Correction Policy

Last updated: August 27, 2026

Accuracy is a core editorial responsibility of Yazidis.info.

We publish information about Yazidi history, religion, culture, language, communities, persecution, genocide, diaspora life, sacred traditions, and other subjects where inaccurate wording can do more than create a minor factual mistake. An error may reinforce a historical misconception, misrepresent a religious tradition, confuse an academic interpretation with a community understanding, or incorrectly describe the experience of a living community.

For that reason, Yazidis.info welcomes corrections and treats them as part of the normal process of maintaining a reliable reference work.

Corrections from Yazidi readers receive priority in our editorial review queue.

This policy explains what we correct, how corrections can be submitted, how we evaluate them, and how significant changes are disclosed.

Our Correction Standard

Our basic principle is:

When we are wrong, we correct the record.

We do not regard corrections as evidence that a reference project has failed. A responsible reference resource should be capable of changing when better evidence becomes available.

Our approach reflects established editorial practice. The Society of Professional Journalists recommends acknowledging mistakes and correcting them promptly and prominently, while also responding quickly to concerns involving accuracy, clarity, and fairness.

The Associated Press similarly states that errors should be corrected fully, quickly, and transparently and that factual corrections should actually be identified as corrections rather than concealed behind labels such as routine changes.

What Can Be Corrected

We welcome reports concerning any part of Yazidis.info.

Examples include:

• incorrect dates, names, places, or events;
• inaccurate descriptions of Yazidi beliefs or practices;
• mistranslations or transliteration errors;
• incorrect Kurdish, Arabic, or other terminology;
• claims unsupported by the cited source;
• quotations that do not match the original;
• incorrect citations or bibliographic information;
• broken or inappropriate sources;
• outdated statistics;
• incorrect captions;
• misleading maps or graphics;
• inappropriate historical terminology;
• descriptions that present a local practice as universal;
• descriptions that present one person’s position as a community-wide position;
• confusion between academic interpretation and Yazidi understanding;
• missing context that materially changes the meaning of a statement;
• incorrect descriptions of genocide-related events;
• errors involving organizations, institutions, or individuals;
• incorrectly attributed photographs or archival material; and
• factual errors introduced through AI-assisted editorial work.

Typographical errors, broken formatting, and similar minor problems are also corrected when discovered.

Priority for Yazidi Readers

Yazidis.info is an independent reference project.

We are not a Yazidi organisation and do not speak for the Yazidi community.

Because much historical writing about Yazidis has been produced by outsiders, community feedback deserves particular attention.

When a Yazidi reader tells us that an article may have:

• misunderstood a religious concept;
• used inappropriate terminology;
• generalized a local practice;
• confused an outsider’s interpretation with an internal understanding;
• incorrectly translated a term;
• omitted an important community perspective; or
• described a tradition in a way Yazidi readers recognize as inaccurate,

the submission receives priority in our editorial queue.

Priority does not mean that every requested change will automatically be made.

It means the concern will be treated seriously and evaluated against the relevant evidence.

Our responsibility is both to listen to community knowledge and to preserve transparent sourcing.

Community Knowledge and Published Scholarship

A difficult correction may involve disagreement between a published academic source and a Yazidi reader’s understanding.

We do not assume that the academic source automatically wins.

We also do not automatically replace published evidence with an unsupported assertion.

Instead, we investigate what kind of claim is being made.

For example, an academic scholar may be proposing a historical interpretation, while a Yazidi reader may be explaining how a tradition is understood within the community.

Those are not necessarily contradictory claims.

The corrected article might therefore say:

Academic interpretation: Scholar A interprets the tradition as X.

Community understanding: Yazidi sources describe or understand the tradition as Y.

This approach is often more accurate than forcing two different forms of knowledge into a single supposedly definitive statement.

Scholarly Disagreement Is Not an Error

Not every disagreement requires a correction.

Scholars may legitimately disagree about:

• historical origins;
• chronology;
• religious influences;
• interpretation of oral traditions;
• population estimates;
• linguistic terminology;
• historical identities; or
• the meaning of particular sources.

If our article accurately represents a documented scholarly position, the existence of another interpretation does not necessarily make the first statement wrong.

However, if the article presents a disputed interpretation as settled fact, that may require correction or clarification.

Where significant disagreement exists, our preference is to identify it.

For example:

Scholar A argues that…

Scholar B proposes a different interpretation…

The question remains disputed.

Readers should be able to distinguish established evidence from interpretation.

What Happens When We Receive a Correction

A correction request may be reviewed through several steps.

1. Identify the Claim

We determine exactly which sentence, image, citation, statistic, translation, or other element is being challenged.

Specific correction requests are usually easier to investigate than general statements that an entire article is wrong.

2. Review the Existing Source

We check the source originally used for the claim.

We ask:

• Does the source actually support the sentence?
• Did we represent it accurately?
• Is the source being quoted in context?
• Is the source current enough for the claim?
• Is it a primary source or an interpretation?
• Does the source itself contain known problems?

3. Check Additional Evidence

Where appropriate, we consult additional materials such as:

• academic monographs;
• peer-reviewed papers;
• archival records;
• primary sources;
• Yazidi publications;
• oral-history collections;
• United Nations documentation;
• human-rights reports;
• linguistic references;
• institutional records; or
• specialist scholarship.

4. Distinguish Fact From Interpretation

We determine whether the disputed statement is:

• a factual assertion;
• an academic interpretation;
• a community perspective;
• testimony;
• a translation;
• an editorial summary; or
• an unresolved question.

This distinction often determines what kind of correction is appropriate.

5. Update the Article

If the evidence shows that we were wrong, we correct the article.

If the original statement was technically accurate but misleading or incomplete, we may clarify or expand it.

If reliable sources disagree, we may revise the article to show that disagreement.

Types of Changes

Not every edit requires the same treatment.

Routine Edit

Minor changes that do not alter the substantive meaning of an article may be made without a correction notice.

Examples include:

• spelling;
• grammar;
• punctuation;
• formatting;
• broken links;
• minor stylistic improvements; and
• obvious typographical errors.

Clarification

A clarification may be added when the original statement was not factually false but could reasonably be misunderstood.

For example, we may clarify that a religious practice described in a source applies to a particular region rather than all Yazidis.

Where materially important, the clarification may be disclosed in an editorial note.

Correction

A correction is appropriate when published information was substantively wrong.

Examples include:

• wrong dates;
• incorrect names;
• false attribution;
• mistranslated terminology;
• incorrect statistics;
• misidentified people or locations;
• claims not supported by the cited source; or
• inaccurate descriptions of events.

AP’s editorial standards provide a useful principle here: factual corrections should be explicitly labeled as corrections rather than disguised as ordinary updates.

Significant Revision

Sometimes new evidence requires substantial changes to an article even though the earlier version was reasonably based on the information available at the time.

In such cases we may add a note explaining that the article was substantially revised and why.

Correction Notices

For meaningful factual corrections, Yazidis.info may place a notice at the bottom or another appropriate location on the article.

A notice may include:

Correction — [date]: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that [brief description]. The article has been corrected to reflect [correct information].

For significant clarifications:

Clarification — [date]: This article has been updated to distinguish between [perspective A] and [perspective B].

For major updates:

Editor’s Note — [date]: This section was substantially revised following additional research and community feedback.

We aim to explain enough for readers to understand what changed without unnecessarily repeating harmful misinformation.

The Trust Project includes prompt publication of corrections and clarifications, transparency about methods, and opportunities for public engagement among its indicators of trustworthy publishing.

We Do Not Silently Rewrite Major Errors

If a material factual error has already been published, simply replacing it without explanation can hide the editorial record.

For significant errors, our preference is therefore:

1. correct the content;
2. clearly identify the correction; and
3. provide enough information to explain the nature of the mistake.

This does not mean every punctuation fix requires a public record.

The level of disclosure should be proportional to the significance of the error.

Corrections Involving Genocide and Survivor Testimony

Claims involving genocide, captivity, sexual violence, killings, missing persons, mass graves, survivor testimony, or identifiable victims require heightened care.

We will not knowingly preserve an inaccurate detail simply because it appeared in an earlier version.

However, changes involving testimony must also respect the integrity of the original source.

We will not modify a survivor’s actual words merely to make them match another account.

If sources conflict, the article should identify that conflict where appropriate.

If an error could expose a survivor, witness, child, or vulnerable person to harm, we may correct or remove the information without preserving sensitive details in a public correction notice.

Safety and privacy can outweigh the value of maintaining a complete public edit history.

Corrections to Quotations

Direct quotations should reproduce the source accurately.

If we discover that:

• wording was changed;
• words were omitted in a misleading way;
• a quotation was attributed to the wrong person;
• translated wording materially changed the meaning; or
• an AI system generated wording that was mistakenly presented as a real quotation,

we will correct or remove the quotation.

AI-generated reconstructions are never acceptable substitutes for genuine quotations.

Corrections to Citations

A citation may need correction even when the underlying factual claim is accurate.

We will correct issues such as:

• wrong author;
• wrong book or article title;
• incorrect publication date;
• broken DOI;
• incorrect archive reference;
• citation pointing to the wrong document;
• incorrect page number; or
• source that does not actually support the claim.

Where possible, we also prefer primary or authoritative sources over pages that merely repeat them.

SPJ’s ethical guidance emphasizes verification before publication and using original sources whenever possible.

AI-Related Corrections

Yazidis.info may use artificial intelligence for limited research and editorial assistance under our AI Policy.

AI involvement never reduces our responsibility for accuracy.

If AI-assisted work results in:

• a hallucinated citation;
• invented quotation;
• false historical claim;
• mistranslation;
• incorrect summary;
• fabricated biographical information; or
• unsupported interpretation,

we treat it as an ordinary editorial error and correct it accordingly.

We will not defend incorrect information simply because an automated tool produced it.

Removing Content

Correction is generally preferable to deleting an entire article.

However, removal may be appropriate when:

• an article is fundamentally unreliable;
• its sourcing cannot be repaired;
• publication creates a serious privacy or safety problem;
• copyright restrictions require removal;
• material was published without proper authorization; or
• another substantial legal or ethical reason applies.

Where appropriate and safe, we may leave an explanatory notice at the former URL.

Requests We May Decline

We may decline a requested change when:

• available evidence supports the existing statement;
• the request asks us to remove accurate information solely because it is unfavorable;
• the disagreement concerns interpretation rather than factual accuracy and the article already identifies the interpretation correctly;
• the proposed replacement lacks reliable evidence;
• the request attempts to promote a political, organizational, commercial, or sectarian agenda;
• changing the article would misrepresent the cited source; or
• the request asks us to erase legitimate scholarly disagreement.

When possible, disagreement itself may be useful context and can sometimes be incorporated into the article.

How to Submit a Correction

Corrections can be submitted through our Contact Us page.

To help us investigate efficiently, please include:

• the URL of the relevant page;
• the article title;
• the sentence or section in question;
• what you believe is incorrect;
• the proposed correction, if known;
• supporting sources or references, if available; and
• any relevant explanation of Yazidi terminology, regional practice, oral tradition, or community context.

You do not need to be an academic or institution to report an error.

A well-explained correction from a reader is valuable.

Anonymous and Confidential Corrections

Readers may have legitimate reasons for not wanting their names publicly associated with a correction, particularly when discussing religious, political, survivor-related, or community-sensitive subjects.

We do not normally publish the identity of someone submitting a correction without a reason to do so and, where appropriate, their permission.

However, anonymous information may require additional verification before it can support a substantive change.

No Payment Required

Yazidis.info does not charge readers to submit corrections.

No person, organisation, advertiser, sponsor, or interested party can purchase a factual correction or pay to prevent a justified correction.

Editorial accuracy is independent of commercial considerations.

Our Goal

Yazidis.info will inevitably need corrections.

Historical evidence changes. Scholarship develops. New archives appear. Terminology evolves. Community members identify nuances outsiders have overlooked. Sometimes editors simply make mistakes.

What matters is how those problems are handled.

Our standard is:

Verify before publishing.

Listen when readers identify problems.

Give Yazidi community corrections serious and prioritized attention.

Distinguish fact from interpretation.

Make legitimate disagreement visible.

Correct substantive errors transparently.

Never allow pride, automation, or convenience to preserve something we know is wrong.

Yazidis.info does not promise to be permanently error-free.

It promises to remain correctable.