![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Many Ming generals and officials massacred and castrated children of fighting minorities or countries to work as eunuchs. The Bo people (僰人) almost disappeared after genocides; They were massacred by the Ming army and were thought to be extinct. However, some descendants of the Bo were found in 2005 in Xingwen County, Sichuan.
I propose to remove the above paragraph from this article. All sources cited are self-published and should not be accepted according to WP:SELFPUBLISH. There are reliable sources on the fighting between Ming army and Bo people but none of them seems to describe the fighting as genocide. Daltac ( talk) 17:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Belgians killed 1/3 of all the people (about 15 million) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.66 ( talk) 09:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Genocides in history → History of genocide –
*Support - The proposed title is more like other history pages and less like a documentary title than the current title. (reconsidering)
Joja
lozzo
23:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Is anyone actually willing to discuss their motivations for opposing? Currently, I'm seeing contradictory personal opinions that seem to obstruct change in general. Is the idea that we're supposed to have something separate for history of genocide? Do we want a list of genocides? And if so, how is "genocides in history" supposed to be defined as a separate topic?
Peter Isotalo 12:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the non-discussion concerning the move proposal, the article clearly needs fixing. It's either a straight-forward history of genocides (which makes it a bit too long), or a list (which makes it too detailed). If it's about the modern legal definition of genocide, anything before the 1940s is out of place, and if it's about the historical concept of the physical eradication of ethnic groups, it should not focus on modern international law.
Either way, it needs attention.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Peter you have written in a maintenance box on in article space "The lead focuses entirely on the definition of genocides, but does not attempt to make an historical outline.. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details." Why put such comments into article space instead of on the talk page?
As far as I can tell only the first paragraph of the lead describes what genocide is the next two paragraphs do not so why do you write "focuses entirely on the definition of genocides"?
What do you mean by "does not attempt to make an historical outline" what would an historical outline?
-- PBS ( talk) 02:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Jewish historians record the Khmelnytsky Uprising as an enormous " massacre" of Jews, and during the First Crusade there was quite a bit of "massacre" going on against Jews as well, according to the history books. Perhaps those should go on the record as genocides? 198.151.130.51 ( talk) 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this page, but I saw that there are several sections on wars here. I wanted to see if I can include one for most specific type of wars, like the drug wars. For example, the Colombian Drug War has left tolls from 50,000–200,000 dead, and around 2,400,000–4,000,000 displaced. Should this be included in the article, along with Mexican Drug War? I repeat, I'm not sure if it should or not, but since the definition of genocide is disputed, I think it's worth considering. Thanks! ComputerJA ( talk) 07:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the skills to do it myself, but this page could really benefit from a table that summarizes the episodes of genocide. There are so many instances of genocide the article is getting unwieldy. Suggested column headings: time frame, estimated range of deaths, names of aggressor and victim, category of victim group (ie, ethnic, religious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.132.174 ( talk) 12:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and US invasion of Vietnam sections are just the POV of anti-communist editors and pro-communist editors respectively. You can't simply go and accuse every country that invades another of carrying out genocide, and any source that says so is biased, no matter what prestige wikipedia gives it. They should both be removed or both kept, as I understand that the US invasion of Vietnam section was written in response to the The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan section which was just silly anti-communist rants to begin with, so I think it's fair to either remove both or keep both. We can't let the word "Genocide" get thrown around like that and let it be used for making political points, neither the Soviet Union nor the US were attempting genocide in neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam, they were both just trying to install their own puppet regimes in the two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.92 ( talk) 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The definition of genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." In that case, the section regarding the Vietnam War should definately be removed, as the purpose was to prevent the spread of communism, not to destroy or eradicate the Vietnamese. While there was a high number of deaths, that does not make it a genocide, as there was no intention to wipe out a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, race, etc.
I don't know a great deal about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, however.
I am removing the section on Vietnam because it does not reach the definition of genocide which is given on this Wikipedia page and because much of the material is personal oppinion. -- 96.60.171.236 ( talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Genocide in somalia puntland 2010 August when punland attacked galgala more 700 civilian have killed by puntland forces and destroyed all house of Galgala and area where farmers lived also many water wells have been poisoned , this tragedy was responsible abdisamad Ali shire , Abdullahi ahmed jama Ilka jiir former colonel of siad Barre regime and who was responsible hargeysa massacre 1989 and abdurahman farole the president of puntland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.138.141 ( talk) 00:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Please add this below to the the Vietnam War section. It is well sourced and i do not no why it has been removed.
North Vietnam and Vietcong both committed deliberate mass murders during and after the Vietnam War. [1] The political nature of some these incidents, for example the massacre at Hue, means these may be considered genocide. R J Rummel list communist Vietnam's democide at 1.6 million killed. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 ( talk) 23:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes fair enough but you include political mass murders by North Korea so why not North Vietnames and Vietcong mass political murders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.1 ( talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Not one of the larger genocides but it seem to qualify.© Geni 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Change title of "US Invasion of Vietnam". It was not an invasion since they were allied and requested by South Vietnam. Also when the sent many troops it was not Vietnam but South and North Vietnam, two separate countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.33 ( talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no issue with mentioning Sarte thinking Vietnam War was genocide since it is well known and sourced but know need to mention Napalm or even Agent Orange since this does no constitute the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Secondly the source about Dum-dum bullits doesn't even mention it or if this is genocide, so I don'y know why it is here.
Same about Agent Orange since the source does not mention that it is genocide, regardless of whether or not it on a genocide page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.33 ( talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Good that you changed the title about Afghanistan to Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan. Now can you please do the same to the "US Invasion of Vietnam" since it was by absolutely no definition an invasion of Vietnam. It was an intervention into South Vietnam in opposition to the separate sovereign nation of North Vietnam and its puppet geurillas, the Vietcong. [3]
Can you also get rid of this, "even before he was aware of the horrifying effects of napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population". This is not mentioned in the source and doesn't even count as genocide anyway, since it does not count as the "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Also the the source about Dum-dum bullets and agent orange doesn't mention that these are genocide, secondly it doesn't even mention dum-dum bullets and thirdly agent orange or even dum-dum bullets doesn't counts as "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" anyway so why would it be counted as genocide. Most of this can't even be counted as the deliberate killing of civilians, they were usually used to counter Vietcong or the NVA, who count enemy combatants. I'm not saying it didn't inadvertently kill civilians, but they are not deliberate acts to kill civilians, so by definition can't be considered genocide. I am however alright with leaving the mention of Sarte, I do disagree completely with him but it is sourced (the part where he considers it genocide, not the part about Napalm or Agent Orange).
I also think the Soviet Intervention of Afghanistan doesn't count as genocide. Also there needs to be mention of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong politicide [4], which was completely deliberate and much higher than anything commited by the Americans, South Koreans and South Vietnames. The policide by Ethiopia, North Korea and the Soviet Union is mentiones so why not by Vietnamese communists. I suggest this: North Vietnam and Vietcong both committed deliberate mass murders during and after the Vietnam War. [5] The political nature of some these incidents, for example the massacre at Hue, means these may be considered genocide. R J Rummel list communist Vietnam's democide at 1.6 million killed. [6]
Also think the Religious genocide by Iraqi "resistance" or "jihadists" could be mentioned since the civilian death toll from resitance groups likely greater than 100,000. [7]
Please change the title from "US Invasion of Vietnam" to "US Inteventionof Vietnam". It absolutely was not an invasion as has been said before. To be fair most of that section shouldn't be here. I think you should something about Vietnamese land reform since it actually was genocide. I have a source which call it genocide: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam_landreform-20060608.html> http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.184 ( talk) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think its a bit of a joke that you have the Soviet Intervention into Afghanistan and the US Invasion of Vietnam (not even an invasion). Neither participants committed the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group (especially the US, the VC and the NVA did however commit political genocide). Sure they killed civilans but virtually all of it was collateral damage. I thing trivialize the word genocide to include these cases, especially when the US part doesn't include anything which can remotely be considered genocide. Agent Orange and napalm does not suffice. Even the links don't call it genocide. I suggest some of the changes above this paragraph. Please do this to make this page more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 ( talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The article's
lead section may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: The lead focuses entirely on the definition of genocides, but does not attempt to make an historical outline. (October 2011) |
Moved from the top of the article -- Discussions about content should take place on the talk page not in articles space. -- PBS ( talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article may lack focus or may be about more than one topic.(February 2012) |
Moved from the top of the article -- Discussions about content should take place on the talk page not in articles space. -- PBS ( talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is the inclusion of events during the USSR and attempts to portray them as genocide, but there are not any reliable sources to support this. In particular,
SadSwanSong ( talk) 05:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
SadSwanSong I think that your current approach is not helpful as several editors will object to your large edit but may agree to changes or deletion of subsections. For example I suggest that all editors who are interested in the Soviet Union section start by reading * Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663–693. Which is currently used to support the "Katyn Massacres".
While I do not think it supports the "Katyn Massacres" I do think that Michael Ellman has a lot to say that is pertinent to whether several Soviet crimes against humanity were or were not a genocide, and using Ellman as a source to base discussions on this talk page may help build a consensus in a more constructive way than accusations like "You seem to have this bad habit of dismissing authors you don't like as 'not experts' while promoting authors who parroted the positions of the former Soviet government as 'leading experts'."
So I suggest that we split this section on the talk page into the same sections as are used in the article and examine each one in turn. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that the sources provided (Michael Ellman) support this entry. Killing of a political group or class was specifically excluded from the Genocide Convention so, anyone claiming that this was a genocide would have to use one of the alternative genocide definitions and that would have to be explicitly mentioned in the source (as it is for the "Soviet intervention in Afghanistan"), as just saying it was a genocide will not show the sort of scholarly detail we need for this article. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have never heard of "Decossackisation" is it an English word? I think that as the cited sources are not online we need quotes from the sources to see if they support the accusation of genocide and what definition is being used and who claims it was a genocide. Deportation is not genocide, although ethnic cleansing can bleed into genocide and as such the sources that claim genocide need to be of high quality and probably post the Bosnian Genocide Case judgement of 2007.-- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So from the sources provided, do support the term genocide, the trouble is that non of them can be described as particularity authoritative, particularly when one of them states 148 states that the Don Cossacks were the victims of genocide but the "Red Cossacks" were perpetrators of the same against other ethnic groups. -- PBS ( talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that this is a reasonably balanced section (it could do with work) but it does show that it is a political hot potato. The two specific sentences I think could do with work are "a big board listed ten other countries that recognised the Holodomor as a genocide" should be changed to say "a big board listed ten other countries that the organisers said recognised the Holodomor as a genocide". This is because there is no independent comment on this and the organisers had a specific POV to present. The second one is the label [not in citation given] should be removed as the BBC article says "Russia admits this was an awful tragedy but is angry at claims that it was an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation. It says that other parts of the former USSR were affected." -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Nothing in this section suggests that it was a genocide or that anyone claims that it was. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This source http://www.unpo.org/article/438 should be used in place of the current source because are in English. Almost all the text can be deleted and replaced with:
On February 26 2004 the plenary assembly of the European Parliament recognized the deportation of Chechen people during Operation Lentil (23 February 1944), as an act of genocide, on the basis of the IV Convention of The Hague of 1907 and the Convention on the prevention and repression of the crime of genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.
All the rest is detail that should appear if anywhere in the Operation Lentil article, but more details of the European Parliament's recognition is needed and perhaps a sentence or two as a lead in to that sentence.
BTW this political finding is almost certainly out of date, because of ICTY and ICJ judgements over Bosnia which found that ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide -- it depends on intent of the perpetrators and the proportion of the targeted group killed. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any source in the text that supports the label genocide. If there is who is saying it and what specifically are they claiming is a genocide-- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
SadSwanSong is a sock |
---|
>====Userban==== Just a heads up User:SadSwanSong has been banned as a sock account of User:Jacob Peters - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
Does this qualify as genocide? We have one scholar saying flat out no, and a Polish governmental committee and their parliament saying it was 'genocide'ish' (that is, "with marks of genocide" or "character of genocide"). To me there is a huge difference between genocide and something being similar to genocide, which is what the 2 Polish groups are saying. Does this meet the criteria?-- Львівське ( говорити) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Different reliable sources describe these massacres as genocide:
To push only Khojaly is not ok. Gazifikator ( talk) 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm that is interesting you try to include allaged massacres and pogroms but no mention about massacres of azeris
like those ones. So stop your nationalist one-sided propaganda. Abbatai 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Halabja1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
The sources for these sections are a bit weak.
Afghanistan has a scholar book, but it recognizes that it's using a non-standard definition of genocide.
Vietnam has weak sources: newspaper articles and the sort.
I would like to see removed any claim of genocide that hasn't got several scholar books backing it. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the India section. It inclusion is justified on the sentence "The 1984 Anti-Sikh riots have been identified as a genocide because of the mobs' targeting behavior", with the source (Jones, Adam (2010-10-26). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Taylor & Francis. pp. 468–. ISBN 978-0-415-48618-7. Retrieved 21 February 2011.). But that soruce states that the riots resulted in genocidal massacres and genocidal massacre has a different definition from genocide. -- PBS ( talk) 13:39, 12 April 2012 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Many Ming generals and officials massacred and castrated children of fighting minorities or countries to work as eunuchs. The Bo people (僰人) almost disappeared after genocides; They were massacred by the Ming army and were thought to be extinct. However, some descendants of the Bo were found in 2005 in Xingwen County, Sichuan.
I propose to remove the above paragraph from this article. All sources cited are self-published and should not be accepted according to WP:SELFPUBLISH. There are reliable sources on the fighting between Ming army and Bo people but none of them seems to describe the fighting as genocide. Daltac ( talk) 17:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Belgians killed 1/3 of all the people (about 15 million) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.66 ( talk) 09:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Genocides in history → History of genocide –
*Support - The proposed title is more like other history pages and less like a documentary title than the current title. (reconsidering)
Joja
lozzo
23:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Is anyone actually willing to discuss their motivations for opposing? Currently, I'm seeing contradictory personal opinions that seem to obstruct change in general. Is the idea that we're supposed to have something separate for history of genocide? Do we want a list of genocides? And if so, how is "genocides in history" supposed to be defined as a separate topic?
Peter Isotalo 12:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the non-discussion concerning the move proposal, the article clearly needs fixing. It's either a straight-forward history of genocides (which makes it a bit too long), or a list (which makes it too detailed). If it's about the modern legal definition of genocide, anything before the 1940s is out of place, and if it's about the historical concept of the physical eradication of ethnic groups, it should not focus on modern international law.
Either way, it needs attention.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Peter you have written in a maintenance box on in article space "The lead focuses entirely on the definition of genocides, but does not attempt to make an historical outline.. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details." Why put such comments into article space instead of on the talk page?
As far as I can tell only the first paragraph of the lead describes what genocide is the next two paragraphs do not so why do you write "focuses entirely on the definition of genocides"?
What do you mean by "does not attempt to make an historical outline" what would an historical outline?
-- PBS ( talk) 02:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Jewish historians record the Khmelnytsky Uprising as an enormous " massacre" of Jews, and during the First Crusade there was quite a bit of "massacre" going on against Jews as well, according to the history books. Perhaps those should go on the record as genocides? 198.151.130.51 ( talk) 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this page, but I saw that there are several sections on wars here. I wanted to see if I can include one for most specific type of wars, like the drug wars. For example, the Colombian Drug War has left tolls from 50,000–200,000 dead, and around 2,400,000–4,000,000 displaced. Should this be included in the article, along with Mexican Drug War? I repeat, I'm not sure if it should or not, but since the definition of genocide is disputed, I think it's worth considering. Thanks! ComputerJA ( talk) 07:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have the skills to do it myself, but this page could really benefit from a table that summarizes the episodes of genocide. There are so many instances of genocide the article is getting unwieldy. Suggested column headings: time frame, estimated range of deaths, names of aggressor and victim, category of victim group (ie, ethnic, religious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.132.174 ( talk) 12:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and US invasion of Vietnam sections are just the POV of anti-communist editors and pro-communist editors respectively. You can't simply go and accuse every country that invades another of carrying out genocide, and any source that says so is biased, no matter what prestige wikipedia gives it. They should both be removed or both kept, as I understand that the US invasion of Vietnam section was written in response to the The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan section which was just silly anti-communist rants to begin with, so I think it's fair to either remove both or keep both. We can't let the word "Genocide" get thrown around like that and let it be used for making political points, neither the Soviet Union nor the US were attempting genocide in neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam, they were both just trying to install their own puppet regimes in the two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.92 ( talk) 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The definition of genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." In that case, the section regarding the Vietnam War should definately be removed, as the purpose was to prevent the spread of communism, not to destroy or eradicate the Vietnamese. While there was a high number of deaths, that does not make it a genocide, as there was no intention to wipe out a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, race, etc.
I don't know a great deal about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, however.
I am removing the section on Vietnam because it does not reach the definition of genocide which is given on this Wikipedia page and because much of the material is personal oppinion. -- 96.60.171.236 ( talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Genocide in somalia puntland 2010 August when punland attacked galgala more 700 civilian have killed by puntland forces and destroyed all house of Galgala and area where farmers lived also many water wells have been poisoned , this tragedy was responsible abdisamad Ali shire , Abdullahi ahmed jama Ilka jiir former colonel of siad Barre regime and who was responsible hargeysa massacre 1989 and abdurahman farole the president of puntland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.138.141 ( talk) 00:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Please add this below to the the Vietnam War section. It is well sourced and i do not no why it has been removed.
North Vietnam and Vietcong both committed deliberate mass murders during and after the Vietnam War. [1] The political nature of some these incidents, for example the massacre at Hue, means these may be considered genocide. R J Rummel list communist Vietnam's democide at 1.6 million killed. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 ( talk) 23:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes fair enough but you include political mass murders by North Korea so why not North Vietnames and Vietcong mass political murders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.1 ( talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Not one of the larger genocides but it seem to qualify.© Geni 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Change title of "US Invasion of Vietnam". It was not an invasion since they were allied and requested by South Vietnam. Also when the sent many troops it was not Vietnam but South and North Vietnam, two separate countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.33 ( talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no issue with mentioning Sarte thinking Vietnam War was genocide since it is well known and sourced but know need to mention Napalm or even Agent Orange since this does no constitute the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Secondly the source about Dum-dum bullits doesn't even mention it or if this is genocide, so I don'y know why it is here.
Same about Agent Orange since the source does not mention that it is genocide, regardless of whether or not it on a genocide page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.33 ( talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Good that you changed the title about Afghanistan to Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan. Now can you please do the same to the "US Invasion of Vietnam" since it was by absolutely no definition an invasion of Vietnam. It was an intervention into South Vietnam in opposition to the separate sovereign nation of North Vietnam and its puppet geurillas, the Vietcong. [3]
Can you also get rid of this, "even before he was aware of the horrifying effects of napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population". This is not mentioned in the source and doesn't even count as genocide anyway, since it does not count as the "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Also the the source about Dum-dum bullets and agent orange doesn't mention that these are genocide, secondly it doesn't even mention dum-dum bullets and thirdly agent orange or even dum-dum bullets doesn't counts as "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" anyway so why would it be counted as genocide. Most of this can't even be counted as the deliberate killing of civilians, they were usually used to counter Vietcong or the NVA, who count enemy combatants. I'm not saying it didn't inadvertently kill civilians, but they are not deliberate acts to kill civilians, so by definition can't be considered genocide. I am however alright with leaving the mention of Sarte, I do disagree completely with him but it is sourced (the part where he considers it genocide, not the part about Napalm or Agent Orange).
I also think the Soviet Intervention of Afghanistan doesn't count as genocide. Also there needs to be mention of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong politicide [4], which was completely deliberate and much higher than anything commited by the Americans, South Koreans and South Vietnames. The policide by Ethiopia, North Korea and the Soviet Union is mentiones so why not by Vietnamese communists. I suggest this: North Vietnam and Vietcong both committed deliberate mass murders during and after the Vietnam War. [5] The political nature of some these incidents, for example the massacre at Hue, means these may be considered genocide. R J Rummel list communist Vietnam's democide at 1.6 million killed. [6]
Also think the Religious genocide by Iraqi "resistance" or "jihadists" could be mentioned since the civilian death toll from resitance groups likely greater than 100,000. [7]
Please change the title from "US Invasion of Vietnam" to "US Inteventionof Vietnam". It absolutely was not an invasion as has been said before. To be fair most of that section shouldn't be here. I think you should something about Vietnamese land reform since it actually was genocide. I have a source which call it genocide: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam_landreform-20060608.html> http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.184 ( talk) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I think its a bit of a joke that you have the Soviet Intervention into Afghanistan and the US Invasion of Vietnam (not even an invasion). Neither participants committed the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group (especially the US, the VC and the NVA did however commit political genocide). Sure they killed civilans but virtually all of it was collateral damage. I thing trivialize the word genocide to include these cases, especially when the US part doesn't include anything which can remotely be considered genocide. Agent Orange and napalm does not suffice. Even the links don't call it genocide. I suggest some of the changes above this paragraph. Please do this to make this page more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 ( talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The article's
lead section may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: The lead focuses entirely on the definition of genocides, but does not attempt to make an historical outline. (October 2011) |
Moved from the top of the article -- Discussions about content should take place on the talk page not in articles space. -- PBS ( talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article may lack focus or may be about more than one topic.(February 2012) |
Moved from the top of the article -- Discussions about content should take place on the talk page not in articles space. -- PBS ( talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is the inclusion of events during the USSR and attempts to portray them as genocide, but there are not any reliable sources to support this. In particular,
SadSwanSong ( talk) 05:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
SadSwanSong I think that your current approach is not helpful as several editors will object to your large edit but may agree to changes or deletion of subsections. For example I suggest that all editors who are interested in the Soviet Union section start by reading * Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663–693. Which is currently used to support the "Katyn Massacres".
While I do not think it supports the "Katyn Massacres" I do think that Michael Ellman has a lot to say that is pertinent to whether several Soviet crimes against humanity were or were not a genocide, and using Ellman as a source to base discussions on this talk page may help build a consensus in a more constructive way than accusations like "You seem to have this bad habit of dismissing authors you don't like as 'not experts' while promoting authors who parroted the positions of the former Soviet government as 'leading experts'."
So I suggest that we split this section on the talk page into the same sections as are used in the article and examine each one in turn. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that the sources provided (Michael Ellman) support this entry. Killing of a political group or class was specifically excluded from the Genocide Convention so, anyone claiming that this was a genocide would have to use one of the alternative genocide definitions and that would have to be explicitly mentioned in the source (as it is for the "Soviet intervention in Afghanistan"), as just saying it was a genocide will not show the sort of scholarly detail we need for this article. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have never heard of "Decossackisation" is it an English word? I think that as the cited sources are not online we need quotes from the sources to see if they support the accusation of genocide and what definition is being used and who claims it was a genocide. Deportation is not genocide, although ethnic cleansing can bleed into genocide and as such the sources that claim genocide need to be of high quality and probably post the Bosnian Genocide Case judgement of 2007.-- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So from the sources provided, do support the term genocide, the trouble is that non of them can be described as particularity authoritative, particularly when one of them states 148 states that the Don Cossacks were the victims of genocide but the "Red Cossacks" were perpetrators of the same against other ethnic groups. -- PBS ( talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that this is a reasonably balanced section (it could do with work) but it does show that it is a political hot potato. The two specific sentences I think could do with work are "a big board listed ten other countries that recognised the Holodomor as a genocide" should be changed to say "a big board listed ten other countries that the organisers said recognised the Holodomor as a genocide". This is because there is no independent comment on this and the organisers had a specific POV to present. The second one is the label [not in citation given] should be removed as the BBC article says "Russia admits this was an awful tragedy but is angry at claims that it was an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation. It says that other parts of the former USSR were affected." -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Nothing in this section suggests that it was a genocide or that anyone claims that it was. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This source http://www.unpo.org/article/438 should be used in place of the current source because are in English. Almost all the text can be deleted and replaced with:
On February 26 2004 the plenary assembly of the European Parliament recognized the deportation of Chechen people during Operation Lentil (23 February 1944), as an act of genocide, on the basis of the IV Convention of The Hague of 1907 and the Convention on the prevention and repression of the crime of genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.
All the rest is detail that should appear if anywhere in the Operation Lentil article, but more details of the European Parliament's recognition is needed and perhaps a sentence or two as a lead in to that sentence.
BTW this political finding is almost certainly out of date, because of ICTY and ICJ judgements over Bosnia which found that ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide -- it depends on intent of the perpetrators and the proportion of the targeted group killed. -- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any source in the text that supports the label genocide. If there is who is saying it and what specifically are they claiming is a genocide-- PBS ( talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
SadSwanSong is a sock |
---|
>====Userban==== Just a heads up User:SadSwanSong has been banned as a sock account of User:Jacob Peters - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
Does this qualify as genocide? We have one scholar saying flat out no, and a Polish governmental committee and their parliament saying it was 'genocide'ish' (that is, "with marks of genocide" or "character of genocide"). To me there is a huge difference between genocide and something being similar to genocide, which is what the 2 Polish groups are saying. Does this meet the criteria?-- Львівське ( говорити) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Different reliable sources describe these massacres as genocide:
To push only Khojaly is not ok. Gazifikator ( talk) 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm that is interesting you try to include allaged massacres and pogroms but no mention about massacres of azeris
like those ones. So stop your nationalist one-sided propaganda. Abbatai 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Halabja1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
The sources for these sections are a bit weak.
Afghanistan has a scholar book, but it recognizes that it's using a non-standard definition of genocide.
Vietnam has weak sources: newspaper articles and the sort.
I would like to see removed any claim of genocide that hasn't got several scholar books backing it. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I am removing the India section. It inclusion is justified on the sentence "The 1984 Anti-Sikh riots have been identified as a genocide because of the mobs' targeting behavior", with the source (Jones, Adam (2010-10-26). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Taylor & Francis. pp. 468–. ISBN 978-0-415-48618-7. Retrieved 21 February 2011.). But that soruce states that the riots resulted in genocidal massacres and genocidal massacre has a different definition from genocide. -- PBS ( talk) 13:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)