Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Ming dynasty

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)

What about Congo Free State

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)

See Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 7#Belgian Congo -- PBS (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Genocides in history → History of genocide –

• Has been treated as an article since it was first created. "History of <subject>" is the standard title used for all main articles about the history of a topic. History of genocide has been a redirect since 2007. Peter ^Isotalo 16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• This page was moved without discussion in March 2011 and returned to the current location shortly thereafter - this should be discussed first, at a minimum on the article's talk page, though a formal requested move would probably be advisable. Parsecboy (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't see in any way how list of historical genocides is relevant to this request. This isn't about changing the status of the article, only conforming it to the uncontroversial naming standard for history articles. Peter ^Isotalo 23:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

*Support - The proposed title is more like other history pages and less like a documentary title than the current title. (reconsidering) Jojalozzo 23:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not an article about the history of genocide (as if it is one continues entity that develops over time), it is an article about different genocides (just as there is a difference between the "history of warfare" and "wars in history" (not including pre-history) or the "history of the country house" and "country houses throughout history" etc.). If this was a a history of genocide it would start with the development of the concept, and then go into details of how the term has gradually taken on the meaning it has today which would involve an analysis of ICTY Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic and the World Court's findings in the Bosnian Genocide Case, and the bearing that the ICTY's joint criminal enterprise will have on future international criminal trials of genocide. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on that description, call it List of genocides. I don't see what is contributed by "history" in the title if it's not a history of genocide. Jojalozzo 02:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

See the section above called Requested move -- PBS (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I did see that and I don't agree with those arguments and besides my suggestion is much better than that one :-). The current title might work well for a book but not for this article. By your description, there's no need for "history" in the title. Jojalozzo 03:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

PBS, your argument sounds a bit forced. Can you show me any other example of a "<subject> in history"? Especially one that is actually separate from an equivalent "history of <subject>". And what puzzles me about your argument is that the article actually does begin with a modern definition and then goes on to discuss what is or isn't a genocide historically. For a list of genocides, the page is obviously too long, but since individual examples are always given in history articles, it doesn't change the nature of the article. The most one could say is that this is a run-of-the-mill history article, but that it needs focus and fewer individual examples.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not quite the same things, I don't think. I agree with PBS's take on this. "Genocides in history" would be about mass killings that have occurred in history. "History of genocide" would be about the history of the concept/law of genocide, which is only around 60 years old. As pointed out above, a better solution might just be naming this article List of genocides. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The opposition to the proposal of "listifying" this article seemed quite compact only a few months ago. That's not going to happen and anyone is free to start up a list of genocides if they feel like it. An article on the history of genocide, either as a legal concept or as actual historical events, is obviously important to have. So what's the point of the current non-standard title? Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 27 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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixing needed

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)

I think that the Genocide article with sub articles such as definitions of genocide cover the subject of legal and academic definitions. This article was originally spun out of the Genocide article for two reasons. The first was size and the second was that at the time it was a very editorial pov list: most entries were placed in the list because some editor though the events matched the profile of a genocide not because an expert considered them to be so.

The name was chosen because of the section header in the genocide article and because of the wording now in the second paragraph of this article:

The preamble to the CPPCG not only states that "genocide is a crime ...", but that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity"

This article is based on that UN statement. Entries here should cover those events during history that experts have concluded are genocides. I think that the major effort that needs to be made here is to cull the article of all those sections that do not have at reliable sources that indicate that at least two uninvolved experts, or court judgements, or findings of international bodies, or reports to those bodies (here I am thinking of reports such as the Whitaker Report), consider events to be a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The name is originally from a section heading? Sounds like a good explanation as to why the article name is so obviously vague. It doesn't much work as a reason to actually keep the article title that way.

If the article is to limit itself strictly to the modern legal definition of genocide stipulated by the UN, that particular fact must in itself be established as the consensus definition of the term "genocide". Otherwise, what you're talking about needs to be covered in a separate article like history of genocide as a legal concept or something like that. I seriously doubt that academics in general would in all cases literally limit themselves to defining anything before the Holocaust as a non-genocide.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There can not have been a crime of genocide before there was a legal definition of it nulla poena sine lege instead people (eg the Nazis) were tried for other crimes such as crimes against humanity etc. But just because genocide was not a crime under international law does not mean genocides did not take place. Academics do not limit themselves to post 1948 acts. For example the section in this article "Before 1490" is based on an chapter of a book by Adam Jones a well known genocide scholar. Indeed the preamble to the Genocide Convention states "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be talking past each other because of my mentioning the Whitaker Report. What what Whitaker wrote was: "The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974, the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary [1985] Iranian killings of Baha'is."

Also I think Genocide#Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide with the content of the footnotes helps to explain my take on this. -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so how does this fix the problem of

a) the slightly odd, prose-inspired title and

b) the strict focus on the modern legal definition of genocide?

Is this article supposed to be about the legal definition (and it's history) or the historical concept of large-scale or near-total eradication of certain peoples or ethnic groups?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither if it was about the legal concept then the article would be named the "history of genocide". It is not about "large-scale or near-total eradication of certain peoples" because that is both a superset and a subset of this article. Without going into the details of the legal and other definitions of genocide, it is quite possible for the near-total or total eradication of certain peoples to occur without a genocide taking place. This article is about events in history that experts, judges and international bodies have classified as genocides. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

When was this decided? Who's supposed to enforce it? And how does that actually correspond to the actual article content? "Genocide" obviously has a somewhat broader meaning than you're suggesting here, even if it also happens to be a strictly defined crime according to international law. If you want an article with such a narrow scope, you can't reasonable do it under such a general title which for all practical purposes identical to "history of genocide" and have the latter redirect back to the article. I agree with the ambitions to keep out general speculation and original research about a politically sensitive term like this, but it should be done so that it's understood more intuitively, and without so actively excluding other points of view, especially not academic ones.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer you questions in order. The scope of the content was broadly decided when the article was first created (September 2004). As to who enforces it, this page follows the usual Wikipedia talk page debates and adherence to policy and guidelines. I don't understand question three but see some of the sections above from my opinions on the current content. I don't understand what you mean by "'Genocide' obviously has a somewhat broader meaning than you're suggesting here", I wrote much of the definitions of genocide article and the article Genocide under municipal laws and I am not suggesting that because a genocide was based on another definition than CPPCG it should be excluded see for example my input to the debate on this page over the entry for Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afganistan (I have just undeleted the section in the article). So as far as I can tell no one is suggesting that this article should only include genocides as defined under international law or by experts. Take for example Dirty War in Argentina an entry based on the opinions of a domestic judge who did not use the CPPCG definition, the Australia 1900-1969 an entry based on domestic politics, and Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon a UN resolution to score political points against Israel. But accusations of genocide need to be backed up by non biased reliable sources. Take for example the case of the mass killing in the Belgian Congo. Editors are forever bringing that to this talk page because in their mind mass killings are synonymous genocide, yet when one examines what Adam Hochschild the author who introduced the appalling event that happened under King Leopold to a 21st century readership in King Leopold's Ghost he has categorically stated that it was not a genocide but something else just as nasty to the millions of victims (see Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6#Belgium and the Congo). -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitions by academic historians is always relevant to discuss, but using historical theory (which is always based on "ideal" definitions) doesn't mean that everything that doesn't fit the mold should be excluded. And as far as I can see, plenty of non-genocide genocides (like Belgian Congo) are included, and with good reason. So, again, why does history of genocide redirect here instead of the other way around?

So, once more, how is this article unique to all other articles about the history of something? And why is history of genocide a redirect here?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI the Congo Free State is not included in the article (Nor should other mass killings that have not been described as genocides in reliable sources. It is not up to Wikiepdia editors to engage in OR). -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ask the person who created the redirect why HoG redirects here. As I described in the section #Move?, this article is not about the "history of genocide" it is about "genocides in history". Pleeeeaaase let us not go around that loop again. What specifically do you think needs fixing in this article? -- PBS (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I misread the Congo bit. Sorry about that. But I'm a bit surprised that it's not even mentioned, though. Because when you try to describe the history of something, you usually also describe similar events, especially if they happen to be popularly perceived as something. And at the same time including the War of the Vendée seems a bit inconsistent.

The move discussion didn't produce any logical explanation as far as I'm concerned. You insisted on that there's a large enough difference between "history of x" and "x in history" to oppose the suggestion. Which simply made no sense at all since you couldn't point to any type of precedent for it. Good Ol'factory merely reverted to the "this is about a legal concept"-argument. When asked direct questions, both of you simply ignored the whole thing. That's not a good foundation for handing out condescending "pleeeeaaase"s.

This is an unwieldy article about a very controversial topic. It's a huge text which is part list, part article, part legal definition. Having it under a title that is non-standard and define its scope based on its editorial history will only serve to make it less manageable. So to repeat the very valid question you ignored last time, can you give examples of "x in history" articles (with 95% historical content) that support your stance on naming? And do you know of any case where "x in history" and "history of x" have actually been kept separate successfully?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with lead

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)

The second paragraph really only quotes international law and the third paragraph talks of the difficulty in applying the genocide definition. If we're talking super-literally about describing the definition of genocide, as in what goes into the term, then no, they're not literally doing that. But they are entirely focused on describing how definitions are applied. So that means they fail to describe the nature of actual historical events and their significants. Which makes the lead more of a preamble than anything else.

Actual genocides, as in historical events or their characteristics, are not mentioned even once. And the lead actually goes one to talk about the "following list of genocides". It's as if it's written like an instruction for people to keep dumping examples of genocides, but to keep out certain non-genocide genocides. Informing readers about the actual content of the article seems like a secondary issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"non-genocide genocides" what is a non-genocide genocide (when it is not an oxymoron) ? -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

By that I meant events that are often labeled as genocides, but don't strictly qualify according to historical theory and legal definitions, like Belgian Congo or the Vendée.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Before "genocide" became a word: "massacres"

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)

See Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade 198.151.130.51 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Drug war

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)

Please read the article on genocode. Do you have any reliable sources that claim that genocides were perpetrated in those wars? -- PBS (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Table

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)

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and US invasion of Vietnam

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)

See definitions of genocide there is more than one definition and the section on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan specifically states that the author is using the academic definition of Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator". Few of the entries on this page bother to define what definition is being used, so this is a useful entry to show that the other entries although citing reliable sources may not be meet the requirements of the internationally law as described the Genocide charter, as those sources cited in those sections may not mean genocide as defined by international law. -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 30 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)

See my comment before yours and also definitions of genocide -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Sarte reference, as the cited source had zero mention of genocide or of specific US involvement in Vietnam (only that Sarte was opposed to the war in Vietnam). -- Tgeairn (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the blog citation per WP:Sources. Additionally, the blog page did not mention genocide at all (it was about Agent Orange cleanup). This leaves us with a single reference for the section, which does not mention genocide at all. I am therefore removing the section as there are no references provvided (and there were none, even before I removed the dubious ones) of US actions in Vietnam being genocide. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

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. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your sources do not call these actions "genocides." This is not an article on democide. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:13, 26 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)

Kalinago Genocide of 1626

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)

Vietnam war and Afghanistan War

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.

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, 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. 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.

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.

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)

Lead rewrite

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)

Incoherent-topic

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)

Section about the Soviet Union

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,

Katyn - it is not described as a genocide in the scholarly literature. It does not belong in the article

Decossackisation - scholars reject the idea that a genocide took place. See this book written by the world's leading expert about the subject.

Holodomor - there is no such term in Russian or Anglo-American historiography about Russian history. This is rather a neologism coined by state-sponsored writers in Ukraine, and its use would amount to an NPOV violation. Debates about the famine among historians focus on things like the effects of weather and government mismanagement, but reject the idea that the government deliberately imposed a famine. Even among politicians in Ukraine, there is no consensus about the genocide narrative. See this article from politician Leonid Grach's web page. There are a lot of statements in this section that are contradicted by the work of scholars. For example, Tauger attributes the famine to a heavy crop failure that was caused by drought, plant diseases, and heavy rainfall during planting and harvesting, rejecting the idea that the government deliberately imposed a famine to punish people. The section also states that food aid was withheld, but scholars show that the government itself provided relief to hungry areas. See this paper by Tauger and this [1] by Kondrashin, both of which do not take a genocide approach toward this topic.

Great Purge - nothing is provided to support the suggestion that this constituted genocide. Scholars who have studied this topic make no suggestion that genocide occurred, but instead emphasize political conflicts and the state's concern about security. This section does not belong and should be removed.

Post-World War II deportations of North Caucasian peoples - nothing is provided to support suggestions of a genocide. This is in contrast to how authors like I. Pykhalov reject what they see as falsifications of history concerning this topic, and analyze how there was widespread banditry and rebellion in the region during the war. This section does not belong and should be removed.

The Mass Deportations in the Baltic States of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians - all this section does is describe some things, but there are not any sources provided to say that they constituted genocide. Why is this? And if sources have not been provided, then this section should be removed.

SadSwanSong (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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". Wikipedia isn't a vessel for the Kremlin's propaganda. It's based on verifiability. You don't just get to delete giant blocks of information because the references provided are insufficiently chest-thumpingly Stalinist for your tastes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@SadSwanSong - The reason 'Holodomor' in Russian isn't seen is because it's a Ukrainian word, and the genoicide was swept under the rug. You are aware that the word "Holocaust" did not appear in the Russian language until the USSR collapsed, right? I agree that the great purge and katyn massacre are not genocide. The deportations of North Caucasion peoples, and Baltic deportations constitutes ethnic cleansing, but not genocide. Holodomor was genocide and supported well enough. The article on the Holodomor has enough citations and refs.--Львівське (говорити) 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudzu1, please stop with these vicious personal attacks, particularly with these accusations of my pushing "Kremlin propaganda" and my favoring of "Stalinist" materials. You have no history of editing stuff related to this part of the world, whereas I am native to it and have done large amounts of research about it. I specifically said above that no references are provided suggesting any kind of debate about a genocide. You do not provide any informed input about the matter, but instead seem to be engaged in this battle of trying to obstruct all of my changes.SadSwanSong (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

львовский, "Holodomor" is the not the favored term used in the dominant historiography about the famine. The leading English-speaking and Russian authors prefer the term "Soviet famine of 1933" rather than the neologism "Holodomor", which is the term of certain state-sponsored, nationalistically-inclined Ukrainian authors. The overwhelming majority of scholars reject the narrative of a genocide as pushed by Ukrainian authors, such as Tauger and Kondrashin cited above.SadSwanSong (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, 'Holodomor' is the dominant phrasing by western scholars when referring to the event; and especially Ukrainian scholars. The opinion of Russian authors is irrelevant; and I suggest you take this dispute to the Holodomor article itself if you seriously want to dispute the common use name.--Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Mark Tauger does not represent the majority of scholars. He actually represents a fringe view among academics, and he is rejected and criticized by some big names. Tauger is a joke. And I don't even know who Kondrashin is, he must not be relevant.--Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Holodomor" is not the dominant term used for the events among English-speaking and Russian scholars, despite what you claim. On worldcat.org, almost all of the 50 or so results for the term "Holodomor" in the English language are translated works published in Ukraine. [2] Searches on JSTOR.org similarly bring up less than 40 results for "Holodomor", compared to more than 1500 for the detailed search "Soviet famine 1933 Stalin grain". Major works about the famine are not titled Holodomor, but consist of: "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of. 1931-1933" and "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933"

The fact that you've never heard of V. Kondrashin, one of the world's leading scholars about the famine, demonstrates that you're not familiar with a major part of the scholarly literature about the famine. Viktor Kondrashin is "Doctor of Sciences, head of the department of Fatherland History at Penza State Pedagogical University" and the author of prominent works about the famine: голод 1932-1933 годов: трагедия российской деревни, Голод в СССР: 1929-июль 1932, and Современная российско-украинская историография голода 1932-1933 гг. в СССР SadSwanSong (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a search including broad terms such as 'Stalin' 'grain' and 'famine' and 'Soviet' is going to yeild more results than just 'Holodmor', not to mention the broader Soviet famine of the time has it's own works dedicated to it whereas the Holodmor was a specific event. This is like saying "There are more works found for "Nazi world war II 1941 Hitler" than "Shoah". Use your head, pal. And Kondrashin still doesn't seem to be that relevant to the historiography or scholarship here. That you're citing RT says a lot.--Львівське (говорити) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The search "Soviet Famine 1932 1933 Grain Stalin" is as specific as it gets for the topic, and it yields more than 700 results on JSTOR, compared to less than 40 for the neologism Holodomor. Yet, you're the one who claims that "Holodomor" is the dominant term used in English-speaking works about the events. Your comparison to the Shoah makes no sense and is also ahistorical. JSTOR shows 3203 results for "Shoah" and only 38 for "Holodomor". Yet, you insist on keeping this neologism in the article instead of the term that is dominant in academia.

You said that "Tauger doesn't represent a majority of scholars". But what you fail to consider is that this topic has been part of extensive debates in which scholars hold different viewpoints, meaning that is difficult to find a single scholar who represents the vast majority of writing about the topic... We have this from Cormac O Grada's work, who identifies the different views of scholars. Contrary to what you state, Tauger is not a "joke" who represents a "fringe view". As a professor, Tauger cannot possibly write fringe stuff, but only mainstream academic stuff. O Grada writes on p.237 of his Famine: A Short History, "The grain harvests of both 1931 and 1932 were genuinely poor, though. Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft balme this mainly on collectivization and excessive procurements, while Mark Tauger places more stress on adverse weather conditions..." O Grada doesn't identify Tauger as "fringe" and a "joke" the way you do.

Kondrashin is one of the world's leading experts of the famine and part of the article should be based on his works. I described his credentials as a professor at a Russian university in Penza and as an author of academic works on the subject. How can you possibly say that he's not relevant to the historiography on the topic? And what's wrong with citing RT as a source for Kondrashin's credentials??

And who are you to say "The opinion of Russian authors is irrelevant"???? NPOV requires that all sides be fairly presented.SadSwanSong (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have no patience for garbage-speak like this. Take your gripes to the Holodomor article and get shot down there. I'm done.--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hell, I learned about the Holodomor in high school. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that it's somehow not a term that scholars use. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Salami slices

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)

Who exactly is Michael Ellman and what makes his views noteworthy and representative of a consensus? He's an economist who's area of expertise lies in economic issues about Russia rather than the country's history. His doctoral thesis was Planning problems in the USSR. The contribution of mathematical methods to their solution. and is the author of "numerous books and articles on transition economics, the Soviet and Russian economies, and comparative economic systems"[3]SadSwanSong (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that, while well-meaning, this section may not be fruitful for reaching a consensus that involves User:SadSwanSong, as it turns out he was a sock of User:Jacob Peters and has since been blocked indefinitely from editing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Who exactly is Michael Ellman" He is one of the sources in this the Soviet Union section (Katyn Massacres subsection), and his views are as noteworthy as many of the others in the Soviet Union section. But the point is, that basing a discussion on that article with counterpoints from other sources would have been more constructive than the conversation higher up this section.

Whether or not examination of this section was clumsily initiated by a sock. I think that the conversation is worth pursuing as the Soviet Union section seems to be a list of crimes against humanity rather than a list of genocides. This section used to be a couple of paragraphs long, and as this is a summary page, I think we need to go back to summaries of only those events that are considered to be genocides by notable sources with links to more specific articles. -- PBS (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Katyn Massacres

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)

Decossackisation

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)

• Mikhail Heller & Aleksandr Nekrich. Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present. Summit Books, 1988. ISBN 0-671-64535-8 p. 87. -- No mention of genocide on page 87.[4]
• Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-07608-7 pp. 8-9 -- page 8 is not available to me via Google books, but page 9 is and it does not support the claim that the deportations were genocide.
• Orlando Figes. A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891–1924. Penguin Books, 1998. ISBN 0-14-024364-X p. 660. -- "to what can only be called a war of genocide against the Cossacks"[5]
• Donald Rayfield. Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him. Random House, 2004. ISBN 0-375-50632-2. p. 83. -- This does not seem to support the sentence. Instead the book talks about a genocide in the 1920s [6]
• R. J. Rummel. Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers, 1990. ISBN 1-56000-887-3 p. 2. -- Rummel states it was a genocide.

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)

Holodomor

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)

Great Purge

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)

Post-World War II deportations of North Caucasian peoples

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)

The Mass Deportations in the Baltic States of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians

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)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia/Galicia

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)

I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. Do you feel that this section should not be in the article? -- LWG ^talk 00:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, so I'm asking, do these 2 vague statements qualify it to make the list? No state actually recognizes it as such, would be the argument against --Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Genocides in Azerbaijan

Different reliable sources describe these massacres as genocide:

• 1920 Shusha pogrom
• 1988 Sumgait pogrom (Sumgait was the first genocide in modern Azerbaijan, and it is described so even by Soviet high-level official Roy Medvedev)
• 1990 Pogrom of Armenians in Baku
• 1992 Maraghar Massacre

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

• March Days (1918)
• Guba mass grave (1918)
• Black January (19-20/2/1990)
• Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre (10-12/2/1992)
• Garadaghly Massacre (17/2/1992)

like those ones. So stop your nationalist one-sided propaganda.Abbatai 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read my text, it is full of reliable sources calling the events genocide. You added more events you believe were genocides but no reliable sources. Gazifikator (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

---

This article has been more or less abandoned to propaganda - but even so, at least a minimal requirement for inclusion should be that the alleged "genocide" has had to have been called a "genocide" by at least some impartial sources. No such sources exist for "Khojali Massacre", and to claim the word "genocide" for it is a clear abuse of the definition of genocide. That section should be removed from this article. However, taken as a whole, the 1990s conflict between Armenia / Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan did have a genocidal side to it, given that it involved large numbers of one ethnic group being violently targeted by large numbers of another ethnic group for no other reason than what their attackers perceived their ethnicity to be - and that the end result of the targeting was the complete extinction of the ethnic Armenian community in Azerbaijan and the ethnic Azeri community in Armenia. So maybe a section is needed on that (but there would need to be some sources for it, of course). Meowy 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. 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)

USSR genocide in Afghanistan and US genocide in Vietnam

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)

Why do you link USSR genocide in Afghanistan and US genocide in Vietnam? The cold war is long since over. See definitions of genocide and Kuerert Jonassohn and Karin Björnson comments -- many academics use other definitions. If we were go for "removed any claim of genocide that hasn't got several scholar books backing it" then presumably you'd want to remove decelerations of genocide by the UN (Lebonon) and Court judgements such as Dirty War in Argentina. -- PBS (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

India section describes genocidal massacres

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)

I've restored it. I know you have the opinion that genocide exists only as a precise legal definition. However, this article is not a list of legally-proven genocides, it is a list of events that have been described as genocidal in nature. I'd hope that in most cases the "genocide" label is a correct description, but I'm not even certain that that is a requirement for inclusion in the article. An event described as a "genocidal massacre" is genocidal in nature, so should be on the list. Meowy 23:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion about my views is not true. For example I wrote most of definitions of genocide and have contributed several sections to this article based on definitions other than legally-proven (as an example that refutes the assertion see above). Leo Kuper, the person who coined the term genocidal massacre, recognised the difference between a genocidal massacre and genocide -- as do other academics who use the term -- and I have no reason to think that Adams would use the term loosely. As this is a list of events described as genocides not a list of events described as genocidal massacres I still think that this section should be removed as the reliable source uses the term genocidal massacre and not genocide. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)