Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Communist Vietnam

Recently the section Genocides in history#Communist Vietnam was removed and that removal was reverted. Yet the section includes synthesis and the claim that it was a genocide, was made by someone in a radio broadcast. The synthesis is to use Steven Rosefielde to describe the incident but then to switch to other sources for the claim of genocide (If Rosefielde did not state it was a genocide but "exterminat[ion of] class enemies", he presumably had a reason (But even if he had is he qualified to analysis what is or is not a genocide?)

The radio broadcast is:

• "50 Years On, Vietnamese Remember Land Reform Terror". Radio Free Asia. 8 June 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

The claims are:

• "The land reform was a massacre of innocent, honest people, and using contemporary terms we must say that it was a genocide triggered by class discrimination"
• Former Hanoi government official Nguyen Minh Can, who was part of the campaign to change direction following the terror, said it amounted to "genocide". ..."The land reform was a massacre of innocent, honest people, and using contemporary terms we must say that it was a genocide triggered by class discrimination", [Nguyen Minh Can] told RFA’s Vietnamese service.
• Writer Tran Manh Hao "The land reform campaign was a crime of genocide like that of Pol Pot," [Writer Tran Manh Hao said.

The first comment which quotes no-one flies in the face of the development of the legal body of law that has developed at the international tribunals since the late 1990s. The two people quoted are AFAICT neither notable genocide or legal scholars. Further it is not at all clear that the Pol Pot regime committed genocide the only case to date to be completed states the crimes were war crimes and crimes against humanity (which encompasses mass murder). I suspect that if any of the Pol Pot regime are found guilty of genocide it will be for the targeting and eliminating one of the ethnic minorities in Cambodia rather than genocide based on politicide.

So, I think that unless there is a more reliable source (see Radio Free Asia#Criticism) that states that these mass killing were a genocide, or that it is common coin in a country (as are claims that genocide took place in the the Pakistan (Bangladesh War of 1971)), the section it should be removed. -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Milosevic-karadzic-mladic-wanted-poster.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Leopolds reign in Congo

I really don't have so much to contribute to the matter, other than I have seen a documentary on youtube, that estimated the deaths of Congolese between the Berlin Congo Conference and the annexation of Congo by the Belgian nation around 20 million. I wonder if this should not been put here. As I understood those people died as consequences of a brutal forced labor policy on King Leopolds privately hold territory rather then in an intentional effort to wipe the Congolese out, so I don't know, wether this is classified as genocide, but the high numbers in a single decade make me feel like it should be mentioned on this Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.177.39 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In the talk archives of this article there are a number of discussions on this subject. Fore example see Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6#Belgium and the Congo -- PBS (talk)

Great Irish Famine death toll

I find this sentence, "Peaking around 8-9 million in the early 19th century, Ireland's population fell to around 4 million during the Famine, because of emigration and starvation.[96]", quite problematic (and it cites a dead link). The implicit suggestion is that the population halved or thereabouts during the famine, but a quick glance through the Death toll section in the Great Irish Famine article tells me this is very wrong and that the likely figure lies somewhere around 1-1.5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.79.209 (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Irish Famine was not an example of genocide. There was no evidence that it was government policy - indeed the mere suggestion that it was is despicable and defamatory.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree its inclusion on this page is gross POV, it is certainly not described as a genocide by mainstream sources even though some may view it as such for political reasons. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Peaking around 8-9 million..." and replaced it with some sentences taken from the lead in the main Irish Famine page. BritishWatcher with few exceptions, on this page are lots of genocides which are contentious. In this case we have in the article two legal opinions that it was a genocide. I suspect that like the Tasmainian genocide, the legal experts based their opinions on secondary sources which may or may not reflect the best most recent scholarship. However we can not dismiss those opinions just because they may not be the majority opinion, because they are the opinions of experts in the legal field. In the same section there are a number of paragraphs stating that in the opinion of other the experts this was not a genocide. What exactly is it that we need to add to balance the POV so that we can take you banner off the top? -- PBS (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Norman French Genocide in Britain

The French Normans committed planned genocide in England but I see yet another historical revision at work. 82.31.236.245 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sabra-Shatila

Hello. I feel the bit about it not being genocide, the opinion of William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, is important since no sane person can honestly call what happened at Sabra and Shatila "genocide". I also feel that the long Kuper quote is clearly just sheer speculation about the motives of the UN's calling it "genocide". At the very least, it ought to be balanced out with a contrary quote given the same prominence. That would then mean we'd have an enormous section bickering about Sabra-Shatila, something that wasn't even genocide.

If I am more honest, I feel that Kuper's quote is simply a POV push: many would say that the Israeli government's line often likes to argue that Israel is always unfairly picked on etc. At the very least, I feel Kuper should be heavily chopped down to a summary; the prominence and space he is given at the moment is not necessary or merited.

Anyway, so those are my feelings on Sabra-Shatila. ColaXtra (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert by PBS

You should remove your revert. The changes you removed all improved the article. They are mostly from the Shabra Shatila article, and the sources are reliable. Why did you revert? You need precise objections to the changes to remove them.109.150.79.43 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If PBS doesn't bother to reply today, I am going to put it back to how you had it. If he's got the time keep an eye on the article and do reversions, he can take the time to type a few words of explanation here. He's the one who said "take it to talk", yet he's the only one who's quiet as a mouse. ColaXtra (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is missing a lot of stuff, mostly ancient genocides, and genocides committed by non-whites

http://www.counter-propaganda.w3.lt/genoci/engenoci.php The ancient Israelites murdered anyone who wasn't one of them. Christianity was spread through Europe by murdering anyone who wasn't Christian. In the US and Canda, they killed off the indenous people with disease. South of the US, they spread Christianity by the sword. In Asia, they spread Islam by the sword. In Britain, in the 19th century, they murdered and forced Scottish Highlanders to emigrate. Australia, killed off many aboriginees. The Jews are only able to get their ancestral homeland back by killing off all the Muslims there.

http://www.enotes.com/ancient-world-reference/ancient-world Greeks wipe out Troy. Various stuff in Asia such as India, Babylon area, and Israel area.

http://www.genocidetext.net/gaci_origins.pdf African Zulus killed off the other tribes, 1810-1828

These aren't the sources Wikipedia likes, but they reference other sources it does. It'll take work to look it up but I'm just seeing who else thinks the article is lacking. Some people seem to think the 20th century was the century of genocide, when truly genocide is a very ancient thing.

Oh and here's an article on Eskimo/Inuit types who killed off all of another one of their types, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The third link that you post is from Adam Jones. There's certainly no problem with that on Wikipedia. It mentions the reported genocide in the Old Testament.

In contrast, the first link that you've posted is from an openly Nazi website and cannot be trusted.

The second link (enotes.com) is not valid by itself, but it references books that would be legitimate. If you can find the specific reference in this book, then something can be added to the article for these ancient genocides. Epa101 (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Mysterious" IAGS Resolution

I won't edit war over a source, but the IAGS Resolution is not a Reputable source...because, it was never passed or affirmed by the organization. Here is the IAGS page on Resolutions and Statements. There are some good ones about the Armenian Genocide, but this resolution does not exist. (Also read some of the resolutions, they don't use WHEREAS clauses). So now we have some internet Wayback link to a Resolution from the website written with WHEREAS clauses. No indication of whether it was passed (like the other resolutions), no statement of historical evidence (like the other resolutions), no date or signature by the leadership (like the other resolutions). There is no indication that this resolution was ever supported by the organization at all, the clearest evidence being that they don't host it on their website section on Resolutions. The link does not belong, it is not an actual passed resolution by the IAGS and ascribing it to them is intellectually dishonest. ascribing the claim to them without certification by the organization itself should not be done lightly. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so. There is a resolution from the Swedish Parliament mentioning the IAGS resolution. Check the second source I added. And I just saw your allusion to intellectual dishonesty. Please try to stop the personal attacks on good-faith contributors. Don't try to forcibly subdue your opponents with heavy-handed and nasty accusations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Genocide Resolution approved by Swedish Parliament — full text which contains also the IAGS resolution. Are these people "intellectually dishonest" too? I would appreciate it if you retracted that nasty comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any accusation you think was directed at you. None was intended. I do think it is intellectually dishonest to ascribe a resolution to the highest body on the topic that has serious and good questions about its authenticity. You can think it is intellectually ok. That's great. I'm entitled to express my opinion that ascribing something of questionable authenticity to the leading body on the topic is not a good practice to follow. I made a general claim about questionable evidence and not one I would direct toward any particular editor, and not one that I attributed to you. Hope you accept the apology. I think there are legitimate reasons to question the source and I don't think the Swedish Parliament resolution clarifies the issue. This wouldn't be the first time a government made a mistake in a Resolution. A Press release from IAGS about its passage. Or even if the resolution had any of the traditional marks of a passed resolution that the other resolution from IAGS has would convince me. I think with these problems, we may want to exclude it as a source for this claim (a claim which has other top-notch sources). I have serious problems with such a sourcing with no certification of its authenticity by the organization. This is the most authoritative source on the topic and their name should not be thrown around without significant certainty. If other editors are fine with it, cool. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You said: You can think it is intellectually ok. That's great. Where did you get the idea that I would think it is ok? Please retract that presumptuous comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, so you also think that we should only link to IAGS if they provide some authetication for the resolution (by hosting it on their website, having a press release about it, or something). Sorry for the presumptuous comment, it is hereby retracted. Glad we both agree on this. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop playing games of coercion. I think that the Swedish Parliament citation is reliable enough and better than your IAGS website speculation, which is original research. The IAGS never claimed on their website that these are the only resolutions they ever passed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the point for other editors, I'll be leaving now and aren't going to force the issue. If you are cool with linking a resolution to IAGS that the organization provides no evidence that it passed, then leave the link up there. If you are concerned that the organization provides no evidence of its passage, like it does for all its other resolutions (noting dates, leadership names, vote numbers, hosting on their web page, etc.), remove it. The claim doesn't need this source, it has other ones. I just found that the evidence didn't support its inclusion as one of those cites because IAGS provides no authentication for this resolution. You can disagree with me, just leave the source up then, won't hurt me none. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How about the co-drafter of the resolution Adam Jones

<ref name="Jones2010">{{cite book|author=Adam Jones|title=Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=BqdVudSuTRIC&pg=PA172|accessdate=27 September 2012|date=26 October 2010|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-48618-7|pages=171–172|quote= A resolution was placed before the IAGS membership to recognize the Greek and Assyrian/Chaldean components of the Ottoman Genocide against Christians, alongside the Armenian strand of the genocide (which the IAGS has already formally acknowledged). The result, passed emphatically in December 2007 despite not inconsiderable opposition, was a resolution which I co-drafted, reading as follows:... (IAGS resolution is on page 172)}}</ref>

. Is he also "intellectually dishonest"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's much better than the Swedish Parliament thing. Thanks for convincing me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your intellectual honesty. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this edit of yours. Thank you. Consequently I will strike some comments of mine which I feel are no longer applicable to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.K. ColaXtra (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt, Dr. K is right, I am wrong. I won't apologize for my high standards for certainty, especially for the top organization (FYI, I emailed the org and asked them to post all resolutions they've passed, and hopefully that will provide a great resource for editors of this page), but I will apologize for calling it a "forgery" and for any implication that believing the link's authenticity was "intellectually dishonest", my qualm was certification and not with either choosing to host the link or believing in its authenticity. But this issue was proven beyond any doubt for me with the Jones quotation. Dr. K was certainly right, I was not. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K. is a living legend. My advice is to never, ever, tangle with him. You are looking out for a bone-crushing, leg-amputating hammer blow to the left shoulder... Look, Dr.K. is Greek, so don't trust anything he ever says. Christ, those Greeks—history's most devious nation. ColaXtra (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just by accident I just saw this little discussion which unexpectedly developed after I said my final thanks to Abstract. I don't know what to say, and this doesn't happen very often to me. To accept Cola's unduly high praise or equally bruising blame is a task beyond my pay-grade, to paraphrase Obama. So I will humbly shut up. And to Abstract I reiterate my thanks for their principled behaviour. Now, if I may, I will try to blend in with the environment and disappear on my way out. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Section" Dersim Kurds" - sources

The section talks about a "massacre" (without any RS citation) and has only 3 refs. From these 3, Ref 140 is a self-publication. Ref 142 is a dead end link to a "AraratNews" site. Not only the ref page but the website (araratnews.eu) is dead-end. Could someone give more info for the third source ("Genocide" by George Andreopoulos?) All three sources in this section are problematic and of course there is no citation from any RS on a "genocide" with this name. Therefore I am going to remove this section. --E4024 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole article about it with a section for the genocide controversy. I will momentarily be adding sources from there. --Yalens (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So your excellency remembered there is a discussion page after making your edit and accusing me of not reading, in your edit summary! And you could not find anything better than taking refuge in my own argument that there is an article on a "massacre" and decided to carry the info from there into this article. So you majestically jumped over the fact that "genocide" and "massacre" are two different concepts. And of course the condition of being reliable or not of those sources is of no concern to you when you like the content, right? And another question: In your very polite edit summary you are inviting me to read a source, which is referred to in the article, but there is no indication whether it is a book or article and where, when and by whom it was published. Certainly you must have read that, as you are so knowledgable on the issue, so please hurry to provide those facts before I remove it... --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I could have been more tactful in the edit summary (I'm sorry), but your own facetious tone isn't welcome either. You must be quite aware what this looks like, coming onto this page of all pages and deleting a whole section claiming that the sources don't even mention genocide when its quite obvious they do (or at least did). In this case, a self-publication is actually worth something, because the convention on this page is not to list cases of "confirmed" genocide but rather cases of alleged genocide, and that would be a source for the allegation. In any case, the section now has more sources, which now include a (now-)working araratnews.eu article (a news article), a scholarly paper by van Bruinessen, as well as a source for the alternative (Turkish) opinion. --Yalens (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

E4024 asked me to comment while I was handling an unrelated problem for him. I suggest that the two of you at least get a third opinion on this, or take it to WT:IRS, where there are third parties more skilled than I at determining whether Bruinessen's work would be acceptable as a self-published source. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple things to say... don't worry, I will get to policy.

E4042, i read your message on Daniel Case's talk page. No, I am not trying to edit war with you- quite on the contrary. I don't have some stone-hard view on the topic. I came to the page because I saw a large deletion, and upon inspection, I came to the conclusion that the reason wasn't adequate. Then, I came to the talk page, and I realized that maybe I had been a little hasty. Like many editors would, I tried to resolve the apparent source problem by adding new sources. Yes, my original edit summary could've been more tactful- I've already apologized for that, and I don't put all the blame on you. But from this point forward, we can talk civilly about the issue and what would be the best implementation of wikipedia policies, without going to peoples' talk pages and bemoaning a coming "edit war." I'm sure (or at least I hope) that you also have only good intentions in mind, so can we please move on from this?

Now on the issue at hand, I have a couple comments:

1. The guideline on SPS says the following: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Van Bruinessen, a university professor of (among other things) Kurdish history, definitely fits that description.

2. However, after looking at this case more clearly, it isn't even SPS. The cited pdf file was available for free on Utrecht University's webpage but as that website states, it is in fact it is an essay from a published book: "‘Genocide in Kurdistan? The Suppression of the Dersim Rebellion in Turkey (1937-38) and the Chemical War Against the Iraqi Kurds (1988)’, in George J. Andreopoulos (ed.), Conceptual and historical dimensions of genocide, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, pp. 141-70. [copy-pasted straight from Utrecht University's website] Therefore, I see no WP:SPS violation whatsoever.

Is there still an issue with the source at hand? Do we still need a third opinion? (Case is welcome to comment too)--Yalens (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions, only Questions: So at the end we are revolving around one published source by a Mr Andreopoulos, right? And we are talking about a supposed "genocide", a crime against humanity. Has anyone heard of a genocide that has attracted this little attention from academia and media, forget governments? (Even the so-called Greek genocide was recognized by the "Republic of Cyprus"...) So we have other problems here; we are trying to "upgrade" a dark page in Turkish history -like we have done with others- to the category of "genocide". The said writer, Van Bruinessen, titled his essay "An almost forgotten massacre". What does this tell us? Could it be that he does not consider it a genocide or that he does not know the difference between the two concepts? Are you thinking of writing a WP article on the notable genocideologist Andreopoulos? --E4024 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Has anyone heard of a genocide that has attracted this little attention..."- yes, in fact that would describe probably over half the cases listed on this page. As for the term forgotten, its been applied to a large number of cases, including the Armenian one, and that is one of the few that does get a large amount of attention. Am I thinking of writing an article on Andreopoulos? Of course not.--Yalens (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Genocide committed by Greeks at Troy

I read about this horse they had. Loads of Greeks in it, then they all came out and killed everyone. I think it's called the "Trojan Genocide" in the literature, why is it not mentioned in the article? ColaXtra (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I also read it. I mean Iliad. And I also saw the film Troy (several times). But I cannot understand why Achilles was blond... Any idea? --E4024 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Iliad, while some think it approximates a couple real events, definitely couldn't be used as source. Do you have sources of any modern people who claim this?--Yalens (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Very perceptive E4024, and I find myself quite unable to answer your question. Perhaps it is only in Hollywood products that the facts are cast aside. Surely Achilles would have been a brown-haired warrior, as would have been the accessories to genocide who were in that horse. Does anyone know of any historical examples where genocide has been made possible by people hiding in a wooden animal? For my money, the Greeks are so treacherous that only they could have thought of it. It would definitely be good to have the Trojan Genocide in the article, and I have no problem using the Odyssey as a source for the genocide. Of course, further historical and trustworthy materials can be used alongside it, but for me the Odyssey is to the Trojan Genocide what The Destruction of the European Jews is to the Holocaust. Merely my thoughts. I simply feel that it's embarrassing to have the article overlook the Trojan Genocide. Perhaps just a brief mention? ColaXtra (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have a huge problem with using the Odyssey, or any other ancient script, because the concept of genocide didn't exist back then, and it needs to be someone besides a wikipedia editor's opinion that gets cited here (see WP:OR, WP:SYN).--Yalens (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. As for Achilles, surely he should have been dark-haired as most Greeks are, but do you think Hollywood would restrict its cast to those of Greek descent? By the way this is totally off-topic, and should really be taken to someone's talk page if you guys want to continue this discussion.

But if you're looking for massacres by Greeks (I understand in this page some use that term -I mean massacre not Greeks- as a synonym for genocide) you have more recent examples in the history like these ones. Oh, bullsh(...) these have occurred before the UN Convention of Genocide was accepted in 1948; and even before the concept of genocide was coined! But everything that is mentioned in the Ottoman Empire/Turkey section of this article are also before the said period?! What to do now?.. --E4024 (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well if you have usable sources claiming they're genocide and other people agree, you could add it.--Yalens (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Soviet intervention in Afghanistan

Total bullshit. This should not be in an article about genocides. Completely ridiculous. As are many of the other examples listed-- just expanding the definition of "genocide" to meet political ends-- unscholarly and morally repugnant.

You are correct - the inclusion of this period in history is inappropriate. There is an abundance of literature about this subject, and I have not come across anything about genocide. 76.232.253.147 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This section provides undue weight to one M. Hassan Kakar, who would have to qualify as a primary source because he himself was a participant in Afghanistan's conflicts. Academic journals demonstrate that Kakar's work is more of a polemic than a piece of scholarly literature. Because of this, Kakar's book contains many factual errors and inconsistencies. What is inappropriate for this article is that way Kakar arbitrarily invents his own definition of genocide so that it fits with his personal views. There is no need for this: we must strictly follow by the long-standing and undisputed UN definition of genocide.

Reviews of Kakar's work are not favorable:

The International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1996), pp. 735-736: By way of introduction, Kakar outlines major events prior to the Soviet invasion in December 1979. He discusses the assassination of Hafizullah Amin by an 'Alpha antiterrorist squad of the KGB9 dressed in Afghan uniforms (p. 22). In another chapter, he raises the question of why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and concludes that 'neither Amin nor the Revolutionary Council had either orally or in writing asked the Soviet Union to send troops into Afghanistan' (p. 46). We know now, however, that President Nur Muhammad Taraki had, as early as March 1979, asked for assistance in troops and materiel and, from the time Hafizullah Amin became prime minister in April 1979, the Afghan government had made at least twenty appeals for assistance. After all, at the time Hafizullah Amin was assassinated, there was already a sizeable Soviet military force in Afghanistan. By way of introduction, Kakar outlines major events prior to the Soviet invasion in December 1979. He discusses the assassination of Hafizullah Amin by an 'Alpha antiterrorist squad of the KGB9 dressed in Afghan uniforms (p. 22). In another chapter, he raises the question of why the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and concludes that 'neither Amin nor the Revolutionary Council had either orally or in writing asked the Soviet Union to send troops into Afghanistan' (p. 46). We know now, however, that President Nur Muhammad Taraki had, as early as March 1979, asked for assistance in troops and materiel and, from the time Hafizullah Amin became prime minister in April 1979, the Afghan government had made at least twenty appeals for assistance.2 After all, at the time Hafizullah Amin was assassinated, there was already a sizeable Soviet military force in Afghanistan.

Russian Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Jul., 1996), pp. 520-521: The book's value as an original source is, unfortunately, marred by a curious unevenness. Kakar is sometimes a polemist rather than scholar-understandable, given his experiences. Less understandable are a number of careless factual mistakes. Aside from them, a Western observer without Kakar's first-hand experience and access to so many indigenous language sources hesitates to question some of his statements that differ from written and oral information from other Afghan exiles. But his failure to give sources for differing versions of events about which he had no personal knowledge is disappointing. For example, Kakar attributes a degree of power to the Parchami Communist faction in 1973 that others do not. He accepts Hafizullah Amin's claimed role in the 1978 coup that chronological evidence does not support and others, including Soviet scholars, call a myth. He does not explain why he chooses to recount just one of several conflicting versions on a number of different points, such as how Amin died during the invasion and the possible Soviet use of a "scorched earth" policy.

76.232.253.147 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Section on France

The section about France and the counter-revolutionary Vendee conflict needs to be removed - there is not a serious scholarly debate about it. A consensus of historians reject claims of genocide as nonsensical.76.232.253.147 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Section about Soviet Russia

The section is marred by a low quality of sources, misrepresentation of prevailing opinions about the topics, and undue weight given to fringe opinions.

The "Decossackization" section is especially problematic. There is the impression of a consensus that a genocide occurred, but the cited sources are not at all authoritative about this particular conflict. Orlando Figes' source is not appropriate because his is a commercially-published book that provides a broad overview of Russian history from ca. 1890-1920. His book is not a study about the Revolution in the Cossack regions. The same is true of all the other sources.

Professor Futoryansky of Orenburg University is the world's leading scholar about the conflicts in the Cossack regions during the revolution, and he absolutely rejects that "decossackization" amounted to a genocide. Rather, he says that the White Terror was much worse than the security measures of the Soviet state:

Evgeni Losev in his book "Mironov" shows the monstrous cruelty of the "decossackization" statistics by the Reds in the Don, with more than 1000 shot...Recall at least that in the period of the Krasnov's rule on the Don, more than 45 thousand were shot and hanged. The total number of the executions was more than half of the entire Krasnov army. A recent book estimates that Krasnov's forces shot 25 thousand... But this is still 25 times the measures taken by the Reds.

Professor Golub also wrote a book about decossackization, and he completely rejects the idea that there was a genocide.

Even American historian Peter Holquist, who stated "The Bolshevik state did not, however, pursue an open-minded program of genocide against the Cossacks." (Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914-1921, p.187)

Whereas Golub, Futoryansky, Holquist are experts about the subject of the Cossacks, NONE of the sources cited to support the allegation of genocide against the Cossacks are authored by experts who have done their own original research about the subject -- the former sources completely supersede the latter. 76.232.253.147 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Poles in 1937-38: this part is solely based on the opinion of a Polish journalist. There are many, many works about the Soviet state during 1937-1938 and its security measures. But the consensus about these events is that people were repressed on the basis of politics, social activities, and other factors rather than race or nationality. For example, Prof. Terry Martin in his extensive research about this topic didn't say anything about a genocide having taken place. The source cited in this article, Tomasz Sommer, is not an academic and his work doesn't appear to be published by a respectable academic institution. If a consensus of Western and also Russian scholars believe that a genocide occurred against Poles according to the UN definition, then prove it. Otherwise, this reliance on Sommer's opinion amounts to undue weight. 76.232.253.147 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What scholarly sources conclude that the deportations of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians amounted to genocide? We have this comprehensive book by a Russian historian about those events, and he doesn't think that they amounted to genocide. This part is solely based on the propaganda activities of governments of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia such as "genocide museum". Unless it can be presented that a consensus of Western or Russian scholars believe that a genocide was committed, this part does not belong in the article.

The section about Chechnya is very problematic - it is based solely on some random EU Parliament members and their politically motivated views. How exactly is a EU MEP from a random European country a reliable source about this? Very few people outside of Russia know about this, and the vast majority of primary and secondary sources are published in Russia. We've also got this book by a Russian historian confirming that there wasn't a genocide against Chechens, but that in the Chechnya region there was a large-scale insurgency against the government during 1941-44. The historian argues that the Chechens were treated humanely during the deportation process and received assistance in their new locations. So there is no basis for Chechnya's inclusion in this article - vast majority of scholars do not describe Chechnya during 1941-44 as genocidal. 76.232.253.147 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The only part where there has been any kind of scholarly debate about genocide is the famine of 1933, and even there most scholars and Russian government conclude that there was not a genocide. None of the other topics about the Soviet period belong in this article. 76.232.253.147 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you make some fair points, but just going ahead with such enormous revisions before any discussion is not on. Regardless, you are an obvious sock, and so your edits cannot be permitted to stand for that reason.

I agree that the definition of the word genocide should be restricted for use in such cases as the Holocaust, Rwanda, Armenia, the Native Americans, etc. Things like Sabra-Shatila, horrendous as they were, are not genocide in my book, and it is disgraceful to call them such; if we had my way, most of the article would vanish. My understanding, however, is that this is not the way Wikipedia works. Given that we both have concerns, perhaps we can work together to chop the article down?

One unavoidable problem occurs right at the very outset: we are not allowed to impose our (correct and proper) interpretation of the Genocide Convention onto the article. That means there are inevitably going to be instances of "genocide" making their way into the article—Sabra-Shatila, for example—because a reliable source calls it "genocide". I cannot see anyway around this issue.

This being the case, my understanding is that the article should not seek to assert whether any particular contested case is genocide, but to indicate (with a reliable source) when the description has been used, provide (with a reliable source) the opposing view, and ideally indicate (with a good source) what the current majority view is. This will enable anyone who comes to the page to read both sides of the story

Anyway, until you get blocked or are vouchsafed, let's go through one at a time. Poland 1937–8 first? ColaXtra (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for my ignorance, but are there any significant differences between the Trail of Tears (Native Americans) and Population transfers in the Soviet Union? Tobby72 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Both are mentioned in the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty, but its hard to compare the two because the various population transfers in the USSR were not all the same (i.e. some involved massacres and deletions of x-people from history books and book-burning, as seen with the Chechens, others were "less" ferocious, some deported the whole ethnic group while others punished only the intelligentsia, etc...).--Yalens (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 October 2012

The article currently contains a couple of links to pages on thirdworldtraveler.com which copy extensively from copyrighted work. So, I think they fail WP:ELNEVER, so it may be a good idea to remove them now. The citation would still mention the original work by Stannard which thirdworldtraveler.com copied, so WP:V is still satisfied. bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie⚔ 01:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

North Korea

There is not any kind of debate genocide involving this country in scholarly literature. The sources cited in this article are not reliable, involving Robert Park, who is an activist rather than a scholar. There is an editorial involving Washington Post newspaper, but the use of this kind of source is naive. There should instead be reliable genocide scholarship arguing whether genocide has occurred.76.232.253.235 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

While acknowledging that “genocide is normally interpreted to mean the mass killings of another race,” Jasper Becker in his study Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the Looming Threat of North Korea contended that “this too” – the death of millions through politically-manipulated famine – “is a form of genocide.” ... Genocide scholars increasingly accept that the tyrannies of both Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong produced “canonical” cases of genocide. But this is a relatively recent phenomenon ... Nicolas Werth wrote: “On the basis of these new considerations, it seems to me legitimate to classify as genocide the totality of the actions taken by the Stalin regime to punish, by means of famine and terror, the Ukrainian peasantry.” — Adam Jones (2010), Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, pp. 215—217. Tobby72 (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Algeria and Chechnya

The 19th century conquests by France and Russia both constitute genocides, claiming at least 1 million lives each through scorched earth policies. Don't they deserve a mention? Especially since the Algerian government has spoken of allegations of genocide against France before, and official Algerian figures claim 1.5 million killed in the 1954-1962, although France maintains 300,000 were killed. In any case it deserves a mention. If I recall there was a section about Algeria years ago but it got removed. Chechnya can be put just under the Circassian section. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Don´t forget the massacre of tens of thousands of Algerian Harkis and their families. Tobby72 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

While Chechens also suffered in the "Circassian" expulsions of the mid 1800s, the Chechen section is about a totally different event which occurred in 1944, in which the entire Chechen people were sent to Siberia, a considerable portion were slaughtered, and the ancient history annals of the area were obliterated. In short, it gets its own section.--Yalens (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Chechnya was struck by banditry and rebellion during the war involving large numbers of Chechens, who were obstructing the Soviet nation's war effort against the Axis forces. Large numbers of Chechen men deserted from the Army and openly engaged in hostilities with Soviet security forces. The Soviet government then arranged for their relocation in Kazakhstan/Central Asia in 1944, which was a smooth, peaceful process, after which the people received state assistance to maintain their livelihoods. You said that they were sent to "Siberia", but they were sent to Kazakhstan. You said that "a considerable portion were slaughtered", which is refuted by the historian Pykhalov. You claim that "ancient history annals of the area were obliterated" - a strange accusation when Chechen identity, literature, culture, etc were very weakly developed before the 20th century. Consider that the L. N. Tolstoy Chechen-Ingush University was founded in 1972 on the basis of a pedagogical institute established in 1938. So Chechnya does not belong in this article. 76.232.253.235 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll disregard Russian nationalist historiography that views a brutal deportation that was estimated by one Russian (yes, Russian) scholar to have taken up to 0.2 million lives along the trip as a "smooth, peaceful process". You could have put in a single line about how "some scholars disagree", maybe, if you weren't edit warring all over the place on this page. --Yalens (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinions are not very interesting to me - disregard what ever source you want. But this cannot be permitted to manipulate the content of the article. Pykhalov totally refutes the Chechen nationalist revisionism. -- 76.232.253.235 (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pykhalov isn't a reliable source. He's a supporter of Stalin and a hardcore genocide denialist, pretty much on par with David Irving. Machinarium (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so now Nekrich, an ethnic Russian, is a Chechen nationalist revisionist? If you're trying to be funny, its not working =P. --Yalens (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we're on this, I decided to restore some of the deleted text in that section. It makes no sense to me why the bulk of the section was deleted, leaving the reader with only the statement about the EU parliament recognizing it, without ever telling them what actually happened. So I restored some of the text, though I shortened it considerably. --Yalens (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nekrich's work has not only been made obsolete by recent research, but it's also unrepresentative of a scholarly consensus among Russian historians. Nekrich is famous precisely because he was so out of touch with his Russian colleagues, which is why he emigrated in 1976.76.232.253.235 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah somehow I don't find it at all surprising that he was "out of touch with his Russian [nationalist] colleagues" and driven to flee. This doesn't dent my point at all...--Yalens (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

'This page isn't a list of confirmed genocides, its a list of alleged genocides. Hence why so many are included. No Wikipedia editor, neither me nor you nor anyone, gets to pass judgment on which ones are considered legitimate. --Yalens (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The page should be limited to the work done by genocide scholars and academics. I've had a quality education, and none of the stuff about the Soviet Union have been described as genocide by a consensus of historians and genocide scholars. For this reason, the content should be removed.

Because by the standards of this article, I can insert a lot of material showing that genocides occurred in some conflicts. In particular:

Some authors in the DPR Korea say that the American-led war on Korea in 1950-53 amounted to genocide: "The Korean war was a war of barbarous genocide aimed to exterminate the Korean nation and wreck peace. The U.S. crimes against peace and humanity will be cursed and censured by history and human conscience generation after generation." [1]

The Cubans think that the U.S. embargo on Cuba is genocidal: "The embargo as a whole "could be classified as an act of genocide," Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said before the U.N. General Assembly voted 187-3 in October to condemn U.S. policy toward Cuba for the 18th year running."[2]

Iranian media cites sources saying that U.S. has done genocide against Iraqis. [3]

"The United States is committing “genocide” in Iraq, says activist Dahlia Wasfi ...." Tobby72 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If we count that the US funded the Baath into power, armed it during its genocidal war against its neighbour and minorities, then slapped it with a genocidal embargo, and finally invaded triggering a genocidal civil war, the case can be made that the US did commit genocide in Iraq, for the sake of geopolitical interests. But that is beyond the accepted scopes of political correctness. The harkis killed were approximately 150,000. What exactly are you playing at, moral equivalence? I was sure not to rely on the war of independence because I know it's disputed, yet you decided to play the old "and the harkis" as well. Gee who was it that encouraged the harkis to collaborate then abandoned them in the first place? Moral equivalence is lame. I hold no illusions about the FLN's barbarism. But using it is not an argument anymore than Algerian piracy is an argument for French conquest and extermination of Algerians. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Circassian genocide of 19th century was officially recognized as such and therefore belongs to this article. But of course this is not about only Chechens, but about many peoples of North Caucasus (I am sure Yalens has good knowledge of this). My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, best wishes is correct that although the so-called "Circassian genocide" mainly victimized Circassians, other peoples of the North- and South (Abkhaz, Muslim Georgians)- Caucasus were also victimized, including Chechens. But this was an entirely separate event from what happened 80 years later, when the Chechens (along with the Ingush, and various other peoples) were massacred in large numbers and then exiled to Siberia. There is no reason for merging them, as they were entirely separate events. --Yalens (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I see utterly no connection of this to Algeria, so I have utterly no idea why it is linked to Algeria in this discussion. I also see utterly no connection of this to allegations that the US committed genocide in Iraq. We're not here to talk about comparative victimology, and this isn't a forum either, so unless Iraq has something to do with this discussion, I'd advise you stay on topic plus, Iraq was first brought up by a now-banned IP edit warrior who you might not want to be linked with. Just saying. --Yalens (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, POV pushing IP

According to the POV pushing IP, the Russian politician, Leonid Kalashnikov "is not" being used as a specialist.

According to politician and member of the Russian legislature Leonid Kalashnikov, the dominant cause of the famine of 1933 was a poor harvest resulting from poor weather conditions, including a drought in 1931 and pests and diseases with plants. He argues that the "authors of the myth about the "Golodomor" are silent about how the famine was associated with crop failures, a regular occurrence in Russia for many centuries before the establishment of Soviet power. It can be said that the Soviet government did everything within its power to reduce the effects of famine.

It can be clearly seen that Leonid Kalashnikov's statement is being used as a source against Holodomor being a genocide.
So along with edit-warring the IP is also using unreliable sources to push his/her POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention they've completely run over the 3RR rule...--Yalens (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed comments by two persistent sockpuppet accounts that were not responded by other participants My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ainu people, religious ethnic cleansing, and what constitutes genocide

So I just added some sections on Ainu and the religious conflicts/ethnic cleansings. But events have to be labeled as genocide by RS and defined by the ICC in order to be added here, right? But isn't "denial" part of the genocide characteristics? Example, I saw in the Ainu people article that they were labeled as an extinct/dead group by Russia and Japan despite the fact that they have not died out. Isn't this denial related to the genocide-type of behavior conducted by the Russians and the Japanese against the ethnic minority? What about the indigenous peoples of the Americas? Weren't they "cleansed"/deported by the Spaniards/Europeans/American colonists? Is the fact that the US or other nations' silence on the "genocide" type of behavior in the things they did in the past the same as the denial characteristic of the nations/groups conducting the genocides? Countries/groups don't like to label events as genocides or "admit" it, do they? - M0rphzone (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they don't. But that's why we have scholars who study these things and call them accordingly. Until scholars call these events genocide we cannot come to Wikipedia and use our own original research to name them so. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Various mass killings

The German WW2 war crimes are in this article, but from looking at the talk archives, it doesn't seem anyone has discussed whether or not the Japanese war crimes in WW2 were genocides. Didn't they kill thousands of Chinese in the Nanking Massacre (says hundreds of thousands in the article), thousands of Filipinos and Americans in the Bataan Death March (says 2,500–10,000 Filipino and 300–650 Americans in the article), and thousands of Koreans and other people as well? The genocides committed by the Germans are already in this article, and it says that Germans mass killed Soviets/Soviet POWs, but what about from the other side: i.e., what about the Soviet mass killings of German POWs? Are the killings/deportations of Native Americans by US troops/government/colonists genocide? - M0rphzone (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Total?

I did the math on my calculator (it is not exact because some sections don't include the number of people killed), but I got the total number of people killed from 1915-2000 to be about 39.1 million people. Do you think this is relevant to the entry or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.156.235 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC) ~~Words~~

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV-section template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I missed a POV-section template on my first pass of the article, and have removed it as well, with the same reasoning and caveats as above. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

JAPAN

AND THE IMPERIAL ARMY GENOCIDES AGAINST CHINESE PEOPLE????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.27.249 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

The section on Sri Lanka is being repeatedly removed by editors whose excuse is that no RS claims genocide. They are deliberately ignoring the lead which states "The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects." Numerous RS have been given for the allegations. There is no justification for the removal of the content.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When the lead says that, it means that the title is not suitable for the article and the title should either be changed to suit the content or a separate artile should be made on allegations. Until such time, Sri Lanka is deleted from this list. SriSuren (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Non of the RS directly attributes or alleges genocide, in tern it they quote statements of allegations of genocide by third parties. As per WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article". Even the allegations of genocide is no simple matter ! Cossde (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan genocide occurred backed up from sources within the article. Stop removing large chunks of the article which otherwise is known as vandalism. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No none of it is backed up with sources which proves a genocide has happened. The sources just confirm that there is an allegation of genocide. SriSuren (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is sourced by RS, however the claims of genocide are made by non RS sources. There is a big difference. Cossde (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What are non RS sources ? Kanatonian (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-RS sources are lobby groups like Global Tamil Forum, British Tamils Forum and the Canadian Tamil Congress who according to their mission statement seek to establish an independent state in Northern Sri Lanka called Tamil Eelam and their hired lawyers like Bruce Fein. The pamphlet referencing a Francis Boyle is just articles from Tamilnet a non-RS (for statements of act according to discussion in its talk page). Court cases that were dismissed again are not RS. Also statements from Canadian deportees for gang violations (the "refugee" issuing the claim in the source) is not RS. [4]

One of the sources PPT stated that there was not enough evidence for the claim 'genocide' according to the source in this passage itself.

And finally the the leaders of Tamil Nadu who have supported the LTTE in the past and some who still do are not RS. Karunandhi has come out as wanting a separate state called Tamil Eelam.

More tellingly, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Watch, etc. -- neutral groups who have been critical of Sri Lanka's human rights records in no uncertain terms have not given credence to the claim of 'genocide' (which they have in actual cases of such) and prefer 'war crimes'. SinhaYugaya (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But what about this? "Human rights laywer Bruce Fein believes that the actions of Sri Lanka's political and military leaders amounts to genocide, stating "It's hard to come to conclusion that the aim wasn't to destroy the Tamil people in whole or substantial part".[328] Professor of international law Francis Boyle has also described Sri Lanka's actions against the Tamils as genocide and published a book titled The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka: The Global Failure to Protect Tamil Rights Under International Law.[329] The International Commission of Jurists has stated that the camps used by the Sri Lankan government/military to intern nearly 300,000 Sri Lankan Tamils after the end of the civil war may have breached the convention against genocide.[352]"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I addressed both Fein (who is a hired lawyer for the Tamil advocacy group Tamils Against Genocide) and Boyle who's only sourced through Tamilnet articles. The Jurists don't make any conclusive judgement. SinhaYugaya (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there are fairly obvious questions and answers here: 1) Can we say for sure that this was a genocide?
Answer: No, it's too debatable. But that's not our job anyway. The job of this page is to list genocide claims, not confirmed occurrences.
2) Are there enough sources to put the claim here?
Answer: Yes.
...but does the section need to be so long? No. A lot of the space in the section is just listing one Tamil advocacy group after another. Instead, they should all be grouped under one phrase and a number of different citations. The section is considerably inflated beyond the amount of space it should have, considering that all it's doing is listing one claimant after another with quotes. --Yalens (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will try to prune this section as you've suggested. To those who claim that no RS source alleges genocide, that is not how Wikipedia works. If a RS says that somebody, irrespective of whether that somebody is themselves a RS, alleges something we can include it.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So, should we re-add the sections about the Vietnam war and Soviet-Afghan war, then?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, but considerably trimmed and with counter-sources reflecting the fact that neither is widely regarded as true. The Afghanistan one though, I might leave out (despite my previous opposition to Tobby's deletion of it) simply because the claimant actually uses a completely different definition of genocide than that used on the page (or pretty much everywhere else) to base his claim. But it's worth discussion. --Yalens (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If this section is to remain then it has to be heavily trimmed and since the RS states that claims are made by primary sources. These should be listed in keeping with the WP:NOR and WP:NPV. Might I suggest that this be done soon as possible since we can not leave this content as it is indefinitely. Cossde (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This outrageous edit by Cossde cannot go unanswered. Yalens had suggested that content about Tamil advocacy groups should be trimmed into one phrase with a number of different citations, which I was agreeable to. Yalens then trimmed the section accordingly with this edit. Cossde has however maliciously manipulated Yalens's suggestion to mean that virtually the entire section can be removed, including all the references which mention the genocide allegations. Despicable behaviour.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

POV: mass murder is not equal to genocide

This article is rather POV, as it mentions several mass murders who were in no way related to genocide. A severe clean up is needed here! For example, the Dirty War in Argentina, Zanzibar and Expulsion of Germans after World War II are despicable, but no deliberate attempt to kill off a specific group of people. The Banner talk 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the premise of this page. If a reasonably notable source alleges that it is genocide, it goes on the page. The page isn't stating necessarily that every item is confirmed genocide.--Yalens (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you better remove the definition of genocide because that definitions clearly excludes the three examples I have mentioned. The Banner talk 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Dirty War is obviously not a genocide, but "The judge who presided over the case, Carlos Rozanski, described the offences as part of a systematic attack that was intended to destroy parts of society that the victims represented and as such it was genocide".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So, as soon as somebody names something a genocide and gets some publicity with it, it is a genocide? The Banner talk 22:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) get some itches about those pro-life activists that murder doctors because the perform completely legal abortusses what those activists call genocide

That's how the article is currently written, yes: "An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects." Is that a good thing? I don't know. Probably some of these sections could be removed as WP:FRINGE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It greatly helps keep the page neutral though, as it keeps the page from taking a stance on which ones are and aren't genocides. If that weren't here, and the page stated that every event listed was a genocide, this page would have seriously edit war problems, among plenty of others...--Yalens (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to locate the book "Wat is genocide?" (September 2009) that was used on the Dutch Wikipedia. They recently slashed the article about genocide, based on this book witten by Maria van Haperen from the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies. In fact, their criteria are now twofold: mentioned in that book or being prosecuted/under prosecution of the International Criminal Court. I look further... The Banner talk 02:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is still a discussion going on on the Dutch page for this article, and there are some (including me) that are vehemently opposed to using just a single source for a major topic like this one. If you ask me, the Dutch page has just deteriorated heavily with this edit lately, based on a SINGLE source that no one even can verify. It's not even based on any scientific publication, just a reader for a bachelor's course. Please don't pull the English page down with these ridiculous arguments as well.NeoRetro (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell them dat you are already POV-pushing for years in your perennial attempts to get the use of atomic bombs in Japan into teh article, against broad consensus. The Banner talk 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Dutch page, that page has problems. One of the biggest is their chart of genocides, with its aggressor column, under which whole ethnic and religious groups are labeled "aggressors", implying that every ethnicityA person is guilty even if they didn't participate or even opposed the actions of their kinsmen (probably in some government or army) who perpetrated crimes against people of ethnicityB. I see that, and think that this is definitely not a page English Wikipedia should emulate... And by the way, that list is far more arbitrary than the one here. They omit various genocides that actually have official recognition, and yet they include things such as the Lebanese Muslims and Christians somehow simultaneously performing genocide upon one another (which is uncited on the page as well). I think perhaps the incomplete Dutch Wikipedia article should use the English Wikipedia as a model, not the other way around, especially considering that the Dutch page uses 3 references, whereas its English counterpart uses over 400. --Yalens (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't thin ENWP could think as a rolemodel at all. I guess at least half of the mentioned genocides fails the definition given in the lead. But as soon somebody calls something an genocide, it is added to the list. Would you add the murder of John F. Kennedy to the list, when there is enough publicity to say so? The Banner talk 19:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, not just anybody. Most of the items on this list are either officially recognized, recognized by important people or relevant organizations, or at least recognized by some academics (and the page excludes cases where the academic in question used a definition of genocide that's different from the normal one, such as Afghanistan). --Yalens (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I skim this list here, there are some that look iffy. I removed the India/Pakistan partition, due to lack of sourcing. --Yalens (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the de facto standard here is that a reasonable source must say it. The source can be biased- many of them are- but it has to be a source that we can use on wikipedia (as opposed to some lay person or worse, some wikipedia editor). --Yalens (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Accepting biased sources is not staying neutral. It's giving in to these individual biases. The article should be renamed "Claimed genocides in history" if that's the basis for inclusion. A better indication would be using credible sources like the United Nations, NGOs and national governments. SinhaYugaya (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion appears to have come to a halt (one comment in six weeks), I've removed the neutrality tag per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors feel there are still issues here that need to be resolved, please feel free to restore the tag and continue discussion/editing to resolve them. Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)