Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Kashmir

This section seems to be at times incredibly inaccurate and pov. I'd especially like to see sources for the claim that "mostly Muslim and some Hindu civilians" have been killed and for the claim that most of the atrocities are blamed on Indian military (and not terrorists) by Human Rights groups and the UN. --Kefalonia 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The article still states the following: "Most of the atrocities including rape, torture and massacre are attributed to the Indian Army personnel in the region, mostly by human rights groups and the UN [1]." I don't want to judge the objectivity or neutrality of this article, but this particular article focuses heavily on the India military or similar, not on the terrorists or the Pakistani military. The HRW article says that the Indian military also commited atrocities, but not that it commited most of the atrocities, so this should be corrected in the article. --Kefalonia 13:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice how the section is about Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Administered), so it has to focus on the Indian side. Besides there is nothing that commonly classifies as genocide that was conducted on the Pakistani side. Also it is well documented that Indian military did have a greater hand in killings than separatists. The separatists (or "terrorists" in less NPOV version) do kill people but not as much as the army has. And selective killings were done by both the military and separatists. Also there is a Muslim majority in Kashmir and any good source will tell you that more Muslims have died than Hindu. The HRW article has several pages on Indian military actions and there is one page on separatist actions. Look at the linked sources. Not all the groups are Pakistan-based either, that is only allegation. Hope that helps. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The article still says: "Most of the atrocities including rape, torture and massacre are attributed to the Indian Army personnel in the region, mostly by human rights groups and the UN [9]. The Indian army claims these are isolated incidents by individual soldiers who are punished by military courts and says that militants in the territory are also responsible for grave abuses [10]. The conflict has resulted in the largest internal displacement of people in South Asia since the Partition of India and the conflict continues [11]." The reference given (the HRW article) does not say that most atrocities are commited by Indian army or similar, but that the India army also commits atrocities. It does also not say that most human rights groups or the UN claim this. So this sentence should be corrected. The same HRW also mentions the atrocities by terrorists [2] [3] and by the Pakistan army [4]. The particular HRW article that is linked in the article heavily focuses on the army (see the title, it is an aricle about army abuses) and is primarly about the army, there are also other articles and reports about terrorists. I also think that the Kashmir section has a pro-terrorist bias. The section barely mentions that the terrorists commit atrocities, and references to atrocities of terrorists are reverted or deleted. [5] [6] [7] [8] The section is about Kashmir, which also includes Pakistan administered Kashmir. "Besides there is nothing that commonly classifies as genocide that was conducted on the Pakistani side." I wouldn't say so, compare the percentage of non-Muslims in 1947 with the percentage of non-Muslims in 2005, and you'll see that in 2005 almost no non-muslims are left in Pakistan admin. Kashmir. You give no sources that say that the terrorists kill less than the army, or that more muslims died. Some terrorist groups are also Afghanistan or Kashmir based. --Kefalonia 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you see this link [9] because that is also sourced in the article and may make things clearer. Once again I point out that the section is about Jammu and Kashmir - Indian administered; not Pakistan. As for pro-terrorist bias, I don't know what you mean, but separatists is what the militancy can be called in the more NPOV version. Also this article is not about terrorism in Kashmir (so we don't need a large description of them), it is about genocide conducted in Kashmir and any good source including the link I gave about will tell Any good source will tell you that Kashmir is Muslim majority and that more Muslims have died in Kashmir. And the article still says Muslim and Hindu so I don't see the problem. The main reason why there are few non-Muslims remaining in Pakistani Kashmir is that they fleed the ethnic conflict and so did as many Muslims from Indian administered and Pakistani administered Kashmir, but there is still a Muslim majority in the region. A population decrease does not always mean genocide. For example millions left Afghanistan during the soviet war as refugees but that does not mean they had genocide there. --Anonymous editor 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The gendercide article is one of the most biased articles that I read lately, which is sad because some of their articles (like on the Holocaust) are not that bad. The Kashmir Conflict includes both Pakistan and Indian administered Kashmir. Terrorists is not a synonym for separatists, and it is very unfair for the separatists if all the terrorists are called separatists. Not all terrorists are separarists and not all separatists are terrorists, as you should know. It is also not correct to say that the Indian Army commits genocide. The Indian Army fights the terrorists, not an ethnicity or religion. Take for example Irak: The acts of the Americans in Irak may be terrible or not, but the Americans are fighting the terrorists, they are not commiting genocide on the Irakis. The terrorists are however systematically killing Hindus and other people on the basis of their religion or political opinion, and the acts of the terrorists qualify very much as genocide. See the definition for genocide. None of your sources say that "most" atrocities are commited by the army, so I'll change it to "many" atrocities. I still think that the section is very pov, but I don't care enough about this article to bother about the rest. --Kefalonia 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on wikipedia. I do not see why the Anonymous Editor above insists that the article is only about Indian-administered Kashmir. The Kashmir problem includes both Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir as well as the Indian administered side. The article goes into detail about specififc abuses alleged to be performed by the Indian army. Why does the article not go into similar detail regarding the alleged abuse by the militants? There is clearly bias in this article, and any intelligent, objective person can see that.

Unless someone can supply reliable unbiased sources that a genocide has/is taking place in Kashmir, as WP:V makes clear "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am going to remove the section. --PBS 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is one originally from the Washington Post and read publicly in the United States Senate. (1 dalitstan). Here is another one (2 holocaustinkashmir). And from the human rights organizations: the Human rights organization Genocide watch (3 gendercide) and one from Human Rights Watch (4 hrw). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the sources you have provided:

1. Mr. HELMS. In the U.S. Senate mentions the word Genocide the Washington Post articles does not. His exact words are "where the forces of India are engaged in what amounts to genocide" not "where the forces of India are engaged in genocide" which is what one would have expected him to say if Helms thought it were a genocide.
2. holocaustinkashmir. This does not seem like an unbiased source to me, it seems to me like a propaganda site. Who are they and what are their credentials?
3. gendercide: Says "The state terror in Kashmir, like the genocide in Bangladesh," It calls the situation a "state terror" not a genocide.
4. hrw I could not find the word genocide on the page you have provided. Following the internal site link [IV. APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW] there is no mention of genocide.

Even if any of theses were suitable sources the section as stands does not include one source which states that a genocide is taking place. --PBS 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The killing of large numbers of people is genocide even if the article doesn't say the word exactly. Estimates usually say that from 60 000 to 200 000 people have been killed in the last two decades and that it is a forgotten problem. Even a U.S representative said that Whether or not one agrees with President Clinton's policy in Kosovo, we went there to stop the `ethnic cleansing' of the Kosovars by the Serbian government. Yet we have averted our glance from a similar campaign throughout India , a situation the Indian Supreme Court described as `worse than a genocide.' This ethnic cleansing has taken the lives of over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and thousands upon thousands of Dalits, Assamese, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minority peoples. - Hon. Edolphus Towns in the US House of Representatives.

I think the sources I provided are fine, but here are more 5 kmsnews6 gharib 7 Human Rights Watch. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• 5 www.kmsnews.org says "Kashmir Media service is a full-fledged news agency on Kashmir ensuring instant coverage of every day events in Indian held Kashmi" But it is obvious that it is not an impartial news service when it includes "Freedom Struggle" as the first item on its list of "Data Bank" subjects. Ayaz Daudzai is the author of the piece who is (s)he?

  The social science gateway (of which I know nothing but it is at least once removed) writes "The Kashmir Media Service is a Pakistan based news agency which specialises in providing up to date news and commentary on the conflict in Kashmir. Users should note that it tends to take a Pakistani perspective on the situation. The site provides access to daily news stories, with a limited amount of older material accessible. It also includes a large databank section which contains a timeline and history of the conflict and India-Pakistan relations, plus links to selected human rights reports, articles and analyses of it. These are largely critical of the Indian government."

• 6 gharib.demon.co.uk seems to be a blog site. Who is Gharib Hanif? The specific page is a copy of one on the Kashmir Freedom Movement website (A Brief Catalogue of Indian Atrocities in Kashmir) This does not seem to be an organisation with a NPOV.
• 7 Human Rights Watch page you supplied does not mention the word genocide.

Do you have one source from a respectable neutral third party who claims that the situation in Indian Kashmir is a genocide? Please see the entries I have put in to the Wikipedia article for Iraq, Tibet, and the Bangladesh War of 1971. For Bangladesh, I would have preferred to find a report by the UN or a neutral government, or a court case based on the CPPCG, (like that for the Iraq and Tibet entry), but for the moment Rummel is a far better source than the ones you have been put forward because although he has an axe to grind he does not have a specific interest in that conflict. --PBS 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor perhapse we can explore what you wrote "the Indian Supreme Court described as `worse than a genocide.'". Do you have a source for this which places "worse than a genocide" in context? --PBS 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah! A secondary source which makes clear that it is quote about case involving Sikhs in "Khalistan". Using that as a bootstrap here is another secondary source with more details --PBS 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir and Jammu

Two sources rovided and alghought they both talk about horrible things I can not see the word genocide in either of them. Can anyone else find the word genocide in those two soureces. Can anyone supply an other wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is currently highly inaccurate and pov. The reason for this is that it is edited by Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) and some anonymous users, who try to deny and delete any atrocities committed by the terrorists, while at the same time alleging that the Indians commit genocide, while atrocities by terrorists or the Pakistan army are deleted. See also the Kashmir discussion on this talk page. This section direly needs somebody neutral to step in. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Kefalonia, this page is not about separatism in the Kashmir region, or militants allegedly encouraged by Pakistan as I told you before. The article is about Genocide and records show that in Indian administered Kashmir or "Jammu and Kashmir", the Indian army has committed atrocities in the region. If you really are against censorship then you shouldn't censor this. Thanks. Also Philip some of the sources are included there such as the site Genocide watch which talks about state terrorism and killings [10] or this one by human rights organizations [11]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The two articles you have provided on this page do not include anything like a credible source for genocide occurring in Kashmir. For example the second source notes that there were "ninety-nine cases of disappearance between 1990 and 1992", which is devestating for those involved, but is a long way from Genocide. I think the section needs to be re-written so that it is not just a list of nasty things but includes statements of what the genocide is and who is making the accusations with credible reliable sources. --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Why is this listed in genocides? There has been an armed conflict over there and offcial death toll is 60000 civilians killed. Most in crossfire between Indian army and militants. Seoncdly why isnt ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits mentioned?

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thirty Years War

I removed this because:

1. It is not sourced.
2. "The Thirty Years War was a Holocaust of German and Czech Protestants between 1618 and 1648." The Prots gave as good as they got.
3. "During the war, more than two thirds of Czech population may have lost their lives and death toll in Germany may have been even higher, but the losses are rather attributable to infectious diseases and famine resulting from ruthless war operations, rather than to systematic direct extermination of the population." Death by desease know no boundries.
4. "By conservative estimates, at least seven million Protestants were martyred." POV because death by desease does not make one a martyr.
5. "The Thirty Years War meant the definite end of Slavic people in northern Germany (the speakers of Polabian), since the areas inhabited by them suffered the most". source?

--PBS 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Simple query: Should death by war-induced famine, with the consequent diseases, qualify? What are the criteria?--shtove 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

- I don't know much about this war, but I do know some of the rules set at the Geneva Convention. "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" This is one act of genocide, but I'm not one to judge whether or not they were left in these conditions deliberatly to kill them or it was just general war time famine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish genocide of Dutch Protestants

Source that it was a genocide? --PBS 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Spanish soldiers genocided by Dutch rebels - froth-at-the-mouth right-winger calls it War: SHAME!--shtove 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hemophiliacs

I am inclined to remove the following. It is hard to see how this qualifies as genocide, reprehensible as the greed and/or negligence of the parties may have been (and I'm sure there are factual accuracy disputes over some of this.) I know of no reputable source that claims that hemophiliacs were deliberately targeted for eradication. There are many other medical conditions left untreated, unsafe medical products marketed, etc, all for similar financial reasons. Are these also genocides?

In the 1980's, the federal government and several major American pharmaceutical companies participated in their own form of genocide when over 5,000 American hemophiliacs were killed by blood products containing the HIV and Hepatitis C viruses. Thousands more hemophiliacs were infected and killed worldwide. The federal government and the companies were aware that their blood was tainted and that it was possible to clean the blood products, yet did not take any direct action to rectify the situation until the mid 1980's. Hepatitis C infections were still reported in the United States as late as 1990. It prompted the federal government to reward thousands of hemophiliacs or their widows and children $100,000 via the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act. [4]

CarbonCopy 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed after reading source and lack of comments here. Criminal corporate greed perhaps, but not genocide. CarbonCopy 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad Article

I hate to say it, but I think that this is a really bad article. Genocide means the deliberate, planned extermination of a people based on thier race, ethnc orgiin or relgious affiliation. The term itself means "killing of a people". Most, i would say almost all, the the instances listed here are massacres, where people, sometimes targeted for race/religion etc were killed in wars, by disease etc. However, they do not qualify as genocides unless:

(1) the whole people were intended to be wiped out.

(2) There was a systematic plan and effort made toward this end.

On this basis, I don't think that the assertion that "genocides are a regular occurance" stands up to scrutiny. Most of the information here should be transferred to an article on massacres/war crimes or something else.

Jdorney 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bad article, however the term Genocide as defined by the UN in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide more broadly than you have defined it because it says "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" (my emphasis).

Further because of the strength of the USSR at the time it was introduced Stalin had any reference to groups defined by political opinion or social status removed from the convention which many think should also be in the definition as that would cover the wholesale slaughter of people identified by class. And a case can be made that given the enthusiastic killing of people deemed to be mentally inferior or perceived to be sexually deviant by the Nazis that those groups should be included as well.

Having said that even if these groups are included in the definition, I think that each section of this article should be examined for a non Neutral Points Of View (NPOV) and credible sources. If there are no credible sources then the section should be removed and if the section does not have a NPOV unless sources can be added to give it balance then the section should be removed. --PBS 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From the next section: Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am open to other definitions if it passes the WP:NOR is a WP:NPOV and comes from verifiable reliable sources. If I understand you correctly I think that when earlier today I split the modern section (1500 forward) into three, my reasons was following the line of thought you have put forward in you comments about the UN definition:

• 1500->1950: the coining of the term Genocide and pre the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). The further back in time one goes the less useful the UN definition is.
• 1951-1990: CPPCG in place but no international enforcement. When there are no police around people will speed. Were the entries in the current list bought up in international forums like the UN? If not then were they genocides generally recognised by the international community?
• 1951-1990: CPPCG and being enforced. So if they are in the Wikipedia list what diplomatic moves have been made to get the alleged genocide enforced?

I think this new division will help us sort out the genocides from mass killings which although nasty are not genocides. --PBS 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

England

I see that someone has removed the England section twice, giving the only reason as 'change of ownership'. Not only do I disagree with the conclusion that it was not genocide, but I find the facetious remark offensive. I would not dare describe the genocide of the Herero in South West Africa merely as 'change of ownership'.

Anyway, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed by the UN in 1948 says, if I need to repeat it:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I have tried in the England section to show how this relates to the invasion in 1066. They intentionally murdered and enslaved many thousands of English, they massacred over 100,000 English in Yorkshire by removing their homes and livelihoods (read the East Riding section of the Domesday Book for more details), and they attempted to destroy the cultural life of the English by destroying churches (and other items) and banning the use of English in the state.

You only think it isn't genocide because it doesn't say so in any books you've read, but then again, there was no genocide of Armenians, or so say the Turkish books. Oswax 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if this is the criteria, then English forces committed genocide in Ireland several times over. See the Desmond Rebellions. Nine Years War (Ireland) and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. In each case they systematically destroyed crops and killed people to end guerrilla wars. However, in my opinion, this is not genocide. It is brutal and, by modern standards, war crimes, but is it an attempt to destroy a whole people? No. This is why genocide is such a powerful word and why it is distinguished from other massacres. Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oswax, you are of course entitled to you point of view (POV), mine is that it was not a genocide. There was not intent to destroy the population. The new nobility needed a work force just as much as the old nobility. See the Diggers for arguments of what happens to nobility if there is no one to work for them. (This is also an argument put forward by some historians to explain the small restraint that the English and Scotts displayed during the creation of the plantations in Ireland).

In a Wikipedia article there are several policies and guidelines which should be followed when there is a dispute such as this. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:verifiability both of which are policies, and the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you can find Wikipedia:Reliable sources which claim that it was a genocide and phrase the entry in such a way that it does not invalidate the WP:NOR, then we can construct a valid section. --PBS 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you say: you are of course entitled to you point of view (POV). Shall I bother trying to convince you, as you seem already to have this down as non-NPOV? Don't quote policies at me, I find that insulting.

There does not need to be intent to destroy the whole population, only part. To take the best example, the Normans did intend to murder thousands of English in the East Riding, and it happened. This is no small deal, over 10% of English at the time were murdered, with intent, and they even admitted it:

Orderic says: 'He harried the land and burnt homes to ashes. Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind, should be brought together and burned to ashes with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance.

In consequence, so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless populace, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old, perished of hunger’

And has William say on his deathbed: 'I ... caused the death of thousands by starvation and war ... I descended on the English ... ordered that all their homes and crops, and all their equipment and furnishings, should be burnt at once; and their great flocks and herds of sheep and cattle slaughtered everywhere. So I ... with the lash of starvation ... was the cruel murderer of many thousands’ (Forgive the gaps, I'm trying to keep this short.)

What do you want? a signed confession? Oswax 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No I do not want a signed confession, but a Reliable source which states it was genocide is a must, if it is to be complient with the WP:NOR policy. --PBS 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, Orderic is my reliable source, he didn't use the word genocide, but then again he couldn't have. He does do the next best thing, by having William say: 'I have persecuted the natives of England ... innumerable multitudes perished through me ... and so became the barbarous murderer of many thousands ... of that fine race of people.'

He is a good secondary source, with little bias. How about it? Oswax 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what, just forget it, it doesn't matter anyway. Oswax 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It does matter anyway - wasn't the Norman conquest a model for English and British colonialism? Or did they learn it all from the Spanish?--shtove 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unintentional genocide

The Canada section refers to an unintentional genocide - what is the point of Wikipedia if this remains undeleted by editors who make serious contributions to the article?--shtove 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are as free as anyone else to fix anything you think is wrong with the article. --PBS 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the article already has its serious editors - if one can edit a section, one ought to look at the entirety. This article has a section based on a contradiction of the introductory definition: I guess it's a circus for cranks and not worth contributing to.--shtove 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction was re-written by me not long ago! I am hoping to work through each section and get the article into a better format. If a section does not have Reliable sources it ought to be removed. But it takes time and any help in doing this would be appreciated because if one person tries to do it alone it often ends up in a revert war with someone who passionately believes an act to be a genocide. --PBS 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable and uncranky of you. Good luck!--shtove 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam

The Degar (Montagnard) page also mentions that the treatment of the Degar by the Vietnamese government "This has prompted several human rights organizations to argue that the Degar are subject to an ongoing and continual genocide by the current Vietnamese government."

I have asked on the Talk:Degar page for the sources for the allagation. If you can contribute information please do so on the Degar talk page. --PBS 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the Viernam section please see Talk:Degar --PBS 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocides since 1991

As there are international trials for the Genocides of Bosnia and Rwanda. So I think these should be in the list.

• East Timor - Who alledges that there was a genocide and where are the reliable sources?

• Indonesia - Who alledges that there was a genocide and where are the reliable sources

• Sudan. - There is one reference at the moment. Does anyone have any sources for the other paragraphs.

--PBS 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sudan has been ruled genocide by a few different countries, although I don't think it has been decided by the UN yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

you should sign comments on a talk page with ~~~~ it will automagically turn it into a signature with time stamp

I have added references for Sudan, but I am not really happy with the structure of the section. A list of governments which have called the situation a genocide would help along with any UN General Assembly resolutions and African Union statments --PBS 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"The United States calls it genocide." - CBS News I couldn't find a government site to verify, but Im positive that it is true, as Ive also seen it at various other news sites, such as the BBC.

Genocides from 1951 to 1990

• Algeria

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured during the Algerian French war? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Australia

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured in Austrilia? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Bangladesh Liberation War

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured shortly before or during the war? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The main article Bangladesh Liberation War talks in detail about the genocide with an ocean of sources. Should that be replicated in its entirety here too? Idleguy 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the BLW and it does not have any direct sources for a claim of genocide. There is one indirect one which was a minority US State Department view. But that is a long way from general agreement that genocide took place by neutral organisations and governments which were not a party to the conflict. This section needs Wikipedia:reliable sources (as does thea BLW article) --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the provious text and replaced it with numbers and a quote from Rummel. Idealy I would like a better source, but it is the one with the least Bangladesh bias I have seen to date. --PBS 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Cambodia

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that the Killing fields were or may have been a genocide? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are surely better sources, but this may help: [12] [13] --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Legally, not sure. Analytically, it's been categorized as genocide and politicide. For sourcing the number of deaths, the consensus seems to be an estimate between 1 million and 2 million. The 1.7 million figure currently cited is Kiernan's calculation, broken down in his book chapter in Totten, Parsons, and Charny 2004 (currently listed under "Further Reading") and probably in his 1996 book (listed below).

Valentino, Benjamin A. 2004. Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Page 139, with footnote #240. All of the following are what Valentino cites; I haven't yet looked at them myself, so I can't say who is estimating what:

Heuveline, Patrick. 1998. "'Between One and Three Million': Towards the Demographic Reconstruction of a Decade of Cambodian History (1970-1979)". Population Studies 52(1): 58-61.

Kiernan, Ben. 1996. The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Margolin, Jean Louis. 1999. "Cambodia: The Country of Disconcerting Crimes". Pp. 577-635 in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. London, UK: Harvard University Press.

Mydans, Seth. 1996. "Cambodian Killers' Careful Records Used Against Them". New York Times, June 7, p. A1.

Additionally, the State Failure Task Force at the University of Maryland estimates the Cambodian 1975-1979 death toll between 1,900,000 and 3,500,000.

Ramseyk 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And would you like to re-write the section to reflect these sources? --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Guatemala

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Iraq

I have supplied 2 sources for a Dutch court which has ruled that the gas attacks on the Kurds was a genocide. --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• 'Tibet'

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have re-instated this section with refereces to the Spanish high court. --PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar genocide

When english conquered Gibraltar (Spain), they killed all the spanish population.

Persecutions of the Jews

Many events in the History of anti-Semitism can be fully qualified to be called genocide. Just a couple examples:

• Edict of Expulsion from England, 1290
• Alhambra decree from Spain, 1492
• Bohdan Chmielnicki's pogroms of 1650s
• etc. Any objection to creating a short section on that? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that the first two do and I am not familiar with the third, but I would have no objections if you can find Wikipedia:reliable sources which state that they were, and word it in such a way that it is clear where the allegations come from. --PBS 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to be added to Biblical Genocides

This may get laughed down but surely the story of Noahs Ark counts as a genocide committed by god? --Horses In The Sky 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

              Yes , as it is most likely that it didn't happen and was a metaphor .

Croatian Genocide

I removed edit about Ustasha being "catholic action" in local languages, etc. because it seemed likely vandalism/POV. If this is not the case please rewrite but restore info added by 129.234.4.76. Thanks! Mego'brien

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

I suggest to add a section about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It took from 20 000 to 60 000 of civilians ethnic Poles deaths (but some indicates even much more: 100 000 [Edward Prus, 2006], 500 000 [Norman Davies, 1996]). If you try to mention all bigger genocides in this article I think that case applies here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtProcess (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Abortion is considered a genocide by many

People who believe that unborn children still in the womb are human beings believe that abortion is a genocide against unborn humans of all race, religion, and economic background, and much larger than any genocide in history and continuing to this day. Where would this fit into this article, would it get its own section? -Words in sanskrit (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere, as it is not genocide.  pablo_hablo. 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the subject should be addressed in the article. There is much literature on the subject and no shortage of reliable sources. Of course there are disputes, which should be addressed. One point is that abortion advocacy arose out of the eugenics movement which sought specifically to "control" populations of minorities and of the disabled. For this reason abortion has been discussed as genocide with regard to African Americans who were a target of the eugenics movement from the begining. Eugenic abortion was a key part of the Nazi program on race and the "unfit" and in China it remains a tool used against disfavored minorities, Uzbeks and Uyghurs for example. Mamalujo (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey S. Morton's The International Law Commission of the United Nations at p. 25 states:

Genocide is defined as an act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group. While most people associate genocide with killing, other acts such as the practice of abortion, sterilization, artificial infection, the working of people to death in special labor camps, and the separation of families or of sexes in order to depopulate specific areas are included.

Mamalujo (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well bully for Jeffrey S Morton, and I am sure that many other people have their own definitions of genocide. I was going on the UN definition in the article Genocide, which refers to "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Forced abortion can form a part of a genocide, abortion per se does not.  pablo_hablo. 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Belgian Congo

why nothing bout belgian kongo ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See above #crimes against humanity and Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6#Belgium and the Congo --PBS (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan=Vietnam

If soviet war in Afghanistan is genocide then US war in Vietnam too most.95.52.113.129 (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that say so or this that your own opinion? -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He has a point. The section uses an "expanded definition" of genocide that weasels any war into the definition. It could apply to anyone trying to wipe out the Taliban or Ba'athists as well. 75.53.194.238 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

other genocides

Since factions dispute the meaning of genocide, wouldn't it be wise to simply describe all of these controversies as possible genocides? For example, the Ukrainians say that Holodomor (the famine) was a genocide, and the Russians disagree. What of the Ingush, Tatars, and Chechens by the Soviets? And what about the race-based targeting and expulsion of 15,000,000 ethnic German civilians after WWII and the starvation of over 2 million of them? Why are these not comparable to any of these other ones in Africa that get so much attention? If you disagree that it is a genocide, it would still be appropriate to write about them. I find it odd that the only entry about Germany is the Holocaust. There is much more to 1940s Germany than the suffering of Jews if I may say (without detracting from that tragedy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.235.11 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Or the slaughter of over 300,000 Japanese citizens at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in May 1945? Or do genocides where the 'end justfies the means' not count?--Stevouk (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Come on, how dare you talk about H and N? We all know all the genocide discussions are political and in favour of post WW1 and 2 power agreement. You lost the war, you committed genocide, you won it, your propaganda becomes history; Armenians? Greeks? Arabs? Is there a nation that Ottomans didn't intend to kill? One puts a website about Greek genocide, and that becomes a source for the entire passage here. Then you claim Indians died of diseases, just bitterly funny.

Axis Japan

If the atrocities committed by United States and the others are included then so should Japan's. Japan is not metioned at all. It's collaborations and similar actions as Nazi Germany is well known. Japanese military regime murdered 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos. Of these, 500,000 are not war deaths but intentional genocide. Like the Nazis, the genocide was described as experiments so with the Nazis Axis Japan should be in the article. From time to time, Government represenitives in Korea and China have both officially called Japan's actions genocide. There is just too much information about this to ignore in this Wiki article. The best I can think of is the book "A PLAGUE UPON HUMANITY: THE SECRET GENOCIDE OF AXIS JAPAN’S GERM WARFARE OPERATION" by Daniel Barenblatt, which has been mentioned in Wikipedia many times. The book sites other sources for definig this as genocide. For anyone interested, the author was interviewed by David Inge at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on January 21, 2004. ( audio archive at will.illinois.edu/focus580/ ) Also see the above comments about Japan. 172.129.252.149 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref to Klein in intro

I just undid the following edit: [14], which removed the words "or economic" from the sentence "Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political or economic groups" (emphasis mine). However, the user who did the edit is right that the given reference is not good. Could someone who know the book at least give page numbers? The google books link given doesn't immediately turn up anything clear, at least not in my browser. (Ideally one should consider finding a more authoritative source than Klein, I'm sure there are lots of more scholarly books on this matter.) --Anderssl (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging Communist genocide here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The main arguments offered up for merge are that Communist genocide is inherently POV and that there is nothing unique about "communist genocide". The main arguments for don't merge are the article sizes and that there appear to be sufficient sources to support two (or more) articles. The size of this article alone already exceeds the maximum recommended size so I view the second argument as stronger. Thus, there are only two possible outcomes to this discussion: Don't merge or no consenus. They both have the same end result - the status quo is preserved, so call it whichever you prefer.

I also note that the POV title problem can easily be solved via a rename. I suggest Genocides committed by communist regimes, Genocides that occured under communist governments, or something similar. However, that should be a separate discussion to take place on that article's talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge a POV titled and POV filled Communist genocide into this article. Some of the statements are already present here, most of the POV however is not. The recent AfD of that article was predictably closed with no consensus, but the debate on the title and a proper place for the content is still open. (Igny (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Not the same thing - the other article concerns a much more specific topic. This basically seems like trying to circumvent the failure to get the article deleted at AfD.radek (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the AfD again. That was not a failure but a predictable no consensus possibly in part due to the team tagging. There is still debate over the title and place of this POV turd. I claim that this place is much better for more neutral coverage, less POV, and better context. (Igny (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I would second that, but this article is already much too large. --PBS (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• SUPPORT MERGE Yeah, this is blatant PoV pushing. Either merge this or start a Capitalist Genocides article.Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you with a couple of "warnings" which I think we should think over in advance. 1) If we start to have categories such as "capitalist", etc. we will get into a VERY ugly argument w the people working on the NAZI articl. Between Hollywood and the MSM, most people think of the NAZIs as far right, when in reality they were far left and indistinguishable from the communists. WWII and the holocaust now come up under the communist category. 2) It is also commonly forgotten that communism and capitalism are NOT political opposites. The opposite of communism is "free market". No matter how the word capitalism is distorted, it is really a description of a natural law and is practiced by every society and every living creature as it prepares to reproduce or survive winter.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No need. 1) This article is too long already 2) There are lot of books and studies of the Communist Genocide, so it deserves own article. Peltimikko (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the people over at the talk page of that article can't seem to find a single published study of "communist genocide", despite being repeatedly pressed to do so. Perhaps you could enlighten folks there? csloat (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

409 books on books.google.com specifically discuss "communist genocide" as I have documented there. Let's not pretend the topic of "communist genocide" is not studied extensively. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you and everyone else refuse to show how even a single one of those 409 books is actually a study of this as a concept. Sure, you can find google hits for a specific term, but that doesn't make it an actual concept. The article itself has gone back and forth for ages now and still nobody can even find a single source that actually defines the concept, much less studies it. So let's not pretend that the concept has ever been studied at all, much less "extensively," until we can find something other than WP:SYN actually stating that. csloat (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Come now, people were just arguing that "communist + genocide" together was a wild synthesis of a term that never existed before. One step at a time. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, as this article is too long. Besides, the interest in the topic might seem to warrant various articles on the topic. But yes, there should then also be an article on the capitalist side, and they should be more neutrally titled, for instance Genocides under communist regimes and Genocides under capitalist regimes. (A person can be a communist, and a regime, but what is a 'communist genocide'? One in which everyone is killed equally much?) I don't think that causes any great conflict with the nazi variant, which covers one specific historic event. The problem would be if one wanted to separate fascism or other right-wing ideologies from capitalism, long debate there. --Anderssl (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose there are enough sources and material available already in the article itself that entitle a separate main article on the subject.--Termer (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support due to everything brought up at the no consensus AFD [15]. There is nothing uniquely "communist genocide" about genocides perpetrated in the former communist states, as discussed at length in the AFD. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the article survived AFD and that should have been a right forum to discuss the merge as a second option. And secondly, Communist genocide‎ as an independent concept has its scientific background. Peltimikko (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The article is a massive SYNTH violation. It only survived AfD barely because several people don't seem to understand what is required under WP:SYN. There is no reliable sources indicating that "communist genocide" is a concept separate from other sorts of genocide; there are only some conclusions created by stringing quotes together from various sources. Most of the information there is already covered here but merging whatever else might be useful there and turning the page to a redirect would be the best way to go. csloat (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume to speak for why editors opposed the AfD, in particular, because the best the opponents of this topic have come up with is that it is WP:SYNTH because sources don't exist, all the while ignoring the existence of voluminous sources which specifically discuss communist genocide. If you wish to make a better case, please do so. Don't make your case by denigrating other editors, insulting editors is usually a sign that someone doesn't have anything more concrete to offer. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything; I'm going by the explicit comments written out on the pages by you and others. You claim there are "voluminous sources" yet can't find a single one that even defines the concept? Ludicrous. I have made a case and you continue to ignore it, and then you berate me for things I haven't done at all. Time to back up your claims or back off. csloat (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. This is a discussion over a merger suggestion. If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than repeating what others have said, then do not waste the band width stating oppose or support. It has been suggested that this article should be split into era See this posting to my talk page by PasswordUsername. I am leery about doing that because at the moment we have divided up the page into manageable section, but these are Wikipeia editor sections (most of them put in by me) and I for one would want to think very carefully about creating descriptive article names based on my selection of arbitrary section names. I tried to base them on sensible criteria (a)ancient, (b) (early) modern, (c) international usage of crimes against humanity, (d) after the Genocide Convention, and (c) international prosecution of genocide -- but others would have to agree that these are reasonable subdivisions for turning this into a summary style article. --PBS (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Trim it down, then merge! NickDupree (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said this is not a vote! NickDupree what did your comment contribute to the discussion? --PBS (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was to respond to the concerns that a merge would lead to a much too lengthy article. As a long-time merger, I know that content can be trimmed down and almost any merge can be made possible. I did not know that this page is your proprietary turf and that text will struck if a contribution isn't "just so" to your standards. You've chased me, an uninvolved editor, away. Kudos. How exactly do you plan to resolve a controversial merge without uninvolved editors? Good luck. NickDupree (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't leave. I've unstruck the stuff that the user struck out. PBS, please read WP:OWN and please do not modify other users' comments again; it is inappropriate to do so, no matter what your opinion. Thanks. csloat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with building a consensus. To start another poll strait after a divisive AfD will just entrench views, it will not allow a consensus to emerge. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no need to merge this article as the recent AfD indicated there was no concensus that it is either a "POV fork" nor a "SYNTH violation". In any case there appears to be consensus forming to rename Communist genocide to Communist mass killings, since while there may be some debate over whether a particular mass killing was genocide or not, there is no dispute that it was mass killing. This would change the scope of the article somewhat so this merge discussion is rather redundant. --Martintg (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what you've just said, no consensus to delete does not mean there are no problems with this article. However the AfD nomination itself and numerous delete votes on the AfD mean that in fact there are problems with the article, namely SYNTH and POV violations. I again repeat that the proper place for that article is here, moreover most of the information is already here, most of the new stuff is POV synth anyways and must go, and whatever is salvageable should be merged here for more neutral discussion and better context. (Igny (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Just a friendly remark on tactics, wouldn't it be better to work on the problems of the article first, and then see if the end result really doesn't offer much new like you say? If so, it would probably be much easier to get consensus for a merger... --Anderssl (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is not as much tactics as the next logical step. As the AfD was moving to its no-consensus closure, I was thinking about a proper place for this stuff. Naturally, the current title is so off-scale POV that it is almost funny. But before suggesting new names/titles I searched WP for already existing articles where "Communist genocide" would fit best, and I found this article. So before suggesting the new name I suggested the merger. The next logical step if the merger will fail would be looking for the new NPOV title. (Igny (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

While the points are valid there is not need to turn this discussion into a poll. So I have struck out oppose in the previous posting. --PBS (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no point discussing a merger unless agreement can be reached on how to turn this article into a summary as it is way to large to accommodate such an article as that under discussion. If no one is going to discuss that first we may as well close this discussion. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I have not been contributing to this article or discussion about it, and I had no intention to. But it may change depending on the fate of Communist genocide. If it does not get merged here, I suggest to split some of the information from this article (keeping the summary only) and move it to the Communist genocide which would probably have to change the name eventually to something more neutral. (Igny (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

• Absolutely oppose Sorry, the subject of communist genocide, a significant subject of discussion and study in reputable scholarly sources, deserves it own article. How many more ways will the same people attempt to kill Communist genocide or dilute its content by "merging" as proposed here? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Vecrumba This is not a vote, it is a discussion to reach a consensus on whether or not to merge two articles. So why have you put the first two words in bold? Did you bother to read what has already been written in this section before you made your posting? --PBS (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad to unbold mine when everyone else unbolds theirs. Unfortunately, one side appears (my perception) to be engaged in shouting down Communist genocide while others maintain it is a subject of scholarly importance. While the shouting and denigration of editors goes on, I'm frankly not left with much choice. Whether you consider this a "vote" or not, it's what this boils down to. Communist genocide is far more than large enough a topic to have its article, this merge proposal is just another attempt (my perception based on the primary protagonists and their editorial position earlier on this topic and elsehwere) to quash an article dedicated to the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No merger would be possible unless there was agreement first on how to turn this article into a summary article. As no one seems to be willing to discuss this, there is no possibility of merging the two articles whether or not it is desirable. --PBS (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose to merger per arguments by PBS and others.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. What are you objections to turning this article into a summary article? --PBS (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge There is nothing particularly communist about those genocides and this article this the logical place to host the information there. LK (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the whole honing by communist regimes of state terror as an instrument of control and elimination of opposing classes. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge The Communist genocide article is merely a list of genocides or alleged genocides in Communist countries and provides no definition in the lead. The term genocide is defined but it is unclear whether the the article is supposed to be about big "C" Communist or small "c" Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Big c, small C, either/both are relevant. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's obvious that mass-killings have occurred in Communist countries, and that some scholars have called these mass-killings communist genocide. That's all that's needed for a separate article on Communist genocide. The deniers should feel free to put in cited evidence where their favorite scholars say that it was not communist genocide, just ordinary genocide without anything communist about it, or just plain old mass-killings (but do these scholars actually exist?). The hoop that some folks want this article to jump through - that there were convicted genociders who attribute their genocide to Communist ideology - is just too much to require. Smallbones (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Requires a separate article for reasons stated above. Mamalujo (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus?

After having this discussion open for a couple of weeks, it is apparent there is no clear consensus for a merge. --Martintg (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus not to merge, so the proposal is still up. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not strike out another editor's comment, as was done above. That's very bad form. It's time the merge tag be taken off, simply because it's clear that there will never be consensus on this. Some folks want to deny that Communist genocide ever occurred, and others think that it is obvious that Communist genocides have occurred. Smallbones (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless those who wish the articles to be merged are first willing to discuss constructively how to make this summary style article there is no reason to continue this discussion or leave the merge template on the article as this article is too large to have a significant amount of information merged into it. --PBS (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This proposal has now been up for a month. I have put a note on the admin board requesting that an admin close it, since attempts at doing so before were reverted: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close gridlocked merger discussion. --Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No administrator action is required. Calling for administrator action suggests a special power to arbitrate conflicts over content which administrators do not possess. Post a request at WP:Third opinion, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM. Recommend you start with the first of those and work up the line if no progress is made. I have marked the AN post as resolved.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note what is says at Help:Merging#Closing/archive a proposed merger:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TFD. Are you saying you agree to have an admin decide whether to close the discussion? Since you were the one reverting the previous attempts at closing it, that makes a difference. It sure would be nice if we at least could agree to have an admin look at it and make a decision to close or keep it open. --Anderssl (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

I have started a discussion about possibly renaming the Communist genocide article here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Geno mean "people" and "cide" meaning the "act of kiling" or "killing" Native Americans among Stalin and the Cambodia incident were all cast aside as mere killings not genocide. Hitler was the only person who was going to get prosocuted for killing and holding million of people of ethnic groups becasue they didn't fit his "perfect Arian race".(Arian is blue eyed blonde hair type of people in other words a perfect German) Then why are they being exscuased for a crime of mass killing. Killing is against the law so what makes them so speacial that they get awaay with MASS KILLING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.190.2 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman Genocide

Is there no mention of Roman genocides of the Spartans or Dacians? The later is even celebrated on Trajans column in Rome..216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs citations

This article lacks many citations. For instance, there is an unsupported claim that Teddy Roosevelt supported mass genocide of native americans. This is a bold claim and also potentially misplaced in the context of this article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.104.65 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should also discuss the Genocide being conducted by the Indian Government since 1984 against Sikhs. Over 500,000 Sikhs have been exterminated by Law Enforcement Agencies at the Local, State and National Levels. Here are some Links:

http://www.khalistan.net/genocide.htm http://sikhsangat.org/tag/sikh-genocide/ http://www.sikhsundesh.net/genocide.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.145.109 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. This article does lack citations and much of it is nonsense. For example the Ottoman Empire's alleged genocide of Armenians is hotly disputed and may not have been genocide. It certainly warrents further investigation. The so called Darfur genocide is unsupported by evidence and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Examples of very bad sources include politicians, the mainstream media and the military. Good sources are peer reviewed academic papers but always check out who has funded the studies. The word 'genocide' is often used as a weapon by governments to batter and demonise rival governments in order to gain economic concessions or control of resources. Sudan has oil (hence Darfur and the genocide accusations). There is real genocide in the Congo but few people know because there is no oil there. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ibos genocide in Nigeria during the Biafran War

Is there any reason why the genocide of the Ibos in Nigeria 1967-70 is not included here? Epa101 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No response for a month. I've added it in with a reference from the Encyclopeia of Genocide. Epa101 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it there was no specific claim that it was a genocide. That many died is not an issue, that there was a policy of starving the Ibos's into submission is not an issue, what is an issue is that the Nigerian government intended to destroy the Ibos if that was the intention then then when the secessionists threw in the towel the killing would have continued (same argument as the area bombing in World War II was not part of a genocide against the German people). To include it here you need a reliable source that specifically claims it was a genocide. The most likely genocide scholar to have made this claim it indeed if was a genocide is Leo Kuper who investigated and wrote about genocides in Africa. -- PBS (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish Famine

Another view of the Irish Potato Famine is that its reputation as genocide was due to a political movement internal to the US. Franklin Foer argued in Slate in 1997 that New York Governor George Pataki wanted high school students to study the famine only in response to a 1994 act that mandated students study the Holocaust. He got the mandate broadened to cover "the mass starvation of the Irish between 1845 and 1850." Anecdotal evidence would suggest his attempt had some support initially but has since largely fallen from favour. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be on here. I don't see how it's different from the famines in India that the British Empire ignored. Famine is a different issue from genocide, and there are articles for famines in history already. Epa101 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with our own opinions. If some reliable source (but preferably sources) alleged a genocide then we include it. If not we do not. Personally as the term is used as a polemic in political discourse, we should consider only including genocides noted as such by official international bodies or committees under their auspices, domestic courts, or genocides recognised as such by a number of the better known genocide scholars. -- PBS (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that showing intent is the key problem here. In both India and Ireland the crops were taken and sold for profit and greed leaving the indiginous populations to starve. Was the intent just greed and starvation a side effect or was the intent to kill too. I don't know the answer as I haven't studied these topics. I think probably greed was the motivation but that's just an opinion. That would still make it a crime but it would just mean that the powerfully emotive and much abused word 'genocide' that governments and the mainstream media use for propaganda purposes couldn't be used. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event

I believe this statement is quite far from neutrality because it a priori characterize proponents of genocide theories as mainstream scholars and their opponents as revisionists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree but I'm not surprised as this is wikipedia but that's not to say there aren't good wikipedia pages. I would advise people to research genocides from proper fully referenced independent academic sources and treat controversial pages on wikipedia as just the opinions of the those who edit the page. I would go on to say that some of this genocide page is political propaganda (not by the editors necessarily who may have been misled by it) and often based on the flimsiest of evidence much of which has been debunked by scholars. It's sometimes more an article of opinions than evidence and there are glaring omissions and one sided citations. The Irish potato famine is discussed but the British East India company had a similar policy in India which caused millions to die of starvation. Tibet: The entries are good ones but Tibet is a political football. The Dalai Lama dropped the accusations of physical genocide a long time ago and now only refers to cultural genocide. See Professor Sautman's fully referenced research which uses the Tibetan government's own figures to debunk the genocide claims both cultural and physical. Sautman, Barry (2006) 'Colonialism, genocide, and Tibet', Asian Ethnicity, 7:3, 243 — 265. No mention of the US killings in Vietnam either I see. I could go on and on but I said it all in my first two sentences really. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at article War in the Vendee - comments, participation needed

There is a dispute at the article War in the Vendee over the statement in the lede regarding the academic status of the claim that the war concluded in a genocide. One editor there has been insisting upon language in the lede that "only one reputable scholar of the period" considers it genocide. I believe this is both false and misleading as scores, if not hundreds, of notable scholars, many specialists in the study of genocide, have deemed it genocide. The latest contribution has removed the term "only one", but I believe it is still false and misleading: "One notable scholar considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of "ideological genocide", or "populcide" - a charge rejected by every other reputable scholar on the period." The sentence which I had proposed for the lead is: "Some scholars considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of genocide, a charge which many contest." I noted to the disputing editor that Jonassohn, Chaunu, Secher, Mark Levene, Tulard, Adam Jones and Joes (all cited in the article), just to name a few, consider it genocide, but I can get no compromise from this editor. Any comments or participation to help resolve this dispute, from whatever perspective, would be appreciated. Mamalujo (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know anything about the war in the Vendee but if its any help its not the number of academics holding particular opinions that count it's the evidence. It's best to get a hold of the the most up to date research (literature reviews are particularly useful) and cite those articles. There are many cases in which a majority hold one opinion and new research sheds new light on a situation which changes the prevailing viewpoints over time (sometimes a very long time). People are stubborn and don't like to admit they were wrong. I'm never wrong ha ha. Seriously though you are right that it's a weak argument to state: "only one reputable scholar of the period considers it genocide". It is better to state why scholars have opposing points of view and tackle the issues with evidence if it exists. But be just as prepared to accept evidence against your point of view as in favour. I hate evidence that shows I'm wrong :( (joking). Shieldsgeordie (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

hmong genocide in laos

hmong people are exterminated by the communist laos and vietnam today since the end of vietnam war. the hmong fought ho chi minh with the french then the us thats why they are all killed. is there an article about that ? Cliché Online (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources if you want material added to the article. Describing the situation of the Hmong in Laos and Viet Nam as a genocide is rather a fringe view. They aren't all being killed, far from it. Here's a source that may be of interest to you if you would like to add some material to a wiki article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nanking massacres

Where are the Nanking massacres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.11 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese imperial rule of Korean was Genocide?

I just stumbled upon this article and found it strange that Japan's colonial rule of Korea is listed as a genocide. Everything else on this list involves mass killings, use of violence, etc to destroy ethnic groups. Under Japanese colonial rule, there were policies aimed at integrating Korea into a colonial empire by having people learn Japanese and register their names in the Japanese style, but the claims that Japan was committing "cultural genocide" are pretty far out. Has this article been hijacked by a Korean nationalist?

Scholarly studies like "Colonial Modernity in Korea" (ISBN-10: 0674005945) have pretty much revealed the claims of "cultural genocide" to be bunk. The Japanese authorities actually promoted many forms of Korean cultural expression and funded a Korean-language radio network. Most non-nationalistic scholars tend to agree that Tokyo's aim was to create a Japanese "Asian" empire in which many cultures existed under Japanese leadership. Japan did not try to "erase" Korean culture. It tried to use it for its advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.148.70.142 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire

This seriously needs a reference from a published source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it (WP:PROVEIT) It needs reliable sources stating that it was a genocide, not just a series of nasty events. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire

"Although there is no legal continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation". I marked that as dubious, because I don't think this is correct. The USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation is the successor state to the USSR so it follows that there is a continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the line for that very reason. It has not been put back in (yet). --Yalens (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?!

Wov! Is there any country, nation, religious group etc. left that is not on the list of genocide commiters on this article? It looks like either every country in the world commited genocide against each other, or accusing any nation or country you don't like with "genocide" is a very popular practice these days. I really think this concept is really overused. I'm looking at the article and any killing in history which involves more than three people is labeled as genocide. Come on guys! There are other words in language like massacre, mass murder, war etc. Genocide should only be used in rare situations with historically proven practices with a premeditated and planned intent and act of ethnical cleaning of an entire nation. I'm talking about concentration camps, gas chambers, officials discussing most effective ways of killing most people in minimum time etc., and (at least) couple of millions of dead bodies... But any revolt which was repressed with blood; any overly-violent battle with civilian causilties, any kind of massacre is counted as genocide here. It really cheapens the meaning.85.96.26.221 (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the Christian wiping out of Pagans in the Later Roman Empire classify as a genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone else is also starting to see just how stupid/impossible/biased/difficult this article is. I propose RFD, but won't do it myself because there are just too many people who seem to think a list (WIKI has lots of them) with no definition is somehow informative.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

RfD isn't worth it. A better name might be "List of Genocide Claims". See the problem is that in order to have a neutral point of view, you need to include all of them, because it should be up to the reader to decide which ones are and which ones aren't, not to us editors. Now, if they have no sources, then they are vulnerable. Otherwise, not. What actually is genocide is a matter of contention, that's the issue. --Yalens (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I may add: additionally, there are ones that I could see as genocide, like what the Teutonic Knights did to the Prussians, wiping out on the basis of pagan religion and culture, that could be on there. They aren't on because people like myself don't take the time to find sources and put them on. Genocide is not genocide only if Jews are the victims. It is a pattern in history. --Yalens (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you should pick that example. Also a perfect example of the problems this turkey of an article creates. Since the Jews are still around in force, how can you claim genocide without a stricter definition than the one implied by the single word?Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish genocides

Why is their no mention of the elizabethan genocide in ireland when the english slaughtered over 1.5 million irish civilians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.150.176 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources that it was a genocide? -- PBS (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was checking references #76 and #77. I cannot find anything like what they're supposed to say in the Google book search version of the books, and no text is provided in the article. I suspect the references are bogus. In the Richard English book, Google book search does not find any reference to Cromwell on the pages listed in the reference. The reference in the article claims that Cromwell's actions in Ireland not being described as a genocide should be in pages 17-38. The Google Book Search of the text finds nothing before page 57. Similarly, the reference in the article claims that the Paul Bew book mentions Cromwell on pages 5-61, yet the Google Book search of the page shows no mention before page 303, and certainly nothing visible about genocide. If I'm not missing something, then these references are incorrect. Howsoonhathtime (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Otherwise I'll start to delete the references and the text. From what I can see at the moment these references are incorrect, or mis-described, or something. Howsoonhathtime (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. This is the diff in case anyone wants to provide some support to the references. As I say, they seem to me to be incorrect. Howsoonhathtime (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are dozens of potential genocides that should be cited from Britain, most strikingly the Irish Genocide. This very notable event in history is a gaping hole in the record of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnalram (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

China under Mao

I removed this section (among other changes, but I think this is what was controversial), but Jayjg reverted this as "POV blanking". In fact, Mao's persecution of "rightists" does not fulfill the mainstream definition of 'genocide', as the lead for this article says, because it is persecution of a political group; not a racial, religious, or ethnic group. The only source listed that uses the word 'genocide' with Mao's campaigns, laments the fact that it is not considered genocide, and the author says in his personal capacity that he prefers a more expansive view of genocide to cover China. Splittist (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't view it as being genocide either (it is politicide). However, our personal views here are not particularly important, as it is a genocide claim that merits inclusion, even if that claim bends the definition. On that note, we also have the Vendees here. --Yalens (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing Mao's removal based on personal views. It's simply a strange and original Wikipedian interpretation to group together such things as famine during the Great Leap Forward, persecution of rightists in the Cultural Revolution, and prison labor, as "genocide". The section doesn't even do that; the sources don't do that; it calls them mass killings, and that's why it's one sentence.

I interpret the note in the lead about genocides always being deniable as meaning, that genocides such as the Armenian Genocide which are widely regarded as such will stay, despite having some Turkish denial. Not that any single person's claim of a genocide will warrant its inclusion. I commonly hear the "genocide" label slapped onto Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, yet this case is not present here, I assume because of standards and not for a lack of people who would like to claim this.

But again, nobody makes a claim of genocide for 'China under Mao'. Not the (un)removed section, not the sources for that text, just some Wikipedian implicitly doing so by creating this section in this article. It passes the lower standard for removal. Splittist (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove all instances of genocide on the page that did "not fulfill the mainstream definition of 'genocide', as the lead for this article says."? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No. My two edits have clear (albeit compressed, for the character limit) edit summaries in the history. The only section I removed was the Mao section, for the reasons stated above and in my subsequent reply (Mao fails a lower standard than being a fringe claim of genocide; there's not even a claim of genocide except by some Wikipedian).

I made an unrelated edit to the Tibet section to remove a blockquote from a press release from the ICJ saying they would take the case, and if they found evidence of genocide they would act. There was already a blockquote from the final analysis of the ICJ, which I thought was more important and less presumptuous (and less confusing) than the threatening press release enumerating the potential consequences for an anticlimactic conclusion. It read like it was written before the decision came out, and when it did, it wasn't updated. Splittist (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this section is talking about Mao. But nonetheless, the same logic can apply for Tibet if you insist. Whether it is clear is not the matter of debate. We know why you edited. However, that is not how it is done with regard to the page. As it says at the top of the page itself, it is a list of CLAIMED genocides. Not a single one of these claims (not even the Holocaust) is universally accepted. In the case of Tibet and China under Mao, both are not really genocides in my opinion- one is cultural genocide, the other is politicide. However, being a genocide claim is significant as well, for the effect on identity politics it has as well as the effect of the claim itself. Now, I don't exactly find the quote about Tibet all that confusing either. The ICJ called it genocide, period. Whether it was right is for the reader to decide. We may also put up, eventually, that it wasn't only the ICJ, but many other observers also called it such. Yes, perhaps it was incorrect (though, perhaps, brutal oppression would be?). However, your (or anyone's) personal views on this do not need to manifest themselves by deleting large amounts of sourced material on the page. Let the reader decide for themself. --Yalens (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This section is talking about Mao. I did not and am not addressing the question of whether or not Tibet is a genocide, and did not at all express my personal views on the matter (so don't assume). There are two quotes on the page. One quote was the ICJ saying they would take the case and take the appropriate action if genocide was found. Another quote was from the results of the case, in which the ICJ claimed cultural genocide. I removed the first, not the second—in my opinion, the first quote was only appropriate when we were waiting for the decision. It's unnecessary now since we have the results.

Back to Mao. You haven't addressed the fact that no source, not even the Wikipedia text accuses Mao of genocide. Not a single claim. Splittist (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no lack of sources describing the millions killed at the behest of Mao as "genocide":

• Encyclopedia of Genocide
• Dictionary of Genocide
• The Geography of Genocide
• The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies

R. J. Rummel wrote a whole book on the subject, China's Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. No, the issue here isn't a lack of sources on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Genocide and the "whole book on the subject" (which is not of genocide specifically), prefer the term democide because it is expansive enough to cover cases not traditionally termed genocide (it seems the word 'genocide' was only used in the subtitle and chapter name, and the former is often at the discretion of the publisher). R. J. Rummel has an webpage discussing the difference between the various terms for mass killings, and the very specific definition of genocide.

The Dictionary of Genocide only uses the word "genocide" in "ruthless genocidal destruction of those who opposed his regime", which this article's own lead points out does not conform to the Genocide Convention's definition. The Geography of Genocide page you linked to was, "China against Tibet". Actually, that book takes for granted every case it lists, because it tries to explain how genocides are a result of 'emasculation', and doesn't detail the killings themselves. Finally, the Oxford handbook contrasts the Great Leap Forward with "Ukraine's famine genocide" to point out that the deaths were not a result of a policy to destroy a specific group, but a blind faith in certain farming techniques.

All of the sources you linked to are not what you say: direct referral to a specific event of Mao's as "genocide". The section on Wikipedia conflated too many things; the completely separate Great Leap Forward and the Anti-Rightist Campaign, for example, as part of one big original overreaching genocide interpretation. So there is a trouble of a lack of sources. If you think that there is "an issue here" besides that as you insinuated, you should be candid. Splittist (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)