Wikipedia

Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 14

< Talk:Genocides in history
Latest comment: 8 years ago by My very best wishes in topic "Indonesian killings of 1965–66" section
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 19

The Dersim rebellion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw some time ago that the figure given here for the deaths in the Dersim rebellion is very high. A figure of around 13,000 is usually given and that is in that main article too. I recently read an article saying just 13,000 too (Turkey's Alevis 'under the shadow of military tanks', Al Jazeera). I decided to look in the source and how it came here. It was added 5.5 years ago. A figure of 65,000 to 70,000 killed is given and is still here today. The source is an excerpt from a book by Martin van Bruinessen (The Suppression of the Dersim Rebellion in Turkey (1937-38)). Looking in the source, we find the following:

Dersim is an inaccessible district of high, snowcapped mountains, narrow valleys, and deep ravines in central Eastern Turkey. It was inhabited by a large number of small tribes, eking out a marginal existence by animal husbandry, horticulture, and gathering forest products. Their total numbers were, by the mid-1930s, estimated at 65,000 to 70,000.

This is followed by a note saying:

This figure was given in December 1935 by then minister of the interior Şükrü Kaya (quoted in Beşikçi, Tunceli kanunu (1935), 10). It referred to the province of Tunceli. The historical district of Dersim was in fact larger than Tunceli, and included parts of neighboring Sivas, Erzincan, and Elazığ provinces. This may explain why another contemporary author gives the much higher population figure of 150,000, apparently referring to larger Dersim (Naşit Uluğ, Tunceli medeniyete açılıyor [Tunceli is opened up for civilization] (Istanbul: Cumhuriyet Matbaası, 1939, 144). The military campaigns were mainly restricted to the province of Tunceli, and therefore I prefer the former figures.

So he is not saying 65,000-70,000 were killed but that so many lived there. In one part there, he writes :

In seventeen days of the 1938 offensive alone, 7,954 persons were reported killed or caught alive; the latter were definitely a minority. According to these official reports, then, almost 10 percent of the entire population of Tunceli was killed. The Kurds claim that their losses were even higher.

Looking in other Wikipedia articles, 40,000 deaths is mentioned and sourced to David McDowall. He cites Wadie Jwaideh, who cites Lucien Rambout, and writes it may be exaggerated. See Dersim rebellion#Consequences and Dersim rebellion#Numbers killed. 70,000 is given by the Kurdish PEN but that is not a reliable source. I will remove this and add 13,000-40,000.

This source is mentioned at 1934 Turkish Resettlement Law too but the usual figure of 13,000 is not given (the part about 65,000-70,000 was there too before it was removed). Neither is it in List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Harrying of the north

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Copied from my talk page

hi you reverted my edit of the Genocides in history‎ page, could you undo it?

(it was not only adding the harrying of the north but also a big structural change, i found the present structure not very good) References to that it was a genocide are on the harrying of the north page itself , is that not enough?

Here they are as well:

William's strategy, implemented during the winter of 1069–1070 (he spent Christmas 1069 in York), has been described by William E. Kapelle and some other modern scholars as an act of genocide.[1][2][a] Contemporary biographers of William also considered it to be his cruelest act and a stain upon his soul.[4] Writing about the Harrying, over fifty years later, the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis said:

The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies. He cut down many people and destroyed homes and land. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty. This made a real change. To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes. More than 100,000 people perished of starvation.

I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him.|Orderic Vitalis, 12th century.[5]}}

The land was ravaged on either side of William's route north from the River Aire. His army destroyed crops and settlements and forced rebels into hiding. In the New Year of 1070 he split his army into smaller units and sent them out to burn, loot, and terrify.[6] Florence of Worcester said that from the Humber to the Tees, William's men burnt whole villages and slaughtered the inhabitants. Food stores and livestock were destroyed so that anyone surviving the initial massacre would succumb to starvation over the winter. The survivors were reduced to cannibalism.[7] Refugees from the harrying are mentioned as far away as Worcestershire in the Evesham Abbey chronicle.[8][9][10][b]

  1. ^ William E. Kapelle. The Norman Conquest of the North. p. 3
  2. ^ Rex. The English Resistance: The Underground War Against the Normans p. 108 Retrieved 30 January 2014
  3. ^ Moses.Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation p. 5 and p.28
  4. ^ Dalton. Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire, 1066–1154. p. 298
  5. ^ Vitalis. The Ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy p. 28 Retrieved 24 February 2014
  6. ^ Dalton. Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire, 1066–1154 p. 11
  7. ^ Forester, Thomas. The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester. p. 174
  8. ^ Horspool. The English Rebel. p. 13
  9. ^ Strickland. War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy pp. 274–275 Retrieved 31 January 2014
  10. ^ Thomas Malborough. History of the Abbey of Evesham. Bk3.1.159

Thanks WillemienH (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

user:WillemienH this is an explanation of why I removed you addition of Harrying of the north. As to you other changes, I do not think that they improve the article. It already has much too large a TOC.

The article Genocide in history is not a list of nasty things that happened in the past. Genocide has a specific meaning both as a legal concept and as an academic label (see both the Genocide and Genocide definitions).

The easiest way to understand this is to look at the people accused of genocide by the prosecutors at the ICTY and the List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions, it becomes clear that the decision of if a genocide took place is extremely complicated. You will notice that many of those accused of genocide who were found innocent of genocide were found guilty of crimes again humanity this is because it is relatively easy to prove that a person took part in mass murder and other crimes against humanity, it is far harder to prove that they committed these crimes with the intent to commit genocide. The trouble is that "Guilty of genocide" has a punch to it that "guilty of crimes against humanity" does not, most (people have fallen asleep by the time the get to "against").

For this reason it is not enough for you as an individual to look at a set events and say that it is a genocide, you need to find experts who agree with your analysis, and unless the source you find is very notable (eg the Whitaker Report), you need to find several different reliable sources that support the view, because to add an event on the views of one person probably gives undue weight to that view (see WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE). If the Harrying of the north is widely viewed as a genocide then finding more than one expert reliable source that says so should be easy.

-- PBS (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OKay thanks for your explanation, but i was more thinking about the structural changes i wanted to meake, is there a reason to have this quite confusing TOC ? ( i would prefer to have more periods at the first and second level WillemienH (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion criteria

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to use the criteria. AlbinoFerret 01:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this article should contain its own inclusion criteria, like those in

to inform and guide new editors who may not be familiar with the three content policies and how the content policies affect selection of events for inclusion in this article. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

See the proposed Talk:Genocides in history/Inclusion criteria.

To simplify this RfC I would like editors to voice their opinions in the survey section below, whether in principle this talk page should include an Inclusion criteria similar to that on Talk:List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Changes to the inclusion criteria can be discussed in the changes section below and implemented in the usual way while this RfC is in progress. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • While I support the idea of inclusion criteria, I don't see any inclusion criteria in the link above. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Elmmapleoakpine it is there under Talk:Genocides in history/Inclusion criteria but the box was "collapsed" (so you had to click [show] to see the content) I have now set the box to "expanded" (to collapse it [click hide])l -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support concept, Weak support specific inclusion criteria proposed, because I haven't looked at it too closely yet, bet it looks good to me so far. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The inclusion criteria states that you cannot classify something as genocide unless the source defined the act as genocide, but the term "genocide" wasn't even used until 1944 (see [1]). Are we going to eliminate every source that was written before that date? GregJackP Boomer! 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    @GregJackP The UN convention on genocide (CPPCG) explicitly states in its preamble "Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". Since 1948, academics and other reliable sources retrospectively categorise historical events as genocide for example see the Whitaker Report (United Nations) published in 1982 that "The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary [1985] Iranian killings of Baha'is.". Besides if no reliable sources has stated that an event was a genocide to include one in this article would be a breach of WP:SYN (OR). Please reconsider you opposition. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    @PBS:. Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide, and it is not a violation of WP:SYN or WP:OR. See WP:SYNNOT. In addition, you did not address the basic question, of whether pre-1944 sources are now worthless for genocide articles. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide. If not how does one assert that it was a genocide, without SYN? This is just as true for post 1944 events as those that pre-date the coining of the word genocide. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pre 1944 articles are useful for stating facts about an event, but they can not be used to establish if there was a genocide, for that you need post 1944 opinion to state it was a genocide." No, you don't. Again, see WP:SYNNOT, especially WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not obvious II. If you have a source defining genocide by stating the elements, you can state those elements, cite to the post-1944 source, then cite to the individual facts in pre-1944 sources proving each of the elements. "Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison." It's not WP:OR, therefore it is not SYNTH. All this does is provide support for genocide deniers, and I'm not going to support a proposal that is slanted towards a denialist POV. GregJackP Boomer! 23:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are many different definitions of genocide and even experts on the subject do not agree in many instance on what constitutes genocide, see for example what the ECHR has to say about how opinion among legal scholars over the interpretation of the CPPCG between early German court judgements and the later ICTY judgements (Bosnian Genocide#European Court of Human Rights). There is no single source single stating the elements of genocide, and even if there was Wikipeda editors are not qualified legal or academic scholar who can authoritatively make such an analysis. To do so is OR. You write "Nope, this makes it way too easy for the genocide deniers to eliminate examples of genocide". I have no idea what you mean by that. What is a genocide denier? A genocide denier is someone who denies that a genocide took place when the majority of expert sources have concluded that one took place. A genocide denier is not a Wikipedia editor who requests that another editor--who has alleged that a series of events are a genocide because that editor thinks it fits a pattern of one of the many definitions of genocide--produces reliable sources that state that those events were a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're wrong on the OR and SYNTH, as well as the ability of WP editors (many of whom are qualified to make a legal or academic analysis without going into OR). There is no point in continuing the discussion, I'm not going to change my position, at least as long as the current criteria is part of the package. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion was posted at WP:ORN by PBS on whether it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, thus far only one editor has weighed in, stating it is neither. GregJackP Boomer! 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Upon reflection, I don't think inclusion criteria is needed. I think it is better to discuss on a case by case basis if necessary. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support idea; articles like this need inclusion criteria to reduce editwarring and PoV pushing. Netural on the specific criteria drafted so far. It's a good start, but it has problems. For example, the 7th entry has a scenario that doesn't match the rationale given.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • not sure at all , I do agree with the neutral point of view' but not with the exclusion criteria, I think best is something like 2 lists / pages one with "recognised" genocides , and one "disputed " where disputed / non recognised genocides are mentioned, (btw the genocides of ancient times and of the neanderthalers should fall in the second catagory i think, also can we change the time structure of the articel and introduce different periods (just pre 1914 is a mutch to large section) WillemienH (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposed changes to the text in the Inclusion criteria

See current proposed Talk:Genocides in history/Inclusion criteria
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

use dmy dates and American English

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found substantial use of both mdy dates and dmy dates, with dmy dates outnumbering mdy dates by about 4-to-1, so I added the "use dmy dates" template and converted about 60 mdy dates to dmy dates.

I surveyed the use of American and British English. I found labor/labour, behavior/behaviour, favor/favour. But in the -ize/-ise words I found the overwhelming prevalence of -ize. The only -ise word that would be -ize in American English was "cannibalise". I contrast, I found these American English -ize words that would usually be -ise in British English: recognize, emphasize, theorize, politicize, authorize, apologize, specialize, sterilize, patronize, organize, characterize, marginalize. Therefore I concluded that this article is in American English. I added the "use American English" template and converted labour to labor, behavior to behavior, favour to favor, and cannibalise to cannibalize.

I hope these changes are satisfactory, and I encourage people to let them stand. If anyone is unhappy about all this, I suggest discussing it here first. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Congo Free State

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Congo has been discussed several times before for the last time that it was see

To summarise just because something including mass murder is a crime against humanity does not make it a genocide. Genocide has an additional component which is the intent to destroy a group. Adam Hochschild is a leading academic in this field who published a book called King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa that cause a furore in Belgum . In "In the Heart of Darkness — A Glimpse of the World". HowardwFrench.com. New York Review of Books. 2005-10-26. Adam Hochschild states:

The exhibit deals with this question in a wall panel misleadingly headed “Genocide in the Congo?” This is a red herring, for no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different.

When one has the expert who brought this atrocity to a modern audience stating that the atrocity was not a genocide and that "no reputable historian" has made such a charge, we should remove the section that says otherwise. -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the AFD request for the "Congolese Genocide" page too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Robert Weisbord stated in the 2003 Journal of Genocide Research that attempting to eliminate a portion of the population is enough to qualify as genocide under the UN convention. In the case of the Congo Free State, the unbearable conditions would qualify as a genocide. Weisbord, Robert G. (2003). "The King, the Cardinal and the Pope: Leopold II's genocide in the Congo and the Vatican". Journal of Genocide Research 5: 35–45. doi:10.1080/14623520305651. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dubious. There's no evidence of intent, which is what matters. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Late Victorian Holocausts

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the events surrounding the book titled Late Victorian Holocausts should at least find a place in this list, as these were undeniably caused by deliberate criminal acts in administrative circles.

ATB - Wikirictor (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at this article, and I cannot tell what it is even about, much less that it is accounts of genocide. If you have examples of events which can objectively be described as genocide, then by all means add them.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

controversial

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm going to say something controversial. It's a proposal. Genocide is a scary thing. The word should not be flung around. There's a difference between people dying of diseases that were inadvertently introduced by foreigners and people being shot to death en masse. This list seems WAAAAYY too inclusive, which really trivializes genocide. I propose that either A: We should only include genocides that have been recognized by at least two states or the majority of historians Or B: We separate "recognized genocides" from "unrecognized genocides". Because while the death of millions of Native Americans was horrible, they were by no means exterminated. 99%+ died without being touched by a European. Same with Congo except a bit less so. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Or we could only include things in the category "genocide", as all of these are pretty well substantiated with a few exceptions. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Adding genocidal claims for "Australia 1900–1969" is nonsense: the kids were not killed on masse, to eliminate a nation. Just the opposite: they were nourished and educated for free. It could be suspected as a Rome Statute 6b method.

OTOH, I added the WW2 genocide of Poles by Germans (read: Adolf Hitler) which was genocidal in intent, pacem the written first-hand documents produced by Nazi Germans themselves. It has been curiously missing here, despite > 100 000 victims executed just in one year.

Zezen (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Should the Ottoman genocide be mentioned in this article?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that this article has a section about the Armenian genocide, but not about the persecution of Ottoman Muslims or Ottoman genocide. Should it also be mentioned in this article? Jarble (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This obviously doesn't use the legal definition of genocide (and thus trivializes genocide) and its very loose criteria "events called genocide by a reliable source" allows for selective use of sources for political means. Um, why? Can't we separate it into recognized and unrecognized genocides? Isn't it different when killings are intentional and when they are done by humans rather than diseases?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: There are multiple definitions of genocide. How will this article distinguish the recognized genocides from the "unrecognized" genocides? Jarble (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The legal definition is the most common. There's no reason we shouldn't adhere to it. We shouldn't just have a list of everything that's been called a genocide. For example the article list of war crimes specifies the details of the conviction, the nature of the crime, and what specifically made it a war crime or crime against humanity. Imagine if we put everything called a war crime on that list, it would be full of bs. Like this list is. Genocide, the mass killing of a people, is rare and this article presents it to mean any mass killings or even a typical smallpox epidemic. It's not, and mainstream scholarship agrees. Again, it trivializes the crime of genocide. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC) It's disingenuous to group, say, the Armenian genocide, with things unrecognized as genocides. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Monochrome Monitor. This article seems to be a collection of things that did not get into the main Genocide article... K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are some fundamental problems with the WP:TITLE, however it requires WP:RS in order to eliminate what is or isn't deemed to be a genocide. It isn't quite that straight forward. I would not be able to accept the wording 'unrecognised genocides' as it's entirely WP:OR. Unless someone can define what 'unrecognised genocide' means, I can't construe it to be anything outside of an easy fix. There are certainly events that are disputed as being genocides, a form of genocide, bearing the characteristics of a genocide... but we might as well come up with an OR term like 'ungenocide' if we're going to try to conflate the subject area. While the content needs to be reviewed, I can't !vote for WP:SYNTH because it makes it easier for editors to pigeon-hole the subject. Trivialisation works both ways... and which particular 'legal' definition is the absolute qualifier? You are making light of the multiple 'Fatal Impact' scenarios where European colonists wiped out entire indigenous groups (or the majority of such groups) through more than "a typical smallpox epidemic". There's no reason why the article can't be structured to accommodate various interpretations and be split off into other main article entries using hatnotes and leaving a summary with this article as the broad scope umbrella. In fact, I believe that a number of such articles already exist. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


I also wonder why Moses is used for history. There is no evidence that there were any jews in Egypt as slaves or in any other way except biblical parables. it would be as historical to use stories from Grimm Brothers as the Bible.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 25 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Genocide of the Ottoman Muslims should be added to this page too

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims Patetez (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Indonesian killings of 1965–66" section

Latest comment: 8 years ago41 comments6 people in discussion

If there are up to date, genuinely academic WP:RS demonstrating that genocide is not a descriptor associated with the event, please bring your sources to the table and discuss the content here on the article's talk page. Edit warring content is disruptive and ineffectual. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the the party removing sourced content to demonstrate that their sources are correct, and that the sources in use are not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is a consensus that the killings were "genocide", that begs the question: Why is the relevant article titled "Indonesian killings" rather than "Indonesian genocide"? Practically anything has been dubbed a genocide by some source or another, but communists are not a protected group under the Genocide Convention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I studied this particular case, but to my recollection there were quite a number of scholars raising questions as to whether it was only a particular political demographic who were being targeted as there were discrepancies in that evidence pointed to specific ethnic groups being targeted.
The fact stands that there are sources cited who characterise this as having genocidal overtones at the least. As regards other Wikipedia articles on the subject matter, please read WP:WINARS. This article is not accountable to other articles in Wikipedia on the subject. While parity is preferred, it doesn't mean that the information in this article is wrong and should be disposed of. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The notion that the Chinese were disproportionately targeted is a myth, according to one of C.J. Griffin's own sources, the recognized expert Robert Cribb.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
In which case, such sources can be introduced as arguments against it being genocidal. It does not automatically neutralise other scholarship and scholars because of an expert have called it a 'myth'. What that means is that there is more than one school of thought as to the nature of the killings (on the proviso that Cribb's paper hasn't been dismissed as WP:FRINGE). Academics produce their research on the premise that they have primary sources and facts to support their own theory (read as POV). Saying that something is a 'myth' doesn't make their position more or less correct than other positions. Despite jargon like 'exploding myths', only empirical truths can be dispelled or substantiated. When it comes to historical human truths, we don't have the luxury of documented absolutes and algorithms that can be applied. If there is mainstream academic discourse about genocide involved, it is documented in this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would agree with TheTimesAreAChanging here. Indeed, certain authors (such as in the Black Book of Communism) argued that mass murder of certain social, rather than ethnic groups is no different from the genocide. However, the most common definition/understanding of the term, in agreement with UN conventions, is that genocide is applicable only to extermination of ethnic groups. As long as there are well sourced notable allegations that campaign was directed against an ethnic group (as in the case of Holodomor), it does belongs here. However, if it is clearly directed against a social and especially a political group (as in this case), I think it should not be included on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that contend the massacres of the 1960s were at least genocidal in nature. One notable expert on the subject outright referred to the atrocity as a "Genocide in Indonesia, 1965-1966" (i.e., Robert Cribb). Joshua Oppenheimer has referred to the killing as a genocide as well. Not only that, but the Indonesian killings are often included in scholarly studies and encyclopedias of genocide, and dictionaries of genocide. If it is to be included in such scholarship, then why not in this article??? If were were to purge the article of instances where ethnic groups were not specifically targeted, we'd have to exclude this section on the USSR. We would also have to exclude any mention of homosexuals and the physically disabled killed by the Germans in WWII because those aren't ethnic groups, but social groups. Come to think of it, even the Holodomor as a genocide is hotly disputed by some scholars, such as Mark Tauger, and Stephen Wheatcroft.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Our role as editors is not to cherry pick what belongs and what doesn't according to our personal point of view, but to include that which has been presented by experts in the field. If there is serious scholarship on the subject, it most definitely belongs here. We're not writing our own paper and proscribing ourselves to a word limit, therefore it's outside of the bounds of editor discretion. There isn't anything clear about it if you've actually researched it. As with the Holodomor, there were anomalies distinct enough to beg the question of a genocidal complexion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, my personal view is exactly the opposite: I think that mass killings of social groups and other politically-motivated mass killing should be described as genocide (such view was also justified in a number of sources, from the "Black Book" to historians quoted by C.J. Griffin above). However, as correctly written in the intro of this page, The term ... is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group... and so on. Therefore, I suggest to not include this particular case here. This is contrary to my personal views, but consistent with the most common definition of the term and therefore I think should be followed. However, this is not something I am going to argue a lot about. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If you read through the lead and alternative definitions, the definitions you are alluding to are not proscriptions to the content of the article, they merely serve as a broad based introduction. On that topic, I suspect that the "Alternate definitions" hatnote should be changed to 'main article' rather than 'see also'.

This discussion is taking us back to the issue of renaming the article (above). If the list is to be proscribed to being a reflection of the CPPCG definition alone, it would have to be renamed to reflect that it is proscribed, and content outside of these definitions would/should be transferred to a WP:SPINOFF article. Essentially, anything pre-dating the 20th century would have to go as it could only be understood as being revisionism and OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, anything pre-dating the 20th century would not have to go because modern-day definitions of every term can and should be used retrospectively to historical events of the past. This is done by all branches of science. For example, term "Cambrian" was not invented by someone during the Paleozoic Era. These events are known as democide and politicide, which is not the same as genocide ("gene" is present there for a good reason). My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but then these would not be directly supported by the CPPCG definition other than as WP:OR interpretations by non-expert Wikipedian editors, but could only be supported by academic texts that don't adhere strictly to that definition unless it is stated that it is by that definition that conclusions of 'genocide' have been drawn. That is why other forms of genocide debates and definitions are included in this article. If you read through the contents of pre-1900 genocide subheaders, they are complex debates contingent on other definitions of genocide. This isn't List of states with limited recognition based on a couple of theories: there are multiple valid theories and scholarship surrounding the subject, so why should we be compelled to eliminate serious discourse. Of course it would be an easier option, but I don't believe that it would be encyclopaedic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is very complicated. Depending on the particular definition of "genocide", one could include on this page a lot of very different content. One needs a logical guideline here. I checked this section. This view seems to be most common and logical:
According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning
What we are talking about belongs to the "third meaning", i.e. democide. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rummel's term, "democide", encompasses all state killings, even if the victims were only a few hundred outspoken critics of the regime. Rummel did not intend for democide to be synonymous with genocide. That said, if Wikipedia considers political groups to be as protected as racial or religious groups, then the events in Indonesia certainly fit the bill.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not about protection by international law, but about terminology in sources. But yes, I agree: this case does not belong here as an example of democide rather than genocide. Unfortunately, it seems we can not convince others. @TheTimesAreAChanging. Although I agree with you and made an edit on the page to be clear, you should make an RfC about it if the dispute continues and you strongly feel this info should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I restored the content yet again. Scholars cited refer to the events as a genocide or at least genocidal in nature. We go by what the sources say, not what we as editors think it should be classified as. Besides Rummel, I doubt most scholars in the field even use this term, and none that I have seen refer to these killings as "democide."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Then one must include here the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (some scholars claimed it to be a genocide), all Mass killings under Communist regimes, and a lot of other things. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, let me refer back to the book Century of Genocide published by the respected academic publisher, Routledge. In this collection of scholarly essays on genocide (not "democide" or mass killings), you will find discussions on the Holocaust, the Armenian massacres, the killings in Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Holodomor, the Indonesian massacres of the 1960s, the killings in East Timor, Rwanda, among others. Omitted are the instances you mentioned, the atomic bombings and "Mass killing under Communist regimes." The former in particular is hardly genocide, but mass killing in war, as the other elements of genocide are missing (dehumanization through propaganda, segregation, discrimination, organization, etc). If the killings in Indonesia are good enough for a collection of essays on genocide, they are worthy of being included in this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, one can find some sources telling that it was a "genocide" or "genocidal". No one disputes that. One can also find scholarly RS telling that atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a genocide (provided on the page Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Black Book of Communism tells that all Mass killings under Communist regimes are no different from genocide, and this is a reasonable scholarly opinion, no questions. But should we include in this page everything that arguably belongs to politically-motivated killings and even warfare? Should I start an RfC about it? My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about polemical sources such as the BBoC which has been disputed, even by some of its own contributors, or Rummel, whose ideas on "democide" have not spread too far beyond his own works, but general academic studies, encyclopedias and dictionaries on the subject, which I have linked to above. That is the difference.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, certain views by historians, even such notable as Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth and Andrzej Paczkowski, are polemic. However, one could easily argue that your source is a lot more doubtful because it was written by a relatively unknown historian Robert Cribb we do not even have a wikipedia page about. Therefore, I suggest to stick to mainstream definition of the term that has been officially accepted by UN, rather than to struggle with a lot of alternative definitions that historians can not agree about. My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Professor Robert Cribb is not a 'relatively unknown' historian. See Google Scholar. Not having a Wikipedia page for an academic is not a sign of anything other than the fact that no one has created one. See Group of Eight (Australian universities) for details of the world ranking for ANU. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, he may be an excellent expert on the subject, although less notable than other authors above. And just like all other academics noted above, he has every right on his opinion about genocide and everything. I am only telling that according to mainstream definition of the genocide (one that was used by UN and accepted by majority of RS), that case does not belong to this page. RfC? My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing notability with elements of notoriety, as well academics you are aware of because of your personal areas of interest. Cribb is a significant and notable specialist. Feel free to do a news search for how often he is cited on Indonesia and (most recently, on the resurgence of anti-Chinese bias). Outside of his area of expertise, as noted by C.J. Griffin, his work features in publications which absolutely and unquestionably meet with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The 'genocides' you are suggesting only meet with WP:FRINGE or WP:BIASED sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, I already agreed above that his work is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So is work by John W. Dower (quoted on the page Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and by Stéphane Courtois and Nicolas Werth. But it does not mean all these historians can not hold "minority views" about something. Obviously, they do. This is normal and does not make any one of them "fringe". For example, many genocide definitions are minority views. My argument here is that we should use the majority (UN-backed) definition of the term for selecting content on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Now I can see the problem. This page tells: "In this article, atrocities that have been characterized as genocide by some reliable source are included, whether or not this is supported by mainstream scholarship." Indeed, that is what going on. But it should not be this way. One should only include examples that satisfy mainstream definition of genocide per WP:NPOV. Of course the "legal" definition is not relevant that much, but in this case it coincides with mainstream/majority definition. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rummel is a moron, "democide" such a daft term it's no wonder no one uses it. That said, I was surprised to see the 1965–66 slaughter, however horrendous and gargantuan, as genocide. Surely the only definition of genocide we should adhere to is the UN one – I mean, no one's going to be prosecuted for genocide a la Cribb. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

BowlAndSpoon, be reminded of WP:SOAP. This is an article talk page, not a forum. Your 'comment' is neither constructive nor appreciated. WP:BLPVIO also applies to talk pages. We're not concerned with your personal point of view regarding terminology, individual academics, or what constitutes a genocide. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for all of those reminders. I just am so forgetful at times! Nevertheless, it is not my definition of genocide that matters, but that of the United Nations. That strikes out your Indonesian killings from this article. It's over, Iryna. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're forgetful, BowlAndSpoon, because that would be contingent on your being an experienced editor. A) Do not make assumptions as to what my personal position is regarding what constitutes genocide and what does not. B) I will continue to assuming good faith on your behalf, but but will point you to WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest, strongly, that you read these and reign in your behaviour towards other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Listen up, Iryna Harpy: My power is simply incredible. Now, how about having a prominently mentioned sub-article on stuff that has been called genocide but which does not meet the UN definition? Could dump the Indonesian slaughter in there, along with the other dubious cases contained in this article. The UN definition cannot be any clearer: "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Where is the scope for any further discussion on this matter, for expanding the definition of genocide to include the extermination of political enemies? Some pretty bold OR you are proposing. Honestly, I just don't even see what there is to discuss. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"Listen up" [sic], BowlAndSpoon, I'm not particularly concerned as to whether you're convinced that you're WP:SPIDERMAN. The fact that you don't believe there to be anything to discuss does not mean there is nothing worth discussion. If I have to pull you up on WP:PERSONAL again, it will be in a very public venue. Assume good faith, remain civil in discussions, and don't propose simplistic methods of dealing with a vast amount of material as if it were about chucking some 'stuff' over there, and other 'stuff' somewhere else while the proposal you favour remains the sanitised Wikipedia sanctified interpretation. There is a distinct difference between 'POV obvious' and, 'not really obvious at all'. Everyone else has managed to stay courteous whether they agree or disagree. It's the most productive way for editors to follow through discussions thoroughly, as opposed to a bar-room brawl version of a debate. Play nice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Are you serious? So I go to WP:SPIDERMAN and read: "Look, if you have been linked here from a Talk page or a Wikipedia debate such as articles for deletion, it's probably an indication that someone thinks you are taking things a bit too seriously." You don't think for a moment that it is you who is rather… uptight? As is pretty obvious, my tone could not be care-free. And what's with this WP:PERSONAL? I've not made a single personal attack on you at any point, so no idea what you're on about there. Do, please, lighten up.
"the proposal you favour remains the sanitised Wikipedia sanctified interpretation…" Aren't you the one who's repeatedly mentioned "assuming good faith"? Moving on…
"as if it were about chucking some 'stuff' over there, and other 'stuff' somewhere else…" Perhaps I should throw some WP: at you over your tone here? Perhaps you are WP:SPIDERWOMAN. I've no idea. Nevertheless, despite what you seem to think, these things called subarticles are created all the time, whereupon stuff from main articles gets dumped into them. Perhaps you are not familiar with this phenomenon? Perhaps, with further editing experience, you will become acquainted with it.
This whole debate, which is a farce, is not about sanitising Wikipedia; it is simply about using the term genocide correctly. It's like the silly people you say at protests against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with placards displaying the word "genocide". The term should not be trivialised by applying it willy-nilly to events that do not merit such a description. The UN definition, as has been pointed out repeatedly to no avail, does not include exterminating political enemies, and that fact strikes out Indonesia. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the Soviet war in Afghanistan was listed on this page for at least a year, from April 2011 to November 2012, when it was deleted as "undue weight to a tiny-minority view". While I agree with this removal, if one accepts the notion that anything labelled as genocide by any reliable source belongs on this page—along with any rebuttal—it's hard to see why the Soviet war could not be construed as having the same "genocidal overtones" as the events in Indonesia. After all, the war resulted in the death of some 10% of the Afghan population, and created several million refugees, about one-third of the pre-war population of the country. Certainly, the killing was much more one-sided in Afghanistan than it was in the case of East Timor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Good point! Based on the current criteria, this definitely must be included. Based on the proposed/UN criteria, this is probably a borderline case that might be included. This depends if the war was directed specifically against civilian population of certain ethnicity. Methods used by the Soviet Army during in this particular war (burning/bombing a lot of villages with people) do fall under this category. Speaking logically, it is hard to argue that this war was any different from the Circassian genocide which is correctly included on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be an exaggeration to argue the Soviet war in Afghanistan constituted genocide, also no sources have been offered for this allegation. The troops were there to help the internationally recognized Afghan government survive. There were obviously lots of civilians killed like it happens in wars, but the USSR never intended to exterminate a particular ethnic or religious group in Afghanistan. Dorpater (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
A scholarly source to support such position was provided in the diff above. Here is it: [2]. Therefore, this info can and should be included based on the current criteria. Hence I submitted the RfC to clarify which criterion/definition should be used. My very best wishes (talk)
Who's the author of this pamphlet? Dorpater (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
See "About the author".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And you sincerely believe this is enough to characterize the events as a "genocide" here in the Wikipedia articles? Dorpater (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There are many other sources. It was listed by Genocide Watch, see this book, this book, a number of books listed here, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
TTAAC has said above that he does not agree with this academic's take on Afghanistan. TTAAC does not think the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan involved genocide. So many of the attacks on me, TTAAC, and so are mere adhominems. "You don't think this was genocide because the West supported it", or, "You think this was genocide because the crime was carried out by communists." TTAAC are on completely opposite sides of the political aisle, and yet agree with each other here. I've no idea if TTAAC has ulterior motives, and maybe he does – but that does not matter to me because he is, so far, dealing with the issue at stake: applying the definition of genocide consistently and correctly. I don't understand the need of a noisy slice of the Left (I am a Leftist! I am a great fan of Chomsky!) who seek to make Western crimes as bad as possible. Did the Soviets and other communist governments commit terrible crimes? No doubt about it. Have Western countries committed or supported horror shows? Yes, and we continue to do so. What happened happened, reality is what it is. If we committed or supported genocide somewhere in he past, fine; if not, then… so what? What does it matter? I just don't understand the animus. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_14&oldid=1026813094"