![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This section seems to be at times incredibly inaccurate and pov. I'd especially like to see sources for the claim that "mostly Muslim and some Hindu civilians" have been killed and for the claim that most of the atrocities are blamed on Indian military (and not terrorists) by Human Rights groups and the UN. -- Kefalonia 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone can supply reliable unbiased sources that a genocide has/is taking place in Kashmir, as WP:V makes clear "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am going to remove the section. -- PBS 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the sources you have provided:
Even if any of theses were suitable sources the section as stands does not include one source which states that a genocide is taking place. -- PBS 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have one source from a respectable neutral third party who claims that the situation in Indian Kashmir is a genocide? Please see the entries I have put in to the Wikipedia article for Iraq, Tibet, and the Bangladesh War of 1971. For Bangladesh, I would have preferred to find a report by the UN or a neutral government, or a court case based on the CPPCG, (like that for the Iraq and Tibet entry), but for the moment Rummel is a far better source than the ones you have been put forward because although he has an axe to grind he does not have a specific interest in that conflict. -- PBS 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor perhapse we can explore what you wrote "the Indian Supreme Court described as `worse than a genocide.'". Do you have a source for this which places "worse than a genocide" in context? -- PBS 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah! A secondary source which makes clear that it is quote about case involving Sikhs in "Khalistan". Using that as a bootstrap here is another secondary source with more details -- PBS 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Two sources rovided and alghought they both talk about horrible things I can not see the word genocide in either of them. Can anyone else find the word genocide in those two soureces. Can anyone supply an other wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The two articles you have provided on this page do not include anything like a credible source for genocide occurring in Kashmir. For example the second source notes that there were "ninety-nine cases of disappearance between 1990 and 1992", which is devestating for those involved, but is a long way from Genocide. I think the section needs to be re-written so that it is not just a list of nasty things but includes statements of what the genocide is and who is making the accusations with credible reliable sources. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is this listed in genocides? There has been an armed conflict over there and offcial death toll is 60000 civilians killed. Most in crossfire between Indian army and militants. Seoncdly why isnt ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits mentioned?
File:England flag large.png
अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey
05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed this because:
-- PBS 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know much about this war, but I do know some of the rules set at the Geneva Convention. "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" This is one act of genocide, but I'm not one to judge whether or not they were left in these conditions deliberatly to kill them or it was just general war time famine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Source that it was a genocide? -- PBS 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to remove the following. It is hard to see how this qualifies as genocide, reprehensible as the greed and/or negligence of the parties may have been (and I'm sure there are factual accuracy disputes over some of this.) I know of no reputable source that claims that hemophiliacs were deliberately targeted for eradication. There are many other medical conditions left untreated, unsafe medical products marketed, etc, all for similar financial reasons. Are these also genocides?
In the 1980's, the federal government and several major American pharmaceutical companies participated in their own form of genocide when over 5,000 American hemophiliacs were killed by blood products containing the HIV and Hepatitis C viruses. Thousands more hemophiliacs were infected and killed worldwide. The federal government and the companies were aware that their blood was tainted and that it was possible to clean the blood products, yet did not take any direct action to rectify the situation until the mid 1980's. Hepatitis C infections were still reported in the United States as late as 1990. It prompted the federal government to reward thousands of hemophiliacs or their widows and children $100,000 via the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act. [4]
CarbonCopy 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed after reading source and lack of comments here. Criminal corporate greed perhaps, but not genocide. CarbonCopy 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I think that this is a really bad article. Genocide means the deliberate, planned extermination of a people based on thier race, ethnc orgiin or relgious affiliation. The term itself means "killing of a people". Most, i would say almost all, the the instances listed here are massacres, where people, sometimes targeted for race/religion etc were killed in wars, by disease etc. However, they do not qualify as genocides unless:
(1) the whole people were intended to be wiped out.
(2) There was a systematic plan and effort made toward this end.
On this basis, I don't think that the assertion that "genocides are a regular occurance" stands up to scrutiny. Most of the information here should be transferred to an article on massacres/war crimes or something else.
Jdorney 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
From the next section: Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I am open to other definitions if it passes the WP:NOR is a WP:NPOV and comes from verifiable reliable sources. If I understand you correctly I think that when earlier today I split the modern section (1500 forward) into three, my reasons was following the line of thought you have put forward in you comments about the UN definition:
I think this new division will help us sort out the genocides from mass killings which although nasty are not genocides. -- PBS 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I see that someone has removed the England section twice, giving the only reason as 'change of ownership'. Not only do I disagree with the conclusion that it was not genocide, but I find the facetious remark offensive. I would not dare describe the genocide of the Herero in South West Africa merely as 'change of ownership'.
Anyway, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed by the UN in 1948 says, if I need to repeat it:
I have tried in the England section to show how this relates to the invasion in 1066. They intentionally murdered and enslaved many thousands of English, they massacred over 100,000 English in Yorkshire by removing their homes and livelihoods (read the East Riding section of the Domesday Book for more details), and they attempted to destroy the cultural life of the English by destroying churches (and other items) and banning the use of English in the state.
You only think it isn't genocide because it doesn't say so in any books you've read, but then again, there was no genocide of Armenians, or so say the Turkish books. Oswax 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well if this is the criteria, then English forces committed genocide in Ireland several times over. See the Desmond Rebellions. Nine Years War (Ireland) and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. In each case they systematically destroyed crops and killed people to end guerrilla wars. However, in my opinion, this is not genocide. It is brutal and, by modern standards, war crimes, but is it an attempt to destroy a whole people? No. This is why genocide is such a powerful word and why it is distinguished from other massacres. Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No I do not want a signed confession, but a Reliable source which states it was genocide is a must, if it is to be complient with the WP:NOR policy. -- PBS 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The Canada section refers to an unintentional genocide - what is the point of Wikipedia if this remains undeleted by editors who make serious contributions to the article?-- shtove 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the article already has its serious editors - if one can edit a section, one ought to look at the entirety. This article has a section based on a contradiction of the introductory definition: I guess it's a circus for cranks and not worth contributing to.-- shtove 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Very reasonable and uncranky of you. Good luck!-- shtove 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The Degar (Montagnard) page also mentions that the treatment of the Degar by the Vietnamese government "This has prompted several human rights organizations to argue that the Degar are subject to an ongoing and continual genocide by the current Vietnamese government."
I have asked on the Talk:Degar page for the sources for the allagation. If you can contribute information please do so on the Degar talk page. -- PBS 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the Viernam section please see Talk:Degar -- PBS 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
As there are international trials for the Genocides of Bosnia and Rwanda. So I think these should be in the list.
-- PBS 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Sudan has been ruled genocide by a few different countries, although I don't think it has been decided by the UN yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added references for Sudan, but I am not really happy with the structure of the section. A list of governments which have called the situation a genocide would help along with any UN General Assembly resolutions and African Union statments -- PBS 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"The United States calls it genocide." - CBS News I couldn't find a government site to verify, but Im positive that it is true, as Ive also seen it at various other news sites, such as the BBC.
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured during the Algerian French war? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured in Austrilia? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured shortly before or during the war? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the BLW and it does not have any direct sources for a claim of genocide. There is one indirect one which was a minority US State Department view. But that is a long way from general agreement that genocide took place by neutral organisations and governments which were not a party to the conflict. This section needs Wikipedia:reliable sources (as does thea BLW article) -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the provious text and replaced it with numbers and a quote from Rummel. Idealy I would like a better source, but it is the one with the least Bangladesh bias I have seen to date. -- PBS 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that the Killing fields were or may have been a genocide? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Legally, not sure. Analytically, it's been categorized as genocide and politicide. For sourcing the number of deaths, the consensus seems to be an estimate between 1 million and 2 million. The 1.7 million figure currently cited is Kiernan's calculation, broken down in his book chapter in Totten, Parsons, and Charny 2004 (currently listed under "Further Reading") and probably in his 1996 book (listed below).
Additionally, the State Failure Task Force at the University of Maryland estimates the Cambodian 1975-1979 death toll between 1,900,000 and 3,500,000.
Ramseyk 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
And would you like to re-write the section to reflect these sources? -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have supplied 2 sources for a Dutch court which has ruled that the gas attacks on the Kurds was a genocide. -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have re-instated this section with refereces to the Spanish high court. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
When english conquered Gibraltar (Spain), they killed all the spanish population.
Many events in the History of anti-Semitism can be fully qualified to be called genocide. Just a couple examples:
I do not think that the first two do and I am not familiar with the third, but I would have no objections if you can find Wikipedia:reliable sources which state that they were, and word it in such a way that it is clear where the allegations come from. -- PBS 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This may get laughed down but surely the story of Noahs Ark counts as a genocide committed by god? -- Horses In The Sky 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes , as it is most likely that it didn't happen and was a metaphor .
I removed edit about Ustasha being "catholic action" in local languages, etc. because it seemed likely vandalism/POV. If this is not the case please rewrite but restore info added by 129.234.4.76. Thanks! Mego'brien
THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO
Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.
I suggest to add a section about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It took from 20 000 to 60 000 of civilians ethnic Poles deaths (but some indicates even much more: 100 000 [Edward Prus, 2006], 500 000 [Norman Davies, 1996]). If you try to mention all bigger genocides in this article I think that case applies here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtProcess ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
People who believe that unborn children still in the womb are human beings believe that abortion is a genocide against unborn humans of all race, religion, and economic background, and much larger than any genocide in history and continuing to this day. Where would this fit into this article, would it get its own section? - Words in sanskrit ( talk) 21:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Genocide is defined as an act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group. While most people associate genocide with killing, other acts such as the practice of abortion, sterilization, artificial infection, the working of people to death in special labor camps, and the separation of families or of sexes in order to depopulate specific areas are included.
Well bully for Jeffrey S Morton, and I am sure that many other people have their own definitions of genocide. I was going on the UN definition in the article Genocide, which refers to "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Forced abortion can form a part of a genocide, abortion per se does not. pablo hablo. 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
why nothing bout belgian kongo ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 ( talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If soviet war in Afghanistan is genocide then US war in Vietnam too most. 95.52.113.129 ( talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Since factions dispute the meaning of genocide, wouldn't it be wise to simply describe all of these controversies as possible genocides? For example, the Ukrainians say that Holodomor (the famine) was a genocide, and the Russians disagree. What of the Ingush, Tatars, and Chechens by the Soviets? And what about the race-based targeting and expulsion of 15,000,000 ethnic German civilians after WWII and the starvation of over 2 million of them? Why are these not comparable to any of these other ones in Africa that get so much attention? If you disagree that it is a genocide, it would still be appropriate to write about them. I find it odd that the only entry about Germany is the Holocaust. There is much more to 1940s Germany than the suffering of Jews if I may say (without detracting from that tragedy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.235.11 ( talk) 15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If the atrocities committed by United States and the others are included then so should Japan's. Japan is not metioned at all. It's collaborations and similar actions as Nazi Germany is well known. Japanese military regime murdered 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos. Of these, 500,000 are not war deaths but intentional genocide. Like the Nazis, the genocide was described as experiments so with the Nazis Axis Japan should be in the article. From time to time, Government represenitives in Korea and China have both officially called Japan's actions genocide. There is just too much information about this to ignore in this Wiki article. The best I can think of is the book "A PLAGUE UPON HUMANITY: THE SECRET GENOCIDE OF AXIS JAPAN’S GERM WARFARE OPERATION" by Daniel Barenblatt, which has been mentioned in Wikipedia many times. The book sites other sources for definig this as genocide. For anyone interested, the author was interviewed by David Inge at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on January 21, 2004. ( audio archive at will.illinois.edu/focus580/ ) Also see the above comments about Japan. 172.129.252.149 ( talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I just undid the following edit: [14], which removed the words "or economic" from the sentence "Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political or economic groups" (emphasis mine). However, the user who did the edit is right that the given reference is not good. Could someone who know the book at least give page numbers? The google books link given doesn't immediately turn up anything clear, at least not in my browser. (Ideally one should consider finding a more authoritative source than Klein, I'm sure there are lots of more scholarly books on this matter.) -- Anderssl ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose to merge a POV titled and POV filled Communist genocide into this article. Some of the statements are already present here, most of the POV however is not. The recent AfD of that article was predictably closed with no consensus, but the debate on the title and a proper place for the content is still open. ( Igny ( talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
Not the same thing - the other article concerns a much more specific topic. This basically seems like trying to circumvent the failure to get the article deleted at AfD. radek ( talk) 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a vote. This is a discussion over a merger suggestion. If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than repeating what others have said, then do not waste the band width stating oppose or support. It has been suggested that this article should be split into era See this posting to my talk page by PasswordUsername. I am leery about doing that because at the moment we have divided up the page into manageable section, but these are Wikipeia editor sections (most of them put in by me) and I for one would want to think very carefully about creating descriptive article names based on my selection of arbitrary section names. I tried to base them on sensible criteria (a)ancient, (b) (early) modern, (c) international usage of crimes against humanity, (d) after the Genocide Convention, and (c) international prosecution of genocide -- but others would have to agree that these are reasonable subdivisions for turning this into a summary style article. -- PBS ( talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said this is not a vote! NickDupree what did your comment contribute to the discussion? -- PBS ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
While the points are valid there is not need to turn this discussion into a poll. So I have struck out oppose in the previous posting. -- PBS ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no point discussing a merger unless agreement can be reached on how to turn this article into a summary as it is way to large to accommodate such an article as that under discussion. If no one is going to discuss that first we may as well close this discussion. -- PBS ( talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Vecrumba This is not a vote, it is a discussion to reach a consensus on whether or not to merge two articles. So why have you put the first two words in bold? Did you bother to read what has already been written in this section before you made your posting? -- PBS ( talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No merger would be possible unless there was agreement first on how to turn this article into a summary article. As no one seems to be willing to discuss this, there is no possibility of merging the two articles whether or not it is desirable. -- PBS ( talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a vote. What are you objections to turning this article into a summary article? -- PBS ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
After having this discussion open for a couple of weeks, it is apparent there is no clear consensus for a merge. -- Martintg ( talk) 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless those who wish the articles to be merged are first willing to discuss constructively how to make this summary style article there is no reason to continue this discussion or leave the merge template on the article as this article is too large to have a significant amount of information merged into it. -- PBS ( talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This proposal has now been up for a month. I have put a note on the admin board requesting that an admin close it, since attempts at doing so before were reverted: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close gridlocked merger discussion. -- Anderssl ( talk) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Note what is says at Help:Merging#Closing/archive a proposed merger:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about possibly renaming the
Communist genocide article
here. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Geno mean "people" and "cide" meaning the "act of kiling" or "killing" Native Americans among Stalin and the Cambodia incident were all cast aside as mere killings not genocide. Hitler was the only person who was going to get prosocuted for killing and holding million of people of ethnic groups becasue they didn't fit his "perfect Arian race".(Arian is blue eyed blonde hair type of people in other words a perfect German) Then why are they being exscuased for a crime of mass killing. Killing is against the law so what makes them so speacial that they get awaay with MASS KILLING. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.109.190.2 (
talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there no mention of Roman genocides of the Spartans or Dacians? The later is even celebrated on Trajans column in Rome.. 216.107.194.166 ( talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This article lacks many citations. For instance, there is an unsupported claim that Teddy Roosevelt supported mass genocide of native americans. This is a bold claim and also potentially misplaced in the context of this article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.104.65 ( talk) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This article should also discuss the Genocide being conducted by the Indian Government since 1984 against Sikhs. Over 500,000 Sikhs have been exterminated by Law Enforcement Agencies at the Local, State and National Levels. Here are some Links:
http://www.khalistan.net/genocide.htm http://sikhsangat.org/tag/sikh-genocide/ http://www.sikhsundesh.net/genocide.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.145.109 ( talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree. This article does lack citations and much of it is nonsense. For example the Ottoman Empire's alleged genocide of Armenians is hotly disputed and may not have been genocide. It certainly warrents further investigation. The so called Darfur genocide is unsupported by evidence and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Examples of very bad sources include politicians, the mainstream media and the military. Good sources are peer reviewed academic papers but always check out who has funded the studies. The word 'genocide' is often used as a weapon by governments to batter and demonise rival governments in order to gain economic concessions or control of resources. Sudan has oil (hence Darfur and the genocide accusations). There is real genocide in the Congo but few people know because there is no oil there. Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the genocide of the Ibos in Nigeria 1967-70 is not included here? Epa101 ( talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Another view of the Irish Potato Famine is that its reputation as genocide was due to a political movement internal to the US. Franklin Foer argued in Slate in 1997 that New York Governor George Pataki wanted high school students to study the famine only in response to a 1994 act that mandated students study the Holocaust. He got the mandate broadened to cover "the mass starvation of the Irish between 1845 and 1850." Anecdotal evidence would suggest his attempt had some support initially but has since largely fallen from favour. 86.159.70.117 ( talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that showing intent is the key problem here. In both India and Ireland the crops were taken and sold for profit and greed leaving the indiginous populations to starve. Was the intent just greed and starvation a side effect or was the intent to kill too. I don't know the answer as I haven't studied these topics. I think probably greed was the motivation but that's just an opinion. That would still make it a crime but it would just mean that the powerfully emotive and much abused word 'genocide' that governments and the mainstream media use for propaganda purposes couldn't be used. Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe this statement is quite far from neutrality because it a priori characterize proponents of genocide theories as mainstream scholars and their opponents as revisionists.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree but I'm not surprised as this is wikipedia but that's not to say there aren't good wikipedia pages. I would advise people to research genocides from proper fully referenced independent academic sources and treat controversial pages on wikipedia as just the opinions of the those who edit the page. I would go on to say that some of this genocide page is political propaganda (not by the editors necessarily who may have been misled by it) and often based on the flimsiest of evidence much of which has been debunked by scholars. It's sometimes more an article of opinions than evidence and there are glaring omissions and one sided citations. The Irish potato famine is discussed but the British East India company had a similar policy in India which caused millions to die of starvation. Tibet: The entries are good ones but Tibet is a political football. The Dalai Lama dropped the accusations of physical genocide a long time ago and now only refers to cultural genocide. See Professor Sautman's fully referenced research which uses the Tibetan government's own figures to debunk the genocide claims both cultural and physical. Sautman, Barry (2006) 'Colonialism, genocide, and Tibet', Asian Ethnicity, 7:3, 243 — 265. No mention of the US killings in Vietnam either I see. I could go on and on but I said it all in my first two sentences really. Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 10:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at the article War in the Vendee over the statement in the lede regarding the academic status of the claim that the war concluded in a genocide. One editor there has been insisting upon language in the lede that "only one reputable scholar of the period" considers it genocide. I believe this is both false and misleading as scores, if not hundreds, of notable scholars, many specialists in the study of genocide, have deemed it genocide. The latest contribution has removed the term "only one", but I believe it is still false and misleading: "One notable scholar considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of "ideological genocide", or "populcide" - a charge rejected by every other reputable scholar on the period." The sentence which I had proposed for the lead is: "Some scholars considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of genocide, a charge which many contest." I noted to the disputing editor that Jonassohn, Chaunu, Secher, Mark Levene, Tulard, Adam Jones and Joes (all cited in the article), just to name a few, consider it genocide, but I can get no compromise from this editor. Any comments or participation to help resolve this dispute, from whatever perspective, would be appreciated. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know anything about the war in the Vendee but if its any help its not the number of academics holding particular opinions that count it's the evidence. It's best to get a hold of the the most up to date research (literature reviews are particularly useful) and cite those articles. There are many cases in which a majority hold one opinion and new research sheds new light on a situation which changes the prevailing viewpoints over time (sometimes a very long time). People are stubborn and don't like to admit they were wrong. I'm never wrong ha ha. Seriously though you are right that it's a weak argument to state: "only one reputable scholar of the period considers it genocide". It is better to state why scholars have opposing points of view and tackle the issues with evidence if it exists. But be just as prepared to accept evidence against your point of view as in favour. I hate evidence that shows I'm wrong :( (joking). Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
hmong people are exterminated by the communist laos and vietnam today since the end of vietnam war. the hmong fought ho chi minh with the french then the us thats why they are all killed. is there an article about that ? Cliché Online ( talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Where are the Nanking massacres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.11 ( talk) 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this article and found it strange that Japan's colonial rule of Korea is listed as a genocide. Everything else on this list involves mass killings, use of violence, etc to destroy ethnic groups. Under Japanese colonial rule, there were policies aimed at integrating Korea into a colonial empire by having people learn Japanese and register their names in the Japanese style, but the claims that Japan was committing "cultural genocide" are pretty far out. Has this article been hijacked by a Korean nationalist?
Scholarly studies like "Colonial Modernity in Korea" (ISBN-10: 0674005945) have pretty much revealed the claims of "cultural genocide" to be bunk. The Japanese authorities actually promoted many forms of Korean cultural expression and funded a Korean-language radio network. Most non-nationalistic scholars tend to agree that Tokyo's aim was to create a Japanese "Asian" empire in which many cultures existed under Japanese leadership. Japan did not try to "erase" Korean culture. It tried to use it for its advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.148.70.142 ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This seriously needs a reference from a published source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Although there is no legal continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation". I marked that as dubious, because I don't think this is correct. The USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation is the successor state to the USSR so it follows that there is a continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation. -- PBS ( talk) 09:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Wov! Is there any country, nation, religious group etc. left that is not on the list of genocide commiters on this article? It looks like either every country in the world commited genocide against each other, or accusing any nation or country you don't like with "genocide" is a very popular practice these days. I really think this concept is really overused. I'm looking at the article and any killing in history which involves more than three people is labeled as genocide. Come on guys! There are other words in language like massacre, mass murder, war etc. Genocide should only be used in rare situations with historically proven practices with a premeditated and planned intent and act of ethnical cleaning of an entire nation. I'm talking about concentration camps, gas chambers, officials discussing most effective ways of killing most people in minimum time etc., and (at least) couple of millions of dead bodies... But any revolt which was repressed with blood; any overly-violent battle with civilian causilties, any kind of massacre is counted as genocide here. It really cheapens the meaning. 85.96.26.221 ( talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the Christian wiping out of Pagans in the Later Roman Empire classify as a genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Someone else is also starting to see just how stupid/impossible/biased/difficult this article is. I propose RFD, but won't do it myself because there are just too many people who seem to think a list (WIKI has lots of them) with no definition is somehow informative. Aaaronsmith ( talk) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is their no mention of the elizabethan genocide in ireland when the english slaughtered over 1.5 million irish civilians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.150.176 ( talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There are dozens of potential genocides that should be cited from Britain, most strikingly the Irish Genocide. This very notable event in history is a gaping hole in the record of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnalram ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section (among other changes, but I think this is what was controversial), but Jayjg reverted this as "POV blanking". In fact, Mao's persecution of "rightists" does not fulfill the mainstream definition of 'genocide', as the lead for this article says, because it is persecution of a political group; not a racial, religious, or ethnic group. The only source listed that uses the word 'genocide' with Mao's campaigns,
laments the fact that it is not considered genocide, and the author says in his personal capacity that he prefers a more expansive view of genocide to cover China.
Splittist (
talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This section seems to be at times incredibly inaccurate and pov. I'd especially like to see sources for the claim that "mostly Muslim and some Hindu civilians" have been killed and for the claim that most of the atrocities are blamed on Indian military (and not terrorists) by Human Rights groups and the UN. -- Kefalonia 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Unless someone can supply reliable unbiased sources that a genocide has/is taking place in Kashmir, as WP:V makes clear "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am going to remove the section. -- PBS 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the sources you have provided:
Even if any of theses were suitable sources the section as stands does not include one source which states that a genocide is taking place. -- PBS 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have one source from a respectable neutral third party who claims that the situation in Indian Kashmir is a genocide? Please see the entries I have put in to the Wikipedia article for Iraq, Tibet, and the Bangladesh War of 1971. For Bangladesh, I would have preferred to find a report by the UN or a neutral government, or a court case based on the CPPCG, (like that for the Iraq and Tibet entry), but for the moment Rummel is a far better source than the ones you have been put forward because although he has an axe to grind he does not have a specific interest in that conflict. -- PBS 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editor perhapse we can explore what you wrote "the Indian Supreme Court described as `worse than a genocide.'". Do you have a source for this which places "worse than a genocide" in context? -- PBS 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah! A secondary source which makes clear that it is quote about case involving Sikhs in "Khalistan". Using that as a bootstrap here is another secondary source with more details -- PBS 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Two sources rovided and alghought they both talk about horrible things I can not see the word genocide in either of them. Can anyone else find the word genocide in those two soureces. Can anyone supply an other wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The two articles you have provided on this page do not include anything like a credible source for genocide occurring in Kashmir. For example the second source notes that there were "ninety-nine cases of disappearance between 1990 and 1992", which is devestating for those involved, but is a long way from Genocide. I think the section needs to be re-written so that it is not just a list of nasty things but includes statements of what the genocide is and who is making the accusations with credible reliable sources. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is this listed in genocides? There has been an armed conflict over there and offcial death toll is 60000 civilians killed. Most in crossfire between Indian army and militants. Seoncdly why isnt ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits mentioned?
File:England flag large.png
अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey
05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed this because:
-- PBS 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know much about this war, but I do know some of the rules set at the Geneva Convention. "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" This is one act of genocide, but I'm not one to judge whether or not they were left in these conditions deliberatly to kill them or it was just general war time famine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Source that it was a genocide? -- PBS 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I am inclined to remove the following. It is hard to see how this qualifies as genocide, reprehensible as the greed and/or negligence of the parties may have been (and I'm sure there are factual accuracy disputes over some of this.) I know of no reputable source that claims that hemophiliacs were deliberately targeted for eradication. There are many other medical conditions left untreated, unsafe medical products marketed, etc, all for similar financial reasons. Are these also genocides?
In the 1980's, the federal government and several major American pharmaceutical companies participated in their own form of genocide when over 5,000 American hemophiliacs were killed by blood products containing the HIV and Hepatitis C viruses. Thousands more hemophiliacs were infected and killed worldwide. The federal government and the companies were aware that their blood was tainted and that it was possible to clean the blood products, yet did not take any direct action to rectify the situation until the mid 1980's. Hepatitis C infections were still reported in the United States as late as 1990. It prompted the federal government to reward thousands of hemophiliacs or their widows and children $100,000 via the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act. [4]
CarbonCopy 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed after reading source and lack of comments here. Criminal corporate greed perhaps, but not genocide. CarbonCopy 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I think that this is a really bad article. Genocide means the deliberate, planned extermination of a people based on thier race, ethnc orgiin or relgious affiliation. The term itself means "killing of a people". Most, i would say almost all, the the instances listed here are massacres, where people, sometimes targeted for race/religion etc were killed in wars, by disease etc. However, they do not qualify as genocides unless:
(1) the whole people were intended to be wiped out.
(2) There was a systematic plan and effort made toward this end.
On this basis, I don't think that the assertion that "genocides are a regular occurance" stands up to scrutiny. Most of the information here should be transferred to an article on massacres/war crimes or something else.
Jdorney 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
From the next section: Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I am open to other definitions if it passes the WP:NOR is a WP:NPOV and comes from verifiable reliable sources. If I understand you correctly I think that when earlier today I split the modern section (1500 forward) into three, my reasons was following the line of thought you have put forward in you comments about the UN definition:
I think this new division will help us sort out the genocides from mass killings which although nasty are not genocides. -- PBS 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I see that someone has removed the England section twice, giving the only reason as 'change of ownership'. Not only do I disagree with the conclusion that it was not genocide, but I find the facetious remark offensive. I would not dare describe the genocide of the Herero in South West Africa merely as 'change of ownership'.
Anyway, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed by the UN in 1948 says, if I need to repeat it:
I have tried in the England section to show how this relates to the invasion in 1066. They intentionally murdered and enslaved many thousands of English, they massacred over 100,000 English in Yorkshire by removing their homes and livelihoods (read the East Riding section of the Domesday Book for more details), and they attempted to destroy the cultural life of the English by destroying churches (and other items) and banning the use of English in the state.
You only think it isn't genocide because it doesn't say so in any books you've read, but then again, there was no genocide of Armenians, or so say the Turkish books. Oswax 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well if this is the criteria, then English forces committed genocide in Ireland several times over. See the Desmond Rebellions. Nine Years War (Ireland) and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. In each case they systematically destroyed crops and killed people to end guerrilla wars. However, in my opinion, this is not genocide. It is brutal and, by modern standards, war crimes, but is it an attempt to destroy a whole people? No. This is why genocide is such a powerful word and why it is distinguished from other massacres. Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
No I do not want a signed confession, but a Reliable source which states it was genocide is a must, if it is to be complient with the WP:NOR policy. -- PBS 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The Canada section refers to an unintentional genocide - what is the point of Wikipedia if this remains undeleted by editors who make serious contributions to the article?-- shtove 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the article already has its serious editors - if one can edit a section, one ought to look at the entirety. This article has a section based on a contradiction of the introductory definition: I guess it's a circus for cranks and not worth contributing to.-- shtove 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Very reasonable and uncranky of you. Good luck!-- shtove 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The Degar (Montagnard) page also mentions that the treatment of the Degar by the Vietnamese government "This has prompted several human rights organizations to argue that the Degar are subject to an ongoing and continual genocide by the current Vietnamese government."
I have asked on the Talk:Degar page for the sources for the allagation. If you can contribute information please do so on the Degar talk page. -- PBS 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing the Viernam section please see Talk:Degar -- PBS 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
As there are international trials for the Genocides of Bosnia and Rwanda. So I think these should be in the list.
-- PBS 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Sudan has been ruled genocide by a few different countries, although I don't think it has been decided by the UN yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added references for Sudan, but I am not really happy with the structure of the section. A list of governments which have called the situation a genocide would help along with any UN General Assembly resolutions and African Union statments -- PBS 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"The United States calls it genocide." - CBS News I couldn't find a government site to verify, but Im positive that it is true, as Ive also seen it at various other news sites, such as the BBC.
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured during the Algerian French war? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured in Austrilia? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured shortly before or during the war? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the BLW and it does not have any direct sources for a claim of genocide. There is one indirect one which was a minority US State Department view. But that is a long way from general agreement that genocide took place by neutral organisations and governments which were not a party to the conflict. This section needs Wikipedia:reliable sources (as does thea BLW article) -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the provious text and replaced it with numbers and a quote from Rummel. Idealy I would like a better source, but it is the one with the least Bangladesh bias I have seen to date. -- PBS 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that the Killing fields were or may have been a genocide? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Legally, not sure. Analytically, it's been categorized as genocide and politicide. For sourcing the number of deaths, the consensus seems to be an estimate between 1 million and 2 million. The 1.7 million figure currently cited is Kiernan's calculation, broken down in his book chapter in Totten, Parsons, and Charny 2004 (currently listed under "Further Reading") and probably in his 1996 book (listed below).
Additionally, the State Failure Task Force at the University of Maryland estimates the Cambodian 1975-1979 death toll between 1,900,000 and 3,500,000.
Ramseyk 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
And would you like to re-write the section to reflect these sources? -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have supplied 2 sources for a Dutch court which has ruled that the gas attacks on the Kurds was a genocide. -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? -- PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have re-instated this section with refereces to the Spanish high court. -- PBS 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
When english conquered Gibraltar (Spain), they killed all the spanish population.
Many events in the History of anti-Semitism can be fully qualified to be called genocide. Just a couple examples:
I do not think that the first two do and I am not familiar with the third, but I would have no objections if you can find Wikipedia:reliable sources which state that they were, and word it in such a way that it is clear where the allegations come from. -- PBS 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This may get laughed down but surely the story of Noahs Ark counts as a genocide committed by god? -- Horses In The Sky 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes , as it is most likely that it didn't happen and was a metaphor .
I removed edit about Ustasha being "catholic action" in local languages, etc. because it seemed likely vandalism/POV. If this is not the case please rewrite but restore info added by 129.234.4.76. Thanks! Mego'brien
THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO
Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.
I suggest to add a section about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It took from 20 000 to 60 000 of civilians ethnic Poles deaths (but some indicates even much more: 100 000 [Edward Prus, 2006], 500 000 [Norman Davies, 1996]). If you try to mention all bigger genocides in this article I think that case applies here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtProcess ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
People who believe that unborn children still in the womb are human beings believe that abortion is a genocide against unborn humans of all race, religion, and economic background, and much larger than any genocide in history and continuing to this day. Where would this fit into this article, would it get its own section? - Words in sanskrit ( talk) 21:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Genocide is defined as an act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group. While most people associate genocide with killing, other acts such as the practice of abortion, sterilization, artificial infection, the working of people to death in special labor camps, and the separation of families or of sexes in order to depopulate specific areas are included.
Well bully for Jeffrey S Morton, and I am sure that many other people have their own definitions of genocide. I was going on the UN definition in the article Genocide, which refers to "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Forced abortion can form a part of a genocide, abortion per se does not. pablo hablo. 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
why nothing bout belgian kongo ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 ( talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
If soviet war in Afghanistan is genocide then US war in Vietnam too most. 95.52.113.129 ( talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Since factions dispute the meaning of genocide, wouldn't it be wise to simply describe all of these controversies as possible genocides? For example, the Ukrainians say that Holodomor (the famine) was a genocide, and the Russians disagree. What of the Ingush, Tatars, and Chechens by the Soviets? And what about the race-based targeting and expulsion of 15,000,000 ethnic German civilians after WWII and the starvation of over 2 million of them? Why are these not comparable to any of these other ones in Africa that get so much attention? If you disagree that it is a genocide, it would still be appropriate to write about them. I find it odd that the only entry about Germany is the Holocaust. There is much more to 1940s Germany than the suffering of Jews if I may say (without detracting from that tragedy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.235.11 ( talk) 15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If the atrocities committed by United States and the others are included then so should Japan's. Japan is not metioned at all. It's collaborations and similar actions as Nazi Germany is well known. Japanese military regime murdered 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos. Of these, 500,000 are not war deaths but intentional genocide. Like the Nazis, the genocide was described as experiments so with the Nazis Axis Japan should be in the article. From time to time, Government represenitives in Korea and China have both officially called Japan's actions genocide. There is just too much information about this to ignore in this Wiki article. The best I can think of is the book "A PLAGUE UPON HUMANITY: THE SECRET GENOCIDE OF AXIS JAPAN’S GERM WARFARE OPERATION" by Daniel Barenblatt, which has been mentioned in Wikipedia many times. The book sites other sources for definig this as genocide. For anyone interested, the author was interviewed by David Inge at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on January 21, 2004. ( audio archive at will.illinois.edu/focus580/ ) Also see the above comments about Japan. 172.129.252.149 ( talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I just undid the following edit: [14], which removed the words "or economic" from the sentence "Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political or economic groups" (emphasis mine). However, the user who did the edit is right that the given reference is not good. Could someone who know the book at least give page numbers? The google books link given doesn't immediately turn up anything clear, at least not in my browser. (Ideally one should consider finding a more authoritative source than Klein, I'm sure there are lots of more scholarly books on this matter.) -- Anderssl ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose to merge a POV titled and POV filled Communist genocide into this article. Some of the statements are already present here, most of the POV however is not. The recent AfD of that article was predictably closed with no consensus, but the debate on the title and a proper place for the content is still open. ( Igny ( talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
Not the same thing - the other article concerns a much more specific topic. This basically seems like trying to circumvent the failure to get the article deleted at AfD. radek ( talk) 01:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a vote. This is a discussion over a merger suggestion. If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation other than repeating what others have said, then do not waste the band width stating oppose or support. It has been suggested that this article should be split into era See this posting to my talk page by PasswordUsername. I am leery about doing that because at the moment we have divided up the page into manageable section, but these are Wikipeia editor sections (most of them put in by me) and I for one would want to think very carefully about creating descriptive article names based on my selection of arbitrary section names. I tried to base them on sensible criteria (a)ancient, (b) (early) modern, (c) international usage of crimes against humanity, (d) after the Genocide Convention, and (c) international prosecution of genocide -- but others would have to agree that these are reasonable subdivisions for turning this into a summary style article. -- PBS ( talk) 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said this is not a vote! NickDupree what did your comment contribute to the discussion? -- PBS ( talk) 23:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
While the points are valid there is not need to turn this discussion into a poll. So I have struck out oppose in the previous posting. -- PBS ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no point discussing a merger unless agreement can be reached on how to turn this article into a summary as it is way to large to accommodate such an article as that under discussion. If no one is going to discuss that first we may as well close this discussion. -- PBS ( talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Vecrumba This is not a vote, it is a discussion to reach a consensus on whether or not to merge two articles. So why have you put the first two words in bold? Did you bother to read what has already been written in this section before you made your posting? -- PBS ( talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No merger would be possible unless there was agreement first on how to turn this article into a summary article. As no one seems to be willing to discuss this, there is no possibility of merging the two articles whether or not it is desirable. -- PBS ( talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This is not a vote. What are you objections to turning this article into a summary article? -- PBS ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
After having this discussion open for a couple of weeks, it is apparent there is no clear consensus for a merge. -- Martintg ( talk) 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless those who wish the articles to be merged are first willing to discuss constructively how to make this summary style article there is no reason to continue this discussion or leave the merge template on the article as this article is too large to have a significant amount of information merged into it. -- PBS ( talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This proposal has now been up for a month. I have put a note on the admin board requesting that an admin close it, since attempts at doing so before were reverted: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close gridlocked merger discussion. -- Anderssl ( talk) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Note what is says at Help:Merging#Closing/archive a proposed merger:
The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about possibly renaming the
Communist genocide article
here. --
ThaddeusB (
talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Geno mean "people" and "cide" meaning the "act of kiling" or "killing" Native Americans among Stalin and the Cambodia incident were all cast aside as mere killings not genocide. Hitler was the only person who was going to get prosocuted for killing and holding million of people of ethnic groups becasue they didn't fit his "perfect Arian race".(Arian is blue eyed blonde hair type of people in other words a perfect German) Then why are they being exscuased for a crime of mass killing. Killing is against the law so what makes them so speacial that they get awaay with MASS KILLING. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
198.109.190.2 (
talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there no mention of Roman genocides of the Spartans or Dacians? The later is even celebrated on Trajans column in Rome.. 216.107.194.166 ( talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This article lacks many citations. For instance, there is an unsupported claim that Teddy Roosevelt supported mass genocide of native americans. This is a bold claim and also potentially misplaced in the context of this article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.104.65 ( talk) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This article should also discuss the Genocide being conducted by the Indian Government since 1984 against Sikhs. Over 500,000 Sikhs have been exterminated by Law Enforcement Agencies at the Local, State and National Levels. Here are some Links:
http://www.khalistan.net/genocide.htm http://sikhsangat.org/tag/sikh-genocide/ http://www.sikhsundesh.net/genocide.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.145.109 ( talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree. This article does lack citations and much of it is nonsense. For example the Ottoman Empire's alleged genocide of Armenians is hotly disputed and may not have been genocide. It certainly warrents further investigation. The so called Darfur genocide is unsupported by evidence and in fact there is evidence to the contrary. Examples of very bad sources include politicians, the mainstream media and the military. Good sources are peer reviewed academic papers but always check out who has funded the studies. The word 'genocide' is often used as a weapon by governments to batter and demonise rival governments in order to gain economic concessions or control of resources. Sudan has oil (hence Darfur and the genocide accusations). There is real genocide in the Congo but few people know because there is no oil there. Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 13:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the genocide of the Ibos in Nigeria 1967-70 is not included here? Epa101 ( talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Another view of the Irish Potato Famine is that its reputation as genocide was due to a political movement internal to the US. Franklin Foer argued in Slate in 1997 that New York Governor George Pataki wanted high school students to study the famine only in response to a 1994 act that mandated students study the Holocaust. He got the mandate broadened to cover "the mass starvation of the Irish between 1845 and 1850." Anecdotal evidence would suggest his attempt had some support initially but has since largely fallen from favour. 86.159.70.117 ( talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that showing intent is the key problem here. In both India and Ireland the crops were taken and sold for profit and greed leaving the indiginous populations to starve. Was the intent just greed and starvation a side effect or was the intent to kill too. I don't know the answer as I haven't studied these topics. I think probably greed was the motivation but that's just an opinion. That would still make it a crime but it would just mean that the powerfully emotive and much abused word 'genocide' that governments and the mainstream media use for propaganda purposes couldn't be used. Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 13:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe this statement is quite far from neutrality because it a priori characterize proponents of genocide theories as mainstream scholars and their opponents as revisionists.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree but I'm not surprised as this is wikipedia but that's not to say there aren't good wikipedia pages. I would advise people to research genocides from proper fully referenced independent academic sources and treat controversial pages on wikipedia as just the opinions of the those who edit the page. I would go on to say that some of this genocide page is political propaganda (not by the editors necessarily who may have been misled by it) and often based on the flimsiest of evidence much of which has been debunked by scholars. It's sometimes more an article of opinions than evidence and there are glaring omissions and one sided citations. The Irish potato famine is discussed but the British East India company had a similar policy in India which caused millions to die of starvation. Tibet: The entries are good ones but Tibet is a political football. The Dalai Lama dropped the accusations of physical genocide a long time ago and now only refers to cultural genocide. See Professor Sautman's fully referenced research which uses the Tibetan government's own figures to debunk the genocide claims both cultural and physical. Sautman, Barry (2006) 'Colonialism, genocide, and Tibet', Asian Ethnicity, 7:3, 243 — 265. No mention of the US killings in Vietnam either I see. I could go on and on but I said it all in my first two sentences really. Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 10:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at the article War in the Vendee over the statement in the lede regarding the academic status of the claim that the war concluded in a genocide. One editor there has been insisting upon language in the lede that "only one reputable scholar of the period" considers it genocide. I believe this is both false and misleading as scores, if not hundreds, of notable scholars, many specialists in the study of genocide, have deemed it genocide. The latest contribution has removed the term "only one", but I believe it is still false and misleading: "One notable scholar considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of "ideological genocide", or "populcide" - a charge rejected by every other reputable scholar on the period." The sentence which I had proposed for the lead is: "Some scholars considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of genocide, a charge which many contest." I noted to the disputing editor that Jonassohn, Chaunu, Secher, Mark Levene, Tulard, Adam Jones and Joes (all cited in the article), just to name a few, consider it genocide, but I can get no compromise from this editor. Any comments or participation to help resolve this dispute, from whatever perspective, would be appreciated. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know anything about the war in the Vendee but if its any help its not the number of academics holding particular opinions that count it's the evidence. It's best to get a hold of the the most up to date research (literature reviews are particularly useful) and cite those articles. There are many cases in which a majority hold one opinion and new research sheds new light on a situation which changes the prevailing viewpoints over time (sometimes a very long time). People are stubborn and don't like to admit they were wrong. I'm never wrong ha ha. Seriously though you are right that it's a weak argument to state: "only one reputable scholar of the period considers it genocide". It is better to state why scholars have opposing points of view and tackle the issues with evidence if it exists. But be just as prepared to accept evidence against your point of view as in favour. I hate evidence that shows I'm wrong :( (joking). Shieldsgeordie ( talk) 14:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
hmong people are exterminated by the communist laos and vietnam today since the end of vietnam war. the hmong fought ho chi minh with the french then the us thats why they are all killed. is there an article about that ? Cliché Online ( talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Where are the Nanking massacres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.11 ( talk) 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this article and found it strange that Japan's colonial rule of Korea is listed as a genocide. Everything else on this list involves mass killings, use of violence, etc to destroy ethnic groups. Under Japanese colonial rule, there were policies aimed at integrating Korea into a colonial empire by having people learn Japanese and register their names in the Japanese style, but the claims that Japan was committing "cultural genocide" are pretty far out. Has this article been hijacked by a Korean nationalist?
Scholarly studies like "Colonial Modernity in Korea" (ISBN-10: 0674005945) have pretty much revealed the claims of "cultural genocide" to be bunk. The Japanese authorities actually promoted many forms of Korean cultural expression and funded a Korean-language radio network. Most non-nationalistic scholars tend to agree that Tokyo's aim was to create a Japanese "Asian" empire in which many cultures existed under Japanese leadership. Japan did not try to "erase" Korean culture. It tried to use it for its advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.148.70.142 ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This seriously needs a reference from a published source. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Although there is no legal continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation". I marked that as dubious, because I don't think this is correct. The USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation is the successor state to the USSR so it follows that there is a continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation. -- PBS ( talk) 09:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Wov! Is there any country, nation, religious group etc. left that is not on the list of genocide commiters on this article? It looks like either every country in the world commited genocide against each other, or accusing any nation or country you don't like with "genocide" is a very popular practice these days. I really think this concept is really overused. I'm looking at the article and any killing in history which involves more than three people is labeled as genocide. Come on guys! There are other words in language like massacre, mass murder, war etc. Genocide should only be used in rare situations with historically proven practices with a premeditated and planned intent and act of ethnical cleaning of an entire nation. I'm talking about concentration camps, gas chambers, officials discussing most effective ways of killing most people in minimum time etc., and (at least) couple of millions of dead bodies... But any revolt which was repressed with blood; any overly-violent battle with civilian causilties, any kind of massacre is counted as genocide here. It really cheapens the meaning. 85.96.26.221 ( talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the Christian wiping out of Pagans in the Later Roman Empire classify as a genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 ( talk) 06:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Someone else is also starting to see just how stupid/impossible/biased/difficult this article is. I propose RFD, but won't do it myself because there are just too many people who seem to think a list (WIKI has lots of them) with no definition is somehow informative. Aaaronsmith ( talk) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is their no mention of the elizabethan genocide in ireland when the english slaughtered over 1.5 million irish civilians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.150.176 ( talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There are dozens of potential genocides that should be cited from Britain, most strikingly the Irish Genocide. This very notable event in history is a gaping hole in the record of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnalram ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section (among other changes, but I think this is what was controversial), but Jayjg reverted this as "POV blanking". In fact, Mao's persecution of "rightists" does not fulfill the mainstream definition of 'genocide', as the lead for this article says, because it is persecution of a political group; not a racial, religious, or ethnic group. The only source listed that uses the word 'genocide' with Mao's campaigns,
laments the fact that it is not considered genocide, and the author says in his personal capacity that he prefers a more expansive view of genocide to cover China.
Splittist (
talk) 23:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)