Talk:Yazidis in Armenia

Issue
This is to report that this article contains inappropriate materials! Who is the author to have an interest in lying against Armenians for the relations with Yazidis living in Armenia?! What harassment are they talking about?! Where is the report by United States' Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004 linked as the source?! Try to open it from the linked page and you will get Error 404 page on state.gov site! There are NO ethnic tensions, no crimes against Yazidis as well as other ethnic minorities! Who is interested in publishing such lie against Armenia?! You link to a letter describing the Situation of the Yazidis in Armenia, but who is the author?! Just an immigrant who needs to lie against Armenia for obtaining German citizenship, the similar reports can be found among submissions of ethnic Armenians moving to EU countries because of bad economical situation in Armenia caused by Nagorno-Karabakh War and blockage by Azerbaijan and Turkey! Yes, the situation in Yazidi villages is far bad, but the same is in Armenian villages! And regarding the absence of teachers speaking Yazidi language, in what way does it prove bad relations among Yazidis and Armenians?! Aaleksanyants (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes made
Changes with the text taken from the latest report by US Countries reports on Human rights saying that as of March, 2008, Yezidi leaders did not complain that police and local authorities subjected their community to discrimination. Aaleksanyants (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Yazidis in Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060110080044/http://www.osce.org:80/documents/oy/2002/01/148_en.pdf to http://www.osce.org/documents/oy/2002/01/148_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140422184708/http://www.yerkramas.org/2012/10/23/v-armenii-torzhestvenno-otkryt-ezidskij-xram-ziarat/ to http://www.yerkramas.org/2012/10/23/v-armenii-torzhestvenno-otkryt-ezidskij-xram-ziarat/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Yazidis in Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071223113150/http://209.200.101.189:80/publications/csq/csq-article.cfm?id=1360&highlight=molokan to http://209.200.101.189/publications/csq/csq-article.cfm?id=1360&highlight=molokan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruption, edit war attempt and incompetency
User:ZaniGiovanni

1. The fact that you are doing disruptive edits without having access to the source and you can't review the source both go against Competence is required. I have the book myself and it has more than 500 pages, I did notice that the link the source was redirected to in this page was to a different edition of the book, so I will assume that you thought it had 480 pages because the link redirected to a different version of the book, the "third revised edition" of the book, which has 480 pages, but the "revised" edition, which I have, has 536 according to Google Books. So I will add that link instead to avoid further confusion in the future.

2. You were already being disruptive by removing what was clearly stated in the source, now you're being even more disruptive by removing a source which you didn't even read altogether. This goes against Disruptive editing. You stated the reason why you removed it is because it goes against Verifiability, but how would you know that if you don't even have access to the source itself?

3. I noticed your warning on my talk page, may I ask whether you might be a moderator or administrator? Cause by looking at your page, I cannot see any qualifications that would grant you adding stuff like that on other people's talk pages. According to that text you inserted, I am undoing other users' edits, may I ask what edits? Clearly I was the one adding more specified information (as a result of that "which" template being added) based on what was said in the citation, and the one undoing that was you.

Thanks in advance.KurdeEzidi (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are doing disruptive edits without having access to the source and you can't review the source both go against Wikipedia:Competence is required. I have the book myself and it has more than 500 pages, I did notice that the link the source was redirected to in this page was to a different edition of the book, so I will assume that you thought it had 480 pages because the link redirected to a different version of the book, the "third revised edition" of the book, which has 480 pages, but the "revised" edition, which I have, has 536 according to Google Books. So I will add that link instead to avoid further confusion in the future. – Bunch of wall of crap and personal attacks, we'll see how long you last with conduct like that.
 * I removed a section which had no way to be WP:VERIFIABLE, the cited book had 480 pages while the page shown was 494, which is physically impossible to verify. But it seems to be too hard for you to understand, judging by all the ad hominem attacks and baseless misconduct accusations (which also qualify as personal attacks) that you made in your opening statement.
 * You were already being disruptive by removing what was clearly stated in the source, now you're being even more disruptive by removing a source which you didn't even read altogether. This goes against Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. You stated the reason why you removed it is because it goes against Wikipedia:Verifiability, but how would you know that if you don't even have access to the source itself? – Ah yes, throwing guideline left and right without understanding them, baseless accusations yet again. The Cited source WAS accessible here from the edit I reverted. And unlike you, I bothered to open the link, which showed only 480 pages. I don't care what books you possess, Wikipedia doesn't take your personal library into consideration. If you want to include content, IT MUST BE VERIFIABLE, do you understand that or not? And in this case with the cited book and url, it had NO WAY of being VERIFIABLE, do you understand this or not?
 * I noticed your warning on my talk page, may I ask whether you might be a moderator or administrator? – lol, are you even not aware that anyone can leave a notice in talk pages? And yes, my notice was absolutely well-placed. And it's not like your first time of edit-warring.
 * Unlike the previous book, which content was cited as on page 494, despite it only having 480 pages, at least I could search material/pages for and access it . Your added link doesn't even allow me to search for quotes/pages which Google Books usually does. So provide a quote from the book for the following: "as some affirm their Yazidi Kurdish identity and complain of Armenian discrimination, and have accused the Armenian government of assassinating various Yezidi intellectuals such as Sehîdê Îbo, Dr. Dewreshian and Hesen Abbasian. Consequently, numerous Kurdish intellectuals have fled from Armenia.", and show me the link, as again, I can't WP:VERIFY the information. Until then, you'll be reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've got a lot to say regarding what you wrote right above but that would turn the content dispute into a conduct dispute and I don't think this helps anyone (and furthermore i have no time or energy for this), nor it would improve the article. Therefore, I will stay on the topic instead:


 * Please read WP:SOURCEACCESS section of WP:V policy you linked. It says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Instead of reverting, you should have gone to WP:RX as suggested there.


 * As for quotation, providing quotes when citing sources is not mandatory. But here is the quote (at page 494 and Note 5):


 * "In Armenia, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the loss of automatic minority representation and the revival ofstrong ethnic identity, politically-minded Yazidis have become divided. Some affirm loyalty to the Armenian republic and tend to play down their Kurdish identity while others assert their Yazidi Kurdish identity and complain of Armenian discrimination. In addition there has been growing interest in and support for the PKK, whose representatives have been allowed freedom of movement in Armenia. Armenia is understandably alive to the travails of Kurds in Turkey. Following Ocalan's eviction from Syria 2,000 Kurds demonstrated in Yerevan. Following his capture, about 100 Kurds occupied the UN mission building, while two tried to immolate themselves outside the Greek embassy."


 * Note 5 on the same page:

KurdeEzidi (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "These complain that some Kurdish intellectuals who asserted 'Yazidis are Kurds' were put on trial. They also claim that various Kurdish intellectuals have been assassinated, for example, Dr Sihide lbo, Dr Dewreshian and Hesen Abbasian, and that other intellectuals have consequently fled, see www.Yezidi.org."
 * Please provide a source/link to the quote when requested, since again I can't verify anything in your added Google Books weblink. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The source is not accessible online. As i wrote in my reply above, you need to try WP:RX as per the same WP:VERIFIABILITY policy you linked.KurdeEzidi (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your entire added claim falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and now you're telling me the one and only source which says that isn't accessible online? The ONUS is on you to find the quote, since you were the one adding new content to the article. And even then, an exceptional claim like that supposedly claimed by only one source, is a clear case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * two years late but here is the source.
 * @KurdeEzidi Volkish Kurden (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)