we should get adopt a standard spelling and note the variants - once.--Jack Upland 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Since there seems to be a revert war brewing...

• Main articles: 2007 Mosul massacre, Du’a Khalil Aswad, and 2007 Qahtaniya bombings
  for further information on recent news events mentioning Yazidis.

or something along that line.

I feel that since two events targeted the group and one event involved the group these events should be mentioned. All events mentioned have their own fleshed out articles and little except a descriptive pointer line should be used within this article. If anyone can phrase it better then I have, please feel free. I'm add that line in. Dogsgomoo 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the line to make it prose, but it's a good resolution to the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

cuchullain, you are so nice and chilled...how can I consider entering a nasty troll-like edit war, with someone like you acting maturely.

and yes it was a good resolution to two idiots editing and undoing things.Sennen goroshi 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all you have to learn to discuss issues in a respectful manner. If you keep on your personal attacks you will be reported.Heja Helweda 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not object to a few more sentances of description, these are all noteworthy events, but we were probably overdoing it before, giving too much space to events in 2007 when the religion is hundreds or thousands of years old. We have more detailed articles on the three events already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not very sure if including murders/crimes makes sense for a general encyclopedia article for a religion which has followers in many countries. This would be like inserting 9/11 and OBL in the Islam's page or Arab's page. Isn't that one noteworthy for starting two wars?!!! It's funny if that happens then people run around shouting racism but when it comes to a endangered religious minority with no power and influence nobody bothers to object. News of murders, crimes, bombings etc, skews the neutral point of view and leads the readers into making misleading generalizations about a religion and a people.Heja Helweda 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking about when it comes to personal attacks. I personally don't know you, and neither do I have any feelings negative or positive regarding Kurds or Yazidi people, I have no reason to have anything other than a neutral point of view. Having a brief mention of an news event that was covered internationaly seems to be notable to me. When you look at the USA page, it has the Sept 11th attacks mentioned, the christianity page mentions the crusades, and the jewish page mentions the holocaust. While the Yazidi might not be as well known as any of the above, an incident as was mentioned is of note. Maybe you are right, and mentioning a stoning that was watched by over 1000 people will make people think badly of the Yazidi, however should all mention of the holocaust be removed from wikipedia incase people think badly of the Germans? I think not. It is part of recent history, instead of removing it, if you are so concerned about the image it gives people, why not balance it with something positive?Sennen goroshi 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, these are event that are strictly notable towards the Yazidi community as a whole. We don't want to skew towards recentism, but we need to cover something if it affects the wider and international community in the way these events have. It is encyclopedic to include information on something important or terrible that happens to a relatively small group if it affects a large percentage of their population or achieves international notoriety, for instance noting the Holocaust on the Judaism page. It's true the Jewish religion has much greater numbers and influence than the Yazidi, but when 500 Yazidi are killed in a car bomb attack, it's a large chunk of them, and should be reported. One would expect similar treatment if the Mandaeans were the subject of major events. Examining other countries, articles on the Cao Dai of Vietnam or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the United States should include information on major notable events that happen to those groups.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. although I am repeating myself, if someone is concerned with a negative image given by an article, they should balance the negative with something positive, rather than just removing the negative. Having said that, wikipedia is not here to help people form opinions, its here to provide relevant facts.Sennen goroshi 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Need NPOV at "Divisions of Islam" article

The Yazidi entry at Divisions of Islam seems biased, written strongly from the point of view of orthodox Islam. NPOV help requested there from anyone more informed than I. Thanks. 88.64.152.181 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Views of outsiders etc...

This section is a hodge podge and needs to be reorganised. Current events should be separate. Obscure references by people like H P Lovecraft probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. Their inclusion seems to be an attempt to marginalise the view that Yazidi are "devil worshippers": attribute it to fiction and thence sidestep a discussion (see discussion above, "This article is dishonest").--Jack Upland 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Twelvers?

Could someone explain why the infobox on Twelvers, which is a Shi'a sect, is included on a page that is not a Muslim sect?--Vidkun (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. No support for it in this article or in Twelvers. -Colfer2 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ÊzîdÎs are NOT an ethnic group

They are kurds, and this article should be written as the kurds who practise this religon are called êzîdîs.

I want to add one more thing, they never marry any one who isn't êzîdî. And they are very very strict on this point. You can never be a êzîdî or join them, both of your parents must be êzîdîs. And if you leave them, you can never come back. (my explanation to this is that they say they are from Adam and others are from Adam and Eva, and they have this in their bloodso no one else can become it if it isn't in their blood)

This mean that they are 100% kurds and if someone check their DNA you will see a true kurdish genetic (DNA-testing is hard to connect groups to, but since it is being used against the kurds in other articles it would do great if somone check some êzîdîs dna)

---

This is a debate and some Yezidis genuinely feel as if they are a separate group, while other Yezidis feel they are Kurds and wave the Kurdish flag in their towns.

As with any other minority religion, they have had oppression by locals around them. This has bred feelings of separatism among them which accounts for the tilted accounts some people have given.

From my travels in Northern Iraq, most Yezidis who live in Lalish consider themselves to be Kurdish for the most part and have good relations with the KRG. Tasim Bec (Mir) is close to the leadership of the KRG, and Mahmoud Ezidi was a faithful member to the KDP before his assassination by a traitor. Generally though most Yezidis consider themselves Kurdish, but obviously there are a vocal minority who feel themselves to be wholly separate due to the misfortunes and crimes that have be fallen them.

Also friend, you should keep in mind that Wikipedia is often edited heavily by users with their own propaganda, and you should not think that if it is on here, it has to be the truth. Most of the users here have never actually been to the areas they cover, only from the accounts and articles of others. (remember this is only as to cover all aspects of their society. They are not listed as an ethnic group in the category listings)--MercZ (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, some ezidis consider them as a separate group. That because of all the oppresion they've suffered, even by other kurds. They have suffered much because of their unique beliefs. And i don't blaim them, it would be like being betrayed. --Kurdalo (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Tawûsê Melek

There is repeated information I removed: that Tawûs is from the IE word for "sky" and that it is borrowed from Greek Zeus. The problem is that the Greek influence is wildly unlikely - and that the Greek word Zeus is derived from the same IE word for sky! It's confusing and misleading to list them both and I see little likelihood of there being a borrowing from Greek given what we know about Kurdish language and about Yezidism in this article alone. em zilch (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tawûs means "peacock" in kurdish. "Melek" means Angel. So Melekê Tawûs means Peacock Angel. Good you removed, it has nothing to do with "sky" or "zeus". --Kurdalo (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lucifer and the good angels

The article seems to say that "the Christians' Lucifer" is the leader of all the good angels. Since Lucifer is generally used as a near-synonym of Satan in Christianity, this assertion strikes me as odd, unless I am misreading the text. --Haruo (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Yezidi Community of Lincoln NE, What people have to know is that there has been lots and lots of Yezidi people that have gone missing in Armenia, Turkey, Iraq, Syria. Why, It's the mass extinction of the Yezidi Holy Religous belives. We are going to put a stop to that and we will push for that to stop.

The Yezidi community in Germany and places areound Germany are very satisfied with the German and Euro government. AS well as the 35,000 Yezidies in Russia are very well satisfied with their government. But what the Islamic government is trying to do is basically deminishing our kind from main stream economy, voting, and to make us beleive that our religon does not exist. But it does and it does in 0ur hearts.

Taus Melek is basically saying Jesus in the Christion world, or Mohammed in the Islamic world. Xode him slelf is God to us. Or Islamic would say Alhla. We are Not Kurdish We are Yezidies a very athentic and unique group of White people that went goes back into way early christanity a branch that broke off. Although Taus Melek Himself was alive 40 thousand years earlier. Our language is not Kurdish it is Kurmaji. We beileve in Yezidism. Kurdish people used to be Yezidies but got coverted to Islam when The yezidi Empire collapsed. When the Persain/Islamic and Romans and greeks all attacked us at once. But they are to shy to admit it.

We do have one beileve and that is, one day before the year 2012 a young, handsome, Yezidi Shex, that is that is Believed to be the Son of Yzi him self will grow up and lead one last time before 2029. We bring the Yezidi race back up. A leader that knows how to speak, that can lead a movement into victory, A leader that does not panic, A leader that is strong, A leader that got American education, and knows about that situations and Armenia, Iraq, Syria, Turkey. One day the Yezidies from Russia, Lincoln Nebraska, Canada, Armenia, Syria, Lalsih Iraq, Germany Turkey, and anywhere else that Yezidies reside in will meet on the top of the mountain and thank Xode and Taus Melek For being on their back thorugh the hard times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.85.160 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

the original comment by Haruo seems correct. The statement "Yazidis believe Tawûsê Melek is not a source of evil or wickedness. They consider him to be the leader of the archangels, not a fallen angel, and therefore comparable to the Christians' Lucifer, who is likewise considered the leader of the "seven who stand before the Lord" and of all other good angels" misrepresents Christianity. Christians do NOT consider Lucifer 'the leader of the "seven who stand before the Lord".' Yezidi might believe that Christians believe this, but that's not what the statement says. It's simply wrong to say or imply that this is what Christians believe. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No We are Not Kurd

We are Yezidies and thats Final, IF you think we are Kurds, we are not because we do not beieve in Islam, we Do NOT like Kurds, We Don't Like Islamic, We are Yezidies and our language is Kurmanji, Our religion is Yezidism and we Beieve in Taus Melek, Xode, Shixady, Sheshems'. That our Religion We are White and we don't consider our selves anything lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.85.160 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kurd" doesn't carry religious connotations in English: it's ethnic; we trace people linguistically and genetically, so not identifying with them just because many kurds might be Muslim (which I've not heard) isn't reason to be angry, or protest the designation.

tooMuchData

04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious Historical Validity

The following sentence,

many non-Yazidi people have written about them and ascribed facts to their beliefs that have dubious historical validity. For example, horror writer H. P. Lovecraft made a reference to "the Yezidi clan of devil-worshippers"

I'm wondering about. How is a writer a long time ago, in agreement with others' evaluations, saying they are "devil worshippers" historically dubious? It's historical, in-line with others' perceptions (whether or not favorable to the group), and practically just making the same evaluations as those others.

tooMuchData

04:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Lovecraft was basing his statement on hearsay. We now have more accurate facts available.--Vindheim (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Hindu Origins in the Cult of Murugan

The section added about the Cult of Murugan is Wikipedia:FRINGE and contradicts all established, cited information about the Yezidi. The history of the Yezidi is not a black box; the sources are reasonably well-established and the notion that a South Indian cult randomly wandered into Kurdistan is both fringe and uncited. Ogress _smash! 13:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian origin of the Yezidi

Some Yezidi's claim that Yezidi's originated in India.

Here is the link that states so http://www.yeziditruth.org/the_peacock_angel

There is no need to wander, the Indians or those who came from India or those who subsequently went to India had influence from India to Greece historically. The devas were worshiped in the middle and near east before the advent of Zoroastrianism
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia:OR; the allegedly Yazidi website never actually claims to be made by Yazidis, but by a single individual (c.f. Plastic shaman), and there is zero need to drag Sanskrit into Kurdistan (and no reliable sources). - Ogress 140.247.125.46 (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable; it is, again, written by a non-Yazidi, non-scholar plastic shaman from America. I am glad you are enthusiastic about Indian culture (as evidence by your comments on my talk page), but that does not remove the need for reliable sources and no original research. The cited sources disagree with what you have written. Please examine the policies on reliable sources... Ogress _smash! 02:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragging Sanskrit

You are right we all should desist from draggig Sanskrit any where, into Kurdistan the least, Sanskrit has been washing its feet both in the Ganga the Brahmaputra and the great rivers of Mesopotamia, spread around the Godi desert crossing the Great wall of China, sailed the sea into Japan and lives in the languages of Indonesia and Malaysia. The Sanskrit Gods Indra, Varun, Mitra and the Ashwin Kumars, who are worshipped in India to this day were the Gods of the Mitanni over a thousand years BCE. Facts should not be limited by a person's knowledge and perception. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. We cannot just make up things. We have to use reliable, scholarly sources. Ogress _smash! 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable and scholarly should not mean those whose findings one likes.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After centuries of darkness and lies when even the Indian number system was called the Arabic number system, we have rays of truth emerging as the new dawn rises.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As your observed in your comment on my talk page, even you admit this is original research and synthesis of materials. In addition, your citations are to non-scholarly, non-peer-reviewed works, at least one of which you are using in a way that does not agree with the author's intent: misuse of cited material to push a personal argument. Please. Stop reverting and discuss what changes you would like to make instead of spamming the page with the exact same materials and you can find out what the issue is with each particular source and we can find some kind of consensus on the materials! Ogress _smash! 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I am reading about the Yezidis I see confirmation of the obvious link between the Yezidis and India. Please I think it is you who is trying to target a particulat statement(s). I have even written another link in your talk page which is another first hand account of the writer with the Yezidi, (the Rev. Badger).

There is no original research on my part every line that I have written is a verbatim reproduction and referrenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

E pur si muove!

The Indian connection is not so bizzare here is another one, written by one who is a journalist and has written his experiences on meeting the Yezidis. A quotation from his work-

Although it is rooted in nature, Yezidism has similarities to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

And the link where you would find it-

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/images/large/A_1_yezidi4_182818_0426.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/26/Worldandnation/In_Iraq__ancient_sect.shtml&usg=__8hiYt7Exkc3rPJ7JQiXMoOpzbTs=&h=226&w=345&sz=29&hl=en&start=11&tbnid=pjPse4jaZfKmYM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dyezidi%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADBR_enIN273IN294

It is not always that the one who carries the big stick and shouts the loudest is speaking the truth. Remember E pur si muove! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The above quotation is from an article written by SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN, Times Senior Correspondent (for those who do not wish to go into the trouble of checking the link), the gender pronoun was written before I noticed the female name I do not see any need to change it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your citation does not assert Yazidism is of Hindu origin. Instead, when not taken out of context, it is a reference to the fact that Yazidism is a religion like any other major world religion. This kind of misrepresentation is the sort of problem I've been talkng about when references my concerns with your sources! "Although it is rooted in nature, Yezidism has similarities to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism." This sentence does not mean "Yazidism is from India". Ogress _smash! 04:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have received a threat

I have received a threat that my editing privilege will be taken away from me. All this because of my contribution of verbatim quoted sources that the yezidis have an Indian connection. Please help me with this. The person is out with a vindictive agenda with the notion that truth is what is visible to the person. No more.

This page can shamelessly continue to display the pejorative view that the Yezidi are devil worshippers, it seems that the Yezidi are not spared persecution even on the Internet. Their faith is continued to be denied. This is when we have cities subject to terror (including Mumbai 26 November, 2008) in the name of God the most merciful and the benevolent.

I need help fighting this menace off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... you are completely misstating the entire interaction we have had. I have made no threats and have no power to threaten anyone. In addition, you are not responding to my carefully explained concerns about the reliability of your sources and the fact that your work contains significant levels of original research and original synthesis. Ogress _smash! 04:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First, you are making conclusions. "Murugan the Hindu manifestation of Tawsi Melek is naturally very close to the Peacock Angel of the Yezidis." Uncited and dubious. Other than the fact that the term "peacock" relates to them - which is not limited to Murugan and the angel - there is little that the two have with each other. What, they are both divinities?

The next section is also nonspecific: "Similar to the Peacock Angel, Murugan’s other sacred animals include the snake and the cock. The snake denotes the movement of energy as a serpent spiral and the cock denotes his affiliation as a solar deity, heralding the end of humanity’s darkness." This is true of a million cultures. It is true of prehistoric Japan. It is true of most ancient China.

Your other cites are questionable. As I mentioned, "Although it is rooted in nature, Yezidism has similarities to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism" does not, in fact, relate to an alleged origin of Yazidism. It is a statement that Yazidism is a "full" religion, a real religion. I would add that a reporter is not necessarily a reliable source.

Your other cites are just plain unscholarly. A speculative newsgroup, complete with "lols"; an author who is a white European-American claiming to know the all-secrets of the universe; an article from the 1900s by a biblical scholar who did not even speak Kurdish or understand the customs of the land. Speculation speculation speculation.

There are scholars of Yezidism out there who work with or who actually are Yezidis. In fact, the rest of the article contains cites from some of those works.

Finally, I would observe that Tawus doesn't even mean God, it means "peacock", and the actual Common Iranian word dewa has an existing correspondence in living Kurdish (as it does in other Persian languages, including Farsi). Ogress _smash! 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You deny one as a news group, another because he is a White American, what is your issue about the Kurd source from France and the Yezidi source from Armenia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

An Indian writing on India and the Yezidis

For that matter does not being an Indian make me at least half more qualified to understand about the Yezidi - Indian connection than those who are neither Indian nor Yezidi.

You deny one as a news group, another because he is a White American, what is your issue about the Kurd source from France and the Yezidi source from Armenia? You dismiss a couple as journalists.

(Regarding)The peacock angle's name is not my contribution, however since it complements what I have written, you have taken it off, and for the same reason I am carrying it. You are probably right, tawus may mean peacock and malek king or perhaps god or owner(even in Hindi), that is one etymology, are you not aware that there are different suggested etymologies for many words, and not just the Peacock King.

There is a clear consensus except among those who consider Yezidi's heretics, devil worshippers, kafirs etc. that is the Yezidi faith is not originally Semetic but Indo-Iranian, also that the Zoroastrians did not treat them as their own, so that leaves India and the connection. It is obvious (entirely my speculation) that they Islamised in order to survive, like the former Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, changed his Chaldean name Mikhail Yuhanna to the Arab Muslim one.

If you have arguments with what I have quoted, arguing with me is barking up the wrong tree as they are not mine. I wonder which quote you call a speculative news group.

I have not included quotes from a forum Roj Bash Kurdistan where Yezidi contributors write about the Indian connection, for that would not be good enough for wikipedia.

You have already written about your allergy to Pinkham, I need not answer that anew.

For that matter I have not quoted from Indian sources (so far).

As a matter of discussion why do you not check on Mitanni, a people of Indian origin and faith, and have you not heard of the Hussaini Brahmins. The earlier centuries were not as water tight compartments as we seem to believe. I request you to open your mind and do more reading to check whether what I have quoted does make sense before indulging in the vandalism that is so typical of a particular religion, hundreds of thousands of places of worship were vandalised by the hordes of a particular religion in India who prided themselves as But Shikan, the Iconoclasts, their latest feat being the Bamya Buddhas

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No matter how many times I put this out there, you don't pay any attention. You refer to me as a wall that isn't listening, but you are instead arrogantly assume I am unaware of e.g. the Mitanni, which yourself not comprehending the basic issue:

Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

That is verbatim. Newsgroups: not reliable. That plastic shaman: not reliable, because he is citing no sources and attributing to himself the beliefs and origin of the Yezidis. I could say they are from Frankfurt before the Romans, but that wouldn't make me a reliable source!

Also, melek is not cognate to the Urdu-Hindi borrowed word for "king, ruler, owner". Both Arabic malik "owner" and malak "messenger" might seem the same to you, but they are derived from totally unrelated roots. This is why we ask for reliable sources: what might seem an obvious connection is, in fact, wrong. Tawûsê Melek is "Peacock Angel", not "Deva King".Ogress _smash! 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

yezidi Today

Not kurds But Yezidi because we are not Muslim and we don't live by the Shariha, or the Quron, We live and beleive in Melek Taus,

Today You will find Yezidies from Lincoln NE to Buffalo NY to London canada to Weneipeg Minitoba, to Arizona, to Seattle to Michigan to Iraq to Syria to turkey to Russia, Armenia, Germany, Denmark, India and all over the world.

Yezidi text is hidden because it was never revealed by the muslim countries where they first started from. Today there is many forms of Yeizidi text revealed and unrevealed. When the Yezidi empire clapsed by the Roman empire "Farman" happened which means everyone split up and all hell was broke lose. The phrase "Romi el Tani" refering to Roman soldier doing bad things. So with in that the government was broke, Books were burned and everything destroyed. At the time happeneing Yezidies beleived the land fought on was Turkey today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.160.38 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yezidi Facts: Member of Yezidi reform and Progress & Dange Ezidiya

Yes it is true us YEZIDIES don't eat lettece. The reason behind that is; when Mousel Iraq used to be a Ezidi city, controlled by Sheik Hasan, then tooken over by expanding muslims. The mousel area was rich in Lettece, but as you put cattle dump on agricultre to make it grow faster and better, the muslims controlling the mousel would dump human waste on the lettece. The Ezidi made it forbidden (haram) to eat lettece again, so today when a Yezidi parent gets made they usally say "dee loo Kassa Mosuel" it's referring to something bad about the lettece growing in mousel. Also knowen as a bad word now.

The Yezidies never wore the color up untill the late 1990's. Some Ezidi men still don't.

We are Yezidi. There is a big difference between Yezidi and kurds.

A very big differnce between YEZIDI and kurd:...

Kurds are muslims, they pray five times a day and look up to Mecca.

Altough we respect them and their cultre I think they should get an update on life and in this case a identity problem, recognize us as Yezidi men and We believe in the Yezidism faith.

Yezidi don't celebrate Ramadon; never have celebrated Ramadon, We fast only Three days for Melek Taus, and Yezi a year. We celebrate Edda Charshameh.

In a typical day a kurd men will pray five times a day because he is a muslim. A typical yezidi will pray to the sun facing east in the moruning and night (west). We also don't speak either of the Kurdish diologes rather most all yezidies speak Kurmanjie and or Ezdiki. We are classified into Sheiks, Peers, and Murids. Tahsin is the highest Leader today to the yezidies, Babeh Sheik is the father of all yezidi.

Not devil worshipers; We just like any other race and human on earth want to peacefully assemble and have rights. We mean no harm to ANY one and in all cases; "any religions prophet is the devil of the other religion" How could we be devil worshipers, if we are the most peacefull gruop in all middle east.

No we do not honor teenage killing, thats wrong and I say that right now as a yezidi men. The one that happened was because of rage and heat of the moment to the girls brother, because that has never happened before. So imagine how he felt and imagine how you would feel if you were in the that guys shoes.

Yezidi says the line dividing them from Christianity is a single Hair string. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.160.38 (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I prefer to consider the plight of the murdered woman rather than that of her own brother, who killed her. However, you are correct that there is no special correlation between Yezidism and honour killings; that "fact" keeps getting thrown in there. I have once again removed it and kept the notable incident without comment from the peanut gallery. Violence against women is not unique to the Yezidis - OJ Simpson, anyone? - and it is definitely not a tenet of Yezidism. Ogress _smash! 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How to Build Consensus

Perhaps, Yogesh Khandke, the best way to start towards building consensus is to begin by examining the parts of the page you feel are biased or insufficiently cited (such as your observation of the use of the phrase "a god") and work on those first. The emotional baggage is not so heavy and we could learn first how to make consensus before moving onto bigger guns. You clearly are unhappy with the page - I, too, have problems - and we could discuss them here and then afterwards make edits to the page.

I have already adjusted the appearance of the phrase "a god" to "God", which I think was simply a good-faith error of typing back in the day. I also addressed a longstanding revert issue on the page: the assertion that Yezidis practice honour killings, which is misleading. It isn't part of the religion and it occurs all over the world; even in the media, the phrase "honour killing" refers to the Middle East and the Subcontinent to murders of women of all kinds of faith, so this has been changed many times to simply note the infamous incident against Du'a. It does get reverted every once in a while, so I once again fixed that.

Perhaps by starting slow we can address the more difficult issue we have more easily because we have learned how to work together. I have checked out a few modern works from the library on the Yezidis and I'll be reading them today (I have the flu and have had it for four days, so I'm abed). These include "God and Sheikh Adi are Perfect" (Kreyenbroek/Rashow 2005), "Kurdish Culture & Identity" (Kreyenbroek/Allison 1996), "Survival Among the Kurds" (Guest 1993) and one new one I can't locate at this very second about Yezidi oral narratives. That last one and "Perfect" are the most reliable and are both specifically about the Yezidis and have Yezidi contributors. Ogress _smash! 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An appeal; Yezidis make a statement: The denial of honour to the Yezidis.

This section on the Indian connection of the Yezidis, (it kept on growing and changing) was constantly removed by Ogress and edit protection was applied so that this section would not be included. The edit protection will expire soon however I will not resume the game of editing. This section will be included only when there is a guarantee that it will be safe from vandalism.

The  Not done below refers to the denied request for removing edit protection.

The Yezidis are again denied their due. You can call the Yezidis heretics, devil worshippers, a cult, a smorgasbord, but not a primordial faith with connections with another faith. The ideology that inspires those who are indulging in the genocide of the Yezidis including forced conversion is the inspiration behind this degeneration of the Yezidis.

Perhaps the Yezidis, the Indian faith and Zoroastrianism evolved from a proto-faith, the Yezidis may be the proto-faith. There is an unmistakable similarity and a resemblance. I request Yezidis to come forward and make a statement.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Yezidi - India connection

Murugan the Hindu god, the peacock is his vehicle

The following sources attribute an Indian connection to the Yezidi faith

1. YezidiTruth.org - A Humanitarian Organization in their website carrys an essay that mentions the Indian origin of the Yezidi faith and the correspondence between the Hindu Murugan and Tawûsê Melek. Similarity between the icons such as Murugan’s other sacred symbols the snake and the cock is deliberated on in detail.

2. A contemperory journalist visiting the Yezidi lands writes

Although it is rooted in nature, Yezidism has similarities to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

3. www.yezidism.com on the origin of Yezidis writes

(The Yezidi's are) Originally from India and therefore related to the Hindus

4. On the origin of Yezidis, Aziz Tamoyan the President of the National Union of Yezidi in Armenia writes,

The Yezidi emigrated from India to Afghanistan, and from Afghanistan into Iran and, lived in Iraq, and in Syria. In Iraq we started to call ourselves "Yezidi".

5. An article written for the World Congress of Kurdish Studies, and carried by their website states

persistence in Kurdish (Yezidi) culture a mythology of Indo-Iranian origin, which may have been transmitted to Roman Mithraism via Kurdistan

6. Information about the Yezidis, an essay, writen by a Yezidi, and posted on website middleeastyouth.com begins with the following paragraph on the Yezidis,

The Yezidis (”yuh-ZEE-deez”) are a Kurdish sect living in the Nineveh province of modern-day Iraq. Their religion is pre-Islamic and pre-Christian, yet it has absorbed certain qualities of both faiths. It has also absorbed elements of Zoroastrianism and Sufi mysticism. It is a matter of debate among scholars as to just how old the Yezidi religion actually is, but it is possible (though not proven) that the people and their faith are descended from ancient India. In any case, it may be that Yezidism is the original pagan religion of the Kurds.

7. One simple practice which is similar is that the Yezidi like the Hindus and Parsis of India hang a string of leaves across the doors of their houses at the beginning of the new year.

A theory about the etymology of the name Tawûsê Melek

The word Tawûs (in Tawûsê Melek) is derived from the Sanskrit deva or god. Devas are supernatural beings according to Hindu and Zoroastrian scriptures. According to scholar Taufiq Wahby and others, the word Dasni, the name of a large Yezidi tribe, is a form of the old word devayasne "deva-worshipping", used by Zoroastrians to identify those worshiped the devas

Request for removing edit protection: Yezidi kindly unprotect and add section on the Indian origin of the Yezidi faith

I Yogesh Khandke had requested to revoke edit protect for Yezidi or to include section Indian origin of the Yezidi faith, there has been a syntax or procedural error in the composition of the request as you as an administrator have remarked. I am trying to understand the error and will try to modify the request accordingly.

To see the discussion kindly check the following links, as a summary the views are: In favour of non-inclusion Ogress the sources are not to the standards of Wikipedia.

I disagree most vehemently with the assertion that the sources are biased against the Yezidi. In fact, on this page mention is made only of the notable fact that outside groups associate the Yezidi's main object of veneration is often associated with the Devil. While this is specified in different locations, the page in no way supports this as a correct assertion but merely a common one. The Yezidis' own beliefs are treated with respect and Wikipedia does not say that the Peacock Angel is in fact the devil. Ogress _smash! 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In favour of inclusion Yogesh Khandke Verifiable sources carry a strong bias against the Yezidi like calling them devil worshippers, there is a fresh understanding of the faith and it should be reflected in the Yezidi wikipedia page.

Discussion on the Yezidi talk page

• Alleged Hindu Origins in the Cult of Murugan
• Indian origin of the Yezidi
• E pur si muove!
• Dragging Sanskrit
• Dragging Sanskrit
• I have received a threat
• An Indian writing on India and the Yezidis
• An Indian writing on India and the Yezidis

Discussion on user Yogesh Khandke talk page

February 2009 Your recent edits Yezidi Yezidi

Discussion on user Ogress talk page

• Please read carefully
• Please check this link out.
• It seems that either I am a dumb idiot or I am talking to a wall
• Re: Your AIV report on Yogesh Khandke

Discussion on Juliancolton talk page

• yezidi request for making necessary changes and stopping vandalism by Ogress
• My previous post about Mahabaleshwar

The verdict prima facie from the administrator

Hi. To request an edit to this protected page, you don't need to convince me. You need to obtain consensus on the talk page, and then you may make a request describing what should be changed. See WP:PER.  Sandstein  07:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look at WP:PER. You are right, that my edit request is not as per norms and so you are not looking into it. I wonder though aren't there similar norms for going for edit protect, it looks like in the persent case edit protect is used as a stick (by the requesting user) who is more Wikipedia savy to beat some one who is not without merit of the actual case. In real life something like this happens, consider the situation; I know the law, I am familiar with the police, and I have an argument with you, what I do is I beat you and then lodge a complaint against you which is then accepted as I am an expert on this, when you, my victim go to the cops to lodge a complaint, you there find that you are the accused in the first place as I have beaten you to the post, and there are loads of paper work and procedures to follow, and you are in a difficult position including your collar in the rough palm of a burly cop. (Just a little joke, don't take it personally) The status quo, that is write protection is not a consensus as it does not reflect an agreement or representation of both sides, actually history and archeology is more about speculation (the scholars call it interpretation) than any thing, there are a few theories about the Yezidis which find place in the article including devil worshipping which has 13 instances of appearance, the Indian origin theory looks no worse to me as an Indian. The Bene Israel were first recognised because their practices were found familiar by other Jews. I claim no other expert knowledge which anyways is not a criteria for posting(?), the article is almost entirely made up of quotations which are referenced, including those from Yezidis of some standing. The edit protect is a verdict against the Indian origin theory, a verdict from you as you are the protect administrator, so I request you to reconsider the write protection and/or include the section on the Indian origin of the Yezidis. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, admins don't make content decisions. What you need to do is come to an agreement with other editors on the talk page. Once you agree what the article should say, you can request unprotection at WP:RPP. See also WP:CONSENSUS for general information.  Sandstein  06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator comments here and comments of editors those who want this section and those who do not

 Not done. The above section is not an edit request.  Sandstein  21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The above section was not treated as a edit request as it was not in the requisite format and not because of lack of merit. This is how an edit request must be. An excerpt from the Wikibible

Is the request specific? Any editprotected request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. For edits to protected templates, clearly indicate which lines of code need to be changed, or (ideally) provide a link or diff to a sandbox which contains the entire code of the template, with the required changes. The admin can then simply replace the code in the live template with the code from the sandbox. For articles, clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced, and what they should be replaced with.

I wonder how this goes about??????? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. This is the issue I am talking about: you are just bulldozing ahead! Ogress_smash! 14:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory of an Indian connection for yezidism is interesting, but controversial. It could be included as such; i.e. as a theory, but not as fact.--Vindheim (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason for my request for page protection was because of a content dispute that was not being resolved. I cannot make edits any more than you can. This is included in my request for page protection - my specific reason, which was the discussion was not happening and that our conflict was becoming personal.

Yogesh Khandke , I wonder how we are supposed to engage in a debate when you constantly accuse me directly and indirectly of all sorts of horrible activities? You describe me above - most disingenuously, of course - as a thug, an abuser of the law, a corrupt policeman... and your attitude towards me has been hostile since our first contact. I direct you to my repeated responses to you on your talk page.

You seem to have a sense of humour, you are not the policeman the administrator is in the role. You are the party who is manipulating the system. You seem to have forgetton the most important and serious accusation that of an iconoclast a But ShikanYogesh Khandke (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, despite your claims to the contrary, you seem quite able to work Wikipedia just fine.

Thanks I am learning the ropes, but no way in your league.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As for this page, I see no consensus because the same material you simply spam onto the page remains objectionable due to lack of reliable sourcing. I have given my reasons in detail on your page, on this page and on my page. I'm sorry you want to bulldoze it onto the page and I don't agree, but that's just the truth and you haven't replied to my concerns at all and you respond with alternating hostility and manipulative attempts to drag in other unconcerned editors while pretending you are being nice to me.

Please follow wikipedia policy give the other person the benefit of the doubt, I am learning to, you with your better understanding of Wikipedia should have better such skills also.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is why the page was frozen: no consensus.

This your style which got under my skin. I and anybody reading the above line understand that the page was frozen by you, which wasn't the administrator did it because that is how the system works. You beat me to the post. Not on merit of the caseYogesh Khandke (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, if you want to talk about finding some consensus, as always, I'll be right here. Ogress _smash! 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Even the Yezidi God does not have the first letter capitalised, this is a very racist attitude Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not break up and move around my comments, it makes this page unreadable. Respond after the whole comment section or else even we won't be able to make sense of it. Also, it should be obvious that when I say "the page was frozen" I did not say "I froze the page". I could write "a Wikipedia editor with administrator-level access froze the page", but good lord, it's a really long thing to write and we all know (or should!) that this is how Wikipedia works. I am neither an admin nor would I freeze a page I was involved in a content dispute about as that is unethical.

In addition, my application for page protection did cite as its reason that there was an ongoing and escalating content dispute. It was a "request due to dispute". I made no argument about the contents of the page, merely that as one of the members of the dispute, it was clear to me that the situation was turning into an edit war between us and we need instead to focus on working out consensus. I don't really understand your comment above about it not being true that the page was frozen due to a lack of consensus... that's what a content dispute is!

As for the statement that "the Yazidi God does not have the first letter capitalised", the only location where this appears to be true is a single instance where a reference is made to the world's creation by "a god". This appears to be a Good Faith error, probably from an earlier version of the page, and can simply be remedied. The remainder of the page uses the form God, so I don't really understand your claims of racism.

Incidentally, you seem hell-bent on restoring the "dignity" of the Yezidis by showing their 'true origins' as Indians (if I may paraphrase). Personally, I find that attitude racist; can not the Kurds have their own faith? All peer-reviewed, published articles I have seen demonstrate a high level of respect for the Yezidis and take their origins at face value: indigenous beliefs centered around a cultic center associated with a lineage of Sufi shuyuukh who started out Sunni and gradually became Yezidised. Yet you drag up sketchy statements that demand a Mithraic origin, a Zoroastrian origin, and an Indian origin for these beliefs. Are the indigenous beliefs of the Kurmanjî-speaking Kurds that comprise the Yezidis insufficiently valid? Ogress _smash!12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My reply to comments above and below by Ogress

I have written that you know the system better than I do. You have applied for edit protect and got it. Edit protect is not based on the merits of the content but simply a reaction to a edit dispute.

I have written that Yezidis and Indians may have originated from a common proto-faith please see the section heading, it does not carry the word origin but the word connection. How does that make me racist. I have written that Mithraism looks like it was derived from Yezidis and not the other way round. I have written that Yezidis is perhaps a primordial faith. How does that demean the Yezidis? I live with the faith Yezidis have been living for long. Today fortunately their hegemony has been thrown off. I have quoted sources which narrate that Islam is used as a camouflage and a subterfuge by the Yezidis, Yezidis have written that they have nothing to do with Islam, Sharia, or Adam or Eve or anybody related to the Abhrahamic faiths and even Kurds. The world has suffered from European Imperialism, Christian Proselytesing and the spread of Islam under duress.(I do not need to give a citation, or do I? Hundreds of thousands of houses of worship have been broken down and converted to mosques.) The more contemporary is the Bamyan Buddhas. This is the same ideology which targets Yezidis in Northern Iraq and the neighbourhood. This is why Parsis, Jews, Bahais fled persecution and have sought refuge in India over a period of two thousand years. This perhaps prompted Obama to say that he disbelieved a girl in India would burn in hell just because she was not a Christian. The most racist and pejorative word pagan is used to describe Yezidis and other faiths such as the Kalash and other faiths including the faiths of India. What kind of reading are you going to do and what sources are you trying to dig up. We are not talking about Tutankhamen or the dodo we are talking about living people and a living culture that has found its voice and its space. That is my locus standii and the need for me to make a common cause with the Yezidis.

I can understand and empathize with the suffering of the Yezidis because of similar experience as a non-Abhramic faith a hare set on by a pack of hounds. Just as we (you, me and others) can empathize with the girl who lost her life. That is why I am making common cause with those who are called devil worshippers and then finished off in the most devilish manner in the name of God the most merciful and the benevolent

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Honor killing" misplaced

"The Yazidi also practice honor killing of women and girls, as in the 2007 stoning of Du'a Khalil Aswad": this phrase should be deleted, as honor killing of women and girls is a regional, cultural practice, not a specific Yezidi creed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.219.173 (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source which we could use as a citation, per Wikipedia:Verifiability? Thanks, --Elonka 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it was in fact an "honor killing" or a killing motivated by a Yazidi motivation to remain isolated, which is understandable considering Islam has been using their God's name for the name of Satan, and they are being punished based on this with terror.--John Bessa (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Rooted in nature

"Although it is rooted in nature, Yezidism has similarities to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism" (Taylor, [1])

If this is true, then I will make the educated guess that Yazidi religion predates what I call the "empirical" religions (from ancient empires), and what I call the "modern and compassionate" religions (such as Christianity and Buddhism). It should then fall into the category of "Tribally Native" religions that date back to the emergence of human society from forest dwelling to village life. Someone brought up the concept of the age of the Levant. The Yellow Emperor's medial classic shows Asian roots to tribally native culture as a philosophical basis for its medicine.--John Bessa (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous or nature-rooted doesn't mean it's unchanged from prehistory. All faiths change over time; for example, the Yezidis have been heavily influenced by Islam and Christianity, although this has not erased their distinctiveness. There is little evidence it is any different than any other modern Near Eastern faith - is Zoroastrianism "tribally native" because it's not Judaeo-Christian or Dharmic? While the two aren't identical, they both share similar features: an oral scripture (Avestas were later written), Iranian religious beliefs with non-Iranian influences, etc. Ogress _smash! 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The temple at Lalish and a Hindu temple and a mosque, check for yourself.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. (Not to mention your argument is totally unscientific, but it's irrelevant due to the policy of "no original research") Ogress _smash! 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Where there is smoke there is fire, soon, sources which comply to wikipedia standards will be found. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My previous post just carries images, with no comment, it is left to one who looks at the image to arrive at conclusions. There is no argument put forth for it to be termed unscientific. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are implicitly making an argument by deciding what to list... Ogress _smash! 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It means you chose evidences and put them up on a page. That alone is making an argument, because you are providing evidences. We don't use direct evidences on Wikipedia, we use second-hand sources. A qualified citation on the issue of comparative architecture would be, say, a peer-reviewed article on the subject, not our own evaluation of evidences. Wikipedia:OR Ogress _smash! 14:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are the two holy books located?

The articles seem to be using very old information, when the Yezidis still had their books. They originally only had one or two copies of the books, which were kept in sacred places. But isn't it true that the Yazidis lost their holy books, and that they are kept in the British museum? That's where our knowlege of Yezidi scriptures come from - from the copies in the British museum (published almost 100 years ago). Since the Yezidis don't have the books anymore - the article should state this.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the two books were written recently by a non-Yazidi Kurd; the traditions are oral. He wrote them down and sold them to Westerners as "authentic" Yazidi books, but they are in his non-Yazidi Kurdish.

Rumours of Yezidi 'sacred books abounded', and in 1913 the 'Yezidi sacred books', Meshefa Resh (the 'Black Book') and Kitêba Jilwe (the 'Book of Revelation') were published, having been purchased by a Christian priest from a Yezidi convert who claimed to have copied them in secret. The authenticity of these has been rightly disputed; indeed the Kurdish in which they are written is not credible Kurmanji at all. [Christine Allison, The Yezidi Oral Tradition in Iraqi Kurdistan]

Many other cites available on this issue... however, the framework of the stories in the book do generally resemble Yezidi oral stories, so probably they were written down recently by a non-Yezidi in order to sell. The Yezidi tradition has been illiterate and actively oral; there is no "Yezidi bible". Ogress _smash! 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, and also disheartening. At any rate, if these articles on the Yezidis and their books are going to be accurate, they should be updated to reflect the information that you mention (based on sources). I also read that there were other versions besides Kurdish (perhaps Syriac or Arabic?), but I imagaine these were also just oral stories that someone had written down.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I've full-protected this page for three days to prevent further edit warring. Please discuss the issue here or on other relevant talk pages. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 07:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Tealwisp (talk) is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Alright, I'm here to help everyone reach a compromise. This dispute seems fairly spread out, so I'd like a summary of each side's position, from a member of each respective side. Please keep your comments strictly to the issue at hand, and do not comment on other users' behavior, as this appears to be a potentially sensitive issue. Tealwisp (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke introduced a large amount of material of high dubious nature and scholarship claiming an Indian origin for the Yazidis. I opposed this point by point. He has made a large number of other allegations and desires for changes, some of which I find confusing. Ogress _smash! 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked through the sources listed, and they are all viable. I think they more than establish the reliability of Yogesh's edits. The problem that appears when considering those edits, however, is that they should be written in prose, not as a list of quotes. Is there any particular objection that you have, regarding the reliability or authenticity of the sources, Ogress? If not, I would ask Yogesh only to make his edits in the form of a short paragraph rather than a list of quotes. Tealwisp (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I found that a number of the sources did not meet Wikipedia standards of reliable sourcing.

1. YezidiTruth.org is run by a plastic shaman: it is non-scholarly, written by a non-Yazidi, cites no reliable primary or secondary sources and is cultural appropriation. I raise my eyebrows that Yogesh, who is concerned about appropriation of the Yazidi faith by outsiders, should like this source in the first place. In addition, the analysis by that author is beyond sketchy... Murugan and Tawus-e Melek are the same because both use the peacock as their symbol? Um...
2. The "contemporary journalist" citation does not say what it is being used to argue: that the Yazidis are Hindu. Instead, the citation states that Yazidism is in fact a full-blown religion, like other full-blown faiths of the Near East and environs such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Misrepresentation.
3. http://www.yezidism.com/ is a wordpress blog with no authorship listed and no sourcing. How is that a reliable source?
4. Aziz Tamoyan, President of the National Union of Yezidi in Armenia is a reliable source for the statement that some Yezidis have stated the faith originates in India. This source I do not challenge except that he is a non-expert on the factual nature just as we do not assert that, for example, "Islam is the true religion of humanity throughout time" just because Muslims believe it to be true. Instead, we say that Muslims believe the same. (I spend a lot of time defragmenting the Islam pages from confusions between what Muslims believe and what we as an encyclopedia say.)
5. middleeastyouth.com is reliable, but note what the citation says: it is possible there is an Indian origin, but it also is possibly indigenous Kurdish faith. It is also non-scholarly, an internal understanding of the faith.
6. Common practices between Parsis, Kurds and Hindus points to no Indian origin, to state that it does is not only original research but misses the obvious conclusion that it is a custom common to Indian AND Iranian peoples.
7. Other information alleging similarities between, i.e., Sanskrit words and the name of the Peacock Angel are uncited and OR; not only that, they belie the basic facts of the matter, such as the indigenous name for the peafowl, tawus, found in Persian as well as in Arabic, while the parallel term for Skt. deva exists in Kurdish already as a separate word meaning "demon".

I may have missed some citations. Please let me know if I did. In conclusion, I object to the extremely large section and focus put on what is a fringe and partial theory in complete contrast with the general scholarly consensus (including by indigenous Yazidi researchers) that Yazidism is an indigenous Kurdish faith that recrystallised in a movement around the Lebanese Sufi 'Adi. Ogress _smash! 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I am glad my sources may stand scrutiny, the above comments of the other editor are her views which she calls facts, the words Devas and Asuras were used in the oldest Zoroastrian and Vedic texts neutrally as supernatural beings, for example in the Hindu texts Varuna Asur is good and still is, later Hindu texts, demonise the asurs, and deify the Deva, vice versa with the Zoroastrians, the Yezidi language is not Kurdish it is Kurmanji, we have many posts which most emphatically say so. I wish to know whether deva means demon in Kurmanji or just giant which is neutral.
2. The section says Indian connection not Indian origin, it could be anything, a common origin for Yezidis, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, it could be a Hindu enclave, it could be that the Yezidi's are what the Hindus originated from, it could be anything, what can clearly be verified is that there is a connection.
3. Yezidi's have written in these pages that they have nothing to do with the Koran, nothing to do with Ramzan, do not pray the namaz, do not pray facing the Kaba, do not speak Kurdish, are not Kurdish (in the sense are not Kurdish Muslim), that is they do not practise twahid, have nothing to do with Adam or Eve or any Abrahamic character. They are able to say so because they are free from the terror of the majority religion to say so. Earlier they tried to mask their faith in a camouflage of Islam like practices to escape persecution, just as homosexual men and women earlier suppressed their identity and are beginning to identify themselves now only when it is safe or relatively less dangerous to do so. I can give a reference for the above mask of Islam.
4. There is the caste system, (an abominable Hindu practice), the ritual cleanliness, the structure of the shrines, the obeisance to nature, the dogma about not touching others for fear of defilement, very difficult for one who does not know what it is to understand but a simple familiar practice for Hindus, not sharing of food utensils, personal items and not for hygiene but as a religious practice. I will have to be blind not to find every thing so familiar.
5. The similarity between Murugan and Malek is not just the peacock, a long description of the other numerous similarities can be found at the source of the reference. I can not comment how good it is, I have quoted a source
6. The awkward style of editing is because I did not wish to put my own view but to quote sources.
7. Most of what is written on the Yezidis appears to be written by those who are hostile to them, in the sense they felt that how can we have heretics in our midst, how can pagans or heathens or kafirs been allowed to survive in our exalted midst for so long?
8. In this general environment it is not easy to find the best quality sources, another thing we must remember is that experts by definition are those who do not agree with each other. So much for a general scholarly consensus. Please have the above section back. I have read the verifiability criteria, exceptions can be made if merited.
9. I do not mind if the other editor presents the facts using the qualifiers she wishes, she is requested to present a draft here. I request her not to compromise with the spirit.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my challenges to your sourcing. They are not reliable. I paralleled them point-by-point with the listing of sources you provided above, hence the numbering I used.

I have made no allegations the Yazidis are Muslims! I simply don't find you have provided credible evidences that they are Hindus. Caste systems exist in many societies; pre-Islamic Persia was casted as well, and that was not because it was of Indian origin.

The Kurds are members of the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian language family and have indigenous Iranian cultural traditions; why you insist on passing over all of Iranian history and culture to connect the Yazidi Kurds with India seems nothing more than Hindutva.

There is also a lot of excellent works, many of them already cited, on the Yazidis, especially in recent years; "God & Sheikh Adi are Perfect" (Iranica 9) is a perfect example as it was cowritten by Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Khalil Jindy Rashow, submitted to peer review, and published by Harrassowitz Verlag's Iranica series. There is also the book I mention below, "The Yezidi Oral Culture in Iraqi Kurdistan". Both of these books - grabbed from my pile o' library books - are in-depth, non-Orientalising, modern scholarship done with great cooperation and even copublishing with the Yezidi community. There are reliable sources; they just disagree with your eyeballing of Yezidism and declaration thereafter that the Yezidis are Indians. Ogress _smash! 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The section says Indian connection not Indian origin, it could be anything, a common origin for Yezidis, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, it could be a Hindu enclave, it could be that the Yezidi's are what the Hindus originated from, it could be anything, what can clearly be verified is that there is a connection. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism evolved from a proto-faith, there were many connections with Pre-Islamic Iran and India, the Mittani made treaties in the name of Vedic deities, I do not know what you mean by Hindutva. The Yezidi's hate being called Kurds. I have offered you to use the syntax you please. The Yezidi's hate being called Muslims. The Sheikh is perhaps most likely a myth. I have a reference that says so. For Iranians and Iraqis (must I add Muslim) Yezidis are heretics or heathens or kafirs or all put together. They have found a collaborater. Your view seems like that of Pakistan's school history that begins with the marauding hordes of Mohammeds of Gazni and Ghori. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not and have not called them Muslims. ‘Adī ibn Musāfir al-Umawī is a historical personage born in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon, who studied in Baghdad. The Wikipedia page on him has two reliable sources. Common origin of Iranian and Indian people, cultures and faiths some 4000 years ago does not mean you get to pull "The Yezidi faith is Indian" - especially since Murugan is of Dravidian origin!

As an observation, the opening line of Yazidi is "The Yazidi ... is a Kurdish religion with ancient Indo-Iranian roots." It goes on to say "The religion of the Yazidis is a highly syncretic one: Sufi influence and imagery can be seen in their religious vocabulary, especially in the terminology of their esoteric literature, but much of the mythology is non-Islamic. Their cosmogonies apparently have many points in common with those of ancient Persian religions." & cetera. You, however, insist on marking this as "Indian", and without reliable sources. Do you see my problem?

Final note: you are a citizen of India and you do not know what Hindutva is? That's like an American claiming not to understand either of the words "Republican" or "Democrat". You are being disingenuous. Ogress _smash! 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ogress, that IS a personal attack, and I encourage you to maintain civility, as I would like to maintain informality to best satisfy both of you. Tealwisp (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war continued

I cannot claim to not have heard the word Hindutva, it means Hindu or essence of a Hindu. What I do not know is what your intention in using it as a label and pasting it on my forehead? There is no Dravid, non-Dravid chasm what you may see are inventions by politicians out to create their constituency, Malayalam, and Sinhalese, and even Bhasha Indonesia have as many Sanskrit derived words as Sindhi or Kashmiri (please verify) that is Sanskrit has touched almost the Equator and the Pacific and the Mediterranean, (written in response to Murugan is a Dravid god, there are no Dravid gods, the Dravid movement is atheist and so called anti-Northern India, Murugan is the Son of Shankar the destroyer in the triumvirate and the brother of Ganapati the God of knowledge) actually it is very difficult for a person to explain Hinduism even for most adherents, there are no simple four legs good, two legs bad/better commandments, or pillars like Shahada, Salah, Zakat, Sawm and Hajj, no absolute dos and don'ts, there are Hindus who cremate, others bury, some eat beef, Sawarkar had written A cow is a very useful animal, and her flesh is very tasty and nutritious, and quoted the Veda to prove that it was once eaten, others abstain from all meat. A Hindu has personal beliefs, for example I can have your photo in my shrine, and you can be my goddess, if I believe that praying to you will help me. Hindu was for a long time not a self-designation, historically a Hindu is perhaps one who lives or lived in the Indian sub-continent and the neighbourhood even an Indo-Iranian when he was not anything else. The Bamiyan Buddhas were Buddhist avedic Hindu culture if that helps explain the point. Even the etymology of Hindu is difficult to ascertain as with all things including Malek. It perhaps came from Sindhu, the S changed to H, we have the Marwadis, a people from Rajasthan who sometimes change the S to H, such as in Sukhi Roti, (a flat pan wheat bread that is not topped with edible oil) is called Hukhi Roti, and many other instances. People who are called today animists automatically became Hindu in the earlier days. Again what I am writing is what you call an internal assessment, for me what looks like one good identifier is pantheism, every thing is His Maya or Leela, best way to describe Hindu beliefs. You must also remember though that religion, theology, culture, etc. are more an art than a science.

You are right, the lead refers to the Indo-Iranian roots of the Yezidi , and the other things like their own mythology etc. A lead is a summary of what is written in the article, should not one line in the lead be supported by a section in the main article.

Of course there must be many references for the Sheikh. There are also sources that state he is just a dubious camouflage.

Please go ahead and make a draft for the new section. Later the whole article should be re-written so that there is less sensation, less trivia, less hostility and is as factual, neutral, interesting, and informative as possible. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh, you seem to be working quite amicably with Ogress here. Do you still feel that you need my mediation? If you decide that you don't, you can always ask me again later if you change your mind. Tealwisp (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The images

I am not using the images as evidence to prove a point, at least not directly, they are like "Have a look at this", between the two of us, not as a Wikipedia citation. I hope this is clear, we are having a debate, I find you are more resourceful than I am both in terms of content and wikipedia syntax, I hope you use that to let the truth surface, that is find wikiquality sources, or find a reason to make exceptions. The photos are to make you understand why I think or interpret what is in front of both of us the way I do. I hope you are aware of the difference that interpretation makes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Adi is He an historical person, looks like he is not

...The origin of the name of "Yezeedee," by which they are more commonly known, is referred by some among them to Yezeed ibn Moawiyah, but this is only a stratagem to secure their toleration by the Mohammedans. For a like purpose one of the tombs in the temple of Sheikh Adi is ascribed to Hasanool-Basri whereas I have been assured that the Sheikh who is said to be buried there was a different individual, and one of their own sect whose descendants are still living at Ba-Sheaka. The quotation from the Koran near the tomb was also admitted by several Kawwâls to have been introduced as a blind, and in order to prevent the Moslems from desecrating; their sacred shrine...

...It is supposed by some that the "Sheikh Adi" of the Yezeedees, is the same with "Adi," one of the disciples of Mani; but this, I think, improbable, since there is no proof that even Mani himself was deified by his followers.} {p. 113} as another artifice to throw dust into the eyes of the Mohammedan persecutors. Or it may be that "Adi" was a supposed incarnation of Yezd, who appeared on earth only for a season. This opinion receives support from the fact that several buildings are erected near his shrine to commemorate the places on which he is said to have sat. The above hypothesis receives support from the subjoined translation of an Arabic poem, which I obtained after much trouble from the Sheikh already alluded to.

A long prayer...

Confused and unintelligible as much of the above rhapsody is, it tends to confirm our hypothesis that "Sheikh Adi" is one of the names of Deity in the theology of the Yezeedees...As soon as the rays of the sun touch the ground beneath them, they bow down and reverently kiss a stone, which they then place upon some other close by. We crossed this mountain on our return from the shrine, and found its surface covered with these piles, which frequently consisted of eight or ten stones raised one above the other. The same practice is observed by the heathen in India, and I have frequently seen an idol temple or pagoda surrounded with similar tokens of Pagan adoration....I have not been able to learn who these reputed saints were, and the modern Yezeedees are quite ignorant as to the time when they lived or died. The names by which they are designated, such as Sheikh Aboo-Bekr, Sheikh Mohammed, &c., must be regarded as fictitious, and invented to conciliate the Moslems, since they do not admit the mission of their prophet or the authority of the Korân, and their Sheikhs they affirm to have lived long before Mohammed... ...When a Yezeedee is about to die, a Kawwâl is called in, who pours into his mouth a quantity of water; if he happens to die before this ceremony can he performed it is reserved till the body is brought to the grave. The reader will here remember a practice common among the Brahmins of India, who pour water from the Ganges into the mouth of the dying... Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hindus formed 20% of the population of what is Pakistan in 1947, today they number 1.6% BBC, a journalist visiting Karachi lately writes,

I couldn’t find a single Hindu lady sporting a bindi in Karachi or elsewhere. I asked one at a temple and her one-liner was—we have to live the way everybody lives, it’s safer. Even some temple attendants wore Muslim skullcaps, Tarun Vijay,

the point is just 60 years have changed the Hindus in Muslim Pakistan. Forcing them to put Muslim appearences to survive. An ancient Hindu shrine Hinglaj, (just four of the hundreds left) survives only because the Muslims tolerate it calling a Pir. This is what looks like happened to the Yezidis, please try to understand. 60 years is a blink of an eyelid compared to the time Yezidis suffered at the hands of the Abhramic faiths. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Argument

There are no new arguments... what did you want me to comment on? I'm not being deliberately difficult here, I just don't understand. Would you like me to repeat my last summary? Ogress _smash! 11:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

German Literature

I think you should mention Karl May`s Books "Through the Desert" and "Trough wild Kurdistan" where Yazidis are main characters. They are described as being friends with the main character a german traveler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.206.33 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Eszter Spat

No mention of the research undertaken by the Hungarian scholar and ethnographer available in English: The Yezidis (London: Saqi Books, 1985). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.129.224 (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Yezidi, Not Yazidi but ÊzîdÎ

Dont care how much you guys fight over Yazidi or i dont know what, but they call themself Êzîdî!

It's fancy, but too bad those letters don't exist in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.236.20 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop mentioning us as Devil Worshipers and stop posing us as Honor killings

We don't kill people for fun, killing is wrong am saying this from an yezidi point of view , I speak for all yezidies when I say Killing is wrong, worshiping the Devil's evil power is wrong.

So please we DO NOT make fun of your race and we DO NOT put your race down, so stop doing it to us.

To whom it may concern Fact from Yezidi Progress and Reform, as well as Dangie Yezidi and Lalish and all the yezidi world we are not devil worshipers nor honor killers, we wish to peacefully assemble like any other race or kind.

We know Life is not Fair, We know whats Right and Wrong,

So to whom wants to write these unresourcefull articles with no facts and absolutly no evidence behind what they are saying and or writing about I quote YOUR are the devil worshipers and honor killers ; trying to put me and my people down , you don't believe in GOD so you make helpless and innocent people the subject to talk about .... who ever is writing these articles and pages about Yezidi being bad,;... you and your religion are the devil not us, get an update clowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.40.198 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I have a problem with that section too - it's worded in a way that feels very POV. After all, sadly, honour killings are not uncommon throughout the region irrespective of the exact community. I personally think that section should be stubbed unless someone can come up with refs that show that in the case of the Yezidi, this is a particularly prominent factor. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about Lalish pilgrimage month

The article indicates that the Lalish pilgrimage begins 23 Aylul and ends 1 Tishrin. The hypertext links embedded in the month names in the article jump to the articles for the lunar months of Elul and Tishri. I recognize that these are different forms of linguistically related month names (Aylul/Elul and Tishrin/Tishri) representing different modern forms of ancient Babylonian lunar month names. However, I also note that Aylul and Tishrin may be used to refer to the Gregorian months of September and October, which are not keyed to the phase of the moon. (See Calendar Months in the Levant, though I recognize that the language of Yazidis is not related to Arabic but is instead part of the Indo-European language group.)

My question, therefore, is whether the references to 23 Aylul and 1 Tishrin as the dates of the Lalish pilgrimage refer to the lunar calendar dates of 23 Elul and 1 Tishri or to the solar calendar dates of 23 September and 1 October. Thank you.

-- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes October and November

Yes the months are September and October that is beleived when Meleke spend some of his time on Earth. It does date back to anceint Babalon and Yezidies calender does go by the moon. They have this holiday called "Evara SHevv Baratek eh" When ths moon is compeletly full and everyone including the childern have to stay up all night or up to how ever many hours they can to have fun, drink, party, dance, music, and food. Who ever can stay up all 24 hous and or up till the sun rise is considered brave, strong and courages. And Melek Taus blesses them. But Yes the 10th month of the year is the most exciting time for the yezidies world wide, from Russia, to Gorgeia, to Armenia, To Germany, Syria, Lalish, especially in Iraq even to Lincoln Nebraska United States of America where is home to the highest Yezidi population nation wide around 2,000 People/members city wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.140.90 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. So, just to make sure, it is correct to say that the Lalish pilgrimmage begins 23 September and ends 1 October?

-- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Yazidis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Biased and degenerates the Yezidis who have been victims. Repeats prejudices about them over and over, does not attempt locate sources which try to establish an identity independent from the Abrahamic faiths, despite clear indication. Article is absolutely unsatisfactory in its present form.

Last edited at 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)