Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Canadian Residential Schools as Genocide?

Does the Canadian Residential School system classify as genocide on behalf of the Canadian government? Looking at article 2(e) of the convention it seems that this has indeed been met as native canadians were forcibly removed from there homes. It seems like article 2(b) might also be satisfied by the abundant amount of abuse/rape of the children attending these schools. Any thoughts?--Kinewone 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Residential Schools were set up in Canada in an attempt to bring people living in stone-age societies into the 20th century. They were not an attempt at "genocide" and to suggest that they were is just watering down the term to the point where it becomes meaningless. Less then 10% of aboriginal children at the time were ever in residential schools and the majority of the children attending these schools suffered no abuse at all. The tales of sexual abuse and physical abuse are mirrored in non-aboriginal, church run schools of that era and are an indication of systemic problems within the church hierarchy of the time and not evidence of a attempt by the church or the government of Canada at "genocide" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julian Watson (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. What only matters is that you give reliable sources stating these points and synthetising arguments -pro and -contra as neutraly as possible. Alithien 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

17:02, 3 July 2007 Julian Watson: Quoting kevin Annett is like using quotes from Hitler when talking about Jewish people or the KKK when discussing African Americans. He is not a repuatable source and neither is his website.

The (Rev.) Kevin Annett may not be a reliable source, do you have another source to back up you accusation? --PBS 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Annett has a biography on Wikipedia several web searches brings up some web pages. One of them is a time line. Timeline on a website that is either under the control of Kevin Annett or to which he is the major contributor. In the Timeline it says that

June 12-14, 1998: The first independent Tribunal into Canadian residential schools is convened in Vancouver by IHRAAM (International Human Rights Association of American Minorities), an affiliate of the United Nations. Evidence is submitted by dozens of aboriginal witnesses to crimes against humanity. The Tribunal concludes that the government of Canada and the Catholic, United and Anglican churches are guilty of complicity in Genocide, and recommends to the United Nations that a War Crimes investigation be held.

Another search on "International Human Rights Association of American Minorities" returns: The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities. Now we come the the however. Another search brings up Indian Residential Schools: Kevin Annett and The United Church of Canada May 2007 which is the other POV on his leaving the United Church of Canada by the United Church of Canada. the UCoC link includes a link to a press release by IHRAMM: IHRAAM and the International Indian Tribunal on Residential Schools dated Wednesday, July 8, 1998:

On June 12-14th, an International Indian Tribunal on Residential Schools was held in Vancouver to hear testimony by victims of human rights abuses who attended these schools. Subsequent to the event, the role played at the Tribunal by IHRAAM, an international NGO in consultative status with ECOSOC at the United Nations, has been variously interpreted by the media, by attendant groups and participants. IHRAAM's Communications Director, on behalf of the IHRAAM Directorate, today issued the following clarification concerning both IHRAAM's role, and its intentions with regard to any future Report on this Tribunal:

IHRAAM was invited to participate in the tribunal exclusively as an Observer organization, and did have representation present. Our representation was very concerned about the suffering expressed, as well as about what is being done to redress the grievances. However, IHRAAM holds no recordings of the testimonies delivered, and no official IHRAAM communique has been released to the media or to any other official body with regard to the proceedings of the Tribunal. This does not preclude the issuing of findings or holding of press conferences by local organizers of this event, or their further pursuit of these issues in whatever manner they may see fit. ...

Until I read the second quotation I thought that the first quotation meant that the International Indian Tribunal on Residential Schools held on June 12-14th was held under the auspices of IHRAAM, but now I do not. Given the contents of the two quotation, I for one can not consider the contents of this website: http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/ a reliable source. Until an independent souce can be found that supports Kevin Annett assertions, I think we sould remove the paragraph from the article. --PBS 09:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

French Genocide on Algeria?

No info on this???--85.98.142.37 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See Archive 3: Algeria --PBS 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan

I removed the following statement: "The dropping of the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a genocide committed by the American to scare and gain respect of the other nations. Almost 500,000 innocent civilian lives were lost with that unethical bombing." by 67.85.42.120. I would argue whether it was genocide at all since it was more of a limited extermination, and if you did include it, then you would need to include carpet bombing Europe and the earlier firebombing of Japan. Even if it is, the above statement speculates as to the reasoning and grossly distorts the number dead--Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suggests 214,000 as the total dead. Tewdrig 06:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hirshima and Nagasaki, but also the earlier firebombing of Japan and the carpet bombings in Europe were definitly genocides. All these attacks had only one goal: to kill civilians. In Japan nearly 1.000.000 people were killed and in Germany up to 600.000. It perfectly matches with the definition made by the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide". The problem is that the term "genocide" is also a political instrument and usually it can only be used by those who won the war. The Japanese Captain Kunito Hatakeyama was sentenced to death for having commanded the execution of 300 allied war prisioners, but Truman was celebrated like a heroe for having killed nearly one millon civilians.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.78.179.178 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1500 Genocides? Some more non-Eurocentric ones?

Shouldn't this page include genocides from classical and medival history as well? I.e. the Melian genocide in Thucididies, etc.? I don't want to give the impression that genocide is at all a recent ocurrance. Also, though the writers to a good job of explaining non-Euoprean genocides after 1900, I feel as if this article is severly european-oriented before this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.174.190.59 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

See Archive 3: Ancient/medieval genocides. Any claim that an event was a gencide should be attributed to a reliable source. --PBS 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Todays entry to the page:

Historians and genocide scholars have considered whether the following events consitute genocide: Rome’s final war with Carthage, the Mongol Conquests, the Albigensian Crusades, the Great Witch-Hunt, Christians in Japan,

It does not say if they, Chalk & Jonassohn, found them to be genocides, only that they looked at them. The ICC looked at the alledged Bosnian genocide and found that it was not one, (Only that the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide) so looking at and finding that it was a genocide are two different things

The text in the next paragraph does not say that Chalk & Jonassohn consider the Albigensian Crusade a genocide, only that it was a massacre. --PBS 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania

I removed the section "The Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania" as no attributable sources claiming it was a genocide have been given and it has been months since one was requested. --PBS 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Japan

Like most of the other sections it describes some very nasty stuff, some of which were crimes against humanity, but despite several weeks since a citation was asked for that the nastiness was a genocide, none have been given and it is not at all clear that the incidents would be considered a genocide under CPPCG if they were to happen today, so I have removed the section. --PBS 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust is not Alleged

The Holocaust really happened. Why on earth does this article call it an alleged genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.71.242 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 May 2007

I think that the first paragraph covers it:

Because the universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted after the war in international courts, for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty of crimes against humanity and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless the Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide.

But if that solution is unacceptable then we will have to break the cronlogical ordering of the article and move the Holocust into International prosecution of genocide (ad hoc tribunals). --PBS 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Genocide of the Boer people

Why is the genocide by the British in the second Boer war not mentioned here? These people were the first victims of concentration camps, and 28000 women and children died in these camps under the most horrifying conditions. See wiki article - Second Boer war —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.116.95.100 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Because to be genocide there must be "intent to destroy, in whole or in part," It was not the intention of the British to exterminate the Boers. If it was then it was not very effective: why did the death rates in the camps reach a peak and then fall as better hygiene conditions were introduced and why did the British close the camps at the end of the war and let those interred return to their homes instead of killing them all? --PBS 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The conditions changed only after the shocking conditions were made public by Emily Hobhouse. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Hobhouse Furthermore, denying the intent of genocide does not negate the consequences of it's implementation.

The highlighted section describes the conditions in the camps perfectly:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. – Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Whether it's genocide or not, it remains a atrocity with few equals. Any input is appreciated - Tell me what you think. Please. To remember them is to honour them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.116.95.175 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

please sign you entries on a talk page with ~~~~ They will automagically be turned into user ID/IP and a time stamp.

There must be intent to carry out mass killing of a significant part of a group, and for that intent to be implemented for it to be a genocide. All genocides are atrocities but not all atrocities are genocide. However it is not for us to decide this issue here. See the entry on Ireland, for an example of how an entry on the Britsh treatment of the Boer population can be presented on this page with neutral point of view. If you can find a verifiable reliable source which claims that it was a genocide then it can be included on this page.--PBS 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Alledged

I removed alleged from this as it is disrespectful to the victims of these crimes, in the presence of either overwhelming evidence or deliberately destroyed or suppressed evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.116.95.100 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

China in 1800s

The recently introduced sectio on China in the 1800s does not cite a reliable source that these events were a genocide. Please provide some or this section should be removed. --PBS 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The source that I cited this information from is reliable; Jacques Gernet’s A History of Chinese Civilization, one of the most comprehensive books on China’s history.( check the reviews [1]) And it said, word for word, “In Shensi and Kansu the number of victims is reckoned to have been several million; the figure in Kweichow is five million”. (Shensi and Kansu is where the Muslims rebelled and Kweichow is where the Miao people rebelled.)Editingman 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All genocides involves mass killings, but not all mass killings are genocide. Do you have a source that these mass killings were genocide? --PBS 10:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Npov - "Sabra and Shatila"

See Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 3#Sabra-Shatila - NPOV

While all information about the controverse around the fact that Sabra and Shatila massacre would have been a genocide is not explained, this article will not be neutral.
"Alleged" was already not a solution. Now it has been removed, this is not acceptable. Alithien 07:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It has not been removed, the title has been changed to "Timeline of genocides and alleged genocides" for the whole period, as others have objected to the Holocaust under "Alleged genocides from 1915 to 1950". I am removing it because you are not disputing the whole article, you are only disputing one section. Also the wording makes it clear that "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide.". I persume that you are not disputing that fact and you have yet to produce any verifiable reliable source that would in your opinion balance up the POV --PBS 11:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We have attributed the allegation to the UN. Also, if there is a counter POV relevent to the massacre and to the concept of genocide, then please add it (as long as it is sourced).Bless sins 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gentlemen,
In february, you explained me the "alleged" solved the problem and I gave you the references and explained you that my English was not good enough to introduce this in the article...
So, here are some excerpts. Could you add them to the article and add the pov flag in the section until these facts and pov are introduced ?

---

This resolution is nevertheless considered as a "carefully planned UN campaign" to make "Israel guilty of genocide" and that the "procedures [that lead to the resolution] were unique in the annals of the United Nations".
In particular, the resolution was carried by 123 with 22 abstentions (by the Western democracies and four Third World countries). More, the paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstention. · ”.
According to William Schabas, the "the term genocide (…) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision”. During the debates :

• The representative of Singapore stated :

My delegation regret the use of the term “an act of genocide (…). In the Convention, the term "genocide" is used to mean acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".

• The representative of Canada stated :

the term genocide cannot, in our view, be applied to this particular inhuman act to which Singapored echoed : We also question whether the General Assembly has the competence to make such determination.

• The United States stated that :

while the criminality of the massacre was beyond question, it was a serious and reckless misuse of language to label this tragedy genocide ad defined in the 1948 Convention (…). .

Alithien 16:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The material and point of view has been added. Bless sins 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you stop removing sourced amterial that I have added. Please note that the material is from the same source you added earlier.Bless sins 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's been POVd (as usual), and the article is about the accusation of genocide, not the massacre itself, which has its own article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual? This is proabably the second time I'm editing this article (in a long time). Ofcourse the article is about the genocide, but that doesn't mean we don't talk about what actually happened. Surely the reader is interested in the events as well. All the "POV"/content I have added come from your sources.Bless sins 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The source also states that the attribution of the term "genocide" to the event was an abuse of the term and UN process. Somehow you left that out. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have most certainly included that, but you beat me to it.[2] No point in duplicate statements.Bless sins 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, this version [3] is good.
Maybe a last comment by "palestinian officials" about the word "genocide" (to have the victims pov) would close the case.
Thank you, Alithien 07:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I found this.

In the lawsuit against Ariel Sharon, the "victims" added the "crime of genocide" against Ariel Sharon (See official documents on this website). So, from their point of view, there has been a genocide. I think this has to be mentioned too. Alithien 08:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Following you link to The case lodged in Belgium on 18 June 2001 Documents gives a number of documents as you said. Looking at the complaints in English (with endnotes). It includes this text:

"all the constituent elements of the crime of genocide, as defined in the 1948 Convention and as reproduced in article 6 of the ICC Statute and in article 1§1 of the law of 16 June 1993,29 are present."

So we could present this as:

In a Belgium court case lodged on 18 June 2001 by 23 survivors of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres, the prosecution alleged that Ariel Sharon, former Israeli defense minister (and Israel's prime minister in 2001), as well as other Israelis committed a number of crimes including genocide,[4] because "all the constituent elements of the crime of genocide, as defined in the 1948 Convention and as reproduced in article 6 of the ICC Statute and in article 1§1 of the law of 16 June 1993,29 are present."[5]. This allegation was not tested in Belgium court because on 12 February 2003 the Court of Cassation (Belgian Supreme Court) ruled that under international customary law, acting heads of state and government can not become the object of proceedings before criminal tribunals in foreign state (although for the crime of genocide they could be the subject of proceedings of an international tribunal).[6][7] This ruling was a reiteration of a decision made a year earlier by the International Court of Justice on 14 February, 2002.[8] Following these ruling in June 2003 the Belgian Justice Ministry decided to start a procedure to transfer the case to Israel,[9] so to date the accusation that the massacres in Sabra and Shatila were a genocide has not been tested in any court.

Comments? --PBS 10:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is perfect concerning the juridictionnal matter.

I just thought that a pov that deserves room is that "victims consider themselves as victims of genocide acts" more than the "genocide accusation has not been tested in any court"

ie, I think "victims pov" (true or not) is very important.

So, I would suggest to emphasize this more, eg in starting a new paragraph just before "This allegation was not tested (...)".

Note it is BelgIUm and not BelgUIm :-)

Thank you for your work ! Alithien 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip, it looks fine to me as well, except for the spelling errors, which I fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what is the source for "This allegation was not tested.."? Yeah, I agree with putting the above paragraph in.Bless sins 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

None, I drew (what I think is a reasonable) inference from web site that is pressing for a trial. It records the fact that the Belgium ministry off loaded it (They could perhapses have tried Israeli minnows but decided not) and I can't see that there was or ever will be a trial in Israel. --PBS 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the Leo Kuper paragraph and qoute with the one discussed above. I think one paragraph for and against the UN is enough to give a neutral point of view --PBS 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, that is ok. Alithien 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's not O.K. with me. It makes an important point. You can add your material but don't delete Kuper. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What additional important point that it makes? --PBS 09:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Several, including the fact that the "availability of a scapegoat state in the UN restores members with a record of murderous violence against their subjects a self-righteous sense of moral purpose as principled members of 'the community of nations'...", that "a carefully planned UN campaign found Israel guilty of genocide, without reference to the role of the Phalangists in perpetrating the massacres on their own initiative" and that "the procedures were unique in the annals of the United Nations". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but per WP:UNDUE, we should give both arguments equal wieght.Bless sins 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't say that. Is there some material from reliable sources that you would like to include that provides a different viewpoint on the U.N. resolution? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

edits by Bless sins

BTW, why are you undoing my edits here. The paragraph about the massacre/genocide itself is actually missing sources. I have added the sources, and clarified Israel's and Phalangists' role in the massacre/genocide. If you we are going to talk about the accusation of genocide, atleast we shoudl tell the reader as to what actually happened.Bless sins 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm undoing them because you have POVd the material, and gone into too much detail. There is a whole article about Sabra and Shatila, this article is specifically about the accusation of genocide. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not gone into "too much detail". It is very confusing to discuss about the accusations, and omit a brief overview of what actually happened. Anyways, I'll try and shorten it up a bit.Bless sins 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a much shorter version.[10]Bless sins 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, your version inserted just one POV, and removed much of the actually relevant material, which was the stuff about the accusation of genocide. This article is about genocide. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake that I was quick to correct. In any case, the version you insist on isn't even sourced. Why are removing material from the same source as you've used for other material? The author (whose "POV" I'm inserting) has already been added before (by you).Bless sins 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The version is now fully sourced, and NPOV. Let's keep it short, and particularly lets try to keep out cherry-picked POV trying to demonize Israel, O.K.? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to deomnize Israel. But please don't try to whitewash it either. Also, you are the one who is cherry-picking. You picked some quotes from teh source, yet ignored the rest, particularly the ones that actually say what Israel did during the massacre.Bless sins 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I share Jayjg's mind. What was added is only one POV of the matter.
This section here is assumed to talk about the allegations of genocide for Sabra and Shatila massacre. That's all. All other information should be directed to the main article.
It is useless to transform this article in a new battlefield.
The 4 lines of the version I read now is perfect. I would even have deleted that Israel was assumed to be responsible as occupation army because the importance of this responsibility is controversed but that is better to write this for coherence with the remaining. Alithien 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to tell the reader atleast what Israel did, so that it was accused of genocide. I have made a final comrpomise here[11]. The content I'm adding is directly in relation to the accusation of genocide.Bless sins 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But it again implies that Israel sent them in for the purpose of genocide. The actual material about genocide, and the links to the more nuanced articles, give the whole context. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And the reasons why they entered the camps (even the idea that Israel would have sent them is controversed) are numerous and controversed. How could we give a neutral summary except in refering to the main article ? Alithien 18:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless Sins, what is your concern with :

"Responsibility for the massacre has been attributed to the Phalangists as the perpetrators, and indirectly to Israel as the occupying army."

Maybe we could replace by :

"Kahane Commission attributed responsability for the massacre to the Phalangists as the perpetrators, and indirectly to Israel as the occupying army but the subject of responsabilities is still debatted and controversed." Alithien 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

St Barthelemy massacre

Hi,
With the definition given here to a "genocide" (which is a wide one), maybe these events could be added in the list : fr:Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy.
During that period, Protestants were chased and massacred in whole France (2000 deads at Paris and 5000 to 10000 in France) under the order of the King and/or roman catholic church. (this is a controverse).
But I don't know if anybody ever talked about a genocide concerning these events...
Regards, Alithien 08:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is included in this article, then a reliable source claiming that it was a genocide needs to be provided. --PBS 14:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. That was just for information. Alithien 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nasty but not a genocide?

Recently, there has been a lot of removal here with the reason given as "Nasty but not a genocide". Just wondering, what makes a genocide a genocide? Thanks!  DangerousNerd  talk 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the sources... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alithien (talk • contribs)

Could you be more specific? Thanks!  DangerousNerd  talk 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, please sign your comments by adding four ~'s to the end. Thank you!  DangerousNerd  talk 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Please just read a comment made to me in the section just here above.

For WP, anything, to be a genocide, requires a reliable source that states it is a genocide.

No more, no less. That is the policy (and it is good). Alithien 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks!  DangerousNerd  talk 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Brazil

User:Belligero has identified several sources that can be used for writing a piece on genocide in Brazil including:

Indigenous Genocide in the Brazilian Amazon Genocide Studies Program at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies.

But the two current paragraphs added by Belligero in the Brazil section, that could have been used as a kernal for developing the section are copyright violations:

A former state governor and a former top policeman...

This is a direct copy from http://www.survival-international.org/news/1258

The massacre of the Tikuna people, also known as the Helmet Massacre, ...

Is a direct copy from http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/711/41/ --PBS 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Checking further edits from the text Belligero has added to this article. The first paragraph Belligero added to the Soviet Union section is:

Most Nazis were absolute racists, especially among the top echelon; they believed utterly in the superiority of the "Aryan" race. ... 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 Slavs to Siberia.

It is a copy of two paragraphs from from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM The first sentence of the next paragraph you added:

The Jewish Holocaust took place in the context ...

comes from http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5687 as does AFAICT the rest of the paragraph from different paragraphis in the original text.

In an two edit to this page user:Belligero seems to claim that the copy came from [12] which claims it is a copy from www.savethemales.ca and that it may be copyrighted, -- all three texts are the same. --PBS 10:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The next paragraph second sentence that starts

A Russian historian Vadim Erlikman, has given detail of losses in each Soviet Republic totaling....

is from http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/w/wo/world_war_ii_casualties.html

In the same two edit of this page User:Belligero pointed out that this is a mirror site of the wikipedia page World_War_II_casualties so it is not a copyright violation. Therefor I made a mistake for which I apologise. --PBS

I am not going to do any more. .... --PBS 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Two paragraphs added 19:06, 17 June 2007 by user:Belligero that start "Mr. Hemming estimates there were over 2.5..." and "Along the Amazon river and its major" are a copyright violation of WAR, DISEASE, SLAVERY AND POISONED WELLS By ALAN RIDING; ALAN RIDING IS CHIEF OF THE NEW YORK TIMES BUREAU IN RIO DE JANEIRO AND AUTHOR OF DISTANT NEIGHBORS: A PORTRAIT OF THE MEXICANS. January 31, 1988 --PBS 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Genocide against the Jews and Slavs

Hi PBS. Why did you remove some recently added see also and main articles in Genocides in history? (World War II atrocities in Poland, Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany, Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany and Consequences of German Nazism)

The legal definition of Genocide:

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people, as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Consequences of German Nazism (The Nazi Genocide):

The main targets of the Nazi Genocide were the Jews of Europe, of whom approximately six million were killed, including 1.5 million children. Other targets included Roma, mentally ill, homosexuals, political opponents, and primarily Poles, Belarusians, Russians and other Slavs.

This is already covered by the links provided: The Holocaust and Racial policy of Nazi Germany and this link to "Consequences of German Nazism" is a general article which is not very well sourced and is not specific to the genocide, therefor it is not a main article. --PBS 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost:

Generalplan Ost (GPO) was a Nazi plan to realize Hitler's "new order of ethnographical relations" in the territories occupied by Germany in Eastern Europe during World War II. It was prepared in 1941 and confirmed in 1942. The plan was part of Hitler's own Lebensraum plan and a fulfilment of the Drang nach Osten ("Drive towards the East") state ideology.

The final version of Generalplan Ost, essentially a grand plan for ethnic cleansing, was divided into two parts; the Kleine Planung ("Small Plan"), which covered actions which were to be taken during the war, and the Grosse Planung ("Big Plan"), which covered actions to be undertaken after the war was won (to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25-30 years).

The Small Plan was to be put into practice as the Germans conquered the areas to the east of their pre-war borders. The individual stages of this plan would then be worked out in greater detail. In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November, 1939. The plan envisaged differing percentages of the various conquered nations undergoing Germanisation, expulsion into the depths of Russia, and other fates, the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would be Germanized.

In ten years' time, the plan called for the extermination, expulsion, enslavement or Germanisation of most or all Poles and East Slavs living behind the front lines in Europe. Instead, 250 million Germans would live in an extended Lebensraum ("living space") of the 1000-Year Reich (Tausendjähriges Reich). Fifty years after the war, under the Große Planung, Generalplan Ost foresaw the eventual expulsion and extermination of more than 50 million Slavs beyond the Ural Mountains.

Of the Poles, by 1952 only about 3-4 million people were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland, and then only to serve as slaves for German settlers. They were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles (believed by the Nazis to be Untermenschen, that is "sub-people") would cease to exist.

For it to be a genocide then there must be a genocidal plan that is implemented. If you wish this to be included then find a reliable source that claims it was a genocide. To date the article "Generalplan Ost" does not cite a reliable source that says it was a genocide. --PBS 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II casualties

A Russian historian Vadim Erlikman has detailed Soviet losses totaling 26.5 million war related deaths. Military losses of 10.6 million include 7.6 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead, plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses. Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labor; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths. Additional famine deaths which totaled 1 million during 1946-47 are not included here. The official Polish government report of war losses prepared in 1947 reported 6,028,000 war victims out of a population of 27,007,000 ethnic Poles and Jews; this report excluded ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian losses.

See above, war casualties is not a specific article about genocide. --PBS 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Belligero 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the techniques used by Holocaust deniers is to claim that what happened to those specific groups targeted by the Nazis for genocide was just part of a pattern and is only one of the lower steps on a ladder that descends into the abyss . The classic example of this is the work by David Irving and his attempts to show that there is some sort of moral equivalence in the action of the Allies and the Nazis. It is not that the Nazis and their allies did not commit many horrific crimes, but to be included on this page those crimes must have been noted as genocides by verifiable and reliable sources and for those claims that are not generally accepted by English language sources as genocide, they should be made in a form where the author is mentioned in the article text (as is done for sections like Ireland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). --PBS 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So you guess that anyone who claims that the Slavs (Poles, Russians etc.), along with Jews, had also been the object of genocide (Nazi plans & at least 30 million deaths in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia) is Holocaust denier? It's absurd. Belligero 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course not all people who think that there was a genocide against Slavs are Holocaust deniers, But it is one of the well known techniques used by politically motivated revisionists to insert doubt through an association fallacy and other attempts at obfuscation. To be a genocide not only must there be a plan, but there must also be an implementation of the plan. It is beyond dispute that there was a plan and an implementation of genocide against the Jews and the Roma. That other mass killings and other crimes against humanity were genocides is not generally agreed in English sources, so any assertion that these other peoples were subject to a genocide should be backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. --PBS 11:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• There wasn't unified policy to treat all Slavic nations within the reach of Third Reich in the same way. The plans were opportunistic, changed over the course of the war and were often postponed until the war ends. This is topic not covered (or very poorly covered) on Wikipedia. At least WP should not be oversimplifying talking about fate of "Slavs" as a single entity. Pavel Vozenilek 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The objects of diverse Nazi plans for mass extermination and/or Germanisation and deportation of Untermenschen (the "subhumans") had been all East Slavic nations (Belarussians, Ukrainians, Russians) and some West Slavic nations (Poles, Czechs). Under Generalplan Ost, a percentage of Slavs in the conquered territories were to be Germanised. Those unfit for Germanisation were to be expelled from the areas marked out for German settlement. In considering the fate of the individual nations, the architects of the Plan decided that it would be possible to Germanise about 50 per cent of the Czechs, 35 per cent of the Ukrainians and 25 per cent of the Belarussians. The remainder would have had to be annihilated or deported to western Siberia.

"Bohemia and Moravia must become German, Czechs have no business to be here." - Reinhard Heydrich, October 1941.

War in Eastern Europe was a brutal, exterminatory war. For example, nearly 3 million people (1 million Jews and 2 million Slavs), up to 30 percent of the republic's population, were killed in Belarus within the three years of German occupation. 80 percent of the towns and villages (about 9,200 villages) in Belarus were destroyed.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/eed57fb9-d05f-458f-acb3-05aa57e246d8.html

From the start, the war in the East was intended as a fulfillment of the plan described by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf. The main axis of the plan was that all of Eastern Europe should become part of the greater Germany, the so called German Lebensraum (living space). The SS was sent, as stated by Adolf Hitler in his Armenian quote: "with orders for them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language". Belligero 19:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a few changes, such as including the figure for Slavs killed from R.J. Rummel (with reference). It is not clear where "upwards of 11 million people...exterminated" came from or what it refers to. Rummel mentions "15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people" "none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths." (see his book). Since the current number has no reference, I suggest putting in Rummel's numbers. - Pavel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.192.174 (talk) 20:47, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Inertia

By the way, there is no evidence of similar plans [to those of Generalplan Ost] for mass extermination of American indigenous peoples or people of Congo. What makes a genocide a genocide on Wikipedia? Belligero 19:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Inertia. (See this article on 20 June 2005)

Over the last two years to address the criticism that Wikipedia was not reliable, the threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipdia articles has gone up and this is particularly true for in controversial articles like this one. When an editor adds new information to an article like this it is much easier to challenge them because they presumably have reliable sources and ask them to include them if the text is to remain in the article.

But if you look back through the archives of this page, you will see that a lot of sections have been removed after a suitable warning has been given and the issue has been discussed on the talk page. Personally I am for continuing this process, and after discussing on the talk page any sections that do not have reliable sources stating that an event was a genocide, removing them after a suitable interval if they still have no such sources. --PBS 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First recorded genocide

Why does the timeline start at "1500 A.D."? Genocides had been going on long before that. I'll give a Barnstar to the person who can identify the first recorded genocide. Who knows? Jtpaladin 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to give a barnstar, then please only give one to an editor who knows of a reliable source that can identify the first recorded genocide, otherwise it is orignial research and of no use to this article. --PBS 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

hé hé hé :-)

I would suggest the following base :

500,000 years ago Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens coexisted but only our ancestors survived. There is debate among scientists to know if this extinction was or not the result of struggle between both species and also to see how much both these species can be considered common. Today, "whether Homo Sapiens committed its first genocide in this remote past or whether the Neanderthal disappeared because of changing ecological circumstances or other reasons remains an unresolved question." (Linda Stone and al, "Genes, Culture and Human Evolution : a Synthesis", Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p.173, ISBN 1405150890.

Alithien 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I would only give it to someone who could give me a RS. But, hey, Philip thanks for the concern. :) Jtpaladin 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian genocide

I have changed the wording from

In spite of this judgement, some argue that the killing of Bosniaks during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina did constitute genocide and the term Bosnian genocide is used by some (University of California Riverside, Bosnian Genocide In the Historical Perspective, [13]), and human rights officials (Human Rights Watch, Milosevic to Face Bosnian Genocide Charges, 11 December 2001 [14]).

To that currently used in the Bosnian Genocide article that says

... Before this ruling the term Bosnian Genocide had been used by some academics (University of California Riverside, Bosnian Genocide In the Historical Perspective, [15]), and human rights officials (Human Rights Watch, Milosevic to Face Bosnian Genocide Charges, 11 December 2001 [16]).

The reason for this is that to date no one has presented an academic or human rights official sources that have used the term Bosnian genocide. The academic source was cited in an version of the Wikipedia Bosnian Genocide article that was published before the ICJ judgement. The souce now says "Important Note: This syllabus is from a past course, ... I suggest that you pay attention to the following schedule: February 1st. One-page statement of topic and thesis" (my emphasis). --PBS 09:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove the Tibet section

There's only the presuming of genocide,but not even a primary source or account.When the current article is named as Genocide in history.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Tibet section meets the requirements for inclusion. --PBS 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Americas

This section has been in the article for a long time. However unlike most of the more recent additions it does not carry any references from any academic source that alleges these acts were genocides. It is my intention to delete these sections or parts of sections unless reliable sources are provided that allege these were genocides. --PBS 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense, particularly since the entry itself in parts talks about the deaths coming from disease. Mamalujo 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the new section America for the same reason that I removed most of the Americas section. There must be reliable sources which claim that the mega deaths of Indians were genocides, but to date none have been presented. It is not the up to Wikipedia to make the allegations (WP:OR) it is up to Wikipedia to record reliable third party allegations and hopefully other reliable third party sources refuting the allegations for a balanced WP:POV. --PBS 15:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article shows all the genocide or alleged genocide.some credit it,someone not.But if one person though it as genocide,it should be remained.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some links of google book [17]

,unless you can all the refute,keep it in the current article is better.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This source you have included in the text is not a reliable source. Do a Google search on ["Fleming Center", Washington]. Also see Slide 8: "Genocide Caused Dramatic American Indian Population Decline" it relies on "Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide" see below about Churchill.

You may be able to build an argument from this URL you provided "Makson, Did Uncle Sam Play the Role of Hitler in Killing Blacks and Indians? History News Network Feb. 3, 2003 But part of the text from that article reads:

Although the pair has not received any funding and are unsure whether Duke or Minnesota University Press will publish the anthology after many rejections from other publishing houses because of what Leonard called "a powerful hegemonic resistance to any sort of critique of the ways that the Jewish Holocaust is talked about in and out the academy," the pair, however, are being inundated with submissions.

Does not sound as if they have a peer reviewed publication. And this section

Some of the contributors will include: Dr. Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado – Boulder, a man who pretends to be a "radical Indian activist" and who physically attacked and broke Mrs. Carol Standing Elk’s wrist after she exposed him as a fraud to the Native American community;

which rather dams the other URL you provide: A Little Matter of Genocide: holocaust and denial in the Americas, 1492 to the present By Churchill, Ward. Also please read the Wikipedia entry for Ward Churchill and I think you will see that this book is not a reliable scholarly source.

I think we need to find more reliable scholarly sources than those which you have presented for such a controversial entry. --PBS 13:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's many articles arguing the inexistence of Armenian Genocide,but it cann't make the one disappear in the current article.If you delete the Indian war one,you had to delete the majorities of genocides or allegede genocides in the current article.And it makes this artilce nosense.You can list as many books or papers to deny it,but millions of proofs can also add support to it.Keep it in mind,the current just show the genocides or alleged genocide.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just adding a link from U.S. Department of Education.You can check it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section again. Tacking onto the end of the section an Abstract to an article that you have not read does not fix all the problems mentioned above. Please spend a little time in a library, or respectable articles published on the internet and construct a section based on respected reliable sources. --PBS 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You call the sources from U.S. Department of Education unreliable？Non sense.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

the alleged genocides under Mao might be more your area of expertise, how about you help out there? :) The Jackal God 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive 3#Tibet Ksyrie has taken an active interest in alleged genocides in China. --PBS 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

i was thinking more along the lines of the 30-60 million lives lost to Mao's cultural revolution. The Jackal God 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder your criteria of judging the genocide,the Tibetan one gets no numbers,even the most fluent one.Nowadays,In Tibet,the Tibetan is the majority.By contrast,in the North America,before 1800,the Indians are majorties,but the white only minorities.Ok,how about nowadays？

The The Great Chinese Famine,we had it in the category of economic disaster--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. ". As I said above: "I have removed the section again. Tacking onto the end of the section an Abstract to an article that you have not read does not fix all the problems mentioned above. Please spend a little time in a library, or respectable articles published on the Internet and construct a section based on respected reliable sources." --PBS 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The slaughter of Indians people is well-kown,and well-documented.I don't know why the sources suggested cannt be categorised as reliable source?The force relocation,direct hunting,and forced sterilization are all told many many times.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons why the sources given are not reliable sources please read what is above and comment on the comments to the sources. For example why do yo think that Ward Churchill is a reliable source? If as you say "The slaughter of Indians people is well-kown,and well-documented [as a genocide]" then you will have no problems finding a reliable source. I suggest you start with the list of scholars in the genocide definitions article as no doubt many of them will have published papers on this episode. --PBS 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

mer, in response to your innuendo, i guess we should also suspect the Han chinese of genocide against all the other chinese minorities whom they vastly outnumber, or the fukien and kmt chinese of genocide against the taiwanese aboriginals for the same reason. and what was the Armenian genocide, a hiking disaster? The Jackal God 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to deny of the existence of genocide in chinese history,it happened,and someone all listed them.But for the american one,you seems not to see the past as history.I just add some new sources.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a book no one seems to reference here: "American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World". What are people looking for to define the killing of Native Americans as a genocide? Isn't it enough that the United States government was paying money for dead Native Americans? There was a policy to clear California of Native Americans, for example, and entire tribes disappeared almost over night - and they were authorized by the U.S. and/or local governments. There are examples like this all over the United States. There are plenty of documented sources for things like this - the book I mentioned lists a number of them. They weren't killed because they were a target in a battle - they were killed because the tribes were in the way and considered a nuiscance to take care of.Jimhoward72 13:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Congo

At the moment there is no reliable source in the article that claims that the brutal events Congo Free State was a genocide. Unless one is provided I suggest that this section is removed. I did a search of the Internet and did not come across any such source. If someone has one please add it to the section. --PBS 09:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I looked in the belgian newspaper on the internet.

There are different sources that state that the population of Congo dropped from 20M to 10M under Leopold II but I don't know either any reliable source that states the events that lead to this were a genocide.

There has been recently a book published in the UK where the word "genocide" is used but not by a strong-enough source for wp (from my mind) and I found 1 website where they state there is a debate at the British Parliament to "condamn" this as a genocide.

I think too the section should be removed until the debate around *historians* about this period evolve... This should come within a few years.

Alithien 08:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cambodia

The article states :

The Khmer Rouge, or more formally, the Communist Party of Kampuchea, led by Pol Pot, Ta Mok and other leaders, organized the mass killing of ideologically suspect groups, ethnic minorities like the ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese (or Sino-Khmers), Chams and Thais, former civil servants, former government soldiers, Buddhist monks, secular intellectuals and professionals, and former city dwellers. Khmer Rouge cadres defeated in factional struggles were also liquidated in purges. The number of the victims is estimated at approximately 1.7 million Cambodians between 1975-1979, including deaths from slave labour.

I (of course) don't deny this was a genocide but would not the source stating it was one be indicated and a reference given for these events ? Alithien 08:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• here is one form the United Human Right Council website : [18] (is it an offical organisation ?)
• a reference book (I found on the web but never read) : [19] published in Yale University Press. The author seems reliable to me : [20]

Alithien 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Before 1500

see Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_3#Ancient/medieval genocides

I have removed the reinsertion of text, deleted in November, to the before 1500 section which does not have sources that claim the events were genocides. To include them without claims is Original research. --PBS 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say the examples that remain are even worse. Moreover they don't even reflect what the cite (Adams) wrote. The examples remaining (eg melos) are not of genocide according to Adams, yet the ancient ones he does call genocides are excluded from the section as it stands. The earliest event Adams identifies and calls a genocide is that of the Amalekites. And in it he stands with the mainstream of others looking at the ancient phenomena. They are killed regardless of their status as non-combatants, age (the command is to kill every infants as well), or gender.

Yet in our wikipedia time line of genocide and alleged genocide the earliest mention is melos, which no scholar calls a genocide. During a war one force killed the military age men of the same ethnicity and belief system in another locale (ie they were not denigrated for their culture or ethnicity). Moreover we know that since Thucydides gives the number of total colonists (men women and children) as 500, the total number killed probably number around 150-200 people in total.

Yet removed over and over on these pages are much earlier much more clearly genocidal biblical actions such as against the Amalekites?

So long as it is sourced by a scholar as a genocide then it can be included but WP:OR is not considered acceptable in a Wikipedia article. --PBS 09:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If a single event before the enacting of the laws following WWII is included (eg anything not legally determined to be genocide) then one must go back to cultural sources that drive views of a massive chunk of humanity. (Let's be clear, this is not primarily about the Israelites actions, but about the God of Jews, Christians and Moslem's commanding genocide with language that debases and dehumanizes the victims in every sense -- something that is accepted as part of genocide theory and which did not occur on Melos.

One does not have to go back to "cultural sources" one goes back to scholarly sources that have looked at cultural sources and have decided that an historical event is genocide. Just because the crime of genocide did not exist before CPPCG, it does not mean that genocidal events did not take place. The definition of what constitutes a genocide and the crime of genocide are two different things. As the preamble to the CPPCG states that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". --PBS 09:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I looked at these pages was over a year ago. Now looking at the history I can see the the biblical examples keep getting removed. This makes no sense. The actual adams cite in the article is talking about the Amalekites. The one he contends is genocide is removed an the ones he says are something else remain?!Dafen hf 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

I suggest this chapter to be removed or changed for two reasons: 1) The term "genocide" has been stretched to ridiculous extremes for political reasons, this one being a prime example. A chapter dealing with inappropriate use of "genocide" would be better, and this chapter could go there. 2) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is just one example of an assymetric war with widespread disregard for human life. If Soviet invasion has to be included, USA invasion of Vietnam must be mentioned as well to keep NPOV as it is analagous in every way. The title has to reflect that broader aspect. - Pavel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.151.140 (talk) 02:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

China

In the section China several mass killings are noted, but there does not seem to be a reliable source that claims they were genocides. If one can not be found this section should be deleted. --PBS 10:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Tokugawa Japan

In the section Tokugawa Japan there does not seem to be a reliable source that claims they were genocide. If one can not be found this section should be deleted. --PBS 11:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq sanctions

Why aren't the Iraqi sanctions listed here? Isn't it the case that two UN Assistant SG's, Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both resigned from their positions and denounced the sanctions as "genocide"? Gatoclass 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Halliday has called the sanctions genocide.[21][22] -- Why not write up a section? But a quick trawl of the Internet and I could not find an article that states that Hans von Sponeck used the term. BTW is Hans von Sponeck a relation of Hans Graf von Sponeck? --PBS 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is a POV for Dennis Halliday genocide comment

Some legal experts are sceptical about or even against using such terminology. “People who talk like that don’t know anything about law,” retorts Mario Bettati, who invented the notion of “the right of humanitarian intervention”. “The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that’s not at all a crime against humanity or genocide.”[23]

--PBS 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Yarsans (Ahl-i Haqq)

I am removing the new section "Iranian Yarsans (Ahl-i Haqq)" because no reliable source has been cited claiming that this was a genocide. I am also putting back the "Ottoman Empire (Turkey)" section deleted without an explanation. --PBS 11:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking

This incident, in which the Japanese Army in 1937 was released on the Chinese city of Nanking and directed to annihilate 300,000 Chinese civilians over the period of a few weeks, is considered a genocide. See Nanking Massacre article for sources.Jimhoward72 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Tibet

I made two edits on the Tibet section of this article, but they got caught in the rollback intended to restore the "China under Mao" section (see above) along with an also unrelated addition to Mexico. Since they were brought up as a sidenote in that section of the talkpage, and there was the misunderstanding that my edits to China and my edits to Tibet were for the same reasons (they are not), I will bring these edits to discussion here, before they are re-added.

The first edit was to remove a blockquote of the press release of the ICJ to signify that the ICJ received a report by Shri Purshottam Trikamdas which alleged genocide in Tibet. I copy the quote here:

“ From the facts stated above the following conclusions may be drawn: ... (e) To examine all such evidence obtained by this Committee and from other sources and to take appropriate action thereon and in particular to determine whether the crime of Genocide—for which already there is strong presumption—is established and, in that case, to initiate such action as envisaged by the Genocide Convention of 1948 and by the Charter of the United Nations for suppression of these acts and appropriate redress; ”

Basically, this quote just says that the ICJ is going to examine the evidence and initiate appropriate action according to the Genocide Convention if the crime of genocide is established.

But the next paragraph quoting the actual ICJ report states that the ICJ only found "acts of genocide... independent of any conventional obligation" and there was not "sufficient proof... that can be regarded as genocide in international law". Therefore, I thought that listing (as in the first quote) the procedure for what would happen if a breach of the Genocide Convention were found is confusing to readers (because it was ultimately not found, although that was not established at the time of the quoted press conference) and the long quote is clutter which is not that useful. Splittist (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If the ICJ said that the evidence was not sufficient, we should add that too. --Yalens (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's already in the article. When I said "the next paragraph quoting the report", I meant the next Wikipedia paragraph. I maintain that the ominous quote about what could happen if a breach of the Convention was found is made obsolescent by the results of the report, and can be removed without damage to the main content. Splittist (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I don't see natural disasters occuring if you removed it. However, it is sourced material, and it doesn't really do large amounts of harm to the article. For you, perhaps there would be no harm in removing it, but not everyone would necessarily agree with that. I think it is interesting that the ICJ actually took notice of the affair (it hasn't so much as commented on a number much more believable genocides, for one), and should stay in the article. --Yalens (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the ICJ took the case is already implied because the Wikipedia section later talks about the ICJ ruling. But I can rewrite the fact that it did, when it did, in summary form instead of a quote. I think the most "harm" is done by the latter part of the quote, which threatens what could happen if a breach of the Genocide Convention was found. I know that the first time I read it, I thought the ICJ had ruled that way and was going to take these drastic actions. That's why I think it's confusing to readers. Quigley (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather rewrite it than remove it completely. I just don't like removing cited material, I guess, but we can rewrite it nonetheless.

And also... I'm not sure everyone takes the ICJ seriously. It's inconsistent whether its resolutions are actually binding or not. We should make it pretty clear that this one resolution didn't really have any effect whatsoever, except for landing itself on a wikipedia article and that it was said. --Yalens (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The second edit which I made removed an original parenthesized note from a Wikipedian, which was appended onto a paragraph in which academics rebut claims of genocide in Tibet by, among other things, citing Tibet's positive population growth. The note in question was "(if the Chinese census and its claims about Tibet in the past are to be taken as true)". I removed this because it was a part-redundant, part-incorrect insinuation.

First of all, "If the Chinese census... is to be taken as true" implies that there are challenges to the Chinese census in this regard: but both Tibetan government-in-exile and the Chinese government camps agree on the numbers of Tibetans and on the modern census. The only disagreement is on how many Tibetans there were when the Dalai Lama ruled: but this is already covered in the paragraph by the note, "(according to these scholars, however, there was no real scientific data taken on demographics during the Lamaist era)". The editor is probably making reference to the occasional claims by the TGIE that the population of Tibet/Tibetans has decreased, and not increased. But this is a complex issue out of the scope of the article, because the TGIE has a more expansive definition of "Tibet" and "Tibetans" than does the Chinese government or ethnographers. But the note I think can be removed because the first claim, that the modern Chinese census is an incorrect count, is not in dispute. The second claim of the note, which is that the Lama's census data for "Tibet's past" is questionable, is already covered in a previous note.

Are there any comments about this? Splittist (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While there is scepticism about the modern Chinese census, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (I believe you misunderstood the text, I will make it clearer). The scepticism is about the old census (the Lama's one). Tibet, as we know, especially during the early 1900s, was a very remote place, and the remotest parts of the country are difficult to reach. There is plenty of scepticism on the verifiability of the old census, by Tibetans, by Westerners and yes, by Chinese themselves.

Now, how is this in the scope of the article? To defend itself ideologically against claims of its mistreatment of Tibet, the Chinese government, as we all know, has used a trope that is quite familiar- that they are helping improve Tibetans' lives (even though the latter have a rather different idea on this matter) by bringing modern technology to Tibet, which China paints as a backwards region in need of modernization (the less sugarcoated version of this, among the Chinese themselves, is that they are bringing civilization to the Tibetans, a claim I have heard countless times). This is one piece of a large part of modern Chinese communist ideology, that there are different levels of development among China's ethnic groups, and that those lower down are supposed to be helped (whether they want help or not) to develop. Of course, helping them develop actually translates to sending mass amounts of Han migrants to their lands and having those practically run the place )much more angering the minority in question- be they Yi, Tibetan, Uighur or whatever- than making them grateful), and still having the minorities doing the less desirable jobs. But that is not the topic of discussion. On this wikipedia page, two of China's claims about how it has improved Tibet have shown up- one that the population has doubled, and the other that the life expectancy has improved.

For the second, I believe earlier there was a claim that the Tibetans' life expectancy had increased substantially as well- which should be looked at very cautiously, since we really have no clue what the life expectancy was previously (not to mention that it would be wrong to lump a whole land- Tibet- together and generalize it, as there are differences between relatively urban centers like Lhasa and the remote countryside, as well as regional differences). Any claim that the life expectancy has increased or decreased is completely unverifiable.

For the first, this is more heavily debated. There are two main issues with it- the first is whether it is actually the case. Both the Chinese government and the Tibetan activists' claim are usually dismissed and the truth is said to be somewhere in between. But the article also neglected to mention numerous factors. An increase in population is not a phenomenon brought by China's civilizing influence, it is brought by modernization (which China claims credit for). But Bhutan, which is very similar to Tibet in many ways except that it is not now ruled by China, has also had a massive population increase (almost 0.9 million in 1961 up to somewhat below 2.3 million in 2005), and if we compare it by percent, it is much greater than Tibet's, even if we count China's claims (using the questionable older Tibetan census). Alas, this is not mentioned in the article, because, as you said yourself, it is venturing quite far off topic.

Bhutan's demographics 1961-2005

Personally, I would be content if we just deleted both the discussion of the lifespan (I really don't know how we know the life expectancy was 34 in the Lamaist days... I don't see a citation for that either) and the population. For the population, if it needs to stay, we could also put in my note about Bhutan, and cite the Bhutanese censuses, I guess. But the lifespan... that's a stain on the page. --Yalens (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of putting in Bhutan for comparison, because that is reinforcing the oversimplified premise that population increase = good, and population stagnation/decrease = genocide. Some demographers have suggested that Tibetan population growth has slowed compared to Bhutan because women are more empowered, and are exercising more autonomy and family planning. I am content with deleting the discussion of the lifespan and the population. Splittist (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will now delete it. As for why Bhutan, because China is the one saying good=population increase (which is funny coming from China, a country with huge overpopulation problems).--Yalens (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Americas

From the sentence "While no mainstream historian denies that death .. " to the end of that paragraph, the next the paragraph that starts "In an 1803 letter to the then Governor of Indian Territory ..." and the very long quote from the primary source do not belong on this page. First because the text is OR as it is not a summary of any cited sources and secondly the quote is much too large for general reviews article like this (and without any secondary sources to link it to genocide its inclusion it is OR).

I am deleting the text for the second time and under WP:PROVEIT, any part that is put back must be supported by citing reliable secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are two more paragraphs that I have moved from the same section which have multiple problems next to which I have placed templates:

One of the main questions here also relates to the reporting and discussion of the evidence itself. Some academics who have fervently rejected the idea of a genocide have been accused of failing to put the smaller pieces of evidence together. Arguments used to refute the concept of genocide in the Americas have been called trivial or even convenient. One of the issues that is not discussed by some is that the ethnic and social groups of those who deny are themselves descendants of the groups who committed these crimes.

Also has considered the Triple Alliance War, where Argentina, with Brazil and Uruguay, fought against Paraguay by the Parana River control. In this war, over 150,000 Paraguayans died, in a total population of 300,000 inhabitants, compared to only 200,000 of the other joined countries. Some authors argue that most of the deaths in Paraguay were civilians assassinated by the Argentine Forces, and therefore must qualify as genocide. The prevalence of racist ideas in that country's ruling class is frequently mentioned as a cause of this event. However, other authors indicate that indeed there was no genocide, and that the true reason for the high mortality was the obvious disadvantage of a single force faced against three, two of them much larger in number and resources, and a Cholera epidemic during the conflict.

The first paragraph makes lots of claims but is full of weasel words and does not cite one sources. The second paragraph has one foreign language sources. But what does it say (quote here please) and is it a reliable source. An important point here is that most genocide studies work are published in English. So if this is not giving undue weight to an issue there should be at least some mention of this alleged genocide or alleged genocide in a reliable English language source. If no English language sources are available and we are relying on a single foreign language source that that source then English language editors need to know what is say and that it is from a peer reviewed journal (see WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE). --PBS (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Politicide

I have moved the following from the article for further discussion:

Perhaps inevitably, the task of classifying recent outbreaks of mass killing has proven controversial. Barbara Harff of the United States Naval Academy provides the following list. Notice the absense from the list of the US sponsored Iraq UN sanctions regime, which its administrator described as genocide.

LIST COMMENTED OUT AS A SUSPECTED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

Barbara Harff has used politicide to describe the killing of groups of people who are targeted not because of shared ethnic or communal traits (the types of groups covered by the CPPCG), but because of "their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups". By definition politicide is not genocide (unless their destruction is a significant part of a protected group in which case it would be genocide (see the section genocide#In part) and politicide does not belong in this article, to include it is making a correlation that BF is careful not to make. It is acceptable to include her views of events that she classifies as genocide if they are not fringe or minority ones but they should be added to the appropriate sections, but I do not think that a copy of her table or part of her table is necessary or desirable as it is giving undue weight to one persons point of view. -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been giving this list some thought and based on the advise that Moonriddengirl gave on a similar issue about a list in the English Council of State article I have commented out the list because I think it is a violation of copyright. -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances as a non profit educational, wouldn't the list as posted on WIKI come under "fair use"?Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the list comes under fair use because the list is one which Barbara Harff has created, and did not just compile (it took creativity as she came up with the initial definition and selected cases she thinks fits the definition -- as the editor who added the OR criticism of it implies by criticising her choices). But if you are not sure after reading Wikipedia:Copyright problems and associated page then please post the question on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for a third opinion. -- PBS (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Politicide: We REALLY need a definition of genocide.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are lots to choose from see genocide definitions. But for this page although it is better when the reliable source using the term genocide states which definition they are using (as many do), it is not always possible to find that out from the sources available to the editors of this page. What we editors can not do is look at an incident and decide whether it is a genocide or not because that is OR. -- PBS (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need ONE definition for the purposes of this page. Otherwise, it is seen by many (legitimately I fear) as one louse, screwed up, piece of work. Less informative in the aggregate than a blank page.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead refers to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, going into its definition at length. It implies that the incidents below fulfilled its carefully-defined criteria. Why don't we go with that? Bonus: the sheer number of countries that ratified it show that its definition has much broader acceptance than that of the latest academic who wants to shoe in contemporary ambiguous conflicts. Quigley (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Much as we would like a formal definition that we can use to cover all cases it is just not practical as it would mean removing entries here are clearly not using the CPPCG definition (which tend to be the best explained entries). These are sections where it is clearly marked for the definition being used for example see the entry for the Genocides in history#Dirty War in Argentina where a judge judged it to be a genocide but explicitly said he was not using the CPPCG definition. However for the majority of entries we have reliable secondary sources claiming such and such an event was a genocide, but they have not provided us with the definition that they are using, so we are faced with three options, only two of which is acceptable.

1. list any events where 2 or more reliable sources claim it is a genocide.
2. list only those which use the CPPCG definition
3. Decide ourselves which events meet the CPPCG definition.

We can not use three because such a filter would be OR, if we use two then we would have to remove entries like the UN decision on Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon, so that leaves us with what we currently have (although, as this stone tends to gather moss, it would be a good idea to go through the entries removing those which do not have a couple of good quality secondary sources supporting them).-- PBS (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Timur's campaigns in India

And of Timur's campaigns in India which were marked by systematic slaughter, rape and other atrocities on a truly massive scale on the subcontinent's civilian Hindu population, with Timurs campaigns in northern Iraq which remained predominantly Assyrian Christian until attacked, looted, plundered and destroyed by Timur leaving its population decimated by systematic mass slaughter. All churches were destroyed and any survivors forcefully converted to Islam by the sword.

There is no expert source given stating that these events were a genocide. Without an expert source, this is WP:OR. To be included in this article and not be OR one or preferably a couple or more expert sources are needed stating the events was a genocide.-- PBS (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

WE NEED A DEFINITION

In the book of judges, where the Gileads kill the Ephraims by whether or not they can pronounce "Shiboleth", is that genocide?Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, and I just remembered there was an incident in middle Europe (sorry I'd have to research the exact location/date) where children were asked to "cross themselves" in the Christian fashion. They were all the same nationality, but those that crossed left to right were killed outright. Genocide or something else?Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If two reliable sources say it is a genocide then put it in here (Why two? Well it is not strictly two, but two helps to eliminate (WP:UNDUE). If not then don't.

This is a list of genocides and alleged genocides, as reported in reliable sources. For example whether the Dirty War in Argentina involved genocide is debatable matter of opinion. That the Dirty War in the opinion of an Argentinian judge, sitting in judgement on one of the perpetrators of the Dirty War, was genocide as defined under UN resolution 96 is a fact. As WP:ASF says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". If we do that then we do not need a definition of genocide. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

source #1 for Timur attacking Iraq as Genocide. http://mertsahinoglu.com/research/14th-century-annihilation-of-iraq/ ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 06:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The author of the piece is Mert Sahinoglu. He is neither a genocide scholar or an historian. The article is a self published web page. This is not a reliable source. Please read WP:SOURCES -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Genocide contains two parts: "geno" (a race) and "cide" (killing), i. e., killing of a race. Killing lots of people for any other reason does not qualify. The fact that people did not have the concept of races until modern times excludes ancient killings. TFD (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the Jews aren't a race, they are an Ethnic group, but the Holocaust is still a genocide......... ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 08:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Belgian Congo

or the Belgian Congo: it is said, that small Belgiums monarchy in companionship of beneficiary Dunlop slaved and murdered beastly about 10 mio. Congolese people in 20 years (1890-1908). That would be the biggest systematic organized genocide exceeding even the holocaust. it should be implemented into the main article by someone who is able to provide serious sources. And Belgium should be forced to at least apologize to the Congolese!--93.233.100.219 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these atrocities fit the definition of genocide ("Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" (Genocides in history); "[...] a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" (Lemkin); "[...] any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II)). Genocide supposes a deliberate policy of destruction, which is absent according to Adam Hochschild (author of King Leopold's Ghost).

By the way: the territory of Congo was called Congo Free State between 1890 and 1908, and was Leopold II's private property. Belgian Congo existed from 1908 onwards (until 1960) as a Belgian colony.--91.181.192.228 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that Lemkin considered it a genocide. See page 535 here That might change the debate on Wikipedia about this subject. Epa101 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we can trust the paper you presented as Schaller is making a point and cherry picking his sources. For example he writes "Although Adam Hochschild, whose publication King Leopold’s Ghost has heavily influenced the public discussion, admits that the “killing in the Congo was of genocidal proportion,” he does not consider it to be a “real” genocide since King Leopold’s aim was not the extermination of all the Congolese or of any particular tribes in the Congo." Yet what Adam Hochschild actually wrote was "The exhibit deals with this question in a wall panel misleadingly headed “Genocide in the Congo?” This is a red herring, for no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different." (See Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive 6#Belgium and the Congo).

The problem with the way that Schaller is presenting his information is as I said biased. Lemkin was working from secondary sources which are more than 60 years old, and in many cases they were not accurate or as detailed as the histories we have today.

Further the understanding of what is genocide is has evolved over the last 20 years since the International courts have started to try people for genocide. For example many people stated that a genocide took place in Cambodia yet Kaing Guek Eav was found guilty of crimes against humanity not genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide or complicity in genocide, which is a good indicator that the courts will not find that a genocide was committed in Cambodia. This is in line with the findings in Bosnia where the ICTY has drawn a very tight definition over what it thought was genocide in that unhappy region.

I think we have to go with Adam Hochschild conclusions on this unless there is another historian of the Belgian Congo who disagrees with him. -- PBS (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)