Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

France and Rummel

In his book Death by Government, Professor R.J. Rummel argues that "a full scale genocide was carried out in the Vendée in which possibly 117,000 inhabitants were systematically murdered." [dubious – discuss]

Ledenierhomme What is dubious about the statement? It is not a statement of fact or are you saying that the Rummel is dubious source? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could your political/ethnic/cultural/nationalist agenda be any more transparent? the 117,000 figure comes from Secher, whereas reliable sources such as Martin estimate 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans. See Hugh Gough for an analysis of Secher's flawed methodology. For the millionth time, you need to learn to evaluate the quality of your sources. Professor R.J. Rummel is no specialist on the French Revolution or the war in the Vendée. And "Transaction Publishers" (which I assume you got online from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM where Rummel admits it is "often reported as a civil war" and states that "possibly" 117,000 people were indiscriminately murdered) doesn't quite measure up to peer-reviewed journals. That's why it is dubious, as stated in the edit summary, in contradicts the conventional wisdom of the established authorities on the issue. There's no wriggling out of this one I'm afraid. Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are not disputing that the statement is verifiable and an accurate reflection of the text from which the the Wikipedia sentence is derived, you are disputing that R.J. Rummel is a reliable source. The text was added by C.J. Griffin lets ask that editor's opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the notes section of Rummel's book his source on this is Laurent Ladouce. But anyways, Rummel is not some hack but a reputable historian and a specialist on Democide so just because some historians disagree with his assertions doesn't mean he's is not a reliable source. And looking over the article it seems others concur with his views.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, I encourage you to read all the sources cited in the section of this article, before drawing any conclusions as to which sources and statements are plausible or dubious. If your main resource is the internet, well, that's a shame, but at least read Gough's article (which is available online) and look into who some of the authorities mentioned are, before you quote a rather irrelevant book by Rummel, who is not an expert on this subject and who admits his information is second-hand. FYI, Ladouce (another Catholic Christian) is not the source of the 117,000 figure, Secher is - in which case the quote from Rummel is third-hand, and only demonstrates that he is not a reliable source for this subject (the War in the Vendee). Rummel may well be a respected academic, but his credentials are irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Would you refer to Stephen Hawking in an article on the Yellow Turban Rebellion?

The article as it stands is already too long, and does a gross disservice to the subject matter as it in essence, places the words of polemicists (in most cases self-published in all but name) on an equal footing with established authorities who are specialists/experts on the subjects and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of anti-French racists and bigots looking to point score over something as serious as genocide, and mob rule has ensured that Secher's polemics remain intact. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rwanda and Sudan

Both of these countries' alleged genocides are under the heading of International Prosecution of Genocide rather than in the main list of alleged genocides. This seems wrong, but as a reader who came here to just to read the article, I would rather leave this edit up to someone more involved in this page. The heading "International Criminal Court" seems to have no text under it that relates to the heading. Has something gone missing? --CloudSurfer (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasons are given in the talk archives. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire (Turkey)

On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing "a crime against humanity" in reference to that regime's persecution of its Christian minorities including Armenians,Assyrians and Greeks among others . Contrary to popular conception the Armenians were by far not the only ethnic minority to suffer as the Ottoman Empire disolved and Assyrians and Greeks also suffered the genocidal depradations of the Young Turks while many researches consider these events to be part of the same policy of planned ethnoreligious purification of the Turkish state followed by the Young Turks .

.. This joint statement stated:

"[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres".

>=====Armenian Genocide=====

On 15 September 2005 a United States Congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide "Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes." found that:

• "The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 800,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland."

The BBC reported that 16 December 2003, "The Swiss lower house of parliament has voted to describe the mass killings of Armenians during the last years of the Ottoman Empire as genocide. [...] Fifteen countries have now agreed to label the killings as genocide. They include France [in 2001], Argentina and Russia." On 12 October 2006, French lawmakers "approved a bill making it a crime to deny that mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I amounted to genocide. Turkey quickly objected, with its Foreign Ministry saying that the decision "dealt a heavy blow" to Turkish-French relations and 'created great disappointment in our country.'"

>=====Assyrian Genocide=====

The Assyrian Genocide (also known as Sayfo or Seyfo; Aramaic: ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ or ܣܝܦܐ, Turkish: Süryani Soykırımı) was committed against the Assyrian population of the Ottoman Empire near the end of the First World War by the Young Turks. The Assyrian/Syriac population of northern Mesopotamia (Tur Abdin, Hakkari, Van, Siirt region in modern-day southeastern Turkey and Urmia region in northwestern Iran) was forcibly relocated and massacred by Ottoman (Turkish and Kurdish) forces between 1914 and 1920 under the regime of the Young Turks. This genocide is considered to be a part of the same policy of extermination as the Armenian Genocide and Pontic Greek Genocide.The Assyro-Chaldean National Council stated in a December 4, 1922, memorandum that the total death toll is unknown, but it estimates that about 275,000 "Assyro-Chaldeans" died between 1914–1918.

>=====Greek Genocide=====

Pontic Greek Genocide is a term used to refer to the fate of the Pontic Greek population of the Ottoman Empire during and in the aftermath of World War I. It is used to refer to the determined persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the southeastern Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire, during the early 20th century by the Young Turk administration. G.W. Rendel of the British Foreign Office noted the massacres of Greeks in Pontus and elsewhere during the Turkish national movement, which was organized against Greece's invasion of western Anatolia.According to various sources the direct or indirect death toll of Greeks in Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 men, women and children.

>=====Turkish Denial=====

The Republic of Turkey government disputes this interpretation of events and maintains that crucial documents supporting the genocide thesis are actually falsifications. Seen as historical revisionism by many historians, the topic is virtually taboo in Turkey. Laws like Article 301 are used to bring charges against people like the Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, who had stated that "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it". However, Turkish authorities do acknowledge that the issue should be left to the historians and in an open letter by Prime Minister Erdogan to the U.S. President dated 10 April 2005, extended an "invitation to your country to establish a joint group consisting of historians and other experts from our two countries to study the developments and events of 1915 not only in the archives of Ottoman Empire, Turkey and Armenia but also in the archives of all relevant third countries and to share their findings with the international public". Furthermore, in spite of vehement resistance by nationalist groups, an academic conference was held on September 24, 2005 in Istanbul to discuss the early 20th century massacre of Armenians.. In their book Negotiating the Sacred: Blasphemy and Sacrilege in a Multicultural Society, Elizabeth Burns Coleman, Kevin White present a list of reasons explaining Turkey's inability to admit the genocides commited by the Young Turks

---

Discussion

There has been a considerable extension to this section and I think it raises some issues.

• Who says "Contrary to popular conception the Armenians were by..."? Who has measured "popular conception" and made such a statement?
• Does Frederick A. Aprim Assyrians in the "The Continuous Saga" on Page 40 state that the events in Assyria were a genocide? If so what is the definition of genocide he used?
• Pontic Greek Genocide: Are the missing citations due to a cut and past error? None of the neutral online citations given state unequivocally that this was a genocide. Is there a neutral source that states unequivocally that it was a genocide and gives a definition for genocide? To give an example Rummel states "This wholly genocidal killing is difficult to unravel. During this period Turkey fought five wars, forcefully changed governments several times, endured major revolutionary changes, and was occupied by foreign powers. Suffering deportations, famine, exposure, war, genocide, and massacres, millions of Turkish Moslems, Armenians, Greeks, and other Christians died." It is not clear from this that Rummel is asserting that the deaths of Pontic Greeks was a genocide. "Pioneers of Genocide Studies (Clt)" Mention the Pontic Greeks on pages 207 and 210 (I could not read 213) but the author does not describe the events as a genocide just that it is being studied as a genocide.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1 Schaller, Dominik J. and Zimmerer, Jürgen (2008) 'Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies - introduction', Journal of Genocide Research, 10:1, 7 - 14

p.10

The one-sided association of the Armenian genocide with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire is a relatively new phenomenon.

Adam Jones, IAGS member, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia http://www.genocidescholars.org/blog/?cat=16

Over the past decade, many in our community have become more aware that the Ottomans’ genocidal campaign between 1914 and 1923 — that is, between the outbreak of the First World War and the establishment of the Turkish Republic — targeted more than Armenians only.

• 2 Not sure on that one. Just copied from AG page. If you want to remove it that's fine and I would suggest replacing with one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Some_more_quotes_on_the_Assyrian_Genocide

3. Error corrected, thanks for pointing it out. Wrt to use of the term genocide this is also being debated in the article's talk page and there is a list of sources here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_quotes_on_the_Pontic_Greek_Genocide

If you are inclined I would appreciate your taking the time to comment as there is currently a lack of concensus and a third party taking a look could only help. There is also an open RfC. Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Other genocides not mentioned

During the Second Boer War, the internment of women and children in concentration camps led to massive loss of life - approximately 25% of the interned died, including 50% of the children. Past what threshold can incompetence and willful neglect be considered a policy of active genocide? Fazalmajid (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work that way, we report research by others (See WP:OR). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Second Boer War page have enough research to be mentioned? And what about Iraq? (Casualties of the Iraq War) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.187.22 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Irish famine is mentioned but there is nothing about the identical famine in the Highlands at the same time. There's also nothing about the "pacification of the Highlands" in the second half of the 18th century, where British troops undertook ethnic cleansing in the Highlands of Scotland. Lianachan (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the genocide article for what is defined as a genocide, not all mass deaths are genocide. For this page for something to be listed there has to be a reliable source claiming it was a genocide and probably more than one source (see Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and WP:UNDUE). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding the pacficiation - it's not an exceptional claim, it's an historical fact. It is, however, not that widely known having been glossed over and mucked in with the "Highland Clearances" (which were in fact later, and different) and the (closer) Act of Proscription. Given wikipedia's ironic love of online sources, it could be tricky to have it meet those requirements. I expect the famine is probably dealt with elsewhere in wikipedia, but to be honest I've not looked. Lianachan (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. It does not matter if you and I think that the events (which may be historical facts and easy to cite) were genocides, what matters is that there are WP:SOURCES that state that these historical events were genocides, otherwise the conclusion that the events were genocides is WP:SYN (or simply WP:OR). See for example the entry for Genocides in history#France to show how we can handle a minority POV on such an episode. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point. That's what I meant when I said Given wikipedia's ironic love of online sources, it could be tricky to have it meet those requirements above. However, I've got a better idea - I'm just going to forget about it. I can't be bothered banging my head against the wikiwall, and the info's already out there in the real world for people with sufficient interest to dig it out. Lianachan (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans

How come there is no mention of the estimated 15 million native Americans killed in America? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Genocides in history#Americas --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, The U.S. state of Texas seized all the children belonging to one religious group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints (FLDS). This fits the international definition of genocide, but is clearly not the equivalent of many other historic genocides. Is there a place for genocide "light"? 75.36.143.2 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We should also include the Iriquois genocide of the Huron and Erie.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rwanda vs the holocaust ?

in the part about Rwanda it says "The rate at which people were killed far exceeded any other genocide in history" i disagree the holocaust was far worse....Lotharsrevenge

China

See Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_5#China --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"These little known revolts were suppressed by the Manchu government in a manner that amounts to genocide," with four sources. What do the authors in the cited books actually say. as "amounts to genocide" does not mean genocide (which must have intent to commit a genocide of protected groups and the and actual destruction of the group). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995

The link to Krstic links to the Serbian profession basketball player, it should link to Radislav Krstić. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.131.122 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Congo

From the history of the page:

• 21:19, 1 July 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (→Democratic Republic of Congo: removed because there are no reliable sources provided stating that this is a genocide.)
• 22:24, 1 July 2008 Editingman (I cited the BBC which stated the claim of Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of pygmies to the UN Security Council, who alleges genocide.)

What Makelo said was "In living memory, we have seen cruelty, massacres, and genocide, but we have never seen human beings hunted down as though they were game animals," (DR Congo pygmies appeal to UN BBC 23 May 2003) It is not clear from that statement that he means local conditions (and not for example genocides in other parts of the world) and even if he did mean locally he was talking about genocide in the past not at the time he was quoted. To base a whole section on such a quote is to create a section giving undue weight weight to one indirect quote.

Even if he had been less circumspect and stated that a genocide was happening in 2003 to the pygmies, he is not a disinterested party and he has a valid political reason for suggesting genocide as it is one of the few reasons that the UN can use to involve its self in the internal affairs of a state (see Genocide#Security Council responsibility to protect). Do you have a source from a genocide scholar or a member of the security council or some other reliable source, who agrees with Sinafasi Makelo's analysis? If not then again this falls under WP:UNDUE --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"To base a whole section on such a quote is to create a section giving undue weight weight to one indirect quote."

Maybe, you missed it in the rest of the article, where Makelo calls for the UN Security Council to recognize the cannibalism that his people are suffering as a genocide, it was not just that one quote. Could it now be considered due weight? Editingman (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the article "Mr Makelo called on the forum to ask the UN Security Council to recognise cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide." That does not say that he considers the current acts are a crime against humanity and an act of genocide, but that Mr Makelo asked the council to consider recognising cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide. Presumably if the forum had asked the security council to consider his proposal and said yes then he would argue that the situation in 2003 was a genocide. Were his requests put forward by the forum to the U.N. Security Council? Were they considered by the U.N. Security Council? If the answer is no in both cases then this would defiantly fall under WP:UNDUE. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article called "genocides in history" when it lists both genocides and alleged genocides? Seems to me a name change would be appropriate to more accurately reflect the content. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only genocides that are universally accepted as such are described in Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime:

Article 6 – Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.[10] (my emphasis)

Not many states have signed up to this additional protocol but one can assume that during the negotiations it was the maximum that states would agree to. If one takes the case of the Armenian genocide which is perhaps the event most widely agreed to be a genocide by the scholars before the Holocaust, the British Government made its position clear in a statement by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale made in 1999 (Lords Hansard text for 14 Apr 1999 (190414-09)

The position of Her Majesty's Government, which the noble Baroness has asked us to review, is, I believe, well known and understood, but it certainly bears repeating here tonight. The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions. The British Government of today, like their predecessors, in no way dissent in any form from that view. Nor do we seek to deny or to play down the extent of that tragedy. It was a gruesome, horrifying tragedy, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords have echoed tonight. I assure them that we are in no way dissenting from that analysis of what happened, but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide".

Many other governments--and here I have to say to your Lordships, in spite of some of the statements that have been made tonight, the vast majority of other governments--are in a similar position. ...

She goes on to explain further that it is a matter for scholars and the countries involved. But it seems that from the point of view of the British Government that scholars have not found evidence of "intent to destroy" sufficient for the British government.

I am not against renaming this article but with the exception of the Holocaust and those found to be genocides in an international court, along with some others found to be genocides in domestic courts (such as those in Brazil) other genocides are open to debate. This is bound to be so because although there can be agreement about the events, there can still be debate over whether the events represented a genocide because of the different definitions of what is a genocide, and if using the CPPCG definition if the "intent to destroy" and the "in part" requirements have been met. So Gatoclass how does one distinguish in a NPOV way between genocides and alleged genocides? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best not to divide the article itself up into "genocides" and "alleged genocides" I think. The content can probably speak for itself in each particular case. My concern is that someone who comes to this article and skips the intro will go away with the mistaken impression that every event he reads about on this page is generally accepted to be a genocide, because of the page title. That could be fixed just with a name change. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some names in mind ? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot Genocide

Where's this? A terrorist group (EOKA-B) was made the genocide to Turkish Cypriot in 1963 - 1974... And write to "Kanlı Noel" (Bloody Christmas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.203.82 (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Belgium and the Congo

I am quite suprised that Leopold II's rule of the Congo as a Belgian colony is not on here. I am sadly not knowledgeable enough to add a section on it straightaway, but shall try to find some resources to make a start. Is there any reason why it has not been included thus far? Epa101 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See the archived talk pages:

• Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 4#Congo
• Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 5#Congo Free State

Last version to have a Congo section in the article was 2 August 2007. The last paragraph my help you find a reliable source

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Rudolph Rummel had to say on the subject.

1. http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/12/reevaluating-colonial-democide.html
2. http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/12/leopolds-congo-docudrama.html

It seems that the genocide has largely been overlooked by academics, so Wikipedia is the unfortunate position of not being able to cover it fully. King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa is mentioned by Rummel as the work that made him recognise the genocide. Perhaps, if someone [yes, I'll try myself too] can find a copy of that work, a paragraph or two could be added to this article with references from that book. Epa101 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just added this:

The Guardian reported in July 2002 that, after initial outrage by Belgian historians over King Leopold's Ghost, the state-funded Museum of the Belgian Congo would finance an investigation into Hochschild's allegations. The investigatory panel, likely to be headed by Professor Jean-Luc Vellut, was scheduled to report its findings in 2004 (Andrew Osborn Belgium exhumes its colonial demons The Guardian July 13, 2002). An exhibition by the Museum of the Belgian Congo, called "The Memory of Congo" (February 4, 2005 - October 9, 2005), claimed to tell the "truth" of what happened in Belgium's colony. Critics of the museum include Adam Hochschild, who wrote an article for the New York Review of Books extensively documenting what he found to be distortions and evasions in the special 2005 exhibition (Adam Hochschild In the Heart of Darkness, New York Review of Books, 26 October 2005).

to the article King Leopold's Ghost. But the Adam Hochschild includes in his article a paragraph that starts:

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.

So it seems this is not a section for this article just yet. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument here. Yes, there is a difference between working someone to death and killing them outright, although the line between these two does get blurred in some widely-accepted genocides, notably in Cambodia. At any rate, if the view that genocide occurred in the Congo is only a minority one, I concede that it should not be in the article just yet. Epa101 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Expulsions of Germans after World War II

Has any-one any good sources on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II as a Genocide in history? This source for example states that both de Zayas and Pohl argue that it was Genocide under the 1951 Genocide convention while Bell-Fialkoss seems to disagree. Anyone know of any other scholars/sources which take a position or mention the debate?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One point where caution has to be exercised is that any point of view about ethnic cleansing being genocide based on an interpretation of CPPCG before the Feb. 2007 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgement on the Bosnian Genocide Case is out of date, (see European Court of Human Rights interpretation of the ICJ judgement). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is about Genocides in history, legal definitions change back and forth over time. How well do the other examples in this article comply with legal definitions, and are they cited to a scholar stating that based on this or that legal text/definition they are genocide? If so, have changes in modern law rendered those conclusions obsolete?

As far as I'm concerned the important part is to know which scholars have argued that it is genocide, on what grounds, and which scholars have argued that it is not genocide, and on what grounds. Wikipedia editors validating or invalidating the scholars arguments because law has been modified since they wrote their books is OR.

If by your comment above you mean that you wish to set strict definitions for what should be included or excluded from this or any other article I suggest you start with achieving consensus throughout affected articles on what should be included in a template such as this:

Inclusion Criteria

While there are countless opinions on what has been defined as a historical genocide, the following criteria have been applied to incidents for inclusion in the Genocides in history list; all of the criteria listed below must be fulfilled by an incident for it to be included in the article: The victims must have been.... Those affected must number... The perpetrators must be... It must have been defined as Genocide by least 2 scholars with PhD's in International Law, and they must refer to the text of the 2007 IJC judgement on the Bosnian Genocide Case when defining it as Genocide.

I wonder how much text will remain in the article. Meanwhile my question still stands, does anyone have any information?

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No I don't want a CPPCG only article, (after all I wrote most of the article genocide definitions). But at the start of this section you mentioned "for example states that both de Zayas and Pohl argue that it was Genocide under the 1951 Genocide convention while Bell-Fialkoss seems to disagree." I am merely pointing out that in recent years the interpretation of the CPPCG definition has been clarified by international court judgements and as such older scholarly works based on it are now out of date and to emphasise them probably falls foul of WP:UNDUE (as it is to use any old scientific theory that is now generally considered to be obsolete). Given these developments in international law how can you be sure that de Zayas and Pohl still argue the same way? In the words of Keynes "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?", in this case the facts of what constitutes a genocide under CPPCG have changed. Perhaps they think that the IJC was wrong, or perhaps they use one of the many other definitions to support their original assertions. Without a recent publication (post the ICJ case) by these scholars you can not be sure if they still hold the same point of view.

There are plenty of other definitions available that have been used and can be included without such legal interpretations. One I think is quite elegant is Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn's "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator" (The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies, Yale University Press, 1990). If a scholarly article is written using that definition then the mass murder of many other groups other than those define in CPPCG can be described as genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply create a box where you state the rules you want everybody else here to follow here regarding what should not be included in the article, it can't be that hard. Or do you wish to reserve the option to judge for yourself each case according to ad-hoc criteria that best suit you at any given moment?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "cmptENen" :
  • [http://www.indictsharon.net/12feb2003dectrans.pdf English translation of Belgian Supreme Court Decision (unauthorised)], [[12 February]] [[2003]]
  • [http://www.indictsharon.net/cmptENen.pdf The complaint against Ariel Sharon] Lodged in Belgium on [[18 June]] [[2001]]
• "Rummel" :
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM |title= Statistics of Democide | work=Chapter 5, Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources |author=[[R. J. Rummel]] | accessdate = 2006-10-04}}
  • Rummel, Rudolph J., [http://www.Hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900"], ISBN 3-8258-4010-7, Chapter 8, table 8.1

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes (1938-1945)

Hi. This deserves a mention in a new section, just like the Nazi Genocide in WWII, death toll about 8 - 30+ million. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The MacGregors

Does the outlawing en masse of the Clan Gregor in Scotland in 1603 count as genocide? See the act of the Scottish Parliament of 1617 quoted in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam and Indonesia

Why is there no mention of the genocide of people of Chinese descent in vietnam and indonesia? 81.155.102.122 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Americas

This article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320205224.htm

Is very interesting because it shows how the populations under the Spanish empire have survived to this day in the majority, mixed or otherwise. Of course the populations of Latin America suffered their share, like all popualtions that were stripped of their lands and civilizations, but the Angl Saxon model has been sadly much more horrible. The question is simple. Where are these native populations in North America and what per centage of the present population do they represent? Because they happen to be the majority in Latin America.

Population genetics is showing that the genocide committted in North America, the US and Canada, must have been of horrif dimentions. Populations genetics is showinf that virtually everiwhere in the world the native popualtions contin ue to represent the majority of the population, in Latin America or elsewherek, with different degrees of admixture, with the notable exception of some countries, namely the US, Cana or Australia.

The US and Canada extend over a territory of more than 20 million square kilometeres, twice the size of China, and today, it can be assured, the population that comes from the Native American peoples has virtually died out. The scale aand degree of this of this genocide North of the Border of Mexico has been systematically ignored or downplayed, without doubt due to the American and Anglo Saxon control of recednt history and the information channnels, another step in the humiliation of the people that were obliterated. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.158.30 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Someone may want to check this in more detail, but I used to have a secretary who was native (north) American. She claimed there were more native americans alive today than when Columbus landed. Hunter gatherer societies just don't feed many people per square mile.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge can you explain your revert

Goingoveredge you are following my contributions on wikipedia and reverting them from a long time like this, which you did on this article as well. What is your contention with this information that you deleted? --RoadAhead ^Discuss 14:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See here this is the issue. The anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 can be legitimately called a pogrom, since Sikhs were targeted by Congress (I) mobs, but the term genocide has a precise scholarly meaning that was laid out and, for a massacre to qualify as a genocide, it has to involve the military, or an equivalent militia, and the death tolls has to be in the 4 figures at least (such as the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, for instance). Plus, a clear unambiguous intent has to exist to exterminate a particular ethnic group. the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom does not qualify as a genocide because neither of those happened. The attacks on the Sikhs typically involved civilian party members armed with knives, sticks etc. It would have been a genocide if a large well-organised militia went to Punjab (where most Sikhs live), and went from house-to-house, picking off Sikhs and killing them. That did not happen. The Congress (I) were a bunch of cheap goondas, to be sure. But they weren't stupid goondas. If they really wanted to wipe out the entire Sikh community of the world then they would have done a better job of it.

In the case of South Asia, we have to be very specific on this. If we follow the politically motivated loose definitions of genocide, then just about every targeted riot in the last 60 years, including the anti-Ahmadiyya riots in Pakistan, the Marad massacre, the Wandhama massacre, the anti-Muhajir riots in Pakistan, the Kherlanji massacre, and others would qualify as genocides and the article would get peppered with cruft. Best to leave it in the pogrom article where it belongs.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your general conclusion here and sources. You have once again begun your "Khalistan rhetoric" which does not add any value to the discussion. Also, accusing someone by picking from online forums only reduces the credibility of the accuser. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Agree/disagree" is irrelevant. The policy regarding Notability and Original Research is clear. Like it or not, the UN does not recognize the act as a genocide , nor does any organization significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article (although I agree that it's fair to include it as an ethnically targeted anti-Sikh pogrom, since scholarly criteria for inclusion into that category is considerably more lax). The reference I provided is not an online forum, but a scholarly publication. The research indicates that Khalistani revisionist forums on the internet have been agog with this nonsense.Goingoveredge (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2008

(UTC)

Talk references

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Genocide infobox

Does anyone think that a genocide infobox would be a good idea and useful? I was thinking about making one, just curious what the opinion is--Львівське (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Longer answer. Genocide is usually a matter of opinion. As such one can not say here is a list of genocides. As with few exceptions what is meant is "here is a list of genocides in the opinion of these people". Hence any list of genocides is a POV list, and to give a balanced view one has to say in who's opinion an event was a genocide. So if one excludes a list of genocides what is it that you would include in the info-box? -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess pertinent info, like parties involved, dates it occured on, generally agreed upon number of deaths (or span), infobox photo, colloquial name, maybe citations of who has declared it genocide?....I'm sure there's other relevant info that needs summary.--Львівське (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a handful of genocides that are recognised as such by international courts, and a couple of others in Brazil. But there are dozens where it is an opinion of some parties that it the events were a genocide while others dissagree for example see Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon, or look at the broader Bosnian Genocide (ethnic cleansing) which was recognised as a genocide by the UN before the ICJ ruled it was not. Making up a simple list is bound to have POV problems that I do not think can be solved without an article like this one. On only has to look at List of wars and disasters by death toll#Genocides and alleged genocides to see the sorts of problems such a list has-- PBS (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are more against a list (this article) than the idea of an infobox for the related articles. I'm a bit confused. If an article is notable enough to exist, and have genocide in the title, what's the problem with an infobox summarizing the content?--Львівське (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, "Infobox civilian attack" and "Infobox holocaust event" are along the lines of what I'm proposing--Львівське (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing will generate... untold amount of controversy. We could, but it would be in all of our interests not to, unless editing wars are good now or something...--Yalens (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Purpose_of_an_infobox and in particular "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" (my bolding) Where would you be putting these genocide infoboxes by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel

I think that the pro-Israel bias in this article is pretty astounding. Besides so off-handed, very defence, sources dealing with Sabra and Shatila there is nothing even remotely discussing what is happening in Palestine, especially the recent invasions. When there are UN reports discussing the possibility, and a number of accusations of genocide in 2009, this topic needs to mentioned in this article. Anything less is clearly biased, especially considering the amount of space devoted to Nazi death camps.--128.175.47.233 (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What accusations of genocide are you referring to specifically ? Please provide the reliable sources that contain the accusations. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote Requested (Armenian Genocide)

This reference, "King, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 157", needs to be quoted to show it supports this sentence, However, according to some interpretations, such as that of the Prior of the Franciscan monks living in the region of where the events happened, claims this was not an act of genocide and that it was a two sided battle: "when they advanced victoriously under the protection of the Russian Army, the same spectacle occurred as in 1915, but this time it was Turks who were attacked by Armenians, aided and possibly commanded and directed by Russia.. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added the quote now... it doesn't say anything about Franciscan Monks, or the stuff that was there before I added the citation, because wasn't the original one who added that and I don't have the source. I put it there to cite mainly the link between the fedayin and the Russian Empire.--Yalens (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The following "references", which are "supposed" to source this sentence ("However, according to some interpretations, such as that of the Prior of the Franciscan monks living in the region of where the events happened, claims this was not an act of genocide and that it was a two sided battle: "when they advanced victoriously under the protection of the Russian Army, the same spectacle occurred as in 1915, but this time it was Turks who were attacked by Armenians, aided and possibly commanded and directed by Russia.") have been deleted;

• King, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom. Page 158. "Muslims were attacked, moved about, and killed by Christian states and empires [Russia] in both the Balkans and the north and south Caucasus. In round figures, these regions were emptied of more than a million Muslims during the First World War alone, not to mention the previous century of removals and atrocities by Balkan states and the Russian Empire."

---- States nothing about Armenians killing anyone and nothing about being directed by Russia to kill anyone. Nothing about "Prior of the Franciscan monks living in the region". The statement that Russia and Balkan states committed atrocities against Muslims does not support the sentence, "..Turks.. were attacked by Armenians..".

As I believe I stated quite explicitly, Franciscan monks was not the thing being cited. Secondly, the Armenian fedayin being involved and complicit in the mass killing of Turks is rather obvious considering the relationship between the fedayin and the Russian army. To the point that even Armenians sometimes admit it (of course, they claim, not unreasonably, that it was justified for them to want to separate Armenia from the Ottomon Empire, and ally with outside forces to do so). Does it justify the genocide? Of course not! But is it a very notable historical fact for the study of genocide. Why, yes, it is! --Yalens (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like ignoring the rest of what I wrote;

• States nothing about Armenians killing anyone and nothing about being directed by Russia to kill anyone.
• The statement that Russia and Balkan states committed atrocities against Muslims does not support the sentence, "..Turks.. were attacked by Armenians..". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of me putting that there was NOT to support that Turks were killed by Armenians. The point was to explain the atmosphere in which the genocide took place. It is rather frustrating, because all I am trying to do is improve the depth of the page by explaining the causes for paranoid mindset the Turks had acquired by that point which caused the genocide, yet you think I am trying to mitigate or deny the Genocide, despite my repeated protest that I do recognize it! The stuff about Turks being killed by Serbs, Russians, and so on doesn't have anything to do with this, it is just "setting the scene" per se, to show how the CUP acquired the mindset that of thinking it was a legitimate move that they thought they could get away with. --Yalens (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• King, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 157. "During the First World War army columns moved back and forth through the region, requisitioning livestock, commandeering accommodations, and further disrupting the social order. Moreover, Russia's support for Armenian village militias and guerrillas (fedayin) deepened the sultan's mistrust of the Armenian population... They came to see Armenian villagers as supporters of the fedayin, and therefore dangerous interests in the hands of their Russian enemy."

--- States nothing about Armenians killing anyone. Nothing about Prior of the Franciscan monks. Russia's support of Armenian militias does not support the sentence, "..Turks.. were attacked by Armenians".

You do you know, do you not, that Russia supporting Armenian militias was of course reciprocated with the obvious fact of Armenian militias supporting Russia. Otherwise, same as above... In any case, this quote and others, have other elements which should be brought into the article, such as the actual military threat posed by the fedayin. In that sense, rather than a completely random set of massacres, the Armenian Genocide resembles much more the Circassian Genocide, except that the underlying motive was primarily military rather than primarily economic-territorial (i.e. Russia's desire for control of the Pontic coast). Or, for that matter, not that much unlike what happened to the actual natives (not so-called "native" Euro-Americans) of your Kansas. But I digress, the point is that the information is good for the page, as otherwise a rather non-historically correct perspective is given- that the massacres of Armenians came out of the blue, which fails to note the specific set of ingredients that were necessary for genocide to take place. As for Franciscan monks, I would suggest you simply go and find the editor who added that- it isn't that hard if you know how to use the page history. --Yalens (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly explained why this was removed and you have posted nothing that changes that. As for "suggesting I go find the editor...", I would suggest you stop edit-warring over information that is unreferenced. I have asked for references and quotes to support these sentences and have clearly outlined the listed references do not support the sentence in question. If you continue to revert, an Admin will be notified of your continued inability to comply with wikipedia:reliable sources.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oho, so rather than actually discussing material, just like before, you are going to threaten to unleash some mod on me. Honestly, I have tried to work with you, and as for warring, I have not been the one incorrectly accusing the other of genocide denial, threatening to bring in a mod from very early on, and in general having a battlefield mentality on top of just forcing one's own way without any intelligent discussion whatsoever. And no, I am completely fine with not mentioning Franciscan monks, as they have little if anything to do with this dispute at all. With that being said, thankfully, Bagramyan is here to dispute my points in a much more civil manner, without threatening to report me to mods or calling me a denialist (albeit still probably having an agenda, though a quite justified one in a sense). If you would not mind letting him simply say all you'd like to say about the issue so I can negotiate with someone... much easier to negotiate with... that would be much better for the page as a whole.--Yalens (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oho, so rather than actually read what I have posted, you'd rather make this a personal matter as you have done every time I've asked for page numbers, clarification, quotes, etc. If you consider the mentioning of Admin a threat, then apparently you need to read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYN. The deleted sentences were tagged since Nov 11th(take your own advice and check the history) and nothing to justify reverting their deletion had been produced.

As for meaningful discussion, explain exactly what you posted here justifies your reverting my edit? Telling someone to go find the editor that added something? LOL! You categorically ignored the points I gave here on the talk page, sounds like you have "a battlefield mentality". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

s for other points, I have now replied to them (I didn't think it was necessary before as I stated it earlier). As I have said many times, first of all, there is the rather glaring implication that if the Russian Army committed crimes against the Turkish, Kurdish and Muslim Georgian population, and the Armenians were aligned to the Russian Army, they are at least partially involved. A Now, that can be debated; whether it is true, OR, legitimate, or whatever. But its pretty hard, whether its me or you, or both, for us to work together, and since Bagramyan can represent the opposing viewpoint and you don't have to, would you please let him do your arguing. Please don't take this the wrong way. I was maybe too harsh earlier. But I just don't think the two of us can get any thing done with each toher for some reason, and it would be good for both of us and for the page if you just let Bagramyan do the arguing. Then you can get back to your life, and for all you know, you may like the solution anyways. I'm sorry if I've angered you, but the two of us continuing is pointless and there is an obvious way out. --Yalens (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And in the end, you prove nothing, again, make more judgement calls about me(battlefield mentality, angered you), again, and revert everything back(ie. edit-warring), again. The only thing you have proven is that using the talk page(in your case) is a waste of time and that you can and will continue to write whatever you want into this article sourced or not. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• McCarthy, Justin. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottomon Muslims, 1821-1922 --- No quote or page number. Spurious reference.

I have left the only sourced sentence,

"The same spectacle, from a Turkish perspective, occurred as in 1915, but this time it was Turks who were attacked by Armenians, aided and possibly commanded and directed by Russia."

--King, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus.. Page 155. "From the Ottomon perspective this failure [the Sarikamish expedition] was attributable to the small but lethal bands of local guerrillas, especially Armenians, whom the Russians had employed against the regular Ottoman army." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to find better sources for the matter. Charles King seems like a reliable source but, based on his readings, he doesn't come off as an expert on the study of the Armenian Genocide. Kansas Bear's highlighted sentence above reflects this. King writes "Moreover, Russia's support for Armenian village militias and guerrillas (fedayin) deepened the sultan's mistrust of the Armenian population... They came to see Armenian villagers as supporters of the fedayin, and therefore dangerous interests in the hands of their Russian enemy."

But in 1915, the Sultan was nothing but a figurehead. True power lay in the hands of the Young Turks, headed by personalities like Enver, Talaat and Jemal Pashas. The fedayin movement began in the early 1880s and that movement was directed against Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who was deposed by the Young Turks in 1908. The Russians, meanwhile, didn't really support the fedayins and in one instance, Cossack border guards were responsible for stopping them from carrying out reprisals across the Ottoman-Russian borders. It was only during World War I when the Russians mobilized four special regiments made up of Armenians living in Russia to participate in warfare, and even then against the Ottoman armies. Richard G. Hovannisian succinctly summarizes this period in his Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), so you can turn to him as someone who is well within his field to comment on such matters. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I could look at it, and would like to incorporate it, if I can read it... is it available online?

I have not brought up the Sultan. Charles King says "the Sultan" in his works (as does Glenny), but the implication too, is that hte CUP was also of that opinion (and it is not as if King does not know that the Sultan is a figurehead, as he mentions that several times).

As for the Russo-Armenian relationship: The point is more that the Armenians allied themselves to Russia than that Russia allied itself to the Armenians. Russia naturally acted in its own interest- and that was more interested in Armenia being conquered by Russia than saving Armenians from Turkish domination. Later on, the Armenians and Russians would clash again as the Dashnak-run Armenian Republic was toppled by the latter (and in the modern day, Armenia and Russia have a mutual defense pact- the CSTO- but that doesn't change the fact that the a large piece of the Russian people have a strong racial-based hatred of Armenians, as one of many "black" Caucasian peoples). However, none of this denies the fact that the during World War I, the Armenians unsurprisingly turned to Russia as a savior from Turkey, no matter how farcically one-sided the relationship actually is. Western Armenians (the part of Armenia that is now called "Turkey" by the so-called "International Community") rebelled against the Porte; whereas Eastern Armenians who technically lived in the Russian Empire (the modern Republic of Armenia, Nakhichevan, Javakhk and Artsakh) volunteered for the Russian army. Hence from the now hysterical perspective of the Turks and their government, the CUP, the Armenians were in treasonous rebellion, and such became scapegoats for the failures in the Russo-Turkish front of the war. --Yalens (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it is available online. I, however, can do this: I can scan several of the pages and upload them onto Wikipedia. As I do not have any permission to maintain these pages, they will be deleted, if I recall correctly, within seven days. In the interim, you can save and upload these files and turn to them for future reference. I'll jump on to that task in a couple of days.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to do that, couldn't you just use your userpages/sandbox for it and then drop me the userpage name? But... are you sure that wouldn't violate copyright? If it doesn't, then go for it.--Yalens (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The following opinions are not referenced;

• 1."It is notable that the Turkish government may have gotten the view that the move was legitimate from the events of the previous century.."
• 2."This may have convinced the CUP in Istanbul that such methods were legitimate tools for "national defense", and later Turkey that such actions were not crimes against humanity."
• 3."However, Turkey does not accuse Armenia or Russia of genocide currently (nor does it accuse Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro), arguing that the whole thing was simply a brutal war."
• 4."There are many Turkish people who nonetheless argue that if what they did to Armenians was genocide, then certainly what the Armenians and Russians did also was."
  

These opinions need WP:RS or they will be removed.

File:Hovannisian page16.jpg

Armenia on the Road to Independence, p. 16.

File:Hovannisian p.44.jpg

Armenia on the Road to Independence, p. 44.

Also, the following "references"

• Glenny, Misha. The Balkans. Page 238-9
• Glenny, Misha. The Balkans. Pages 233 and 234
  

only reference this part of the sentence, "....and the Balkan Wars, in which the Turks saw countless massacres, forced exoduses, and ethnic cleansing of Muslim.." The rest of the sentence, "...and the guilty parties got away with it." is simply opinion.
This "reference"

• http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS104971+22-May-2009+PRN20090522

has nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire and states nothing of the Ottoman Empire's views. Therefore it is WP:SYN. And will be deleted.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK KansasBear, tone it down. No, I am not aware of all the arguments back and forth, and no, I am not a 1918 genocide scholar. But your 'will be removed,' in my opinion, shows some lack of of WP:AGF. Please do not be so uncompromising. Others, including User:MarshallBagramyan, whose opinion I trust, do have some voice in the matter. Please consider User:Yalens' suggestion to watch, closely, this page and let User:MarshallBagramyan take the lead. You are of course welcome to appeal to me at any time. Kind regards to all; please let's concentrate on building the encyclopedia. - from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

These are the recent changes I have made: [[11]].

Basically, I took info from the Armenian Genocide page, and moved stuff around so that it would fit well with the rest of the section. I removed some of the previously uncited stuff because it more or less the same was stated- with citations- in the new text (for example, the Turkish argument that relocation does not constitute genocide; that the Armenians represented a threat due to tehir pro-Russian stances; emphasis placed on "Armenian gangs"; and pointing out Turkish casualties to further the view of "brutal war"). What do you think of it now? Bagramyan, Should we still include the book you suggested (you have not given me any links, I assume you decided not to).--Yalens (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That edit you linked was a good one Yalens. I had been concerned about the un-encyclopedic language and somewhat sensationalist statements in that section. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

KansasBear's statement of intent was perfectly reasonable - no credible sources after repeated requests equals original research equals removable material. Something stinks about a situation where the Armenian Genocide, an event near universally acknowledged by historians to be genocide, receives minimal content in an article about genocides, in which that minimal content is devoted entirely to recording incidences of its public recognition with 0% devoted to actually mentioning what happened, and where another section exists in the same article devoted entirely to a marginal viewpoint that aims to deny that recognised genocide and which is four times longer than the content about the Armenian Genocide! A case of undue weight at the VERY LEAST. This article is not titled "Denial of genocides in history".

I think this dispute has truly been blown out of proportion. We really shouldn't be haggling over an issue for which ample sources exist. The literature available on the Armenian Genocide is volumnious and if anyone is wishing to find some more detailed works, they can turn to those listed in the bibliography section of the Armenian Genocide page, many of which can be viewed for free through Amazon.com or GoogleBooks. Nevertheless, I have provided scans of two pages from Richard G. Hovannisian's Armenia on the Road to Independence (Berkeley, 1967), which I hope will hope will help clarify certain problems (which Yalens and I spoke of earlier, above). Hovannisian does an excellent job in spelling out aspirations of the Armenian political organizations during the 1890s (p. 16) and the importance in distinguishing the Armenian regiments in the Russian army and the Ottoman Armenian fedayees. I, however, am doubtful that the non-free use rationale will be adequate and in all probability both will be deleted within seven days, so I advise that you save them on to your desktop and open it from there for future reference. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the page, it is rather odd, that regarding the Armenian Genocide, there is only talk of modern recognitions and no talk of what actually happened in 1918 (i.e. 0.6-1.5 million Armenians "dissapearing") . We do have a whole article on the Armenian Genocide; could we not copy info from there? In any case, I think the page should be much more about the issues concerning whether or not it is a genocide, rather than the history of recognition, non-recognition, etc. And there is plenty of talk about history of recognition in the section that could be removed (for example the paragraph talking about 1982 establishment of Turkish studies and most of the rest of the stuff in that paragrah; or the talk about the open letter sent to the US in 2005). The only thing I'd suggest keeping in our recognition history blurbs here is the stuff about "insulting Turkishness", simply because that has gained worldwide notoriety. But even that could be removed, and the page might even be better off. It should be about the discussion of whether or not it was a genocide, not about the history of that discussion... --Yalens (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I tried to copy the first paragraph from the AG article onto the appropriate section and make the relevant edits, but was promptly (blind) reverted by you, re-adding in the mix blocks of irrelevant and incoherent text. Even your most recent edit does absolutely nothing to provide the reader with what exactly was the Armenian Genocide. The entire section lends undue weight for the denialist argument, and even that it is poorly written. The IP's comments hit the nail on the head. I would much rather see the first paragraph from the AG article, accompanied by a short blurb on the denial of the genocide by Turkey, inserted than the disconnected mass of material that currently sits there.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Yalens, would you like to give me a couple of good reasons why I should not reinclude MarshallBagramyan's proposed text?Otherwise I am inclined to move ahead and restore it. KansasBear, please do comment also should you wish. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I really see no reason why the first paragraph of Bagramyan's edit should not be there. That was probably a blind revert to revert the whole thing, as I only saw that he had removed a number of paragraphs he did not reference in his edit summary and reverted, assuming without reading it really that there were no changes to the top paragraph. I apologize for that, sometimes I can look at the changes rather cursorily. I see nothing wrong with readding the first paragraph, and I am doing so right now (I seriously can't imagine how any of the three of you will object to coverage of what actually happened, but if you do, pray tell). --Yalens (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now ([[12]]) added the paragraph originally added by Bagramyan, albeit with the discussion of the names of the genocide removed ([[13]]), and the notes on the other victims which have sections on the page already deleted but with the references used moved so that they are not lost ([[14]]). --Yalens (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks everybody for your cooperative attitudes. Can we please, all, stop blind reverting? Reverting may be justified, following consideration, but please guys, let's be careful about when and what we revert. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Section America NPOV

This section has serious violations of undue weight WP:WEIGHT with the use of Rush Limbaugh "This population debate has often had ideological underpinnings. Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures." Taken from ft No. 21 [[15]] This soucre should not be used: WP:IRS.

In reality the opposite is true, ideology has been linked to deflated population numbers: "The manipulation of data undertaken by succeeding generations of Euroamerican historians and anthropologists in arriving at the official 20th century falsehood that there were 'not more than one million Indians living north of the Rio Grande in 1492, including Greenland' is laid out very clearly by Jennings, Francis, The Invasion of America:" [[16]] Limbaugh goes on to accuse indigenous peoples of "a greater degree of savagery". This is outreagous. Definately undue weight, and non-neutral POV, and possible racism. Limbaugh is no expert.

The numbers:

"From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere may have declined, mostly from disease, by 1.8 to as many as 10 million."

[[17]] The person cited David Stannard, American Holocaust [[18]].

This is not what Stannard's book says: He says "8 million" people to as many as "18 million" north of the Rio Grande (US & Canada). Look closely, the edit says "the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere" ie North & South America. However, Stannard says "75 million" people to as high as "145 million" for the entire western hemisphere. This violates WP:IRS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." They say the opposite. David Stannard, American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, pgs 120-1 and appendix I.

Actual numbers do have a dispute, but "T]here is now a rough academic consensus, quite sharply at odds with figures conventionally accepted earlier in this century" on the population in 1492 at "between 60 and 120 million people" for all the America's. With "from 7 to 18 million people north of Mexico" Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy, 1990. pg 315-6.

Even those with lower estimates, say Ubelaker, Thornton say there were millions in the area that became the US. For both continents together something like 60 million (low) to of over 100 million (higher estimates). For the area that became the US, it's Dobyns at roughly 8-18 million (high). Thornton at 7 million. Ubelaker at 2.1 (low). There is no way 1,8 million is for both North & South America or even North America. I corrected some of this error on [[19]], then Jagdfeld changed it - no reason given [[20]] Jagdfeld, what is your justification for this edit? Please respond or it will be deleted.Ebanony (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change it. There are a number of odd changes made to the article that were not made by me. I suspect there is some crooked admin person who is taking over other people's identities. That or the software is not showing properly who did make edits. I did make some edits in a number of parts, adding dates, figures, extra refs, but nothing at all on Native Americans. Jagdfeld (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how it happened because the log has you in it. But there have been problems w/ Wikipedia, so I'll take your work for it. That's actually a relief. I'm going to make the adjustment then, ok? Thanks for your clarifying. Hope you're not offended by my comments.Ebanony (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Edit away. I am sure others will check them. I do know for certain (100%) that I did not make all the changes logged to me. Jagdfeld (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)