![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Main article: Population history of American indigenous peoples From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia
"militia" should be amended to "military" if this refers to Custer's 7th cavalry
Does the statement about the decline to "1.8" actually mean 1.8 million? It wasn't clear to me, though maybe I'm being too pedantic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.199.200 ( talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
there used to be a page titled "List of Genocides" or something similar, that had the numbers in simple box format, as well as the number of killings under certain dictators. What happened to this page?-- 74.178.227.242 ( talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why was the Sikh Genocide removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.46.147 ( talk) 19:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of the well recorded genocides by Temurlane and Nadir Shah in India, Iran and Afghanistan......but Eric Margolis is quoted as mentioning Mongols as genocidal. Well, Temur and Nadirshah have been historically authenticated as much worse according to contemporaray accounts in the countries they raided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.8.208 ( talk) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article is focused too much on the international law and presents examples. Genocide is horrible and so against humanity, however during the known history, people never stopped doing it, so I think there should be something beyond the international law. for example, explain it from different point of view such as anthropology or philosophy may provide more help. I just thought its not enough to say it from international law or simple facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 ( talk) 09:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The Dutch page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Overzicht_Genocides.5B5.5D lists a genocide committed in the Chatham Islands by the Maori against the Moriori. It doesn't have a source. I suggest that we discuss whether this should be added to the English article. 82.20.0.62 ( talk) 13:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#A mess of WP:Content Forks
This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Genocide is the deliberate killing of a certain religious, ethnic, or national group. The Vietnam War was never a deliberate and systematic killing of any religious, ethnic or national group. Using Agent Orange is not genocide, because genocide must be deliberate. Agent Orange's purpose was to destroy crops and trees. The human side-effects were not fully understood at the time.
I have removed the Agent Orange part, in addition to this part: "A film called U.S. Techniques of Genocide in Vietnam describes the use of elaborate U.S. weapons against civilian targets in Vietnam such as anti-personnel weapons designed to kill human targets while causing minimal damage to buildings, steel pellet bombs that zigzag in all directions and the internationally banned dum-dum bullet. [1]"
Because it is not notable in any way; just because a film says it is genocide does not make it so. The citation isn't working either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 ( talk) 08:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Vietnam isn't the only questionable candidate for deletion. Who in the world placed Mao Zedong's rule in China as Genocide?!! True, tens of millions of people were killed, but due to mismanagement, not due to deliberate killings. The famine during the Great Leap Forward, for instance, was an accident, not a deliberate destruction of peasants. Why in the world would Zedong have any interest in destroying loyal peasants? What's next, adding an earthquake as Genocide? -- Justice and Arbitration ( talk) 11:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the section. I would also note that of the sources I could check online, only one (An Indian newsmagazine, Outlook) used the word "genocide" and that source acknowledged that what happened in China is NOT genocide under the Lemkin definition (which we use in the lede). It proposed an alternative definition, not widely accepted, which would essentially make "genocide" and "mass killing by states" interchangeable. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
PBS--not sure I agree with your changes (which I am not reverting, you being an admin and all). Wouldn't we need consensus on this page as to the "two reference" rule? Also, I am not sure the "genocidal massacre" distinction vs. "genocide" is that clear. The term "genocidal massacre" seems to be used very loosely, to mean either "incident of one ethnic group rising up against another" as during the partition of India, or "one of a series of genocidal actions carried out by the state against its people". The latter definition at least belongs in this article, and at least one of the sections you deleted, concerned Ugandan state action against tribes. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why has this article not covered the British genocidal actions in South Africa at the turn of the century (where "concentration camps" where invented by Kitchener), and more recently in Kenya in the 1950s? I quote the following article: "Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya by Caroline Elkin. The massacre of some 300,000 Kikuyu by British forces in the 1950s is arguably the least known mass slaughter of the 20th century".
All genocides must be mentioned, giving all victims a chance to be treated equally with the dignity and respect they deserve, and not be "airbrushed" out of history. We must be thorough and comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.191.159 ( talk) 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I have only looked at the first source the pages 152–153 can be discounted, Page (12),13 hardly makes this a main stream view:
Again this may be true in most cases, but it does not explain why Abraham Lincoln permitted genocide against white southerners in America, or why the British sought to destroy the Boers, or most obviously how Hitler turned an electoral victory into one of the most egregious genocides in history. Other anomalies include the American genocide against the Japanese, the Africans against Africans, British against the Kikuyu, and India's actions against the Gujarat Muslimns.
Particularly when he states on page 6 "Consequently they [Charny and most other respected scholars who have addressed addressed the question of genocide] fail to understand that a genocide can occur without anyone being killed". In this Allen Cooper is far away from what is generally considered to be genocide not only among the scholars, but also in international law. -- PBS ( talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Genocide carried out against Azeris was removed by some users here there are enough reliable sources to include Azerbaijan in the article.-- 193.140.194.102 ( talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
How about the othet genocides in the article? Are they more reliable than this Khojaly which happened only 2 decades ago. You prove to be biased. Ip is right contesting the removal.
Dighapet (
talk)
21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow. How very comfortable to ask not mention other cases. I will not remove others. Anyone who wants changing and removing big section should discuss first, not just blindly remove. So why did you not ask MarshallBagramyan to first discuss removing Khojaly massacre but warned me and ip user? Double standards? Please be fair. Marshallbagramyan's removal was unjust and you should warn him. Dighapet ( talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And I explain to you that it is a genocide not less of any genocide shown on the page of genocides. Here I can post plenty:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Ucl0kvNaVAC&pg=PA184&dq=Khojaly
+Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BKTRPNR_nlgC&pg=PA164&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=4-9wzzy41PMC&pg=PA484&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://www.google.com/search?q=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&start=10&sa=N
http://books.google.com/books?id=BMYRAQAAMAAJ&q=Khojaly+Genocide&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=yByJTZmqF8vIcaStubkM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK
http://books.google.com/books?id=N1tdb5-rGa8C&pg=PA37&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=M7EWi89eCA4C&pg=PA2878&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
When you review all be respectful and do not speak with double standards. Dighapet ( talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I applaud Dr. K. for taking such a tactful and judicious stance regarding this issue, especially regarding the sources used in that section. As responsible editors, at some points we are forced to make judgment calls regarding the insertion of contentious material. While I do not wish to comment on the merit of the other events listed on this article, I will comment on the one(s) I removed because I am relatively familiar with them. Tying together five or six events, each separated by about three or four decades and spanning an entire century does not fit into the definition of genocide. If we take the UN Convention's definition of a genocide, then we understand that a genocide is an attempt to wipe out an entire people through either killing or assimilation. The events included in that section, leaving aside the disputes revolving around them, were singular in nature and in no reliable source do we ever come across that there was some concerted plan enacted by a group to annihilate the people of Azerbaijan. There might be a lot of sources originating in Azerbaijan which might say otherwise, but the absence of third-party sources to corroborate such claims is indicative enough that not enough credence should be attributed to them. I should like to note that there is strong evidence to suggest that user Dighapet is a sock puppet of another editor who was recently banned from editing articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (see here).-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"The so-called recognition from 30 members of the European Parliament includes 20 members from Turkey and Azerbaijan" Waht that does mean? It is not your duty to decide who signed it, the only reality is Azerbaijani genocide recognized by Council of Europe.-- 193.140.194.102 ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Further to the Azerbaijan discussion immediately above, we seem to have started a clean up effort to remove sections which don't belong here because they are either not reliably sourced or don't fit the Lemkin definition given in the lede. Vietnam, Mao's China and Azerbaijan have all been removed in the past couple of days. I am starting this new section so we can discuss other examples which may not belong in the article. I just noticed that the section on the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, besides being pure synthesis, relies on an alternate (non-Lemkin) definition, so I think this should be the next to go. For any opposed editors, please be aware that there is an article entitled Mass killings under Communist regimes (which has problems of its own) where much of this material is already covered or could be moved. Actions not targeted against another group based on their religion, ethnicity etc. do not belong here. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Various points and problems that need cleanup.
1. Is this a list? It sure as hell looks like a list. Then shouldn't it be moved to List of historical genocides, or some such similar title?
2. Demarcation. This article needs to draw a line between the Holocaust and the stolen generation. Similarly, in line with mainstream scholarship, we have to demarcate somehow between events like Rwanda or the Holodomor, where malicious intention is not in doubt, and events like the Great Irish Famine, where it is. That is not to the say the Irish Famine does not belong on this page - it clearly does - but its dubious status as "genocide" in the literature needs to be reflected here in the way we organize the page.
3. Sources. We can't have patched-together synthesis sections like that I just removed for the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is, I know, an entire genre of genocide scholarship. What are the major authors? What are the important books? How do they treat various alleged genocides? Shouldn't we have a paragraph, at least, discussing problems with anachronism somewhere? Do we really need the hugely argumentative "Turkey and the Armenian genocide" section? See List of important operas for a good example of how to bring knotty, "subjective" problems into line with mainstream academic opinion. We need some kind of similar method here. Moreschi ( talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggested list structure:
1: intro, giving legal definition of genocide, etc 2. "Events widely regarded as genocide", chronologically organised - can anyone think of a better heading? 2. "Events sometimes regarded as genocide", chronologically organised - again, needs a better heading. 3. And perhaps a third section listing "prosecutions for genocide"? 4. Notes 5. References - put main sources, reputable genocide literature needs to be listed here and the list needs to be sourced from it.
Thoughts? And any better suggestions for the headers, there has to be something... Moreschi ( talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly how do Sri Lanka, West New Guinea, Brazil, India, Ethiopia, Argentina, East Timor, Guatemala, Zanzibar are more genocide than Khojaly Genocide?!!! Do you understand that if you few users decide what to call genocide and what not call genocide, you're creating not proper information? This is how some people in the past created the words "Armenian genocide" because their writings were unopposed and because nobody investigated anything. More turks died in those years but only armenians were mentioned. So answer me how are all these genocides I mention are more genocide than Khojaly where they shot civilians Azeris where half of them were women, children, old people? Dighapet ( talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the legal definition of genocide. Furthermore, there are credible sources which put the responsibility of the deaths at Khojaly on Azeri soliders, not Armenians.-- Moosh88 ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Moosh, stop there. What you say is armenian propoganda and everybody knows that. Khojaly genocide is a fact. Yalens, OK, but nobody answers my question above. Is Khojaly less of those other genocides? Dighapet ( talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
Whatever the case, there are plenty of examples listed on this page which can hardly be considered genocide besides Khojaly. If you would like to contribute you can help improve the article so we can move those events to more appropriate locations.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the "logical" reasons have already been provided above by numerous editors and you were overruled and warned from re-adding such contentious entries. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 02:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching this (and other contentious pages) for some time and I have noticed a pattern in (most) of the controversy:
NO ONE is willing to provide a definition of what is to be included, and stick to it. Someone always creeps out of the woodwork with an agenda and wants to include something that is only a "little bit" outside what should really be included.
The fix is easy, but it will take someone w guts. Aaaronsmith ( talk) 00:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
@Yalens: I understand where you're coming from, but that para is simply the most wretched flannelling and needs to go, to be replaced by something actually listing the sources for the article clearly stating the criteria for inclusion (see List of important operas, List of major opera composers for a roughly applicable method on how to do this). At any rate we need to make it clear - as that paragraph totally fails to do - that it is not our judgment applicable here, but that of the relevant serious literature. Moreschi ( talk) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason for deleting Afghanistan is that it argues an alternative definition to the one given in the lede. The material is already included in other articles such as Mass killings under Communist regimes and might be added to policide. As a matter of logic and encyclopedic writing, all examples in this article ought to conform to the lede definition. Alternately, we could change the lede, but the result would be that this article would become indistinguishable from one entitled "mass killings by states", so I oppose that solution. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Genocides in history → List of historical genocides — From Genocides in history to List of historical genocides. This is a list, not an article; the list even says this in the lede, and we should be explicit about this in the actual title of the wretched page. This seems fairly clear and obvious, but apparently somebody disagrees, so here we are. Moreschi ( talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Palestine section which has been reverted a couple of times is a hodge-podge created by a new editor who has posted a half dozen new articles alleging the massacre of Jews in Ottoman times, sourced to blog posts, self published polemics, and vague tertiary sources. None of the sources I was able to check use "genocide" so there are both point of view and synthesis problems. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd argue for removing the Irish famine from this list, since the definition is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". Although a great many people died, I don't think there's any evidence this was a deliberate policy to kill Irish people, it was more the result of utter incompetence, negligence and contempt for Ireland on the part of the British government and it's English absentee landlords, who demanded exports from their land whilst being ignorant or uncaring of the harm they caused. The section's text even notes that it doesn't qualify as genocide. Gymnophoria ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/28/neanderthals-demise-modern-human-invasion
Add them to the list of crimes by Europeans? Hcobb ( talk) 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The only way this page can work is if accusations of genocide are backed up with reliable sources and attributed in the text. For example take the Soviet Union section:
There are several documented instances of unnatural mass death occurring in the Soviet Union. These include the Soviet-wide famines in early 1920s and early 1930s and deportations of ethnic minorities.
And? Unless there is going to be some further sourced comment about these being genocides then it is not within the scope of this artile
Dr. Michael Ellman claims that the 'national operations' of the NKVD, particularly the 'Polish operation', may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention. The terror against the church may also qualify.
Good that the accusation is attributed, but is Michael Ellman a noted genocide scholar. Is this giving undue weight to one persons point of view?
In 2009, Poland received documents from Ukraine that show the aim of the Katyn massacre of over 20,000 Polish officers by the Soviet NKVD in 1940 was to deprive Poland of a whole class of intellectuals, officers, landowners, and others.
Yes it is well know that they did this but killing a social group is not genocide because they are not one of the protected groups. What is needed is a genocide scholar explain that despite the international definition of what constitutes a genocide the killing of these 20,000 polish offices was a genocide because....
During the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks. The most reliable estimates indicate that out of a population of three million, between 300,000 and 500,000 were killed or deported in 1919–20.
Again this is an accusation without any notable in-line attribution from a neutral institution or notable historians and/or genocide scholars that has stated that these actions constitute genocide.
The only entry in the USSR section that comes anywhere near the standard that is needed in this article is the section on the Holodomor ( Genocides in history#Holodomor).
I have just used the USSR section as an example but a lot of the other entries that have been added to this article in the last year suffer from similar problems. -- PBS ( talk) 11:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following material:
According to Hebrew scriptures, during the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, Moses and Joshua ordered several genocides. "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods... And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host...Have ye saved all the women alive?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"(Numbers 31:7-18). At the conquest of the City of Jericho,they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:21).
The issue is sourcing. The purpose of this article IS NOT to allow individual editors to search through history for examples of what the individual editor believes are examples of genocide. Instead, we should be looking for examples ALREADY IDENTIFIED by reliable sources as examples of genocide.
If reliable sources have concluded that Moses committed genocide, then produce those sources. Removal of this material should not be controversial -- this is Wikipedia 101. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of qualified sources that have labeled these OT actions as genocide. I will do a bit of sourcing and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGrady ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 September 2011 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Main article: Population history of American indigenous peoples From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia
"militia" should be amended to "military" if this refers to Custer's 7th cavalry
Does the statement about the decline to "1.8" actually mean 1.8 million? It wasn't clear to me, though maybe I'm being too pedantic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.199.200 ( talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
there used to be a page titled "List of Genocides" or something similar, that had the numbers in simple box format, as well as the number of killings under certain dictators. What happened to this page?-- 74.178.227.242 ( talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Why was the Sikh Genocide removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.46.147 ( talk) 19:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of the well recorded genocides by Temurlane and Nadir Shah in India, Iran and Afghanistan......but Eric Margolis is quoted as mentioning Mongols as genocidal. Well, Temur and Nadirshah have been historically authenticated as much worse according to contemporaray accounts in the countries they raided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.8.208 ( talk) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the article is focused too much on the international law and presents examples. Genocide is horrible and so against humanity, however during the known history, people never stopped doing it, so I think there should be something beyond the international law. for example, explain it from different point of view such as anthropology or philosophy may provide more help. I just thought its not enough to say it from international law or simple facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 ( talk) 09:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The Dutch page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Overzicht_Genocides.5B5.5D lists a genocide committed in the Chatham Islands by the Maori against the Moriori. It doesn't have a source. I suggest that we discuss whether this should be added to the English article. 82.20.0.62 ( talk) 13:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#A mess of WP:Content Forks
This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Genocide is the deliberate killing of a certain religious, ethnic, or national group. The Vietnam War was never a deliberate and systematic killing of any religious, ethnic or national group. Using Agent Orange is not genocide, because genocide must be deliberate. Agent Orange's purpose was to destroy crops and trees. The human side-effects were not fully understood at the time.
I have removed the Agent Orange part, in addition to this part: "A film called U.S. Techniques of Genocide in Vietnam describes the use of elaborate U.S. weapons against civilian targets in Vietnam such as anti-personnel weapons designed to kill human targets while causing minimal damage to buildings, steel pellet bombs that zigzag in all directions and the internationally banned dum-dum bullet. [1]"
Because it is not notable in any way; just because a film says it is genocide does not make it so. The citation isn't working either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 ( talk) 08:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Vietnam isn't the only questionable candidate for deletion. Who in the world placed Mao Zedong's rule in China as Genocide?!! True, tens of millions of people were killed, but due to mismanagement, not due to deliberate killings. The famine during the Great Leap Forward, for instance, was an accident, not a deliberate destruction of peasants. Why in the world would Zedong have any interest in destroying loyal peasants? What's next, adding an earthquake as Genocide? -- Justice and Arbitration ( talk) 11:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the section. I would also note that of the sources I could check online, only one (An Indian newsmagazine, Outlook) used the word "genocide" and that source acknowledged that what happened in China is NOT genocide under the Lemkin definition (which we use in the lede). It proposed an alternative definition, not widely accepted, which would essentially make "genocide" and "mass killing by states" interchangeable. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
PBS--not sure I agree with your changes (which I am not reverting, you being an admin and all). Wouldn't we need consensus on this page as to the "two reference" rule? Also, I am not sure the "genocidal massacre" distinction vs. "genocide" is that clear. The term "genocidal massacre" seems to be used very loosely, to mean either "incident of one ethnic group rising up against another" as during the partition of India, or "one of a series of genocidal actions carried out by the state against its people". The latter definition at least belongs in this article, and at least one of the sections you deleted, concerned Ugandan state action against tribes. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Why has this article not covered the British genocidal actions in South Africa at the turn of the century (where "concentration camps" where invented by Kitchener), and more recently in Kenya in the 1950s? I quote the following article: "Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya by Caroline Elkin. The massacre of some 300,000 Kikuyu by British forces in the 1950s is arguably the least known mass slaughter of the 20th century".
All genocides must be mentioned, giving all victims a chance to be treated equally with the dignity and respect they deserve, and not be "airbrushed" out of history. We must be thorough and comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.191.159 ( talk) 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I have only looked at the first source the pages 152–153 can be discounted, Page (12),13 hardly makes this a main stream view:
Again this may be true in most cases, but it does not explain why Abraham Lincoln permitted genocide against white southerners in America, or why the British sought to destroy the Boers, or most obviously how Hitler turned an electoral victory into one of the most egregious genocides in history. Other anomalies include the American genocide against the Japanese, the Africans against Africans, British against the Kikuyu, and India's actions against the Gujarat Muslimns.
Particularly when he states on page 6 "Consequently they [Charny and most other respected scholars who have addressed addressed the question of genocide] fail to understand that a genocide can occur without anyone being killed". In this Allen Cooper is far away from what is generally considered to be genocide not only among the scholars, but also in international law. -- PBS ( talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Genocide carried out against Azeris was removed by some users here there are enough reliable sources to include Azerbaijan in the article.-- 193.140.194.102 ( talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
How about the othet genocides in the article? Are they more reliable than this Khojaly which happened only 2 decades ago. You prove to be biased. Ip is right contesting the removal.
Dighapet (
talk)
21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow. How very comfortable to ask not mention other cases. I will not remove others. Anyone who wants changing and removing big section should discuss first, not just blindly remove. So why did you not ask MarshallBagramyan to first discuss removing Khojaly massacre but warned me and ip user? Double standards? Please be fair. Marshallbagramyan's removal was unjust and you should warn him. Dighapet ( talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
And I explain to you that it is a genocide not less of any genocide shown on the page of genocides. Here I can post plenty:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Ucl0kvNaVAC&pg=PA184&dq=Khojaly
+Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BKTRPNR_nlgC&pg=PA164&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=4-9wzzy41PMC&pg=PA484&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://www.google.com/search?q=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&start=10&sa=N
http://books.google.com/books?id=BMYRAQAAMAAJ&q=Khojaly+Genocide&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=yByJTZmqF8vIcaStubkM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK
http://books.google.com/books?id=N1tdb5-rGa8C&pg=PA37&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=M7EWi89eCA4C&pg=PA2878&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false
When you review all be respectful and do not speak with double standards. Dighapet ( talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I applaud Dr. K. for taking such a tactful and judicious stance regarding this issue, especially regarding the sources used in that section. As responsible editors, at some points we are forced to make judgment calls regarding the insertion of contentious material. While I do not wish to comment on the merit of the other events listed on this article, I will comment on the one(s) I removed because I am relatively familiar with them. Tying together five or six events, each separated by about three or four decades and spanning an entire century does not fit into the definition of genocide. If we take the UN Convention's definition of a genocide, then we understand that a genocide is an attempt to wipe out an entire people through either killing or assimilation. The events included in that section, leaving aside the disputes revolving around them, were singular in nature and in no reliable source do we ever come across that there was some concerted plan enacted by a group to annihilate the people of Azerbaijan. There might be a lot of sources originating in Azerbaijan which might say otherwise, but the absence of third-party sources to corroborate such claims is indicative enough that not enough credence should be attributed to them. I should like to note that there is strong evidence to suggest that user Dighapet is a sock puppet of another editor who was recently banned from editing articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (see here).-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"The so-called recognition from 30 members of the European Parliament includes 20 members from Turkey and Azerbaijan" Waht that does mean? It is not your duty to decide who signed it, the only reality is Azerbaijani genocide recognized by Council of Europe.-- 193.140.194.102 ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Further to the Azerbaijan discussion immediately above, we seem to have started a clean up effort to remove sections which don't belong here because they are either not reliably sourced or don't fit the Lemkin definition given in the lede. Vietnam, Mao's China and Azerbaijan have all been removed in the past couple of days. I am starting this new section so we can discuss other examples which may not belong in the article. I just noticed that the section on the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, besides being pure synthesis, relies on an alternate (non-Lemkin) definition, so I think this should be the next to go. For any opposed editors, please be aware that there is an article entitled Mass killings under Communist regimes (which has problems of its own) where much of this material is already covered or could be moved. Actions not targeted against another group based on their religion, ethnicity etc. do not belong here. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Various points and problems that need cleanup.
1. Is this a list? It sure as hell looks like a list. Then shouldn't it be moved to List of historical genocides, or some such similar title?
2. Demarcation. This article needs to draw a line between the Holocaust and the stolen generation. Similarly, in line with mainstream scholarship, we have to demarcate somehow between events like Rwanda or the Holodomor, where malicious intention is not in doubt, and events like the Great Irish Famine, where it is. That is not to the say the Irish Famine does not belong on this page - it clearly does - but its dubious status as "genocide" in the literature needs to be reflected here in the way we organize the page.
3. Sources. We can't have patched-together synthesis sections like that I just removed for the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is, I know, an entire genre of genocide scholarship. What are the major authors? What are the important books? How do they treat various alleged genocides? Shouldn't we have a paragraph, at least, discussing problems with anachronism somewhere? Do we really need the hugely argumentative "Turkey and the Armenian genocide" section? See List of important operas for a good example of how to bring knotty, "subjective" problems into line with mainstream academic opinion. We need some kind of similar method here. Moreschi ( talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Suggested list structure:
1: intro, giving legal definition of genocide, etc 2. "Events widely regarded as genocide", chronologically organised - can anyone think of a better heading? 2. "Events sometimes regarded as genocide", chronologically organised - again, needs a better heading. 3. And perhaps a third section listing "prosecutions for genocide"? 4. Notes 5. References - put main sources, reputable genocide literature needs to be listed here and the list needs to be sourced from it.
Thoughts? And any better suggestions for the headers, there has to be something... Moreschi ( talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly how do Sri Lanka, West New Guinea, Brazil, India, Ethiopia, Argentina, East Timor, Guatemala, Zanzibar are more genocide than Khojaly Genocide?!!! Do you understand that if you few users decide what to call genocide and what not call genocide, you're creating not proper information? This is how some people in the past created the words "Armenian genocide" because their writings were unopposed and because nobody investigated anything. More turks died in those years but only armenians were mentioned. So answer me how are all these genocides I mention are more genocide than Khojaly where they shot civilians Azeris where half of them were women, children, old people? Dighapet ( talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the legal definition of genocide. Furthermore, there are credible sources which put the responsibility of the deaths at Khojaly on Azeri soliders, not Armenians.-- Moosh88 ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Moosh, stop there. What you say is armenian propoganda and everybody knows that. Khojaly genocide is a fact. Yalens, OK, but nobody answers my question above. Is Khojaly less of those other genocides? Dighapet ( talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
Whatever the case, there are plenty of examples listed on this page which can hardly be considered genocide besides Khojaly. If you would like to contribute you can help improve the article so we can move those events to more appropriate locations.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the "logical" reasons have already been provided above by numerous editors and you were overruled and warned from re-adding such contentious entries. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 02:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching this (and other contentious pages) for some time and I have noticed a pattern in (most) of the controversy:
NO ONE is willing to provide a definition of what is to be included, and stick to it. Someone always creeps out of the woodwork with an agenda and wants to include something that is only a "little bit" outside what should really be included.
The fix is easy, but it will take someone w guts. Aaaronsmith ( talk) 00:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
@Yalens: I understand where you're coming from, but that para is simply the most wretched flannelling and needs to go, to be replaced by something actually listing the sources for the article clearly stating the criteria for inclusion (see List of important operas, List of major opera composers for a roughly applicable method on how to do this). At any rate we need to make it clear - as that paragraph totally fails to do - that it is not our judgment applicable here, but that of the relevant serious literature. Moreschi ( talk) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason for deleting Afghanistan is that it argues an alternative definition to the one given in the lede. The material is already included in other articles such as Mass killings under Communist regimes and might be added to policide. As a matter of logic and encyclopedic writing, all examples in this article ought to conform to the lede definition. Alternately, we could change the lede, but the result would be that this article would become indistinguishable from one entitled "mass killings by states", so I oppose that solution. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Genocides in history → List of historical genocides — From Genocides in history to List of historical genocides. This is a list, not an article; the list even says this in the lede, and we should be explicit about this in the actual title of the wretched page. This seems fairly clear and obvious, but apparently somebody disagrees, so here we are. Moreschi ( talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Palestine section which has been reverted a couple of times is a hodge-podge created by a new editor who has posted a half dozen new articles alleging the massacre of Jews in Ottoman times, sourced to blog posts, self published polemics, and vague tertiary sources. None of the sources I was able to check use "genocide" so there are both point of view and synthesis problems. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd argue for removing the Irish famine from this list, since the definition is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". Although a great many people died, I don't think there's any evidence this was a deliberate policy to kill Irish people, it was more the result of utter incompetence, negligence and contempt for Ireland on the part of the British government and it's English absentee landlords, who demanded exports from their land whilst being ignorant or uncaring of the harm they caused. The section's text even notes that it doesn't qualify as genocide. Gymnophoria ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/28/neanderthals-demise-modern-human-invasion
Add them to the list of crimes by Europeans? Hcobb ( talk) 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The only way this page can work is if accusations of genocide are backed up with reliable sources and attributed in the text. For example take the Soviet Union section:
There are several documented instances of unnatural mass death occurring in the Soviet Union. These include the Soviet-wide famines in early 1920s and early 1930s and deportations of ethnic minorities.
And? Unless there is going to be some further sourced comment about these being genocides then it is not within the scope of this artile
Dr. Michael Ellman claims that the 'national operations' of the NKVD, particularly the 'Polish operation', may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention. The terror against the church may also qualify.
Good that the accusation is attributed, but is Michael Ellman a noted genocide scholar. Is this giving undue weight to one persons point of view?
In 2009, Poland received documents from Ukraine that show the aim of the Katyn massacre of over 20,000 Polish officers by the Soviet NKVD in 1940 was to deprive Poland of a whole class of intellectuals, officers, landowners, and others.
Yes it is well know that they did this but killing a social group is not genocide because they are not one of the protected groups. What is needed is a genocide scholar explain that despite the international definition of what constitutes a genocide the killing of these 20,000 polish offices was a genocide because....
During the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks. The most reliable estimates indicate that out of a population of three million, between 300,000 and 500,000 were killed or deported in 1919–20.
Again this is an accusation without any notable in-line attribution from a neutral institution or notable historians and/or genocide scholars that has stated that these actions constitute genocide.
The only entry in the USSR section that comes anywhere near the standard that is needed in this article is the section on the Holodomor ( Genocides in history#Holodomor).
I have just used the USSR section as an example but a lot of the other entries that have been added to this article in the last year suffer from similar problems. -- PBS ( talk) 11:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following material:
According to Hebrew scriptures, during the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, Moses and Joshua ordered several genocides. "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods... And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host...Have ye saved all the women alive?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"(Numbers 31:7-18). At the conquest of the City of Jericho,they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:21).
The issue is sourcing. The purpose of this article IS NOT to allow individual editors to search through history for examples of what the individual editor believes are examples of genocide. Instead, we should be looking for examples ALREADY IDENTIFIED by reliable sources as examples of genocide.
If reliable sources have concluded that Moses committed genocide, then produce those sources. Removal of this material should not be controversial -- this is Wikipedia 101. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 15:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of qualified sources that have labeled these OT actions as genocide. I will do a bit of sourcing and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGrady ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)