Jump to content

Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Americas

After studying North, Central, South American military history (for about 10 years), and, after reading articles from many scholars, it seems the "conquest" of the Americas is an act of biology -- not military. From the earliest incidents involving the Tainos (Enrique's rebellion), to the instilled resistance of the Chichimeca (Spanish defeat), to the most circumspect of the Mapuche resistance (causing 50k Spanish casualties), to the ambivalence (odd or confusing) of the Maya, to the outright hollow "massacres" inflicted upon European armies by the Iroquoian and Algonquian armies (see War of 1812 where 10k Algonquians defeated the U.S.A. with a population of 7.2 million), to the 'Indian Wars' the U.S.A. lost (like the Seminole Wars or Black Hills War).

Regardless of these facts, it is also FACT that the Spanish alone had over 500,000 Indian Auxiliaries fighting for them. Also, the population limits don't seems to be right. With simple Pre-calculus formulas (P=P-limit of zero-e^rt), I can see right away that these figures are erroneous. For instance, without medicine, metal ploughs, and constant tribal warfare it seems highly unrespectable that my people, the Iroquois, had a population over 20,000 (it is true in Lewis H. Morgan's book 'League of the Iroquois' the Haudenosaunne could muster a force of 4,500 warriors, spies, assassins, senators. Anyway, usually I don't get much of an arguement so I doubt this will affect anything. Have a good Day! 216.223.90.33 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There was no Genocide of Afghans during the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan

The Thesis of an Soviet Genocide of Aghans during the Occupation of Afghanistan is only Propaganda created by the Reagan-Administration and the Mujahideen. This war was just like the Vietnam War of the USA.--Aaron Grünberg (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the subsection as WP:FRINGE. Over the years, the occupation has been analysed at length by a multitude of academics, and the subject of genocide on behalf of the Soviets is not to be found in mainstream scholarship. The opinions of a handful of scholars is just that, and the section was WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Fake Beothuk Genocide

Remove the non-sense about 'some believe Europeans genocided Beothuk'. I studied this personally in university and found zero evidence of it. You cannot just fake genocides, it is pathetic and looks bad on real genocides native Americans suffered. It is not 'cute' to lie and discredit real historical events. It creates reactionary behaviour and makes people start denying real events when they see these fake ones. You are just hurting the reputation of native Americans by lying. The truth speaks better than lying ever will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.156.189 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The background of "genocide of Jie people in Ancient China by Ran Min" suggested to be explained

According to the category of genocides, the genocide by Ran Min could be categorised as "retributive genocide". Mass killing to Han Chinese by Shi Hu(Jie people) of Later Zhao happened previously and was definitely a main factor leading to the "genocide by Ran Min". The text quoted as "People with racial characteristics such as high-bridged noses and bushy beards were killed; in total, 200,000 were reportedly massacred." might impress readers by a feeling of Han Chinese's desire of purifying China by slaughtering other peoples. So I suggest the background be explained. Wastion Wang (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH on this page

There's a lot of it. I just removed a bunch by going and looking through the sources, but there's a lot of sources here I don't have access to. Arguments of genocide against Bulgarians by the Ottomans is the prime example on my mind right now. Additionally I"m really suspicious of a lot of the ones with older sources, especially when they're books without page numbers given. In order to not be WP:SYN by placement on the page, the source has to make a positive claim that genocide occurred-- a lot of these didn't do that (in fact, one that I deleted on Turks by the Russians actually said it wasn't a genocide). --Yalens (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Great Irish Famine

In the opening definition section, the famine in Ireland is described as a man-made famine. No sources are provided for this, and one is desperately needed. One should note that the article on the famine, section "Genocide question", notes that it is not a clear-cut case that there was a policy of genocide, and that it is a somewhat controversial issue. Irish historian professor Cormac Ó Gráda, quoted in said article, states "genocide includes murderous intent, and it must be said that not even the most bigoted and racist commentators of the day sought the extermination of the Irish".

In summary, either removal is warranted, or sourcing and a note also provided stating that not all (non-bias) historians agree.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Rename

Shouldn't the name of this article be "List of genocides"? –Editor2020 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Or, if you don't think it is Listified enough, renamed Genocides? –Editor2020 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

US-led genocides in Vietnam and Korea

The genocides performed by the US in both Vietnam and Korea deserve mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.59.147.2 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Lebanon

Beyond My Ken here is the text of the deleted section:

The Great Famine of Mount Lebanon occurred from 1915 to 1918. It was caused by the Ottoman policy of acquiring all food products produced in the region for the Ottoman army and administration, and the barring of any produce from being sent to the Maronite Christian population of Mount Lebanon, effectively condemning them to starvation.[1] It was suggested at the time that the starvation of the Maronites was a deliberately orchestrated Ottoman policy aimed at destroying the Maronites, in keeping with the treatment of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks.[2][need quotation to verify] The death toll among the Maronite Christians, mainly due to starvation and disease is estimated to have been 200,000.[3][need quotation to verify]

Where exactly is the source calling this a genocide? Without that, it has no place on this page -- it's placement here is OR at best. That's why it needed a quotation. It wasn't supplied and the weight of this topic requires strict adherence to rules. If we actually have a source saying it was genocide, of course it can be restored. --Calthinus (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ BBC staff (26 November 2014). "Six unexpected WW1 battlegrounds". BBC News (BBC). BBC News Services. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
  2. ^ Ghazal, Rym (14 April 2015). "Lebanon's dark days of hunger: The Great Famine of 1915–18". The National. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
  3. ^ Harris 2012, p.174
The sources do not have to say the word "genocide" in order to be describing a genocide. "...condemning them to starvation" is sufficient to justify inclusion.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken Yes they do have to say it. This page is for what scholars in publications consider to be genocides -- not what we as editors think. You may personally think it qualifies -- actually I agree with you. However that is not our job and it is classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Basic rules here.--Calthinus (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added this to the article:

The Ottoman policy has been described by Franck Salameh as "...exterminating the rest of the population [of Mount Lebanon] by way of a systematic, well orchestrated, drawn-out government-induced famine."[1]

"Exterminating a population" is, definitionally, genocide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken It is by definition genocide if the intention was to exterminate the population en masse (hence why the classification of the Irish famine is controversial-- but for that we have RS for both sides so we can discuss on the page). In any case I'm not sure we can combine definitions with sources -- seems like WP:SYNTH.--Calthinus (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Salameh, Franck (2018) The Other Middle East: An Anthology of Modern Levantine Literature. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. p.190 ISBN 9780300204445

Germany to pay reparations to Namibia

A misguided wikipedian has issued a warning about poorly/reliably sourced mention of the German case. The contribution was misrepresented; it was a US Judge who has deferred a decision at this time.[1] The case of Namibia-Germania is in no way comparable to Jewish WWII cases, in which no cap on payments exist. Some photos of the victims in Nambia are truly shocking, men and women alike. to see the suffering in the pics was the hardest.126.209.40.121 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-defers-ruling-berlin-namibia-genocide-case-175753222.html

Albigensian Crusade misplaced?

I think the discussion of the Albigensian Crusade is in the wrong section. It ended in 1229, but it's in the "1490 to 1914" section. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot Genocide

Why is the genocide of Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus not included in this article? Nargothronde (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Are there reliable neutral sources which call it a "genocide"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

To provide just a select few sources: [1] | [2] | [3] | [4] | [5] | [6] | [7]

Note how the sources make reference to other sources incl.: the Washington Post; the Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; the New York Times; the Observer; France Soir; Die Zeit; (Greek Cypriot) Cyprus Mail; Eleftherotipia; ll Giorno; the British High Commission in Nicosia; The UK Commons Select Committee; Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus; the U.N. Secretary-General (report on "UNFICYP"'s survey); the UN secretary-general (report to the Security Council); the Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit; Lt. Gen. George Karayiannis of The Greek Cypriot militia ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65); Grivas (quoted in "New Cyprus," May 1987); Antonis Angastionotis's documentary film entitled "The Voice of Blood"... and more. Nargothronde (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Genocide on Malakula and the Small Islands

I'm leaving this here as a curiosity, though it might actually be suitable for inclusion and would serve as a small counterweight to the currently dominating events committed by advanced states and empires. As it is the focus of this list lies heavily on genocides committed by Europeans and within the last 200 years, even though it can be assumed that policies of exterminating other peoples were pursued by all kinds of societies throughout all of human history. In fact, I deem it likely that the most common form of genocide actually was the extermination of one primitve tribe by another.

Anyway, according to this brief story, after Europeans began to sell firearms to the natives of Malakula and the Small Islands, those tribes who happened to get their hands on guns first, thanks to living in areas better accessable to traders, proceeded to exterminate the tribes and villages in the less fortunate regions.

Source: Introduction of firearms by Europeans causing wholesale massacres and the virtual extinction of the once flourishing population of the adjacent Malekulan mainland; in John Layard: Stone Men Of Malekula; London, 1942 (p. 602/3). (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC))

I support the inclusion of it you provided reputable sources and it would be a small counterweight like you said Jack90s15 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Rename

Shouldn't this article be renamed to List of genocides? Editor2020 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, I see the point, but it's really not a list-article per se, like List of genocides by death toll, more like a cross between an article and a list. Still "Genocides in history" is awkward - what genocide (except for fictional ones) didn't occur "in history"? Can we think of other alternative titles? One doesn't spring to mind to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
That's true. How about Genocides? Historical genocides? Editor2020 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Indians USA

The idea of a genocide of Indians in the USA seems to be mainly, if not wholly, fictional. Despite many modern assertions to the contrary there is only one single documented case of an attempt to spread smallpox amongst the tribes (Fort Pitt). Today writers and activists such as the disgraced Ward Churchill simply promote mythology. The number of Indians killed violently is also greatly exaggerated: the Congressional inquiry in the late 19th century noted that over 30,000 Indians had been killed in the previous 100 years (and over 19,000 whites killed by Indians) but that average of just 300 Indian deaths per year is a drop in the demographic ocean. In truth the Indian population of the USA crashed almost wholly due to lack of immunity to common contagious diseases such as measles etc. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.118.152 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hello, there is a Request for Comment on British policy in the Indian Famine of 1876 that may interest people here.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Caesar's Conquest of Gaul?

A million or more slaughtered and a million or more enslaved in an era when the world's entire population was estimated to have been between 150 and 250 million is pretty significant, especially from a single ethnic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.185.10 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

www.projectinposterum.org

@The Banner: please elaborate on how www.projectinposterum.org is a reliable source. MozeTak (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"List of mass killings of innocent civilians by combatants in wars since WWII" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of mass killings of innocent civilians by combatants in wars since WWII. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#List of mass killings of innocent civilians by combatants in wars since WWII until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AlexEng(TALK) 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned: Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter.

Two American colloquialisms for that are semigenocide, semiholocaust due to:

  1. not enough data
  2. not enough deaths
  3. not a single criminal side
  4. not enough international acceptance of the facts

or some of the above. {{subst:xsign:18:40, 9 July 2020‎ 2a02:587:410e:ca26:206c:5769:e396:a34f}}

They may be colloquialisms to you, but I've never heard them before, and neither has Google. [1], [2], so I don;t think they'd be of much use to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Massacres

This article indeed has many examples of people murdering other people, but massacres of dissidents or rebels is not genocide, nor is people dying it introduced diseases unless such massacres or introduction of disease were intentional acts to exterminate a people. Are we deliberately watering down the definition of genocide for some nefarious means? 120.22.17.10 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a loaded and political question. High above us, humble Wikipedians to decide. If we find a couple of RSes which say smth is a genocide, we construct an argument here, taking POV amd DUE etc. into account. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Zezen (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Euthanasia" problem use in article

Use of the term 'euthanasia' here is not appropriate. It is defined as:

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. (My emphasis)

Nowhere in that Wikipedia article can you find a sense of the word where it could be used appropriately to describe Nazi or similar crimes. Indeed, the Nazi program is discussed there specifically, and categorically stated as euphemistic.

In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in the context of Action T4 is seen to be a euphemism to disguise a program of genocide, in which people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".

Mentions of it appear in the above-linked Aktion T4 article in inverted commas, e.g. "euthanasia campaign".

By including it in this article, within a single sentence that lists

"mistreatment of Soviet POWs"
"crimes against ethnic Poles"
"persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses"
"the killing of Romani"
"and other crimes committed against ethnic, sexual, and political minorities"

and yet

"euthanasia of mentally and physically disabled Germans"

you create confusion. The contrast of terms is discordant, grotesquely so. And, most importantly, reduces clarity.

Perhaps I did not select the most apposite replacement term, but I fail to see why my well-intentioned, and I believe, thoughtful, edit should be so summarily reverted by @The Banner: with no explanation whatsoever. Talk about a warm welcome!

If someone has a better term, I'd be grateful if you put it into the sentence instead, but please, please, don't leave it as euthanasia, unmarked!122.105.187.37 (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to reversion rationale As you point out, it was the “official”(!) term used by Nazis, and often still used in discussing it. It is therefore completely in order to mention the word in WP articles that deal with Nazi atrocities.(I would point out, as an aside, that the Nazis likely had “official” labels, also, for the other atrocities in this same list, but there they are, shown simply and straightforwardly as I noted: ”killing”, “crimes”, etc. The mere fact of them having an official term, does not preclude the plainer, direct term from being neutral!) Perhaps because I referred to the well-understood modern definition, you imagined I was saying it must never be used in connection with Nazi actions. That is not it at all.
My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". (Indeed, as criminal as these acts were, in one sense they did not misuse the term for that time: Prior to the 1940s, "euthanasia" was more generally understood to refer only to painless killing, which I understand Nazis purported to do in these cases.)
I accept that I may be wrong. I believe in the consensus approach. Perhaps others will chime in with their view. However, I believe you did not really address any of the actual points I raised, (only what you imagined I was saying. I apologise if my statements were not clear.) 122.105.187.37 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Finally, I took the instruction in the editorial advice, “The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless” to heart. I thought it was rather uncontroversial, but, hey, you live and learn! You’re never safe from being surprised when you can find someone who argues that using the “official" term of the Nazis, despite there being a more factual label available, is the only way to be neutral.
All the best to you, anyway, @The Banner:.

While informally we may discuss the Nazi "euthanasia" program, with full understanding that we are speaking of an atrocity, it is unencyclopedic to use it here in this way. A person seeking understanding of Nazi genocide should not need to parse that, read between the lines, or contextualise.

Reversion rationale - I have reverted your non-neutral edit. It is true that the Germans misused the term euthanasia, but it is the official term in many cases. See for example Aktion T4. The Banner talk 15:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Non-neutral to remove "euthanasia"?
Your reply suggests the Nazi term is the only way to be non-POV (!), while saying nothing about how it may be confusing to the reader, as I contend.
People commonly use and understand euthanasia as in the definition above.
When people are all on the same page, or there is a fuller discussion around the issue, and Nazi use of the term euthanasia is contextualised, then referring to this mass murder program as “euthanasia" is not problematic.
When it appears in a list of contemporaneous, associated crimes that contrast starkly with the blunt labels assigned them, as here, then that has the potential to obscure clarity.
I was surprised to be directed to the Aktion T4 page, as it was evidence from that article that I used to support my change. The opening reads: "Aktion T4 was a postwar name for mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany". Note here, as I mentioned in my earlier discussion, “euthanasia" appears in that article, but is perfectly clearly contextualised as mass murder, even if involuntary "euthanasia". As mentioned above, several WP articles use the word, but signal its dubious use by putting "-" around it, or other markers of non-standard usage. A similar understanding of the relevance and connotation of the terms is not present in, (and would not really be suitable for) the brief overview in Genocides in history article.
In any case, I strongly reject that it is a non-neutral edit. My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". I would welcome others' views and comments. 122.105.187.37 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I too find it utterly jarring to see the use of "euthanasia" as it is employed here, exactly as described above – divorced from context, it reads as indicated: like its vernacular definition; a reference to humane death, applied to those for whom it is a mercy, which in this context couldn't be more non-neutral. It reads like something a nazi apologist might write. Don't get me wrong – I don't for a moment believe that is what's going on here in any way, shape or form – but that's the result, given the nature of the subject, and we should not minimize how bad it really does sound. That is why that context absolutely needs to be either provided, if the word is to remain in use, or a term or phrase needs to be used that doesn't read like this, but can stand on its own without context. Yet, providing that context very well may be beyond the scope of an article that provides only summary entries. If any form of "euthenasia" is to remain, then, it needs some device to impart that context, such as scare quotes and linking to involuntary euthenasia at the least, but I think "mass murder" suits fine, because it needs no context to pull it back from an unintended, naturally imparted meaning by its common, vernacular use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. the capping of the above as "extended content" feels inappropriate – as if the capped sections are not normal discussion, important to the point being made, and have likely tendentious, tl;dr content. They do not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)! Couldn't work out how to hide (because it's too long), in a more "blended-in" way. If it's easy for you, would you do as a favour? Title something like, "excess verbiage"(!) and with a less obtrusive colour? Sorry, from a very hit-and-miss layout & formatting editor! 180.216.180.68 (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Late to the party, but in my opinion, "euthanasia" is a controversial concept that can be considered as applying to decisions about individual cases, whereas when it was done as a government policy justifying the killing of tens of thousands, more context is definitely needed. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just throwing in my 2 cents to the discussion, by pointing to the German terms currently in use (I am a native German). While "euthanasia" was certainly employed at the time, this phrasing has fallen out of favour for the very obvious reasons stated above. For example, the edit by IP concerned the site of Schloss Hartheim, which has a page in the German Wikipedia called de:Tötungsanstalt Hartheim. This literally translates to "killing institution Hartheim", so no euthanasia euphemism there. This is also repeated in the sources, and also applies to the T4 program. If you zoom in, you can even see it in this picture to the right, you can read that T4 is referred to as a "Mordprogramm", which translates as "murder scheme". The only usage of euthanasia (German: Euthanasie) on that memorial is in quotation marks, to indicate that the term is not the proper one. Heck, even the English articles about Child euthanasia in Nazi Germany and Aktion T4 promptly state that these were "organised murder" or "mass murder", and euthanasia is at best the historical title given to it by the Nazis. Involuntary euthanasia is a bit technical, and could probably only be applied in an appropriate way to individual cases (similar to what David notMD has pointed out); in this industrialized context it would still translate to mass murder in disguise.
In conclusion, I fail to see where IP has been wrong or applying a POV. If the term euthanasia is kept at all in the section, it needs to be thoroughly explained why that is not an appropriate description, and merely a historical Nazi term. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe something like this would work (it's a little awkward; I only have a moment; more throwing out a thought for a form of action, than saying this language is perfect):

"...the [[Action T4|mass murder of mentally and physically disabled Germans]], often cloaked by Nazis under the euphemism, "euthanasia"<ref name="Friedlander1997">{{cite book|last=Friedlander|first=Henry |title=The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gqLDEKVk2nMC&pg=PR11|year=1997|publisher=Univ of North Carolina Press|isbn=978-0-8078-4675-9|page=xi}}</ref>--s Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Grasping the nettle, I've edited with a version based on Fuhghettaboutit's suggestion, slightly modified. Others may want to improve further, but I am happy for the moment just to see that jarring phrase gone! Thanks for your comments on this, David notMD, LordPeterII, and Fuhghettaboutit. 180.216.180.68 (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Page size

This article has 468,410 bytes of markup; that's far too large. The page should be split into several parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that the 20th century sections should constitute a separate article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Split WWI-WWII section into separate article

I copied-and-pasted the section into User:5a5ha seven/sandbox/genocide in 20th century draft and reformatted it. Is it okay to publish it and leave a link under the section header redirecting to it? — Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gonna keep the article concise

Hi Samotny Wędrowiec,

just wanted to let you know why I've undone your edit about the Polish Operation of the NKVD: That certainly was a genocide; but this article was split into sub-articles a while ago, with only the very broadest information remaining here. There's actually a section in the sub-article here: Genocides_in_history_(World_War_I_through_World_War_II)#Poles_in_the_Soviet_Union --LordPeterII (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, LordPeterII. No worries - thank you for the heads up. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can I edit andcontribute to this this source

Can I edit this source? I really want to contribute to this wikipage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyenetian (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit "Argentina"

At the moment it is stated that the "CPPCG does not include the elimination of political groups (because that group was removed at the behest of Stalin) ". While this maybe should just show the opinion of Judge Carlos Rozanski, it does not represent the more diverse historical facts. Actually, several states opposed the deletion of "political groups" from the convention and the finally successful attempt was led by Iran, Uruguay, and Egypt.[8] Therefore, I think, that the Stalin part should be removed and the discussion of whose fault it is that "political groups" are not part of the Convention should be transferred to the Convention-article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Errotu (talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stephen, Michael. "Attempted Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus". Retrieved 24 December 2018. "The assertion by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999) that there was no ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots is ridiculous..." / "On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide." / "On July 22, Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the United Nations to "stop the genocide of Turkish Cypriots" and declared, "Turkey... will not allow Turkish Cypriots to be massacred."" / "Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide..." / "When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the Constitution, Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963," wrote Lt. Gen. George Karayiannis of The Greek Cypriot militia ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The general was referring to the notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece." / "On Dec. 31, 1963, The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes..." / "On Jan. 1, 1964, the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight... In the neighboring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot's." / "On Jan. 12, 1964, the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote in a telegram to London: "The Greek [Cypriot] police are led by extremist who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities..." / "On Jan. 14, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported that the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on Dec. 26, 1963 and reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross. A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on Feb. 16, 1964; and there were many more." / "On Feb. 6, 1964, a British patrol found armed Greek Cypriot police attacking the Turkish Cypriots of Ayios Sozomenos..." / "On Feb. 13, 1964, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Limassol with tanks, killing 16 and injuring 35." / "On Feb. 15, 1964, the Daily Telegraph reported: "It is a real military operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the 6,000 inhabitants of the Turkish Cypriot quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the Greek Cypriot government has recognized this officially." / "On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that "UNFICYP" carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances... It shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs." / "Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963: "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights"." / "Thereafter Turkish Cypriot MPs, judges, and other officials were intimidated or prevented by force from carrying out their duties. According to the Select Committee, "The effect of the crisis of December 1963 was to deliver control of the formal organs of government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone..." / "More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" of 1974 or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists. The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership..." / "The UK Commons Select Committee found that "there is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population was either directly inspired by, or connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership."" / "The UN secretary-general reported to the Security Council: "When the disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first part of 1964, thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in safer villages and areas."" / "On Jan. 14, 1964, "ll Giorno" of Italy reported: "Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not cover up their barbaric and ferocious behavior."" / "... In a speech to the Greek Cypriot armed forces at the time (quoted in "New Cyprus," May 1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We want ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are strong, and we shall do so."" / "On March 3, 1996, the Greek Cypriot Cyprus Mail wrote: "(Greek) Cypriot governments have found it convenient to conceal the scale of atrocities during the July 15 coup in an attempt to downplay its contribution to the tragedy of the summer of 1974 and instead blame the Turkish invasion for all casualties..." / " The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."" / "The Times and The Guardian reported on Aug. 21, 1974 that in the village of Tokhni on Aug. 14, 1974 all the Turkish Cypriot men between the ages of 13 and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and shot." / "There were also reports that in Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish-Cypriot men aged between 19 an 38 were taken away and were never seen again and that Greek-Cypriots opened fire on the Turkish-Cypriot neighborhood of Paphos killing men, women, and children indiscriminately." / "On July 23, 1974, the Washington Post reported that "in a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived." The Times and The Guardian also reported on the killings." / ""The Greeks began to shell the Turkish quarter on Saturday, refugees said. Kazan Dervis, a Turkish Cypriot girl aged 15, said she had been staying with her uncle. The [Greek Cypriot] National Guard came into the Turkish sector and shooting began. She saw her uncle and other relatives taken away as prisoners, and later heard her uncle had been shot." (Times 23.7.74)" / "On July 28, 1974 the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot men had been shot in Alaminos." / "On July 24, 1974 France Soir reported that "the Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have weapons live in an atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forest. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."" / "The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on Aug. 30, "The massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their intervention.""...
  2. ^ "The Double Standards of Genocide Denial in Cyprus". Daily Sabah. Retrieved 24 December 2018.
  3. ^ Stephen, Michael. "WHY IS CYPRUS DIVIDED?". Retrieved 24 December 2018. "On 17 February 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide..." / "A Greek Cypriot journalist, Antonis Angastionotis, concerned that the truth had been kept from the Greek Cypriot people for so long, has made a documentary film entitled "The Voice of Blood" which shows the attempted genocide carried out against the Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots in the villages of Murataga-Sandallar-Atly«lar and Taskent in 1974." / "On 22 July Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the UN to "stop the genocide of Turkish-Cypriots" and declared "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish-Cypriots to be massacred." / "Even if the Treaty of Guarantee had not existed Turkey would have been wholly justified in intervening to protect the Turkish Cypriots from attempted genocide and remaining there for as long as their protection was needed, on the same legal basis as NATO intervened to protect ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from attempted genocide." / "Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide in violation of Articles 2(a), (b) and (c) and Articles 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention"...
  4. ^ "History: 1964-1974". Retrieved 24 December 2018. In 1974, the attempted genocide against the Turkish Cypriots was repeated once more." "These happy children once attending the joint primary school of Murataga (Maratha), Sandallar (Sandallaris) and Atlilar (Aloa) in Famagusta Area do not live any more. They were massacred, with their families, by Greek Cypriot armed elements and buried into mass-graves in 1974. Had Turkey not acted this time, this annihilation would have been extended to the rest of the Turkish Cypriot Community in Cyprus. Thus the Turkish Army clearly averted a wholesale genocide of the entire Turkish community.
  5. ^ "Cyprus". On 17th February 1964 the Washington Post reported that Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide." "Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them" "On 22nd July Turkish Prime Minister Ecevit called upon the UN to "stop the genocide of Turkish-Cypriots" and declared "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish-Cypriots to be massacred".
  6. ^ Scott Gibbons, Harry. The Genocide Files. Savannah Koch. ISBN 978-0951446423. THE GENOCIDE FILES IS A THOROUGH RESEARCH INTO THE SO CALLED "CYPRUS PROBLEM" IT EXPOSES THE BIAS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION TOWARDS THE CYPRUS TURKS AND ITS APPARENT INABILITY TO PROTECT THEM AGAINST THEIR MORE NUMEROUS AND MILITARILY MORE POWERFUL CO-INHABITANTS OF THE ISLAND, THE GREEK CYPRIOTS. THE BOOK DESCRIBES HOW THE GREEK FIXATION WITH ENOSIS-UNION WITH GREECE-LED TO A ONE-SIDED WAR AGAINST THE TURKS AND THE BRUTAL MASSACRES OF THEIR MEN,WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
  7. ^ R. Denktaş, Rauf. "The Failed Test of Legality" (PDF). Retrieved 24 December 2018. Is J. D. Bowers, the international authority and respected American professor of genocide studies at Northern Illinois University, correct when he openly confirms that Greek Cypriots and EOKA-B, under the leadership of Nikos Sampson, were guilty of the genocide of Turkish Cypriots within the 1963 United Nations definition of "genocide"? "Did the Akritas and Ifestos 1974 plans not spell out the means and methodology for that genocide?
  8. ^ LeBlanc, Lawrence J. (1988). "The United Nations Genocide Convention and Political Groups: Should the United States Propose an Amendment?". Yale Journal of International Law. 13 (2): 277.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_19&oldid=1234126407"