Jump to content

Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Edits not in source?

An editor rm new material saying that he couldn't see them justified in the source. The material was:

"The Allies condemned the deaths (called a "massacre" at the time) of the Armenians in 1915. The Ottoman Empire officially agreed, in the Treaty of Sevres that the reason for moving the Armenians, had been illegal. The Allies stated their belief that this had been a crime prior to this time.(ref) http://alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/armlegopi.shtml (endref)"

See " It is worth remembering that U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., had called the massacres “race murder” and that on 10 July 1915"

and

See "Pursuant to article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres:

“The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1 st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal….”(4)" (footnote theirs)

and

" on 28 May 1915, the Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia had issued a joint declaration denouncing the Ottoman Government's massacre of the Armenians as constituting “crimes against humanity and civilization." In fact, the new Turkish government convicted Enver and others, using the term 'crims against humanity and civilization."

and

"“The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.

“The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found…. The Turkish Government agrees that arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by summary procedure.”(5)" [footnote theirs]


(continuation of paragraph) "It became important to establish this as an existing internationally-recognized crime preliminary to the Nuremberg Trials in 1948 so those responsible for the Holocaust could be legally tried.(ref) http://groong.usc.edu/dezayas-memorandum.html (endref)"

See "the provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sèvres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ... offences which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian... race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles 6 c) and 5 c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of 'crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments."17"

The term genocide itself was officially used in the indictment of 18 October 1945," For the first time the word "genocide" was formally used in a legal document.

See prior ref "74. In his opening Statement at the International Military Tribunal, the British Chief Prosecutor Lord Hartley Shawcross stated: “There is thus no substantial retroactivity in the provisions of the Charter. It merely fixes the responsibility for a crime already clearly established as such by positive law upon its actual perpetrators. It fills a gap in international criminal procedure. There is all the difference between saying to a man, ‘You will now be punished for what was not a crime at all at the time you committed it,', and in saying to him ‘You will now pay the penalty for conduct which was contrary to law and a crime when you executed it, although, owing to the imperfection of the international machinery, there was at that time no court competent to pronounce judgement against you.'”

"There was probably no general understanding of the act of genocide prior to the early 19th century.(ref) http://hnn.us/article/7302 (endref)

See (after detailed analysis of the accusations) "in the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."

There are a number of these historical analyses on the web. It is apparent that, judged by the standards of their own time, which is the only real standard to which they can be held, they weren't doing anything particularly wrong. Student7 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresent a source like that again and I will report you. The source says "Smallpox probably was first used as a biological weapon during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767) by British forces in North America. Soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox patients with the intent of initiating outbreaks among American Indians. Epidemics occurred, killing more than 50% of many affected tribes." What you wrote This involved the possible intentional use of disease as a biological weapon. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Wikipedia:WikiBullying is quite unnecessary.
It was impossible at the time to understand whether Amherst's attempt was truly successful on it's own merits or whether the American Natives got smallpox from normal source, as indeed, the British were. One source from the second quote (the first requires a subscription) is " C. Adrienne Mayor, "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend," Journal of American Folklore 108(427):54-77 (1995):
  • "One name is repeatedly linked to the story of the smallpox blanket: Jeffrey Amherst. In 1851, Francis Parkman was the first historian to document Lord Amherst's "shameful plan" to exterminate Indians by giving them smallpox-infected blankets taken from the corpses of British soldiers at Fort Pitt in 1763 (Parkman 1991:646-651). The feasibility of the documented plan, whether or not it was successfully carried out, has given credibility and moral impact to the fears expressed in all poison-garment tales. The Amherst incident itself has taken on legendary overtones as believers and nonbelievers continue to argue over the facts and their interpretation. [p. 57]" (emphasis mine) I don't think this is terrifically germane to the topic anyway - one person attempting early "germ warfare" against an enemy. The Muslims did the same to start the Black Plague in 1346, apparently successfully. Their attempt, most likely, was to win the battle, not to kill all Christians or Europeans. But a later writer might try to read genocide into it.
I agree that, according to the second citation, Amherst's intent was intentional. It is unclear whether it was really effective or not. Viruses, unlike bacteria, may not survive well at low temperature. Viruses survive and are distributed "best" by respiratory means (at or near body temperature). Which is why we are urged to muffle coughs. Taking the blankets into cold weather most likely killed the virus.
Is "intent" the only means of entry as a notable event? I don't believe there has been a group on earth in my time that hasn't been threatened by someone and "attempts" made to do them in, no matter how futile.
While the Natives did indeed, catch smallpox, (as did the defending British), and did not take the fort, the connection to the blankets seem weak. But certainly pervasive. Student7 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I am done discussing with you, you say "It is unclear whether it was really effective or not" The source say "Epidemics occurred, killing more than 50% of many affected tribes." I do not debate genocide deniers nor people who willfully ignore what the source say. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Student7, we are done here. The consensus is against you. Do not attempt to insert your fringe theories into this article. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

IP Editor

Could the IP editor please explain why he is currently going through a great many articles on genocides and blanking content from them? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insert WP:FRINGE or otherwise revisionist material into these articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

How is Guenter Lewy fringe. Stannard and Churchill both controversial sources to. This source is used on Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. The section needs a differing opinion just like every other controversial genocide. There should be counter opinions instead of just quotes supporting the genocide label. Tjis is the case with most of other genocides. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lewy is a well-known genocide denier, see Tony Barta, With intent to deny: on colonial intentions and genocide denial, 10 J. of Genocide Research 111 (2008); Norbert Finzsch, If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, 10 J. of Genocide Research 119 (2008); David Stannard, De ́ja` vu all over again, 10 J. of Genocide Research 127 (2008). We need to pull his material from both articles. GregJackP Boomer! 20:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would keep him. He is still a notable scholar and there needs to be a counter claim. I don't think the objection of these scholars is enough to not make him RS. Stannard, Churchill and Casarini's claims are also controversial.88.104.219.76 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And Lewy is hardly a genocide denier in the traditional sense of the word merely on the aplicabilty to certain cases.88.104.219.76 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's look at these comments on Lewy:

  1. Gypsies (Roma) were not subjected to genocide in World War II, David B. MacDonald, Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide: The Holocaust and Historical Representation 33 (reprint 2007).
  2. Actively "peddles" denial of Armenian genocide. MacDonald, at 128.
  3. "Very much in a class by himself", he denies Armenian genocide, American Indian genocide, and Roma genocide. MacDonald, at 139.
  4. "Controversial revisionist account", Donald W. Beachler, The Genocide Debate: Politicians, Academics, and Victims 142-43 (2011).
  5. "Rejecting its classification as genocide", Bartolomé Clavero, Genocide Or Ethnocide, 1933-2007: How to Make, Unmake, and Remake Law with Words 179, n.200 (2008).
  6. "[T]he denialist position is associated with Lewy. Adam Jones, 137 m.74 (2010).
  7. "Armenian Genocide denier Guenter Lewy (2005) earlier rejected accusations of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, such as the use of ‘‘free-fire zones,’’", Henry C. Theriault, Genocidal Mutation and the Challenge of Definition 41 Metaphilosophy 481 (2010).

It is fairly clear cut that he is a denier and fringe. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with GregJackP, drop the WP:STICK, 88, or you will be blocked again. You are trolling and edit warring, your arguments are tendentious and fringe. Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit war currently. Why would I drop the stick considering Darkness Shines agreed to have a counter argument. I am also clearly not trolling or being tendentious considering it is pretty reasonable and common to have counter claims on controversial topics. I'm pretty sure Stannard and Ward Churchill are far more fringe than Lewy, but if Gunter Lewy is not used then someone else can be used as a counter point. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Lewy statement, along with the Churchill quote. Stannard is not fringe, but is mainstream. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could look for another quote from someone everyone will accept. You say Stannard is mainstream, but Gunter Lewy is as well. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Lewy is anything but mainstream. Everyone but you has agreed that he is fringe and a genocide denier. GregJackP Boomer! 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Guenter Lewy may not be "mainstream," but he's hardly a denier that people were killed at the hands of other people. He's a professor emeritus of political science at Amherst He is clearly WP:RS. Read the criticism on his bio. Further, IMO, ...76 is hardly a troll. And calling him such appears much too eager to be rid of him. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
And separately from Lewy: I just assumed that the Turks probably killed the Armenians on purpose because they were Christians. After reviewing some of the material, it seems clear that the authorities did indeed want to transport the Armenians from one place to another (which would be defined as genocide by itself nowdays, but wasn't really contrary to any international law at the time). It was too massive a project with too little preparation. The Turks at the lowest level probably did not personally trust or like the Armenians. When they started to die, many of these soldiers did not treat their captives in a humane manner in sufficient numbers to stop the disaster. The Turks at the highest level appear to be credibly shocked at the result and admitted responsibility. Not quite like the Nazis at all IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The Turk genocide of the Armenians is fairly well documented and is mainstream. Lewy clearly denies that, which is a fringe viewpoint. One doesn't have to be like a stereotypical Nazi to commit genocide, either. GregJackP Boomer! 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Student7, we are done here. The consensus is against you. Do not attempt to insert your fringe theories into this article. The end. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of fringe material

Student7, every time you reinsert fringe / undue material, you will be reverted. Lewy is clearly fringe and a genocide denier. The other material is from an individuals own website and is not necessarily reliable. If your position is on solid ground, it should be easy to find real academic sources for it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Lewy is entirely correct on many matters. The US government did not, for example, deliberately spread smallpox to the Native Americans with infected blankets. Regarding the Gypsies, I'm afraid Lewy is right again. After a discussion with Hitler in 1942, Himmler wrote in his diary: "Keine Vernichtung der Zigeuner," or "No extermination of the Gypsies" (Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, Yale University Press, 2002, page 66). Louis Wiesner's comprehensive account of Vietnam war casualties states that Lewy's "estimates are as accurate as can be derived from the incomplete raw data" (Louis A. Wiesner, Victims and Survivors: Displaced Persons and Other War Victims in Viet-Nam, Greenwood Press, 1988, page 347). Lewy's research on Vietnam is cited in and supported by Vietnamese Casualties During the American War, the most detailed demographic study of the topic (by Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi in Population and Development Review). Many critics of Lewy are demonstrably wrong, such as Churchill and Chomsky (note that Chomsky is an actual genocide denier, not merely someone who questions whether all instances of mass death qualify as "genocide"). The 100 million estimate used by Stannard in American Holocaust was popularized by anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who David Henige has accused of "upwards manipulation" of statistics, making assumptions with "no basis in fact", relying on unrepresentative data, committing "extraordinary" scholarly lapses, and treating evidence "as a species of silly putty, to be shaped to conform with his own predispositions" (David Henige, Numbers From Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998, pages 82-85). (In his notorious essay, "Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship," Stannard falsely maintained that "fully half the Jewish victims of the Holocaust....died from disease and destitution," and not from gassing or shooting. Churchill, meanwhile, has asserted that the murder of Europe's Jews was never a "fixed policy objective" for the Nazis--suppposedly, the Nazis implemented "a rather erratic and contradictory hodgepodge of anti-Jewish policies.") In sum, Lewy is a widely cited expert on the Vietnam war and a professor emeritus of political science at Amherst; he is, unquestionably, a reliable source. Now, I understand that Lewy's views on the Armenian disaster are hardly mainstream, and may even be undue in an article providing a broad overview of a topic like this one; but this article cites many fringe sources, like Political Affairs ("Marxist Thought Online"), for allegations of genocide (in that case, the Philippines). Is it really so inappropriate to note that, while the mass deaths of Armenians are a historical fact, a small minority of scholars have challenged the use of the "genocide" label to describe them? Lewy is hardly alone in this position; Middle East expert Bernard Lewis, for example, agrees: "There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely....[and] the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government....there is no evidence for such a decision."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I did not deliberately reinsert Lewy into History. I had not properly constructed a cite web which revealed him to be the author. I rm him but left Alfred de Zayas citations who has not yet been voted into WP:FRINGE oblivion.
As I mentioned earlier, I came to Wikipedia convinced of the Armenian genocide (damned Muslims, anyway!). I was forced to rethink this after due analysis of the material. Unlike the Holocaust, there is simply not the support for the killing at the very top, where international representatives would like it to be. Many poor people (most of the average Turks) were probably undismayed at the deaths along the march. The leaders (well-educated and middle-upper class) running the show were convincingly horrified when they heard of it. They did order the resettlement though. Little doubt of that. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What you "rethink" is irrelevant and WP:SYNTH. What governs here is WP:RS. Also your definition of "genocide" fails here. Genocide can occur regardless of what the "very top" thinks; much of your arguments here have to do with whether a genocide was wholly premeditated and other hair-splitting that is outside mainstream thinking on the matter. I have no interest in engaging with you because I am very busy and have other things to do, but I want to stop by to again concur with GregJack and Darkness Shines that your views are outside of mainstream consensus on this matter. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we discuss "fringe" for a minute?

WP:FRINGE does not necessarily label a historian who is outvoted by his peers. It would mean Velikovsky, Jack Chick, that sort of thing.

A person with recognized credentials who has published in peer-reviewed articles may be in the minority, but that does not, by itself, make him "fringe."

I edit a number of religious articles. Most historians do not credit the Jewish-Christian scripture with much relevance to actual history. However, there are some international scholars who see some relevance, if not 100%. Their remarks are credited alongside the others though in proportion to their numbers and contributions. Some steles, for example, seems to support some biblical references. Or not. Both sides are listed. The article states that the preponderance of historians don't base history on.., but some do. They aren't automatically thrown into the trash in favor of a coherent single story that Wikipedia editors have "voted" on.

Any more than we would vote that Bush is a monster/hero or Obama is a monster/hero. Alternate views are permitted if they are made by qualified, published scholars.

Nor do we constantly threaten editors who try to use these authors. Nor do we remove all material, because one of the authors has been voted off the island. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is really quite simple, the Association of Genocide Scholars has passed a resolution, back in 97 in fact which says "That this assembly of the Association of Genocide Scholars in its conference held in Montreal, June 11-13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of over a million Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters."[1] As for the sources you have been using, again from the Association of Genocide Scholars, "Scholars who dispute that what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly ignore the overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence. Most recently, this is the case with the works of Mr. Justin McCarthy and Mr. Guenter Lewy, whose books engage in severely selective scholarship that grossly distorts history."[2] Stop pushing fringe genocide denial stuff. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
If Lewis, Lewy, and de Zayas are fringe, then why don't you take them to RSN? They may be in a small enough minority that their views on Armenia don't warrant coverage in an article providing a broad historical overview of genocide, however that does not mean they are not RS in other contexts or on other subjects. Lewy is an excellent scholar whose work on Vietnam is widely cited. Lewis is considered something of an authority on the Middle East. My understanding is that Genocides in history aims to list all "genocides and alleged genocides". Thus, it covers fringe views such as the claim that the US committed genocide in the Philippines and truly absurd allegations of genocide such as the "Dirty War" in Argentina. Moreover, the article mentions that "In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event," and in many cases (such as Sri Lanka) notes when some party has disputed the label. No-one is suggesting that the minority opinion on Armenia should be given equal weight; however, it is not at all clear that the very existence of an alternative POV should be hidden from Wikipedia readers. By what standard can the government of Sri Lanka be cited, while respected professors like Lewy cannot?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you not read any of what I wrote? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course I did. None of it changes the fact that "minority view" doesn't equal "fringe, unreliable source".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Bartolomé Clavero notes that Lewy "Reject[s] its [the Armenian catastrophe's] classification as genocide," while Donald W. Beachler calls Lewy "controversial"--but that hardly equals fringe. David B. MacDonald (cited three times by GregJacksonP) says that, according to Lewy, "Gypsies (Roma) were not subjected to genocide in World War II"--apparently, we are supposed to be so shocked by this thought crime that we dismiss Lewy out of hand. However, a 1942 entry in Himmler's diary--"Keine Vernichtung der Zigeuner," or "No extermination of the Gypsies"--suggests that Lewy is right! It's an entirely arguable point that the politically correct line about the Nazis committing genocide against "6 million Jews and another 6 million 'non-Aryans' (i.e. homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, ect.)" is sheer nonsense based on an arbitrary classification of some of the Nazis' non-Jewish war victims (who numbered far more than 6 million)--and supported by ever-increasing exaggerations and distortions (i.e., the 200,000 dead Gypsies inflated to 500,000 and then 1 million or more). It's unarguably true that even if the Gypsies were singled out for genocide, or partial destruction, only the Jews were singled out for Holocaust, or total annihilation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You may want to re-read WP:FRINGE, which states: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea...." If you disagree, feel free to make the argument at the fringe noticeboard. Otherwise it stays out. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Would a sentence acknowledging this "small minority" really be "undue weight"? If so, there is plenty of content in the article right now that is equally undue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, Student7's edit using Alfred de Zayas as a source was instantly struck down, and his attempts to discuss it were completely ignored. Now, I know nothing about de Zayas--but where is the evidence that he, too, is fringe?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on his Wikipedia article I just skimmed, de Zayas sounds eminently reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It was sourced to a self-published blog/website. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that I stated that if he was that well-regarded, there should be no problem finding that position in a reliable source. Preferably an academic, peer-reviewed journal, but other reliable sources would work. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't read your edit summary on October 8 because I was inactive on Wikipedia for several months, and returned on October 11. Fair point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've read the diary of Hoss (Auschwitz commandant). The gypsies were indeed first to be just interned, and they were held at Auschwitz in the "family camp" (internally separated, whole families thogether, a very different regime than regular prisoners) for a long time, dying from diseases, but eventually a decision to kill most of them was made by Himmler and they were killed on 2 August 1944. About the extermination: http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=8 --Niemti (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also there actually was an extermination of most Soviet POWs (deliberately most of all through hunger but also by a variety direct means, it was an abortive policy that was largely discontinued in 1942 but at that point already killed some 3 million or a majority of them), but there was no extermination of gays of JWs whatsoever. --Niemti (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as my views appear to be misrepresented, I concur with the positions of GregJackP and Darkness Shines on this matter. The material sought to be inserted if fringe and fringe material has no place on wikipedia, other than in articles on fringe theories themselves. (See Flat earth) Tendentious debate does not need to go to any more drama boards than it already has gone to. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide!

Strangely, in the list of more recent genocides, this article mentions the genocides in Burundi and DRC, but not the largest one in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide is mentioned in the discussion of courts to prosecute perpetrators, and is represented in the article's images. I can only guess the discussion on this topic got removed at some point and needs to be added back in soon. I'm planning on getting the article on the Rwandan Genocide up to FA soon so it can be featured on the main page on April 7 2014, its 20th anniversary. This article will receive plenty of hits and it will seem very strange if the Rwandan Genocide is omitted. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Protected for one week

Since it's obvious that without protection this dispute is going to carry on in the article. If it can't be settled within the week I'll probably extend the protection. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to unlock the article. I was accused of edit warring and blacklisted by a non-admin, with no real hope of appeal. I am no longer editing the article.
The problem apparently arose when I lazily used a raw page cite for an entry. Unknown to me, the material turned out to be by an notable author the editors had just banned. They thought I was doing it to thumb my nose at their decision and and angrily reverted my edit. But it was was never an intentional edit war on my part. I avoid edit wars. Student7 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You are not "blacklisted", you were notified that the content you were edit warring over was covered under discretionary sanctions. The problem arose due to you refusing to listen, slow mo edit warring (5 reverts between 19:56, 10 October 2013‎ & 21:02, 15 October 2013‎), despite being told repeatedly that the sources were known genocide deniers. Please stick to the facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2013

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm should be changed to http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm Munchkin2013 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Minority dissent is allowed in other articles. For example, there is a statement by a WP:NN (who rates an article, nevertheless, but is probably not a historian) member of the Israel parliament who says (quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia), "I find it is deeply offensive, and even blasphemous to compare the Holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War with the mass extermination of the Armenian people during the First World War. Jews were killed because they were Jews, but Armenians provoked Turkey and should blame themselves."(ref) While I am not trying to place anything like that here (I prefer reliable material from notable sources), I think that a minority opinion could be tolerated. It is in many places in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to drop this, it is getting tendentious at this stage. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Concur. Drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
One other thing, "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."[3] Let that be an end to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Weird. In Bosnia 1991 there was only very sporadic violence, the biggest incident was a destruction of a Croat village close to the border with Croatia, related to the war in Croatia. It actually began only in April 1992. --Niemti (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines POV pushing on Bangladesh 1971

Darkness Shines, you know as well as I do that The British Medical Journal and The Guardian are WP:RS, and that your edit hurt the article by re-adding sources you previously agreed were dubious. Please stop blanking content and vandalizing pages to support your POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not even just The Guardian, it's Serajur Rahman. This stupid talk about millions dead in Bangladesh is completely ridicalous. I don't know why some people in these articles want to include the most sensationalist stuff possible. --Niemti (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Anything from Bose is fringe, end of. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a Bose problem, and you know it. I realise that mass killings are an emotive topic, but let's try to keep this neutral. bobrayner (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
FFS, there is an academic consensus that 71 was a genocide, "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."[4] Removing the high end estimates and inserting only low ones is a violation of NPOV, and removinf Rummel "cos he is controversial" and adding Bose, "who is even more so" is not even remotly neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Please elaborate about this "Bosnia in 1991" claim, tell us what exactly genocide took place in the peacetime Bosnia in 1991 ("The term Bosnian Genocide refers to either genocide at Srebrenica and Žepa[8] committed by Bosnian Serb forces in 1995 or the ethnic cleansing campaign throughout areas controlled by the Army of the Republika Srpska[9] that took place during the 1992–1995 Bosnian War.[10]"), and then explain how that stuff you're pushing here (written by an extremely POV person, "an Armenian historian, author, editor, who holds the Kaloosdian/Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies") is not fringe and is factually correct. Oh, and also tell us more about the another weird claim of "Jewish Holocaust in 1938" (USHMM: "The Holocaust took place in the broader context of World War II. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. (...)" Yad Vashem: "While the Nazi persecution of the Jews began in 1933, the mass murder was committed during World War II."). Niemti (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Got a source saying he is fringe? And saying the holocaust began with the Nazi rise to power is hardly wrong. Or are you saying the Jews were not being persecuted in 38? In March 1938, Hitler expanded the borders of the Nazi Reich by forcibly annexing Austria. A brutal crackdown immediately began on Austria's Jews. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Whatever is "historyplace.com" that you value it so much over USHMM and Yad Vashem? Is that article titled "Persecutions in history"? Btw, "1938" didn't mark "the Nazi rise to power". So, can you tell me about this incredibly idiotic claim of a genocide in "Bosnia in 1991" and how it's allegedly "a consensus among scholars"? This guy has just no idea what he talks about. --Niemti (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If you have an issue with historyplace.com, take it to WP:RSN. Also, please stop with your snide comments on the editor, and try to focus on the content. GregJackP Boomer! 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have an issue with the claim there is "a consensus among scholars" was a genocide in "Bosnia in 1991" and nobody noticed. It's just so stupid and says a lot about this Simon Payaslian person's lack of even the most common knowledge and elementary on the subject. (Even "The History Place™ All Rights Reserved", another favored source of DS, did not notice this alleged genocide "in 1991" in their own article.) --Niemti (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
When did all the shit in Bosnia kick off? O ya, it was 1991. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe in your alternate reality. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/21/idUSL21644464 --Niemti (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Aided by Serbian guerrillas in Croatia, Milosevic's forces invaded in July 1991 to 'protect' the Serbian minority. In the city of Vukovar, they bombarded the outgunned Croats for 86 consecutive days and reduced it to rubble. After Vukovar fell, the Serbs began the first mass executions of the conflict, killing hundreds of Croat men and burying them in mass graves. It began in 91, now go find a source which says Payaslian is fringe. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
O look, there is even a book on it Conflict in the Balkans 1991-2000 or how about Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide p468. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you now trolling us for comedy or something? Vukovar is not in Bosnia. "The Balkans" is not another name for Bosnia neither. Even this http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm you love so much and attempted to cite again says "Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995" in the very title. If you're not trolling, and you really just have no idea whatsoever about any of it, then what are you doing here, pretending to have a right to own the article about the things that you know literally nothing about? --Niemti (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Seriously? You are aware that Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia are on the Balkan peninsula, right? You are aware that the genocide in question crossed all of these borders during the period in question, right? That the borders were contested, as part of a civil war? Are you competent to edit in this area? Just asking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Amf once again I have to say, done with genocide deniers. The Bosnian conflict began with declarations of independence from two nations, I figure even Niemti knows those? It is obvious this is what he source refers to, so again, get a fucking source which says Payaslian is fringe or take a hike. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to stand aside rather than inflame a difficult debate, but I've reached the end of my patience. Happy to provide reliable sources for each of those points, of course but sources seem have become an afterthought around here...
  • Vukovar is not in Bosnia.
  • The Vukovar massacre happened in 1991. Killing a few hundred people is awful; but it pales in comparison to other atrocities in the Balkans, and it is not genocide.
  • The Bosnian war started in 1992, not 1991. Depending on who you ask and how, the label "genocide" might apply to killings by Serb forces thoughout that war, or it might be reserved for specific massacres (ie. Srebrenica) near the end of the war, but neither started in 1991.
  • The "Balkans" encompass more than just Bosnia. There were other conflicts before 1992 and more conflicts after 1995. That does not mean that the Bosnian war was longer, it means that other wars happened too.
This incompetent bungling is a disgrace, as is labelling opponents "genocide deniers". Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The same questions I asked Niemti apply here. Vukovar is located on the Balkan peninsula, in Croatia, on the border with Serbia and only 50 kilometres (31 mi) from the Bosnia border. The civil war, fueled by ethnic hatred, began in 1991, with fighting between the Croatians and the Serbs, between the Croatians and the Bosnians, and between the Bosnians and the Serbs (and not counting the minor, 10-day war of the Slovenians). Everyone was fighting everyone, and transparent attempts to deny a connection by using "firm" dates of the wars does not change what happened on the ground. You are right about the competence issue, but it is not the people that you think it is. And if people don't want the label of genocide denier, the solution is simple - don't deny that it happened. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
BOSNIA IS A SPECIFIC COUNTRY ("Bosnia in 1991–1995"), and there was NO genocide in Bosnia in 1991, or just any 'acts of genocide' or anything, not at all, nothing, null, zero. I'm not "kidding", and "seriously". I am very "competent to edit in this area", while you two are obviouly not at all. Any other questions? --Niemti (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This "Bosnia 1991-1995" because of something in Croatia is as completely idiotic as "Bosnia 1991-1999" because of also something happening in Kosovo. You can also say "Bosnia 1941-1995" because something happened in Croatia too (and which included Bosnia back then), why not. It would only just as stupid to say. And as for "a fucking source which says Payaslian is fringe", he's saying obviously untrue ([5][6][7] etc. - and btw, just recently [8]) and really stupid things ("A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed ... Bosnia 1991-1995"), and so can "take a hike." And you two are shamelessly promoting and defending such fringe views, and even attempting to own the article while clearly, or maybe you're just not being "competent to edit in this area" (an evident lack of even very basic, absolutely elementary knowledge on the subject, if you're doing it jsut because of ignorance). --Niemti (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, get a source which says Payaslian is fringe. "Krajisnik... Was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer occurring throughout thirty five municipalities in Bosnia from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992" Twilight of Impunity: The War Crimes Trial of Slobodan Milosevic Duke p288 Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Untrue: Momčilo Krajišnik. (The Trial Chamber found Krajišnik not guilty of the crimes of genocide ... Indeed, he was only found liable for crimes committed in the period between April and December 1992) But keep on squirming, trying to defend an absurd claim of this Payaslian fellow. Amuse us. --Niemti (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying he was not charged with those crimes from 1991? I ask cos The Hague Justice Portal says he was. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying he was not "convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer occurring throughout thirty five municipalities in Bosnia from 1 July 1991 to 31 December 1992". And you either didn't know (and didn't check), or thought I didn't know (and wouldn't check). That's quite pathetic. But funny. --Niemti (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Jesus christ, was he or was he not indicted for those crimes committed in 1991? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
And the UN says he was convicted of those crimes BTW. Yearbook of the United Nations 2006 p1489. "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
All this was concerning only preparations and planning (and he was not convicted for these charges). Because there was no genocide "in Bosnia in 1991", of course, only in the mind of the political fiction author Simon Payaslian. (And Krajisnik was cleared of the genocide charges anyway, and this article here is precisely about genocide and not anything else.) --Niemti (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter if the guy was not convicted, he was indicted for acts of genocide in 91, so if a scholar figures this was the start of the genocide in Bosnia we do not get to argue that fact. Now, final time, get a source which says Payaslian is fringe, there is nothing else to discuss. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It does matter. And, no he was not "indicted for acts of genocide in 91" but for the planning and preparations for 1992 (you don't call the September 11 attacks the "1996-2001 attacks" just because the it was being was being planned and prepared since 1996 if we just include the knowledge of bin Laden). No scholars, or judges, "figure" 1991 was "the start of genocide of Bosnia", because the consensus of EVERYONE (including Wikipedia, and all the sources cited) is that it was either April 1992 or July 1995 (the Srebrenica exclusivity stance). And so Payaslian is fringe, and either laughably misinformed (and so not an expert, but rather someone completely ignorant) or lying for no reason - in either case, zero credibility. And you're continously shooting yourself in the foot with your defense of indefensible BS, showing your total lack of competence to everyone here. --Niemti (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it does not matter at all, if "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" that happened, then that is when the genocide started, get a source saying the guy is fringe cos I am done talking till you do. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No, he was not convinced of anything related to just the preparations and planning (as a part of joint criminal enterprise) in 1991, only for his role in the execution of the actual acts (starting in 1992). I already told you so, and linked you - do you have some really serious problems with reading comprehension or what? Press release: On 27 September 2006, the Trial Chamber found Krajišnik guilty of persecution, extermination, murder, deportation and forced transfer of non-Serb civilians during the 1992-95 conflict. He was found not guilty of charges of genocide and complicity of genocide." (and here we're discussing genocide and not anything else). From his own ICTY info sheet: Beginning in April 1992, Serb forces attacked Muslims and Croats living in towns, villages, and smaller settlements. Of course. And also his isolated case never had nothing to do with the supposed "consensus" that was alleged by your favourite author of political fiction - the real consensus (including on Wikipedia but also in courts, in museums, in literature,[9][10][11][12] in mass media), is of course that it was either the entire 1992-95 conflict everywhere, or just 1995 around Srebenica (if you can even call it consensus). For all your proudly displayed lack of basic competence (not just a lack of even very common knowledge, but also engaging in a spirited defense of an obviously absurd position using equally absurd arguments with confirmation bias, and an apparent unability to read sources with comprehension and to understand concepts, all this coupled with article-ownership issues, and name-calling and swearing and more), I believe you should be topic banned. --Niemti (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So, who thinks Darkness Shines should be, or should be not, topic banned? --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and file on DS - just be prepared for a WP:BOOMARANG. He's provided much more than you have, and from reliable sources, not fringe genocide deniers. GregJackP Boomer! 19:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"He's provided much more than you have, and from reliable sources" - can you remind me and show me these sources again? Didn't know ICTY and USHMM and Reuters and NYT and and HMH are "fringe genocide deniers", or maybe you meant someome else (whom?). Do you also suffer of fundamental problems with comprehension? Because if yes, you should also "take a hike" (to quote DD). --Niemti (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If people were indicted for acts of genocide in 91 it does not matter if they were not convicted. We have a reliable source, from an expert in the field of genocide who believes that this was the start of the genocide in Bosnia, what part of this do you not get? See, the reliable secondary source is interpreting the data, and the expert in the field, who you btw are committing BLP vios on with your comments on him, has concluded that the genocide began in 91, which is what we cite. Feel free to ask for a TB, I reckon ANI is the place for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
And so again you demonstrate how you can't read the sources (even when they're given to you, it's not even about searching), and how you can't accept the mainstream and will always defend the fringe. Also lol. --Niemti (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Jesus fucking christ, I have already given you the sources which say people were indicted for acts of genocide in 91, yes? So, were people indicted for acts of genocide in 91, yes or no. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep on swearing and demonstrating you total inability to read with comprehension. But because you need to be told (once again): No, this person wasn't "indicted for acts of genocide in 91", no. The 1991 was merely about his role in plotting (together with Karadzic, Koljevic and others) during this period, when it was still only in their heads (nothing was really happening yet). And as I cited for you directly from the verdicts and the press release in his case, the mass violence began only in April 1992 (following outbusts of limited violence in March 1992, which is mentioned). Also, in fact, there was nothing about "act(s) of genocide" anywhere in his charges, and I have no idea where you dreamed this up. So, who's either for or against banning Darkness Shines from the topic? --Niemti (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
At the very least Darkness Shines should acknowledge that Payaslian is not a good enough source to speak for the broader "academic consensus".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would he do that? There is clear consensus for his position. GregJackP Boomer! 19:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should be wasting our time energy on dealing with his unquestioned standing for even most absurd and clearly wrong positions like that, and on his complete inability to comprehend sources (and tantrums). --Niemti (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Right, last try. Do the source say "Momčilo Krajišnik, a member of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 with eight counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992. He was convicted of persecution, murder, extermination and forced transfer" yes or no? I have given you one from Duke and one from the UN, both say this. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"Between 1 July 1991 and 30 December 1992, Momcilo KRAJISNIK and Biljana PLAVSIC, acting individually or in concert with each other and with Radovan KARADZIC, Nikola KOLJEVIC and other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided or abetted the planning, preparation or execution of the partial destruction of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina."[13], and before you say this was "a joint criminal excercise" and not genocide, see Joint criminal enterprise Done Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for once again demonstrating your absolute inability to read sources (key words: "planned, instigated", "planning, preparation"). What you either failed to find or deliberately ommited for manipulation (from the same document): "20. Beginning in March 1992, Bosnian Serb Forces and Bosnian Serb Political and Governmental Organs and their agents attacked and took control of towns and villages in the Municipalities. Before, during and after these attacks, they committed persecutory acts enumerated in paragraph 19 upon Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat or other non-Serb populations. 21. Bosnian Serb Forces and Bosnian Serb Political and Governmental Organs and their agents established and controlled detention facilities in the Municipalities. After the attacks, Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat or other non-Serb populations were detained in those facilities and were subjected to persecutory acts enumerated in paragraph 19. 22. From early April 1992, Bosnian Serb Forces and Bosnian Serb Political and Governmental Organs and their agents conducted persecutions by forcibly transferring and/or deporting Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat or other non-Serb populations to areas inside and outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina as enumerated in paragraph 19." All while "KILLINGS NOT RELATED TO DETENTION FACILITIES" begin on "1-2 April 1992" (1.1 The killing of at least 48 Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat men, women and children in the town of Bijeljina., the very Bijeljina massacre I told you about at the beginning of this discussion). You're constrantly ministerpreting sources either due to your chronic inability to read them properly (no matter how many time you try or how many time you;re directly pointed to things) or you do this deliberetely, either way you should "take a hike". --Niemti (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not just answer his question? People were indicted for acts of genocide from 1991. The war started in 1991. See the following:

  • "The Yugoslav Wars, which took place between 1991 and 2001...." Jacqueline Ching, Genocide and the Bosnian War 24 (2009).
  • "The worst part of the war was fought between 1991 and 1992, when Serbs carried out mass executions." Id.
  • "A similar dynamic shaped Serbian Orthodox extremists' alliance with Slobodan Milosevic in the run up to the Bosnian War of 1991-5." R. Scott Appleby, Religions, Human Rights, and Social Change in The Freedom to do God's Will: Religious Fundamentalism and Social Change 197, 204 (James Busuttil & Gerrie ter Haar eds., 2004).
  • "[W]hen war broke out in 1991...." Robert Hayden, From Yugoslavia to the Western Balkans: Studies of a European Disunion, 1991-2011 xii (2012).
  • "In the summer of 1991, as the civil war in Yugoslavia began in earnest...." Id., at 3.
  • "[T]he 1991-1995 Bosnian genocide...." Henry F. Carey, Privatizing the Democratic Peace: Policy Dilemmas of NGO Peacebuilding 123 (2012).
  • "Croatia put forward a similar claim to hold Serbia responsible for genocide against Croats during the 1991–1995 war." Jelena Subotic, Expanding the scope of post-conflict justice: Individual, state and societal responsibility for mass atrocity, 48 J. of Peace Research 157, 163 n.7 (2011).
  • [T]he region was again the scene of mass murder in the period following the break-up of the Yugoslav state, 1991–1999." Marko Attila Hoare, Genocide in the Former Yugoslavia Before and After Communism, 62 Europe-Asia Studies 1193 (2010).

I don't think we should be wasting our time and energy dealing with genocide deniers who have a propensity towards fringe sources. GregJackP Boomer! 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence =/= Bosnian War (and Bosnian Genocide, for that matter, and which I think I've never edited). And the term Yugoslav Wars encompasses everything in former SFR Yugoslavia, including things like Kosovo War (flimsily related to Bosnia because of some NATO/JRV dogfights over Bosnia) and the Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia of 2001 indeed, but totally unrealted to Bosnia in any shape or form. I don't think we should be wasting our time and energy dealing with people who don't know literally anything they try to talk about (you two). --Niemti (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Niemti, the stuff you just quoted says, "Before, during and after these attacks, they committed persecutory acts enumerated in paragraph 19 upon Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat or other non-Serb populations." Do ya see the "before" in there? The source I last cited, the ICT, who you have linked to (though for some reason none of the PDF's will open?) says "Between 1 July 1991 and 30 December 1992" So if a scholar whose field of study is genocide figures that is when said genocide began, then he is right, as the sources also say that. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
And speaking of "key words", you seem to have missed a few? "planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided or abetted the planning, preparation or execution"
You're beyond hope. --Niemti (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_12&oldid=1083503480"