![]() | 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 | → | Archive 10 |
I have reverted the changes made to the Turkey entry today because one does not change the words insides quotes and remove the references to those quotes [1]. Further a lot of information was deleted which was referenced and different text was substituted which is not clearly cited. The additional wording:It is now understood that these massacres were committed not only by Ottoman muslims against Armenian Christians, but also vice versa, making this an inter-communal war, which in no way can be regarded as genocide or ethnic cleansing. is not sourced. Just because prisoners who were held in Malta were not guilty of the alleged Armenian Genocide is not relevant to the accusation of genocide committed by others in the Sublime Porte. -- PBS 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is the reason why I put a "disputed" tag on the section Ottoman Empire (Turkey). I dispute the following claim: "The Turkish Government disputes this interpretation of events and in an attempt at political historical revisionism has drafted laws like Article 301 that state ...'" (my emphasis). I believe that as stated this is factually incorrect. This article was not introduced by the government for the purpose of revisionism. Under Turkish law any adult can press charges, and the Grey Wolves and other anti-EU nationalists have really stepped up on the plate. This to the embarrassment and frustration of the Turkish government, as expressed by foreign minister Abdullah Gül. Outside Turkey many people seem to think that Turkey is an almost monolithic entity, and that such charges are brought or supported by the government. This is not true in any of the cases that may be related to the Armenian issue. I further think this section does not do very well in maintaining an NPOV stance, but that is another matter. Lambiam Talk 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Would the wording be better put like this:
NOTES
-- PBS 10:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the text OK now? can we remove the section tag? -- PBS 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
osmancan-Isn't it a contradiction to show unreal sources show that "so-called armenian genocide" happened as sources? Why to show sources that need real sources as sources. I request this topic to be discussed on neutral platform. The truth is that there is a conflict between two points of wiews, however the proofs of Turkish side are is assumed unexistent in spite of the proofs being rational and them having a reliable resource. However only proof and beliefs of armenian sided historians are being assumed and accepted which is a contradiction with a fundamental rule of the science of history which is being assumed as nonexistent is this topic. That particular rule forbids sidedness in history that kind of sidedness can be seen normal in armenian and turkish historians however it would be a disgrace to do so for other historians. The Turkish law 301 prevents the national values of turkey from being humiliated and slandered. As other countries propose laws to enforce something slander, why turkish goverment cannot enforce telling the truth as it is accepted by the goverment of turkey? The main aim of the lawsuit is defend the honour and beliefs of turkey, if a country can arrest a person of telling their beliefs even if that beliefs won't have any bad effects on that contry why turkey wouldn't arrest someone if the person slander? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmancan ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 October 2006
This section was from the Armenian POV in its entirety. Replaced with text that is more neutral and approaches a balanced account of what has happened. Source is mainly "Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality" by Prof. Justin McCarthy. Please do not revert this! I am appalled even the discussions on this subject is from one POV. Everything is so obviously one-sided! Also it is very hyprocritical to remove the Algerian genocide allegations saying it is from one POV - and at the same time publishing this for the Armenians genocide allegations. The Turkish point of view was only expressed as "Turkish govenrment claims..." and "it is a taboo to..." etc. etc. Come on, it is NOT the Turkish government who claim both sides suffered a lot, it is the people. 90% of them. By saying it the government's point of view implies it is not people's will. I am one of the people. I know many many other Turkish people. It is OUR view - not only the government's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Add-on: Am amazed my update was reverted back in 5 minutes! Here is the reason: "reverted to last version by PBS because modifications deleted cited material and replaced it with unsourced marerial which included a first paragraph with a POV statment". This continues to amaze me - the reverted version is 100% made of POV statements; compared with mine which you say the first paragraph is POV. To take information from the "cited" material of one POV presents a very wrong picture indeed. Also, my version was sourced - I have put in the source to this discussions page. Is there another way to cite them? Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Further update: Philip, you were quick to revert my change but not quick to respond here I see... Anyways, now I think I know what is required for citation. Some parts of the current section are not particularly cited and will be removed. The first paragraph refers to the WWI Allied countries comdemning Ottomans in 1915; however the cited source is a US Congress resolution. Also, WWI Allied countries, being at war with Ottomans, cannot be taken as a reliable source - they were trying to build support for war effort in their countries, and show the Turks as the bad guys. Pretty normal in a war situation. Also, an US Congress document is a political document that cannot prove or disprove anything. Therefore these are bad citations - removing relevant sections. This section _really_ needs to be rebuilt in a more objective manner - it reeks of POV... 14 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see we had an edit clash. Sorry about my first replace act - I felt really frustrated when I saw all the information there was only from one POV - and nothing from the other. I now see this is not wikipedia's way. Anyways, yes I do dispute the Allied Powers statement. The cited source is incorrect. Also, being at war the allied powers can hardly be taken as an objective source. Still all the material in this section is from one POV - this hardly portrays the entire picture. Must find source materials. Do they need to be online or can they be printed books as well do you think? 14 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the latest addition for the Allied Powers statement - this violates WP:RS. Two reasons: First, the point stated above: WWI Allied countries, being at war with Ottomans, cannot be taken as a reliable source - they were trying to build support for war effort in their countries, and show the Turks as the bad guys. Pretty normal in a war situation. Sources with agendas are specifically covered in WP:RS. Secondly, the reference is from the website www.armenian-genocide.org/ which is a partisan website as defined in NP:RS. Also this section suffers from serious WP:POV_pushing - unfortunately there is no easy cure for this as WP:POV_pushing also explains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I am disputing the fact that Republic of Turkey existed in 1915 so the Armenian genocide arguments should not be reflected to Modern day Turkey but to the Ottoman Empire. There was no such thing as a "Turkish" Government or Turkey in official historical terms in 1915 as mentioned in this article. Any usage of the term Turkey or Turkish government for any action before 1923 is a complete historical bias against Republic of Turkey. I am removing the title of Turkey from the title unless someone can prove to me that a country that was officially called Turkey existed before 1923. MKS 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In that same logic Americans are Yankees, Australians are Aussies read wiki article nickname for tons of more examples, and as a matter of fact the usage of the word Turkey was a deragotary inside joke in British politics (due to the animal name) (same level as using such deragatory national nicknames which I wont mention here) and such and the fact that Allied powers (British, French and Russians) will of course demean a country that they are at war with at 1915 in that document you mention, in the same spirit insistedly calling Istanbul as Constantinople (heck Pope Benedict still calls Istanbul as Constantinople, and it is simply not since 1453). Wikipedia is not a place of slangs or degradations but of official historical facts. I wish everyone respected that especially since this article talks about people stepping on each other. MKS 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless there are some sources which say that Algeria was a genocide it should be removed. Bouteflika as quoted in the Scotsman article "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions" is not claiming that a genocide took place he is using the term as an adjective (and interestingly using the old rhetoric trick of repeat something three times, so beloved by Churchill). -- PBS 08:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am deleteing this section in the article , see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide -- PBS 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This section has been recreated by user:David Falcon is making a mockery of the definition of a genocide, he also created two articles on the matter one main article has been voted for deletion and the other was a POV fork and had been speedy deleted. This section only shows the Algerian point of view. In addition this section is a POV fork on Algerian war of independence. Accusations of genocide do not mean genocide really took place, need references from somewhere else than politically motivated accusations, are there any serious work by independent scholars to support these allegations? There has been multiple discussion on the matter, as why it does not constitute a genocide, as there was no planning or official policy to systematically kill arabs or berbers, this was a independence war with all the atrocities that comes with it, including massacres, this accusation ignores the fact that vast number of arabs were siding with the French in this war (the Harki) who later were massacred by FLN. The figure of 1.5 million dead is a recent revision by Algerian authorities that come out of the blue without any serious research work and that has only a purpose to suit a political agenda. Most of the references in this section either do not support the allegations they are meant to support, or only report the point of view of Algerian authorities and not the international community as a whole, one of the references come from Socialist Worker a far left activist journal which can not be considered as a neutral source of information. I would invite people to discuss on the section before coming to an agreement whether to delete it or not. I must add that User:David Falcon is motivated by a Turkish point of view and his anger because of the recognition of Armenian genocide by French parliament. I offered him to ask for mediation in our dispute on his talk page he but never replied, I now assume bad faith from his part. If this section is to stay in the article, it needs to be entirely rewritten from a neutral point of view Blastwizard 12:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
David is is customary to append ones comments at the bottom of the section you are writing in please see Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Formatting. -- PBS 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason I do not think that this section is suitable for this page is because most of the pargraphs have nothing to do with genocide. going through your refrences:
I think that there are enought references here to write an article. You shoud junk references like the socialistworker because it is not a respectable source for this type of article, and junk references which just repeat previous ones choosing the most respectable one for inclusion. The article title should not have genocide in it, because genocide is predominantly an Algerian POV and not shared by the French establishment (according to the sources you have provided) and hence is not a WP:NPOV title. As I suggested in the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide:
-- PBS 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not read the article the same way that you do it is mentioned as a contributing factor, but it does not say that "genocide was an indirect result of Belgiums racist institutionalization of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups". The Belgians ran the country for only 4 decades, ending more than 3 decades before the genocide. If the genocide had happened soon after independence there would be some justification for this argument, but to over emphasise European influences is demeaning to the locals, in just the same way as claiming any achievement by a post colonial country has only happened because of the influence of the colonial power. So I am removing the addition. -- PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The first target of the Ottoman Empire during the 1900's was the Hellenic ...
No citing of sources so I am removing this new entry. See the sources for the Armenian Genocide which follows it if the last sentence is not clear -- PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Text removed from the article:
reference:
-- PBS 10:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If this alleged genocide is to remain on this page then it should be stated who and for what organisation are making the allegations that a genocide has taken place. It should include at least one citation from a verifiable and reputable source. To balance the piece it should also include the alleged perpetrators POV as well. A quick Google on [Laos genocide] returns lots of pages, so this should not be too difficult. -- PBS 07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that this should be brought up as a BELIEF of there being a genocide. Many civilians were killed not because they were specifically targetted but because of lack of discpline with Conscripts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.74.85 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
i saw nothing on Japan's atrocities in WWII, so I added some stuff. i think someone should add more(if not, i will when i have time, since I find it extremely unfair Germany gets half a page on atrocities, and Japan gets two sentences on absolutely nothing)
The section on Lebanon is purely subjective. It contains uncofirmed information such as the number of deaths and bias in the writing style. Moreover, because Israel is not directly targeting civilians, it should not be defined as a genocide. Certainly not more so than other incedents aimed at civilians like septermber 11th, whose death toll was several fold the death toll so far in Lebanon, and Terorrist attacks against Israel, or any other war in history that has had civilian casualities for that matter.
If Palestinians are going to be included as a genocide, then there equally well should be a section about Palestinian terrorists targeting Israeli civilians. It should also be mentioned that the treatment of Palestinians in as second class citizens, which is not a genocide, is not unique to Israel, but also is the case for Palesinian polulations in other Arab countries, including Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Lebanon.
I concur, too, very strongly -- the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, and their dispossession, is both real and tragic, and much of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is worthy of condemnation, even outrage, but it is not genocide. To call it genocide is to pervert the meaning of the word 'genocide.' Indeed, it seems to me to be an anti-Semitic tactic: since European Jews were in fact the victims of genocide, and since that genocide was one of the primary factors in the establishment of the state of Israel, some pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel groups and individuals have decided to call the Israeli oppression of Palestinians genocide -- even though the Israelis have not tried, and are not trying, to exterminate the Palestinians. The Wikipedia editors should step in here.
Who thought it was a good idea to try forcing history into 1500-1950 , 1951-1990 , 1991+ periods ? What about the genocides that span multiples of your periods such as Guatemala 1960-1996, and West Papua from 1966 to today. 211.30.222.139 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am new here (please bear with me), and I just wanted to bring up a question on the logic of applying the term genocide to historical events of the distant past. My first instinct was that it was a mistake of
anachronism in scholarship, or theory; but at the same time history tends to repeat itself, and perhaps this is history repeating itself on larger scale. Scale seems to be a important factor in determining genocide. Modern technology in logistics and means of coercion enable widespread slaughter (by man, not disease) on a scale previously unkown. Along that line, is genocide a crime of modernity? Other factor are also important, as this is a highly charged topic. Is it relevant that the author of the term "genocide" did not refer back to ancient "genocides" but rather to modern examples? Again, does anyone have misgivings using the UN's definition of genocide, in which Stalin and others political interests were protected?
My second point is that, disregarding the first point, the list appears incoherent, maybe a list of alleged genocides could be drafted. Also, why are only the genocides of the last 500 years termed "alleged" but not those previous, including an uncited religious persecution (Cathars), one of countless of the genre. Also, the cases for the Roman genocides in Gaul are a stretch. In the case of the Helvetians, they were invading another tribe's land, which the Romans were defending; the primary intent here being to defend not to annihilate. Moreover, the casualties were combative, and the others were enslaved. Same objections would apply to Gaul, where the casualties are from a war of conquest, not extermination. If wars of conquest qualify as genocide, we have some serious work to do. I can help with Antiquity.
Miscellaneous: Huron genocide by the Iroquois? A là Carthaginian genocide by the Romans, Plataean genocide by Spartans and Thebans in
The History of the Peloponnesian War by
Thucydides. It was a regular occurrence of those times, there are many, many more instances.
The Jackal God
05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it relevant that the author of the term "genocide" did not refer back to ancient "genocides" but rather to modern examples?
Again, does anyone have misgivings using the UN's definition of genocide, in which Stalin and others political interests were protected?
The entry on Australia is largely correct, but the detail seems to leave a bit to be desired. Can anyone provide refs for the information contained there? MojoTas 04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
After 5 years in existence, Wikipedia still has no article highlighted the deaths caused by the biggenst Communist regimes, USSR and China. Each killed tens of millions of people.
How long are we going to squabble over whether these deaths should be classified as genocide or massacres? Please read the Museum of Communism FAQ. [33] -- Uncle Ed 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Great Leap Forward, noting a range of estimates of death of 14-43million in 1958-1962.
From the history of the article:
From the header of the article:
Ripen if we were to use your definition there would only be 3 entries on this page all post 1990 as only 3 genocides have been found to be such by an international tribunal. Even if those by domestic courts were to be included, there would only be half a dozen more. This is precisely what appears on the Genocide page, in which case this page would be redundant and you might as well put it up as an "Article For Deletion". Is that your position? -- PBS 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm puzzled to see (and I searched several articles) that the terrible policies applied by the British rule in Ireland are not stated here, whereas they seem to be include some of the most horrid crimes ever.
Also, don't the first concentration camps qualify British war practices during the Boer wars as genocide?
Somehow, the British are not mentioned in this article, while they were among the first to practice modern "crimes against humanity".
128.93.62.30 10:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is lamer than Timur, there are way too many claims that lack serious academic sources.. It looks like everyone threw in their lot with their claims.. I think a fact and a source tag (either for the article or sections) are in order.. Baristarim 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, a controvresial topic like this though is just asking for people with a bone to pick to start ranting. I'm working on the Ireland section right now- there was no genocide but I suppose it warrants mentioning that there wasn't so as to fight the rather horrible folk-history many people sadly still believe. Not touching the rest with a ten foot barge pole though-- Josquius 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As I have said before and anyone who knows anything about Britain would tell you- I AM NOT GIVING THE BRITISH POSITION. The Irish famine is not touched upon in schools however if it was judging by the way the rest of the empire is treated no doubt it would go way over the top in villifying the British just as you are doing. I am a Irish-Briton and the 'Irish' view that you are posting is one that was used only by the IRA and their ignorant supporters. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a collection of 'here is what random man on the street thinks of event A'. It is about the truth. It was no more genocide then the US governments' methods for helping New Orleans in hurricane Katrina- horribly incompetant and ineffective yes but purposfully harmful? No way.-- Josquius 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The actions against the population of Ireland is not usually considered to be genocide. If it is to be included here then as WP:V says:
See for example in this article the entry Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Ireland was no more (or less) part of the British Empire than the other home countries. It makes a much sense to place the Australian section under British Empire as it does to place the USA under the same, as parts of the Australian article relate to post Empire events -- PBS 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) ---
The Anglo-Irish war has nothing to do with the potato famine. And I know of no-one who alleges that the atrocities (carried out by both sides) during the Anglo-Irish war count as genocide, so I don't know why anyone thinks 'The Wind That Shakes the Barley' is relevant. Also, there were even more deaths and atrocities carried out by the pro and anti-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War which followed.
Wikipedia actually has some decent articles on both these wars and the Irish Potato Famine, as well as the various other examples of British misrule in Ireland. Maybe you should all try reading them.
There is a bit of a tendency amongst American contributors to have a bit of a mad, romanticised view of the conflict in Ireland (I hate to generalise, but it's true). You can't just look at the History of Ireland, see how badly the British have behaved, then accept the IRA's view of a world where the British are as bad as the Nazis and all the bombs planted in shopping malls and train stations over the last 40 years were justified as part of the "war with Britain".
By the way, before you all accuse me of pro-British bias, I'm Irish- I'm just a bit sick of what is a very complicated and long period of history being appropriated by "Irish-Americans", so they can bash the Brits and make themselves feel better about their country's own history. 217.196.239.189 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)seanjw
So that the NPOV is not defined, as User:PBS seems to think, by oppinions within the UK. Dpotop 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Contary to what you believe wikipedia is about the truth. By your reasoning if a few psychos think grass is blue then the article on grass should be changed to incorporate their differing POV. Some people may think it was genocide yes however they are very much in the minority. Also whats with your constant insistance its the British somehow trying to cover up their crimes in editing this article with the standard British POV? As said thats really not the case....-- Josquius 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I see that
User:PBS has a history of British-nationalist POV-pushing, e.g. in
Bombing of Dresden in World War II. And other users say the same thing I said: he spins credible sources to get the opposite message.
Dpotop
07:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been here considerably longer then you mate...
You are really making yourself sound rather silly here by saying we are British nationalists. This is not at all the British POV. Its the generally accepted world view. I learned about the great famine from my Irish born and raised grandmother.
We are not trying to 'silence' (sheesh, whom is putting spin on things here?) the other side. We are simply writing the generally accepted fact, your POV is very much a minority one and should be treat as such. --
Josquius
09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
1: I was replying to something addressed to me. 2: Are you for real? I seriously doubt any one would go to this much effort with sockpuppets. Part of the US introduced the debate into the curriculum as a example of how different oppinions can distort the truth. Its common practice in teaching history in schools to teach that often there is no absolute answer. In this case with it being taught to school kids and not serious academics they have chosen a subject with some degree of controversy but where its pretty clear what the 'right' answer actually is.-- Josquius 12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Enough with the mad Americans. Dpotop, the Irish Potato Famine isn't seen as genocide by the vast majority of people in Ireland. We were never taught it was a genocide at school. It's seen as an example of British misrule and the British governments' indifference to people who were supposed to be British subjects, but that's very different to saying it was a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group. A very small minority of historians claim the potato famine was used as an opportunity to practice genocide. Saying the famine wasn't genocide is the accepted opinion amongst historians- not a British nationalist POV. There may be debates in American schools, but that doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that there is some sort of debate and differing opinions. From what I've read, there are plenty of debates in America over whether humans used to ride around on the backs of dinosaurs, does that tell you anything useful about evolution?
SEANJW
15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it suitable to place this paragraph in the article? No more evidence to verify the existence of this socalled de 'genocide',and we put this disputable 'genocide' as a fact.This paragraph need special attention,because there is no evidence to support this point of view,and all of this accusation is subjective and cann't be treated as truth. Ksyrie 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have put an unreferencedsect template at the top of this section. Unless some Verifiable reliable sources are added I will remove the section. Also there is a lot in the section which although nasty are not directly related to the alledged genocide, eg " Additionally, British troops were involved in an unknown number of rapes and lootings of food supplies, among other things." -- PBS 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't East Timor be included here? There was a real attempt by the Indonesians to reduce the ethnic Timorese and replace them with Indonesians between 1975 and 1990. Around a third of the population was killed. Isn't that Genocide? I may add it myself, though I'm new here and not sure how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.161.232 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 October 2006
OK, I've added a section. Should be interesting to see what everyone else thinks of it. And this is how to sign, yes? Steve3742 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
According to several sources, almost 1/3 of the population was killed. They are: John Pilger's documentary Death of a Nation; Amy Goodman's radio documentary Massacre: The story of East Timor. Goodman cites this statistic many times; transcripts and archived audio and video can be found at www.democracynow.org Mike.lifeguard 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Alan Nairn cites this figure as well. I'm not sure where he's cited it in print, but has certainly done so on air. Mike.lifeguard 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The source mentioning genocide (apart from those at PBS's talk page) was presented to me by User:Hkelkar at my talk page. He cited p. 75 of "Bloodbath in Bangladesh" by Prabodh Chandra (Adarsh Publications New Delhi 1971) as saying.
“ | Little did the Bangali Muslim know that while the Britisher was sowing seeds of division of India, in Bengal the seeds of the current genocide were also being sown simultaneously.In fact the seeds were of a single strain
, giving ready crop instantly and more juicy harvest in the days to come.The seeds of communalism were sown by the Britisher in Bengal.The Muslim League as a political party was also founded in Bengal.The riots that followed DAD were also at their worst in Bengal.Noakhali will remain in the memory of mankind as one of the most horrible incidents of man's cruelty towards man. |
” |
Apart from that, there were the fairly Hindu-sympathetic sources provided on PBS's talk page. I'll wait for a reply before readding the occurence of genocide. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
From my talk page ( user Talk:PBS#Genocide in Direct Action Day)
-- PBS 08:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nobleeagle are free to challenge and remove any section where you do not think the sources are adequate. Just because there are alleged genocides in this list that do not meet you standards of citations, is not a justification to include another badly sourced and cited section. -- PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section on the Noakhali Massacre of which the relevant paragraph on the genocide accusation is:
If Prabodh Chandra claims it was a genocide what definition of genocide is he using? It can not be the CPPCG definition as explained in the Genocide article because it would not meet the intent to destroy, in whole or in part. Pogroms do not meet the intent, it has to be a preplanned or ongoing conspiracy, and "50-75 thousand Hindus" would not come anywhere near in whole or in part. Further WP:CITE needs page numbers for the citation from "Bloodbath in Bangladesh"
If you ( Nobleeagle) want to include this incident then please write it in a similar way to other alledged genocides eg:
Hopefully you will also be able to find another person who confirms the massacre but stops short of claiming it is a massacre and include it to create a WP:NPOV -- PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored a modified version of a piece about genocide in Russain Empire sumbitted previously by user HanzoHattori. This is based on well established facts. See Circassian ethnic cleansing and Caucasian War. Biophys 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I have placed an {{ unreferenced}} template in the subsections of this section because they do not cite sources. If after a few days they do not have cited sources I intend to remove them. What I mean by this is like the Ireland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sections they should include citations using verifiable reliable sources which include who is making the claim that the event was a genocide, preferablely with other sources which refute the claim for a balanced WP:NPOV. If a wikipedia inline link is provided to a main article which contains the sources, then there is no need to include them here, but as far as I can tell none of these sections contain such links to articles which have adequate citations that claim a genocide was committed. Subsections included are:
-- PBS 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Alot of things need to be cleaned up. First of all can the Mongol conquest really be considered a genocide? The Mongols may have been ruthless in their conquests but they did not systematically exterminate the peoples they conquered. In fact after building their empire, they governed and ruled in the same type of administration of the conquered subjects (For example Kublai continued Chinese tradition under the Yuan dynastic title). The Mongol conquests cannot be made as genocides then but rather brutal war atrocities. Had the Mongols truly been genocidal, they would have literally put every one of their conquered subjects to the sword but that's not what they did.
The same can be said about Japan. The Japanese committed horrifying atrocities during WW2 like the Rape of Nanking but that was not a genocide. They did not systematically target a group for extermination. It was an example of soldiers going psychotic. Heinous as their crimes were, it does not qualify as a genocide.
Same goes for the alleged Arab genocides. This quote doe not qualify genocide: "Their high handed policy wreaked havoc with the whole Assyrian nation. They inflicted heavy loss of life and severe damage to the social fabric ". There are thousands of cases of wars, violence in World History where there was "heavy loss of life" and "severe damage to the social fabric". Besides the source does not proide figures: How many did the Arab Empire kill? Where (which towns) were they killed? Bless sins 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the entire Genocides_in_history#Ancient.2Fmedieval_genocides should be deleted except for "Arab Empire" (for which we should wait for sources for about 4-7 days, and then delete if we find no sources). Also, remeber that Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. To accuse an entity of massacre or violence or war is one thing - but to accuse some empire/state of genocide is something truly exceptional. Bless sins 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Genocide definitely occurred in the Bible - God gives the command in Deuteronomy 20:16, and the Israelites carry it out throughout Joshua. So, I think that section should be restored. Brilliand 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems like what Bless Sins is advocating is a minimalist approach to the defintion and application of genocide, as advanced by such political theorists as Michael Ignatieff. The point is, at what point is loss of human life a genocide? if we are to apply the letter of the UN definition, specifically, the "in part," then what loss of human life is not genocide. Recently in Mexico a former ex-president was accused of genocide for his part in the "killing" (i would say massacre) of some 300 protesters. Tiananmen Square massacre? no, now it's genocide. Everything is genocide. And this depradates the value of the horror and tragedy for which this word was conjured to invoke, horror and tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust. Scale, then, would appear to have gravity in applying genocide. Besides, what it looks like is individuals applying the term of genocide to their impressions of world history without scholarly research or sources to back them up.
The Jackal God
03:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The war crimes and overall atrocities in Guatemala was considered genocide by the UN and many South and Central American nations. Am I alone in thinking this should be added?
Hi, I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but victimhood is all the rage in modern politics and international politics is not different. Everyone wants their suffering labelled as "Genocide". I'm not denying that there is such a thing as genocide or the suffering which has happened. However, I think this article could be a little bit more careful about how the term is applied to various events.
Take the Bosnian genocide section as an example.
Over all there seems to be a 'problem' with a lot of cases wanting to be labelled as genocide. To avoid having to pick and choose between them, I suggest outlining some of the most well acknowledged cases (armenians, jews under the nazis, ustasha, srebrenica massacre, rwanda and darfur) and the including the rest under a separate "other possible/claimed cases of genocide" section. What do ya think?
Roncevaux
12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea, and I would qualify that alleged genocides be sourced with scholars applying the "term" genocide - this principle seems to have been thrown out the window here.
The Jackal God
22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
in the article democide, there was a table of those events considered to be democides on the right hand side on top of the page. on there, Indonesia was listed to be having 2 democides between the years 1955-2001. i was sondering if anybody knows about this. please message me. thanks!
chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
and like, what i was wondering about since there is a section about the indonesians and the east timor stuff, it got me confused because there was= --the murders and killings of indonesians by the japanese, which japan has not stated an official apology or admittance yet
and
--there was the indonesia and east timor conflict
so, anybody care to help me?? pleazeee??
chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a domain expert who can repair or replace the section Genocides_in_history#China? As it stands at the moment, it is absolutely incomprehensible. -- Donperk 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It came as a suprise to me, because I consider it a massacre not an act of genocide, but according to the UN sources the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide See: A/RES/37/123(A-F) Section D: "2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide." Adopted at the 108th UN General Assembly plenary meeting 16 December 1982 and the 112th plenary meeting, 20 December 1982. As the hidden comment says we also need the voting numbers here for this. -- PBS 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I take no credit for finding this. It was added by User:Bless sins ( Revision as of 04:26, 3 December 2006). I just checked the sources and added links to those sources ( Revision as of 08:12, 4 December 2006). -- PBS 09:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
After thinking and discussing about this, it comes clear to me that only stating, without more comment, that Sabra and Shatila was a genocide is not neutral.
Geno-cide or ethno-cide means the purpose of a "large scale massacre" (such as Sabra and Shatila) is to eliminate an ethnic group (which it is not the case of Sabra and Shatila). Clear right examples are the amerindians, the armenians, the jews, the muslims of Sebrenica or the tutsi in Rwanda.
Therefore, even if Sabra and Shatila was acted as a "genocide" by UNO I think the fact this surprised us indicates this must not be considered as such any more (or only was considered as such by UNO). Therefore we should find information about this and add this to keep neutrality.
I add the NPOV flag in the article until this can be solved.
Alithien
07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I an please to see that one of my contributions to Wikipedia has been read by someone :-) I think that UN resolution 37/123/D says more about the politics of the UN than it does about genocide :-( but as you say "we aren't supposed to be making our own determinations of things like this" and it is in a section called "Alleged genocides from 1951 to 1990". Adding a reliable source to balance the POV would be the way to go (as it is for all the other alledged examples in this file where they have not already been added). However the POV flag is unwarrented. The article is not saying that it was a genocide just that the "United Nations General Assembly ... declared it to be an act of genocide". The balance to that POV would be to find a reliable source which denied that such a resolution was passed which is clearly nonsense. -- PBS 12:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason I put this in is because that it is an "Allegation of genocide", like many other examples, and like the title of the section suggests. Bless sins 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I think this is explained by this guy [34] in the mentionned book. I looked at in google books looking for Sabra and Shatila and I think he is rather clear about how "Sabra and Shatila" genocide resolution has to be seen (pp.234-235). I will add this in the wp:fr. If I were better in English, I would do it here too but if I understand the nuances I can hardly transcript them properly in English. Alithien 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The UN is biased towards the Palestinians but ONLY if the Israelis are involved. Here, there were Israel-Allied Lebanese. But when the anti-Israel Lebanese (Shiite Amal Movement militia) attacked THE SAME camps, completely wrecked them and killed ~3,000 (the co-called The War on the Camps, at the time of Amal's Brothers' War with Hezbollah), this of course didn't matter at all (did you even heard about it?).
Palestinians are horribly victimised by the Iraqi Shia right now ("leave the country or die", no less), they were expelled en masse from Libya few years ago (and from Kuwait in 1991), etc., but this doesn't matter, because... guess the reason. Also they shoot and kindap each other in the Hamas-Fatah conflict, but the world is silent (just compare with the incredible 2002 " Jenin massacre" BS).
Or, moving away from Palestinians, massacre of 20,000 in neighbouring Syria, in the SAME YEAR (1982). Why, not a genocide? Ah, I see, no Jews in sight here too. The Lebanese were inflicting atrocities on each other and the foreigners (Palestinians, expelled from Jordan) a long time before the Israeli involvement, but... oh, you know already.
Cut this idiocy. -- HanzoHattori 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Israelis (IDF) were involved in the massacre in the way they cordoned off the area AND let the allied Lebanese in, there was also alleged logistical support for the Christians. The whole thing was and is such a huge matter precisely because of this - here you go, a "massacre by the Jews".
On and there's already the War of the Camps article. Let's see:
At the end of the war an official Lebanese government reported that the total number of casualties for these battles was put at 3,781 dead and 6,787 wounded in the fighting between Amal and the Palestinians. Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in internal struggles between pro-Syrian and independent organizations was around 2,000. The real number is probably higher because thousands of Palestinians were not registered in Lebanon and the blockade meant that no official could access the camps so that all the casualties could not be counted.
Awesome, so the Palestinians were even killing each other (the same camps, mind you). Now ask the average people on a street (outside Lebanon) if they ever heard about this. -- HanzoHattori 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is moving away from the issue at hand -- should the {{ POV}} template be at the top of this article because it is reported that the UN called the Sabra and Shatila a genocide in a parent section which is labeled "Alleged genocides from 1951 to 1990". It is no use arguing that under the more recent definition of genocide it would not be called one. (A) because the section is not saying that it would, and (B) see above it might still qualify as one given the arguments presented in paragraph 13 of the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004). I do not see how one can find a reliable source post the 2004 Appeals Judgement which can categorically say that it was not a genocide given the text in paragraph 13. If it can be found then it ought to be added, but the paragraph as it stands does not present an unbalanced POV and the {{ POV}} template should be removed. -- PBS 10:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be included on the page as thousands of Jews, Moors, and Protestants were killed. Casey14 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The entire section was ridiculous propaganda. Partition caused the genocide of Hindus from Pakistan. Almost all Hindus were thrown out of Pakistan. In contrast, there are still millions of Muslims in India. Also, it was Pakistan that conducted genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 (see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities). India Rising 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
IMO the article became almost useless list of modern political disputes and attempts to serve historical justice and fails to give the overview of the phenomenon. In few cases it is (IMHO) misleading or trivializing.
Some examples:
The article could be restructured into three parts:
This way a reader would initially see stable and usable parts 1 and 2 and only then he will get into the (expected) war-zone. Possibly the part 3 may be offloaded into sub-article of its own.
Pavel Vozenilek
21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is very obscure and contains a lot of marginally relevant information. It mentions many questionable cases, majority of which have never been recognised as genocide. In addition, it simply misinterpret some sources by taking the quotes out of context. For instance, it states:
whereas the expanded quote demonstrates that the author's idea has been distorted:
In addition, in actuality the Ellman's article (as well as his conclusions) are much more general. According to him, at least two different definitions of genocide exist, strict (UNO convention) and loose, and one can come to different conclusions depending of which one is used. He concluded that whereas Stalin's action fit a loose definition of genocide,
IMO, the section should be rewritten and all irrelevant or tangentially relevant materials and links should be removed.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:40, 11 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 | → | Archive 10 |
I have reverted the changes made to the Turkey entry today because one does not change the words insides quotes and remove the references to those quotes [1]. Further a lot of information was deleted which was referenced and different text was substituted which is not clearly cited. The additional wording:It is now understood that these massacres were committed not only by Ottoman muslims against Armenian Christians, but also vice versa, making this an inter-communal war, which in no way can be regarded as genocide or ethnic cleansing. is not sourced. Just because prisoners who were held in Malta were not guilty of the alleged Armenian Genocide is not relevant to the accusation of genocide committed by others in the Sublime Porte. -- PBS 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is the reason why I put a "disputed" tag on the section Ottoman Empire (Turkey). I dispute the following claim: "The Turkish Government disputes this interpretation of events and in an attempt at political historical revisionism has drafted laws like Article 301 that state ...'" (my emphasis). I believe that as stated this is factually incorrect. This article was not introduced by the government for the purpose of revisionism. Under Turkish law any adult can press charges, and the Grey Wolves and other anti-EU nationalists have really stepped up on the plate. This to the embarrassment and frustration of the Turkish government, as expressed by foreign minister Abdullah Gül. Outside Turkey many people seem to think that Turkey is an almost monolithic entity, and that such charges are brought or supported by the government. This is not true in any of the cases that may be related to the Armenian issue. I further think this section does not do very well in maintaining an NPOV stance, but that is another matter. Lambiam Talk 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Would the wording be better put like this:
NOTES
-- PBS 10:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Is the text OK now? can we remove the section tag? -- PBS 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
osmancan-Isn't it a contradiction to show unreal sources show that "so-called armenian genocide" happened as sources? Why to show sources that need real sources as sources. I request this topic to be discussed on neutral platform. The truth is that there is a conflict between two points of wiews, however the proofs of Turkish side are is assumed unexistent in spite of the proofs being rational and them having a reliable resource. However only proof and beliefs of armenian sided historians are being assumed and accepted which is a contradiction with a fundamental rule of the science of history which is being assumed as nonexistent is this topic. That particular rule forbids sidedness in history that kind of sidedness can be seen normal in armenian and turkish historians however it would be a disgrace to do so for other historians. The Turkish law 301 prevents the national values of turkey from being humiliated and slandered. As other countries propose laws to enforce something slander, why turkish goverment cannot enforce telling the truth as it is accepted by the goverment of turkey? The main aim of the lawsuit is defend the honour and beliefs of turkey, if a country can arrest a person of telling their beliefs even if that beliefs won't have any bad effects on that contry why turkey wouldn't arrest someone if the person slander? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmancan ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 October 2006
This section was from the Armenian POV in its entirety. Replaced with text that is more neutral and approaches a balanced account of what has happened. Source is mainly "Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality" by Prof. Justin McCarthy. Please do not revert this! I am appalled even the discussions on this subject is from one POV. Everything is so obviously one-sided! Also it is very hyprocritical to remove the Algerian genocide allegations saying it is from one POV - and at the same time publishing this for the Armenians genocide allegations. The Turkish point of view was only expressed as "Turkish govenrment claims..." and "it is a taboo to..." etc. etc. Come on, it is NOT the Turkish government who claim both sides suffered a lot, it is the people. 90% of them. By saying it the government's point of view implies it is not people's will. I am one of the people. I know many many other Turkish people. It is OUR view - not only the government's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Add-on: Am amazed my update was reverted back in 5 minutes! Here is the reason: "reverted to last version by PBS because modifications deleted cited material and replaced it with unsourced marerial which included a first paragraph with a POV statment". This continues to amaze me - the reverted version is 100% made of POV statements; compared with mine which you say the first paragraph is POV. To take information from the "cited" material of one POV presents a very wrong picture indeed. Also, my version was sourced - I have put in the source to this discussions page. Is there another way to cite them? Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Further update: Philip, you were quick to revert my change but not quick to respond here I see... Anyways, now I think I know what is required for citation. Some parts of the current section are not particularly cited and will be removed. The first paragraph refers to the WWI Allied countries comdemning Ottomans in 1915; however the cited source is a US Congress resolution. Also, WWI Allied countries, being at war with Ottomans, cannot be taken as a reliable source - they were trying to build support for war effort in their countries, and show the Turks as the bad guys. Pretty normal in a war situation. Also, an US Congress document is a political document that cannot prove or disprove anything. Therefore these are bad citations - removing relevant sections. This section _really_ needs to be rebuilt in a more objective manner - it reeks of POV... 14 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see we had an edit clash. Sorry about my first replace act - I felt really frustrated when I saw all the information there was only from one POV - and nothing from the other. I now see this is not wikipedia's way. Anyways, yes I do dispute the Allied Powers statement. The cited source is incorrect. Also, being at war the allied powers can hardly be taken as an objective source. Still all the material in this section is from one POV - this hardly portrays the entire picture. Must find source materials. Do they need to be online or can they be printed books as well do you think? 14 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the latest addition for the Allied Powers statement - this violates WP:RS. Two reasons: First, the point stated above: WWI Allied countries, being at war with Ottomans, cannot be taken as a reliable source - they were trying to build support for war effort in their countries, and show the Turks as the bad guys. Pretty normal in a war situation. Sources with agendas are specifically covered in WP:RS. Secondly, the reference is from the website www.armenian-genocide.org/ which is a partisan website as defined in NP:RS. Also this section suffers from serious WP:POV_pushing - unfortunately there is no easy cure for this as WP:POV_pushing also explains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I am disputing the fact that Republic of Turkey existed in 1915 so the Armenian genocide arguments should not be reflected to Modern day Turkey but to the Ottoman Empire. There was no such thing as a "Turkish" Government or Turkey in official historical terms in 1915 as mentioned in this article. Any usage of the term Turkey or Turkish government for any action before 1923 is a complete historical bias against Republic of Turkey. I am removing the title of Turkey from the title unless someone can prove to me that a country that was officially called Turkey existed before 1923. MKS 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In that same logic Americans are Yankees, Australians are Aussies read wiki article nickname for tons of more examples, and as a matter of fact the usage of the word Turkey was a deragotary inside joke in British politics (due to the animal name) (same level as using such deragatory national nicknames which I wont mention here) and such and the fact that Allied powers (British, French and Russians) will of course demean a country that they are at war with at 1915 in that document you mention, in the same spirit insistedly calling Istanbul as Constantinople (heck Pope Benedict still calls Istanbul as Constantinople, and it is simply not since 1453). Wikipedia is not a place of slangs or degradations but of official historical facts. I wish everyone respected that especially since this article talks about people stepping on each other. MKS 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless there are some sources which say that Algeria was a genocide it should be removed. Bouteflika as quoted in the Scotsman article "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions" is not claiming that a genocide took place he is using the term as an adjective (and interestingly using the old rhetoric trick of repeat something three times, so beloved by Churchill). -- PBS 08:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am deleteing this section in the article , see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide -- PBS 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This section has been recreated by user:David Falcon is making a mockery of the definition of a genocide, he also created two articles on the matter one main article has been voted for deletion and the other was a POV fork and had been speedy deleted. This section only shows the Algerian point of view. In addition this section is a POV fork on Algerian war of independence. Accusations of genocide do not mean genocide really took place, need references from somewhere else than politically motivated accusations, are there any serious work by independent scholars to support these allegations? There has been multiple discussion on the matter, as why it does not constitute a genocide, as there was no planning or official policy to systematically kill arabs or berbers, this was a independence war with all the atrocities that comes with it, including massacres, this accusation ignores the fact that vast number of arabs were siding with the French in this war (the Harki) who later were massacred by FLN. The figure of 1.5 million dead is a recent revision by Algerian authorities that come out of the blue without any serious research work and that has only a purpose to suit a political agenda. Most of the references in this section either do not support the allegations they are meant to support, or only report the point of view of Algerian authorities and not the international community as a whole, one of the references come from Socialist Worker a far left activist journal which can not be considered as a neutral source of information. I would invite people to discuss on the section before coming to an agreement whether to delete it or not. I must add that User:David Falcon is motivated by a Turkish point of view and his anger because of the recognition of Armenian genocide by French parliament. I offered him to ask for mediation in our dispute on his talk page he but never replied, I now assume bad faith from his part. If this section is to stay in the article, it needs to be entirely rewritten from a neutral point of view Blastwizard 12:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
David is is customary to append ones comments at the bottom of the section you are writing in please see Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Formatting. -- PBS 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The reason I do not think that this section is suitable for this page is because most of the pargraphs have nothing to do with genocide. going through your refrences:
I think that there are enought references here to write an article. You shoud junk references like the socialistworker because it is not a respectable source for this type of article, and junk references which just repeat previous ones choosing the most respectable one for inclusion. The article title should not have genocide in it, because genocide is predominantly an Algerian POV and not shared by the French establishment (according to the sources you have provided) and hence is not a WP:NPOV title. As I suggested in the debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide:
-- PBS 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not read the article the same way that you do it is mentioned as a contributing factor, but it does not say that "genocide was an indirect result of Belgiums racist institutionalization of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups". The Belgians ran the country for only 4 decades, ending more than 3 decades before the genocide. If the genocide had happened soon after independence there would be some justification for this argument, but to over emphasise European influences is demeaning to the locals, in just the same way as claiming any achievement by a post colonial country has only happened because of the influence of the colonial power. So I am removing the addition. -- PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The first target of the Ottoman Empire during the 1900's was the Hellenic ...
No citing of sources so I am removing this new entry. See the sources for the Armenian Genocide which follows it if the last sentence is not clear -- PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Text removed from the article:
reference:
-- PBS 10:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If this alleged genocide is to remain on this page then it should be stated who and for what organisation are making the allegations that a genocide has taken place. It should include at least one citation from a verifiable and reputable source. To balance the piece it should also include the alleged perpetrators POV as well. A quick Google on [Laos genocide] returns lots of pages, so this should not be too difficult. -- PBS 07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that this should be brought up as a BELIEF of there being a genocide. Many civilians were killed not because they were specifically targetted but because of lack of discpline with Conscripts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.74.85 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
i saw nothing on Japan's atrocities in WWII, so I added some stuff. i think someone should add more(if not, i will when i have time, since I find it extremely unfair Germany gets half a page on atrocities, and Japan gets two sentences on absolutely nothing)
The section on Lebanon is purely subjective. It contains uncofirmed information such as the number of deaths and bias in the writing style. Moreover, because Israel is not directly targeting civilians, it should not be defined as a genocide. Certainly not more so than other incedents aimed at civilians like septermber 11th, whose death toll was several fold the death toll so far in Lebanon, and Terorrist attacks against Israel, or any other war in history that has had civilian casualities for that matter.
If Palestinians are going to be included as a genocide, then there equally well should be a section about Palestinian terrorists targeting Israeli civilians. It should also be mentioned that the treatment of Palestinians in as second class citizens, which is not a genocide, is not unique to Israel, but also is the case for Palesinian polulations in other Arab countries, including Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Lebanon.
I concur, too, very strongly -- the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, and their dispossession, is both real and tragic, and much of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is worthy of condemnation, even outrage, but it is not genocide. To call it genocide is to pervert the meaning of the word 'genocide.' Indeed, it seems to me to be an anti-Semitic tactic: since European Jews were in fact the victims of genocide, and since that genocide was one of the primary factors in the establishment of the state of Israel, some pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel groups and individuals have decided to call the Israeli oppression of Palestinians genocide -- even though the Israelis have not tried, and are not trying, to exterminate the Palestinians. The Wikipedia editors should step in here.
Who thought it was a good idea to try forcing history into 1500-1950 , 1951-1990 , 1991+ periods ? What about the genocides that span multiples of your periods such as Guatemala 1960-1996, and West Papua from 1966 to today. 211.30.222.139 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I am new here (please bear with me), and I just wanted to bring up a question on the logic of applying the term genocide to historical events of the distant past. My first instinct was that it was a mistake of
anachronism in scholarship, or theory; but at the same time history tends to repeat itself, and perhaps this is history repeating itself on larger scale. Scale seems to be a important factor in determining genocide. Modern technology in logistics and means of coercion enable widespread slaughter (by man, not disease) on a scale previously unkown. Along that line, is genocide a crime of modernity? Other factor are also important, as this is a highly charged topic. Is it relevant that the author of the term "genocide" did not refer back to ancient "genocides" but rather to modern examples? Again, does anyone have misgivings using the UN's definition of genocide, in which Stalin and others political interests were protected?
My second point is that, disregarding the first point, the list appears incoherent, maybe a list of alleged genocides could be drafted. Also, why are only the genocides of the last 500 years termed "alleged" but not those previous, including an uncited religious persecution (Cathars), one of countless of the genre. Also, the cases for the Roman genocides in Gaul are a stretch. In the case of the Helvetians, they were invading another tribe's land, which the Romans were defending; the primary intent here being to defend not to annihilate. Moreover, the casualties were combative, and the others were enslaved. Same objections would apply to Gaul, where the casualties are from a war of conquest, not extermination. If wars of conquest qualify as genocide, we have some serious work to do. I can help with Antiquity.
Miscellaneous: Huron genocide by the Iroquois? A là Carthaginian genocide by the Romans, Plataean genocide by Spartans and Thebans in
The History of the Peloponnesian War by
Thucydides. It was a regular occurrence of those times, there are many, many more instances.
The Jackal God
05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it relevant that the author of the term "genocide" did not refer back to ancient "genocides" but rather to modern examples?
Again, does anyone have misgivings using the UN's definition of genocide, in which Stalin and others political interests were protected?
The entry on Australia is largely correct, but the detail seems to leave a bit to be desired. Can anyone provide refs for the information contained there? MojoTas 04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
After 5 years in existence, Wikipedia still has no article highlighted the deaths caused by the biggenst Communist regimes, USSR and China. Each killed tens of millions of people.
How long are we going to squabble over whether these deaths should be classified as genocide or massacres? Please read the Museum of Communism FAQ. [33] -- Uncle Ed 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Great Leap Forward, noting a range of estimates of death of 14-43million in 1958-1962.
From the history of the article:
From the header of the article:
Ripen if we were to use your definition there would only be 3 entries on this page all post 1990 as only 3 genocides have been found to be such by an international tribunal. Even if those by domestic courts were to be included, there would only be half a dozen more. This is precisely what appears on the Genocide page, in which case this page would be redundant and you might as well put it up as an "Article For Deletion". Is that your position? -- PBS 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm puzzled to see (and I searched several articles) that the terrible policies applied by the British rule in Ireland are not stated here, whereas they seem to be include some of the most horrid crimes ever.
Also, don't the first concentration camps qualify British war practices during the Boer wars as genocide?
Somehow, the British are not mentioned in this article, while they were among the first to practice modern "crimes against humanity".
128.93.62.30 10:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is lamer than Timur, there are way too many claims that lack serious academic sources.. It looks like everyone threw in their lot with their claims.. I think a fact and a source tag (either for the article or sections) are in order.. Baristarim 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, a controvresial topic like this though is just asking for people with a bone to pick to start ranting. I'm working on the Ireland section right now- there was no genocide but I suppose it warrants mentioning that there wasn't so as to fight the rather horrible folk-history many people sadly still believe. Not touching the rest with a ten foot barge pole though-- Josquius 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As I have said before and anyone who knows anything about Britain would tell you- I AM NOT GIVING THE BRITISH POSITION. The Irish famine is not touched upon in schools however if it was judging by the way the rest of the empire is treated no doubt it would go way over the top in villifying the British just as you are doing. I am a Irish-Briton and the 'Irish' view that you are posting is one that was used only by the IRA and their ignorant supporters. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a collection of 'here is what random man on the street thinks of event A'. It is about the truth. It was no more genocide then the US governments' methods for helping New Orleans in hurricane Katrina- horribly incompetant and ineffective yes but purposfully harmful? No way.-- Josquius 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The actions against the population of Ireland is not usually considered to be genocide. If it is to be included here then as WP:V says:
See for example in this article the entry Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Ireland was no more (or less) part of the British Empire than the other home countries. It makes a much sense to place the Australian section under British Empire as it does to place the USA under the same, as parts of the Australian article relate to post Empire events -- PBS 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) ---
The Anglo-Irish war has nothing to do with the potato famine. And I know of no-one who alleges that the atrocities (carried out by both sides) during the Anglo-Irish war count as genocide, so I don't know why anyone thinks 'The Wind That Shakes the Barley' is relevant. Also, there were even more deaths and atrocities carried out by the pro and anti-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War which followed.
Wikipedia actually has some decent articles on both these wars and the Irish Potato Famine, as well as the various other examples of British misrule in Ireland. Maybe you should all try reading them.
There is a bit of a tendency amongst American contributors to have a bit of a mad, romanticised view of the conflict in Ireland (I hate to generalise, but it's true). You can't just look at the History of Ireland, see how badly the British have behaved, then accept the IRA's view of a world where the British are as bad as the Nazis and all the bombs planted in shopping malls and train stations over the last 40 years were justified as part of the "war with Britain".
By the way, before you all accuse me of pro-British bias, I'm Irish- I'm just a bit sick of what is a very complicated and long period of history being appropriated by "Irish-Americans", so they can bash the Brits and make themselves feel better about their country's own history. 217.196.239.189 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)seanjw
So that the NPOV is not defined, as User:PBS seems to think, by oppinions within the UK. Dpotop 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Contary to what you believe wikipedia is about the truth. By your reasoning if a few psychos think grass is blue then the article on grass should be changed to incorporate their differing POV. Some people may think it was genocide yes however they are very much in the minority. Also whats with your constant insistance its the British somehow trying to cover up their crimes in editing this article with the standard British POV? As said thats really not the case....-- Josquius 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I see that
User:PBS has a history of British-nationalist POV-pushing, e.g. in
Bombing of Dresden in World War II. And other users say the same thing I said: he spins credible sources to get the opposite message.
Dpotop
07:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been here considerably longer then you mate...
You are really making yourself sound rather silly here by saying we are British nationalists. This is not at all the British POV. Its the generally accepted world view. I learned about the great famine from my Irish born and raised grandmother.
We are not trying to 'silence' (sheesh, whom is putting spin on things here?) the other side. We are simply writing the generally accepted fact, your POV is very much a minority one and should be treat as such. --
Josquius
09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
1: I was replying to something addressed to me. 2: Are you for real? I seriously doubt any one would go to this much effort with sockpuppets. Part of the US introduced the debate into the curriculum as a example of how different oppinions can distort the truth. Its common practice in teaching history in schools to teach that often there is no absolute answer. In this case with it being taught to school kids and not serious academics they have chosen a subject with some degree of controversy but where its pretty clear what the 'right' answer actually is.-- Josquius 12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Enough with the mad Americans. Dpotop, the Irish Potato Famine isn't seen as genocide by the vast majority of people in Ireland. We were never taught it was a genocide at school. It's seen as an example of British misrule and the British governments' indifference to people who were supposed to be British subjects, but that's very different to saying it was a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group. A very small minority of historians claim the potato famine was used as an opportunity to practice genocide. Saying the famine wasn't genocide is the accepted opinion amongst historians- not a British nationalist POV. There may be debates in American schools, but that doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that there is some sort of debate and differing opinions. From what I've read, there are plenty of debates in America over whether humans used to ride around on the backs of dinosaurs, does that tell you anything useful about evolution?
SEANJW
15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it suitable to place this paragraph in the article? No more evidence to verify the existence of this socalled de 'genocide',and we put this disputable 'genocide' as a fact.This paragraph need special attention,because there is no evidence to support this point of view,and all of this accusation is subjective and cann't be treated as truth. Ksyrie 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I have put an unreferencedsect template at the top of this section. Unless some Verifiable reliable sources are added I will remove the section. Also there is a lot in the section which although nasty are not directly related to the alledged genocide, eg " Additionally, British troops were involved in an unknown number of rapes and lootings of food supplies, among other things." -- PBS 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't East Timor be included here? There was a real attempt by the Indonesians to reduce the ethnic Timorese and replace them with Indonesians between 1975 and 1990. Around a third of the population was killed. Isn't that Genocide? I may add it myself, though I'm new here and not sure how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.161.232 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 October 2006
OK, I've added a section. Should be interesting to see what everyone else thinks of it. And this is how to sign, yes? Steve3742 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
According to several sources, almost 1/3 of the population was killed. They are: John Pilger's documentary Death of a Nation; Amy Goodman's radio documentary Massacre: The story of East Timor. Goodman cites this statistic many times; transcripts and archived audio and video can be found at www.democracynow.org Mike.lifeguard 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Alan Nairn cites this figure as well. I'm not sure where he's cited it in print, but has certainly done so on air. Mike.lifeguard 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The source mentioning genocide (apart from those at PBS's talk page) was presented to me by User:Hkelkar at my talk page. He cited p. 75 of "Bloodbath in Bangladesh" by Prabodh Chandra (Adarsh Publications New Delhi 1971) as saying.
“ | Little did the Bangali Muslim know that while the Britisher was sowing seeds of division of India, in Bengal the seeds of the current genocide were also being sown simultaneously.In fact the seeds were of a single strain
, giving ready crop instantly and more juicy harvest in the days to come.The seeds of communalism were sown by the Britisher in Bengal.The Muslim League as a political party was also founded in Bengal.The riots that followed DAD were also at their worst in Bengal.Noakhali will remain in the memory of mankind as one of the most horrible incidents of man's cruelty towards man. |
” |
Apart from that, there were the fairly Hindu-sympathetic sources provided on PBS's talk page. I'll wait for a reply before readding the occurence of genocide. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
From my talk page ( user Talk:PBS#Genocide in Direct Action Day)
-- PBS 08:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nobleeagle are free to challenge and remove any section where you do not think the sources are adequate. Just because there are alleged genocides in this list that do not meet you standards of citations, is not a justification to include another badly sourced and cited section. -- PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section on the Noakhali Massacre of which the relevant paragraph on the genocide accusation is:
If Prabodh Chandra claims it was a genocide what definition of genocide is he using? It can not be the CPPCG definition as explained in the Genocide article because it would not meet the intent to destroy, in whole or in part. Pogroms do not meet the intent, it has to be a preplanned or ongoing conspiracy, and "50-75 thousand Hindus" would not come anywhere near in whole or in part. Further WP:CITE needs page numbers for the citation from "Bloodbath in Bangladesh"
If you ( Nobleeagle) want to include this incident then please write it in a similar way to other alledged genocides eg:
Hopefully you will also be able to find another person who confirms the massacre but stops short of claiming it is a massacre and include it to create a WP:NPOV -- PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored a modified version of a piece about genocide in Russain Empire sumbitted previously by user HanzoHattori. This is based on well established facts. See Circassian ethnic cleansing and Caucasian War. Biophys 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I have placed an {{ unreferenced}} template in the subsections of this section because they do not cite sources. If after a few days they do not have cited sources I intend to remove them. What I mean by this is like the Ireland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sections they should include citations using verifiable reliable sources which include who is making the claim that the event was a genocide, preferablely with other sources which refute the claim for a balanced WP:NPOV. If a wikipedia inline link is provided to a main article which contains the sources, then there is no need to include them here, but as far as I can tell none of these sections contain such links to articles which have adequate citations that claim a genocide was committed. Subsections included are:
-- PBS 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Alot of things need to be cleaned up. First of all can the Mongol conquest really be considered a genocide? The Mongols may have been ruthless in their conquests but they did not systematically exterminate the peoples they conquered. In fact after building their empire, they governed and ruled in the same type of administration of the conquered subjects (For example Kublai continued Chinese tradition under the Yuan dynastic title). The Mongol conquests cannot be made as genocides then but rather brutal war atrocities. Had the Mongols truly been genocidal, they would have literally put every one of their conquered subjects to the sword but that's not what they did.
The same can be said about Japan. The Japanese committed horrifying atrocities during WW2 like the Rape of Nanking but that was not a genocide. They did not systematically target a group for extermination. It was an example of soldiers going psychotic. Heinous as their crimes were, it does not qualify as a genocide.
Same goes for the alleged Arab genocides. This quote doe not qualify genocide: "Their high handed policy wreaked havoc with the whole Assyrian nation. They inflicted heavy loss of life and severe damage to the social fabric ". There are thousands of cases of wars, violence in World History where there was "heavy loss of life" and "severe damage to the social fabric". Besides the source does not proide figures: How many did the Arab Empire kill? Where (which towns) were they killed? Bless sins 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the entire Genocides_in_history#Ancient.2Fmedieval_genocides should be deleted except for "Arab Empire" (for which we should wait for sources for about 4-7 days, and then delete if we find no sources). Also, remeber that Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. To accuse an entity of massacre or violence or war is one thing - but to accuse some empire/state of genocide is something truly exceptional. Bless sins 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Genocide definitely occurred in the Bible - God gives the command in Deuteronomy 20:16, and the Israelites carry it out throughout Joshua. So, I think that section should be restored. Brilliand 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems like what Bless Sins is advocating is a minimalist approach to the defintion and application of genocide, as advanced by such political theorists as Michael Ignatieff. The point is, at what point is loss of human life a genocide? if we are to apply the letter of the UN definition, specifically, the "in part," then what loss of human life is not genocide. Recently in Mexico a former ex-president was accused of genocide for his part in the "killing" (i would say massacre) of some 300 protesters. Tiananmen Square massacre? no, now it's genocide. Everything is genocide. And this depradates the value of the horror and tragedy for which this word was conjured to invoke, horror and tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust. Scale, then, would appear to have gravity in applying genocide. Besides, what it looks like is individuals applying the term of genocide to their impressions of world history without scholarly research or sources to back them up.
The Jackal God
03:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The war crimes and overall atrocities in Guatemala was considered genocide by the UN and many South and Central American nations. Am I alone in thinking this should be added?
Hi, I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but victimhood is all the rage in modern politics and international politics is not different. Everyone wants their suffering labelled as "Genocide". I'm not denying that there is such a thing as genocide or the suffering which has happened. However, I think this article could be a little bit more careful about how the term is applied to various events.
Take the Bosnian genocide section as an example.
Over all there seems to be a 'problem' with a lot of cases wanting to be labelled as genocide. To avoid having to pick and choose between them, I suggest outlining some of the most well acknowledged cases (armenians, jews under the nazis, ustasha, srebrenica massacre, rwanda and darfur) and the including the rest under a separate "other possible/claimed cases of genocide" section. What do ya think?
Roncevaux
12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea, and I would qualify that alleged genocides be sourced with scholars applying the "term" genocide - this principle seems to have been thrown out the window here.
The Jackal God
22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
in the article democide, there was a table of those events considered to be democides on the right hand side on top of the page. on there, Indonesia was listed to be having 2 democides between the years 1955-2001. i was sondering if anybody knows about this. please message me. thanks!
chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
and like, what i was wondering about since there is a section about the indonesians and the east timor stuff, it got me confused because there was= --the murders and killings of indonesians by the japanese, which japan has not stated an official apology or admittance yet
and
--there was the indonesia and east timor conflict
so, anybody care to help me?? pleazeee??
chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a domain expert who can repair or replace the section Genocides_in_history#China? As it stands at the moment, it is absolutely incomprehensible. -- Donperk 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It came as a suprise to me, because I consider it a massacre not an act of genocide, but according to the UN sources the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide See: A/RES/37/123(A-F) Section D: "2. Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide." Adopted at the 108th UN General Assembly plenary meeting 16 December 1982 and the 112th plenary meeting, 20 December 1982. As the hidden comment says we also need the voting numbers here for this. -- PBS 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I take no credit for finding this. It was added by User:Bless sins ( Revision as of 04:26, 3 December 2006). I just checked the sources and added links to those sources ( Revision as of 08:12, 4 December 2006). -- PBS 09:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
After thinking and discussing about this, it comes clear to me that only stating, without more comment, that Sabra and Shatila was a genocide is not neutral.
Geno-cide or ethno-cide means the purpose of a "large scale massacre" (such as Sabra and Shatila) is to eliminate an ethnic group (which it is not the case of Sabra and Shatila). Clear right examples are the amerindians, the armenians, the jews, the muslims of Sebrenica or the tutsi in Rwanda.
Therefore, even if Sabra and Shatila was acted as a "genocide" by UNO I think the fact this surprised us indicates this must not be considered as such any more (or only was considered as such by UNO). Therefore we should find information about this and add this to keep neutrality.
I add the NPOV flag in the article until this can be solved.
Alithien
07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I an please to see that one of my contributions to Wikipedia has been read by someone :-) I think that UN resolution 37/123/D says more about the politics of the UN than it does about genocide :-( but as you say "we aren't supposed to be making our own determinations of things like this" and it is in a section called "Alleged genocides from 1951 to 1990". Adding a reliable source to balance the POV would be the way to go (as it is for all the other alledged examples in this file where they have not already been added). However the POV flag is unwarrented. The article is not saying that it was a genocide just that the "United Nations General Assembly ... declared it to be an act of genocide". The balance to that POV would be to find a reliable source which denied that such a resolution was passed which is clearly nonsense. -- PBS 12:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason I put this in is because that it is an "Allegation of genocide", like many other examples, and like the title of the section suggests. Bless sins 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I think this is explained by this guy [34] in the mentionned book. I looked at in google books looking for Sabra and Shatila and I think he is rather clear about how "Sabra and Shatila" genocide resolution has to be seen (pp.234-235). I will add this in the wp:fr. If I were better in English, I would do it here too but if I understand the nuances I can hardly transcript them properly in English. Alithien 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The UN is biased towards the Palestinians but ONLY if the Israelis are involved. Here, there were Israel-Allied Lebanese. But when the anti-Israel Lebanese (Shiite Amal Movement militia) attacked THE SAME camps, completely wrecked them and killed ~3,000 (the co-called The War on the Camps, at the time of Amal's Brothers' War with Hezbollah), this of course didn't matter at all (did you even heard about it?).
Palestinians are horribly victimised by the Iraqi Shia right now ("leave the country or die", no less), they were expelled en masse from Libya few years ago (and from Kuwait in 1991), etc., but this doesn't matter, because... guess the reason. Also they shoot and kindap each other in the Hamas-Fatah conflict, but the world is silent (just compare with the incredible 2002 " Jenin massacre" BS).
Or, moving away from Palestinians, massacre of 20,000 in neighbouring Syria, in the SAME YEAR (1982). Why, not a genocide? Ah, I see, no Jews in sight here too. The Lebanese were inflicting atrocities on each other and the foreigners (Palestinians, expelled from Jordan) a long time before the Israeli involvement, but... oh, you know already.
Cut this idiocy. -- HanzoHattori 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Israelis (IDF) were involved in the massacre in the way they cordoned off the area AND let the allied Lebanese in, there was also alleged logistical support for the Christians. The whole thing was and is such a huge matter precisely because of this - here you go, a "massacre by the Jews".
On and there's already the War of the Camps article. Let's see:
At the end of the war an official Lebanese government reported that the total number of casualties for these battles was put at 3,781 dead and 6,787 wounded in the fighting between Amal and the Palestinians. Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in internal struggles between pro-Syrian and independent organizations was around 2,000. The real number is probably higher because thousands of Palestinians were not registered in Lebanon and the blockade meant that no official could access the camps so that all the casualties could not be counted.
Awesome, so the Palestinians were even killing each other (the same camps, mind you). Now ask the average people on a street (outside Lebanon) if they ever heard about this. -- HanzoHattori 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is moving away from the issue at hand -- should the {{ POV}} template be at the top of this article because it is reported that the UN called the Sabra and Shatila a genocide in a parent section which is labeled "Alleged genocides from 1951 to 1990". It is no use arguing that under the more recent definition of genocide it would not be called one. (A) because the section is not saying that it would, and (B) see above it might still qualify as one given the arguments presented in paragraph 13 of the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004). I do not see how one can find a reliable source post the 2004 Appeals Judgement which can categorically say that it was not a genocide given the text in paragraph 13. If it can be found then it ought to be added, but the paragraph as it stands does not present an unbalanced POV and the {{ POV}} template should be removed. -- PBS 10:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be included on the page as thousands of Jews, Moors, and Protestants were killed. Casey14 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The entire section was ridiculous propaganda. Partition caused the genocide of Hindus from Pakistan. Almost all Hindus were thrown out of Pakistan. In contrast, there are still millions of Muslims in India. Also, it was Pakistan that conducted genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 (see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities). India Rising 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
IMO the article became almost useless list of modern political disputes and attempts to serve historical justice and fails to give the overview of the phenomenon. In few cases it is (IMHO) misleading or trivializing.
Some examples:
The article could be restructured into three parts:
This way a reader would initially see stable and usable parts 1 and 2 and only then he will get into the (expected) war-zone. Possibly the part 3 may be offloaded into sub-article of its own.
Pavel Vozenilek
21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is very obscure and contains a lot of marginally relevant information. It mentions many questionable cases, majority of which have never been recognised as genocide. In addition, it simply misinterpret some sources by taking the quotes out of context. For instance, it states:
whereas the expanded quote demonstrates that the author's idea has been distorted:
In addition, in actuality the Ellman's article (as well as his conclusions) are much more general. According to him, at least two different definitions of genocide exist, strict (UNO convention) and loose, and one can come to different conclusions depending of which one is used. He concluded that whereas Stalin's action fit a loose definition of genocide,
IMO, the section should be rewritten and all irrelevant or tangentially relevant materials and links should be removed.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)