Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 1

NPOV
See Israel/Palestine reverts section on this page. It's been a two-person bickerfest for a little while now; my whole point has been that I'd like this page to be useful and not a POV war zone, but I don't think one-on-one revert wars make the page useful, nor would piling on a laundry list of claims made against Israelis for the sake of "balance". I hope others will contribute to a larger consensus, any consensus, on how to handle the Israel/Palestine issue here in a way that is topical to genocide and as close to NPOV as the subject can get, anyway. &mdash;Bsktcase 21:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV since a year
I thing good approaches would be those:
 * of Johan Galtung and the group around him transcend.org, taking distance from any ideology and thus getting the possibility to have a look at a/this conflict and talk about possible solutions
 * of Geneva Initiative. –wiki-vr 11:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Germany-Namibia
The mentioning of Germany's refusal to apologize for the Herero Holocaust should be removed because it is outdated. An official apology has been issued in 8/2004. (see here), Ar36 23:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added the new link and retained the old link and indicated the dates for both stories. &mdash;Bsktcase 17:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Qualifying what goes here
Love the pruned article. Agree with RickK's decisions so far. I do think some of the deletes could merit reinstatement to the list, but rewritten to explain why they belong here.

Personally, I'd like to see the UN Convention definition used to qualify alleged genocides for this list. Yes, it will be disputed whether the alleged events actually occurred, but oftentimes even the things that are claimed wouldn't qualify under the Convention anyway, and I think those should be excluded... or they could be listed on the page for whatever type of thing it was that is actually alleged to have occurred.

There are the overlaps among related concepts. Bosnia is literally the defining case of ethnic cleansing but I think is also generally agreed to be genocide. In any case that distinction and the case for why it might be genocide can be explained. The stories of Native Americans and other indigenous peoples are apparently the precise reason ethnocide was coined, and could very helpfully be listed over there as examples, but I think the case can be argued that many of those are genocide as well. Again, just my personal opinion, I prefer to identify how these episodes are genocide and how they (technically, per Convention, or whatever) aren't, rather than muddy up the historical list with a huge undifferentiated catalog of every time a government has done something bad to a large group of people.

Of course the interpretation of the Convention is disputed, too, and it's narrower than many dictionary definitions. If we were to agree that "Convention plus politically motivated killings like Stalin and the Khmer Rouge" should be our standard, that'd work too. The part of the Convention I think can be helpful is its focus on intent. Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, is useful when there are disputes about "how many" and whether a particular massacre was "enough" to be considered genocide. The discussion of the Irish Potato Famine (now deleted, it's in the history) made this point excellently: if the English did not set out with the specific intent to destroy the Irish people, but instead implemented ill-conceived economic policies which indirectly caused a famine which resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Irish, the (alleged) lack of intent suggests that this would not be genocide under the Convention. (It's probably debatable whether neglect and callous disregard for Irish life would qualify; fine, but explain it.) However, other famines, like Ukraine under Stalin, are alleged to have been deliberately caused, which more clearly supports a charge of genocide.

Sorry to overthink, but genocide has been a contentious mess because of what's on and what's off this list, and it'd be really nice to pre-empt that here by settling on and explaining a really clear guideline we can follow. Anyone else have ideas? Bsktcase 05:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to open a can of worms, but could the removal of Natives from Canada/US be included? I mean, they were intentionaly kicked off their lands, and were given disease filled blankets and such.  I'm not going to add it, but does anyone else have an opinion?  I think it's a sad moment in Canadian history that needs to be remembered.--Habsfannova 00:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Both RickK (up above) and I have mentioned in our posts that we would support re-adding the U.S. Native American/Canadian First Peoples/etc. stories as genocide. Not that our sanction is needed, I'm just saying we both advocated the "cleaning-up" of this article but neither of us intends for those accounts to be omitted permanently.


 * My personal opinion, and of course wikipedians' mileage may vary, is that I would prefer to see specific accounts of specific campaigns against specific tribes/regions, well-written to support a charge of genocide. A broad and vague "what happened to indigenous peoples in North America was bad", while true, I don't think would be useful here.  It is also my personal opinion that some campaigns against some tribes would meet the legal definition of genocide (the Amherst-smallpox-blankets incident you refer to is one of the best examples) and others would not (falling, instead, under ethnic cleansing or the less-well-defined ethnocide).


 * So now it's just a matter of whether and when someone will want to actually do the writing. I'm happy to help develop good stubs if they're added, although I would hate to see this article turn into a long list of never-developed stubs (which was one of several problems with the pre-cleaned-up version).  &mdash;Bsktcase 03:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amherst & Smallpox
The Amherst smallpox blanket incident is actually not a particularly clear-cut case of genocide, despite conventional wisdom. To be sure, the intention of genocide was there, but it is impossible to verify how many, if any, died as a result of the single documented incident of smallpox-infected blankets being handed to Indians. Again, conventional wisdom holds otherwise, due to the proliferation of irresponsible, exaggerated, non-scholarly versions of the story. (See Gregory Dowd's "War Under Heaven" or Fred Anderson's "Crucible of War" for sober accounts of the incident.)

Plus, does genocide apply to combatants in war? The smallpox-infected blankets were given to Indians who were besieging Fort Pitt during Pontiac's Rebellion. It may be a war crime by modern standards, but is it (attempted) genocide?

And this begs another, even murkier issue: one could potentially make the case that the Amherst incident (genocide or not) was a response to Indian-perpetrated genocide. Hundreds of non-combatant Anglo-Americans, including many women and children, were killed by Indians during the uprising. Genocide? --Kevin Myers 13:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you raise several excellent questions which may or may not have answers. :)
 * Does it count as genocide if the number of victims is very small? Is there a minimum?  As far as I know, international law hasn't settled this question at all.  Raphael Lemkin wanted to make sure it was understood that genocide didn't have to be as big as the Holocaust (or Rwanda) in order to "qualify"... but there is a lot of room in between.  I don't know the answer, but you've already made the important observation that the intent was there in the Amherst case.
 * Does it count as genocide if it fails? Is there such a thing as "attempted genocide"?
 * Does genocide apply to combatants in war? I think legally it is generally agreed that it doesn't, but historically war has been used countless times as a "cover" for genocide.  Genocide can certainly be carried out against non-combatants using an existing war as a distraction or justification.  If war is started or joined with genocidal intent in the first place, then are "combatants" really excluded from claims of genocide?  Are such victims "combatants" or are they just trying to defend themselves, and how do we differentiate?
 * Is there such a thing as mutually assured genocide? Is it genocide when both sides have intent to destroy each other?  Genocidal aggressors in history have definitely claimed they were equally threatened or even equally victimized by their victims; often the claims are absurd, but not always.  Does genocide mean we always side with the "underdog"?
 * I don't think we're going to resolve those here, but maybe the questions should guide how we write about what we include? &mdash;Bsktcase 21:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iraq/Israel/Palestine reverts
Evolver of Borg, your addition about the Palestinian "intifada" was not NPOV, and saying so in your comments doesn't make it so. You say Palestinians attack Israelis because they are Jews. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would say Palestinians attack Israelis because they are occupiers of territory the Palestinians believe to be rightfully theirs. Intent is necessary to prove genocide, and you simply asserting that the intent is ethnic/religious because you think it is, isn't an adequate proof of intent. Both sides' arguments are defensible and both should be included if you are truly interested in NPOV.

The other side, which you omitted, is that Palestinians claim ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israelis because Palestinians have been forcibly relocated and allege mistreatment because they are Palestinian, while Israelis would claim they relocate, restrict movement and deny other freedoms because the Palestinians attack them. Then the Palestinians counterclaim collective punishment. I think the full set of claims-counterclaims by both sides should be fully fleshed out in order to have a proper NPOV listing of the entire conflict here. However, if you are willing to include a truly NPOV version of your claims of genocide committed by Palestinians upon Israelis, I'm willing to work on adding what the Palestinians claim the Israelis are committing against them (meaning, I won't object if you only NPOV the one side, as long as you really NPOV it).

On the subject of Iraq, the Anfal campaign was sustained and occurred over a long period of time over a large geographic area. I think it is simply inaccurate to classify it as a genocidal massacre, which is why I took it out. Genocidal massacre doesn't just mean "a genocide with a smaller number of victims", because the definition of genocide does not quantify. There's no agreement internationally about whether something is "too small" to be a "real" genocide. And a "massacre" is a discrete event. I think the definition of genocidal massacre makes more sense if you think about it as a single event (or a very closely grouped series of events over a very short time) (see also pogrom), which may or may not occur in the context of a larger genocidal campaign. I also think the description of Anfal is already adequate and accurate: an ethnic cleansing campaign which bordered on genocide. No modifiers needed. &mdash;Bsktcase 18:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Your arrogance makes me feel pity for you Bsktcase. While you may be correct in saying I did not include the Palestinian claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing against them, when the leaders of the Palestinian militant groups, such as Sheik Achmed Yassin (not to mention some of the things Yasser Arafat and other PA members say on PA State Television), specifically cite that they want the Jews all killed, that is not POV. This is an official statement, this is the evidence of the intent, this what is being judged under Article II. Include your information on the Palestinian claims, but first show me the evidence and how it breaches the Articles. Evolver of Borg 20: 20 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it wasn't genocide; I said you wrote it POV. I also didn't attack you personally, but whatever.
 * I notice that you deleted everything I added to the article relating to Israel/Palestine, and didn't mention that in your edit summary; I assume this was a careless revert rather than you intentionally removing balanced information and trying to cover up that you did so.
 * Somehow my additional comment on this page regarding the NPOV section I developed, has gone missing. I had posted here that, in the proper spirit of wikipedia, I would try to write something I think is more NPOV regarding this topic rather than griping at you to write it to my specifications, which wasn't fair of me to do in the first place, and I owe you an apology for it.  I believe Israel/Palestine should be in this article, and I'm willing to do my share of the work to make sure both sides are covered fairly, including yours.
 * In the section I wrote, I tried to be balanced and to include the substance of the information you posted, along with extensive wikilinks to additional information. I have restored my section where it was originally, chronologically from the date 1948, and I added more information from your section as further support of the intifada-as-genocide.  In all my ramblings above, I didn't mean you need to quote chapter and verse of the Convention; if PA spokespersons have stated that their actions are targeting Jews as such, that's more than enough as far as I'm concerned.  So I'm taking out all the stuff about the Convention, not because I disagree with it, but because I think it's unnecessary and the facts you included speak for themselves.
 * If you feel a need to develop, modify or add to what I've added, fine. Just remember that the purpose of this article (and of wikipedia) is to inform people of all sides of a debate, not to convince people to agree with you.  A wise user on another article reminded me that if there really is one "right" view, then including all the facts will make this view obvious without us having to push it. &mdash;Bsktcase 21:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just to make a point I'll be removing the word "allegedly" from the PA spokesman point, as I have heard these in the movie "Relentless" by HonestReporting.com, so its not really alledged. Evolver of Borg 17:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Cool. No objection from me.  I didn't feel like I could personally affirm it because I hadn't seen it myself.  Since you have, nothing wrong with you saying so. &mdash;Bsktcase 17:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the addition of the "brainwashing" bullet point, and I don't think it's a rewrite candidate because I don't think it should be here at all. I'm not disputing whether or not brainwashing is occurring, but it is not relevant to this article because brainwashing is certainly not genocide; the relationship to genocide is not proven and, even if proven, is going to be several degrees removed from actual acts. Perhaps the issue of brainwashing would be at home in one of the many other articles relating to the history of the region, or an article on anti-Semitism.

Once again I fear you are pushing the limits of POV... the purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince wikipedia that Palestinians are anti-Semitic. The fact that you feel you can substantiate your opinion doesn't mean this is the place to do it. &mdash;Bsktcase 16:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The brainwashing part is perfectly fine in this article. As with PA Statements, it incites genocide. Before you reply Bsktcase, know what it feels like to be an Australian Jew and hear young children say they want to kill you when you have nothing to do with them. Evolver of Borg 20:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The title of this article is not "Events in history that made ethnic groups feel bad". This article is about genocide, and you cheapen the meaning of genocide by loading it up with your lesser partisan causes.  I'm not going to bicker with you about this.  It's pretty obvious that for each issue we resolve, you'll come up with another one.  If the wikipedia community likes your additions and wants this article to become what you are making it ("Genocide in history plus unrelated reasons why EoB thinks Palestinians are bad"), so be it. &mdash;Bsktcase 19:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bskcase is right in this...I don't particularily agree with either the Palestinians/Isrealis, but we do need to show what GENOCIDE is. If it doesn't fit the definition, it shouldn't be here. End of story.Habsfannova


 * Oh, BTW, just an example of the difference. Many in the American South, a long time ago, said they wanted to get rid of blacks, blacks were inferior, etc.  Blacks were lynched, acts of what would be called "terrorism" occured.  BUT, the governments the American south did not make it their goal to eliminate every black person in the south.  THAT is where the difference between genocide and others lie.  If we had a page for every "insane people that want all people of a nationality/ethnicity to die" page, your contribution would be a good one(It would, however, be a very long page).  But, genocide is not in INTENT, it's in the government/ethinicity trying to kill a population.Habsfannova 23:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * On the main Genocide page, there is a link to the International Association of Genocide Scholars. These people, including scholars RJ Rummel and my own teacher Paul Bartrop, are the authority on genocide and do most of the modern research into issues such as the failure of Cambodia to meet the definition. Your statement Hab, "But, genocide is not in INTENT", if a contradiction of the convention and of their work and findings. Something can not be considered to be a breach of the convention if their is shown to be no intent. By your logic, an incident where a grenade accidently goes off in an army training area, killing ten men occurs, if considered genocide. The intent of young Palestinians to blow themselves up among Israeli civilians is a show of this intent, which is why it it is genocide. Evolver of Borg 12:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you're both right and you're both wrong. Habsfannova, Lemkin's works and subsequent interpretations of the Convention are very explicit that in order to qualify as genocide, there does not need to be intent to kill every single member of a population.  One of the U.S. caveats in ratifying the Convention was to specify that genocide must target a "substantial part" of a population, and there's still some disagreement about what this means and whether it was appropriate for the U.S. to add or not, but note that even this very conservative ratification does not require that all members of the group be targeted or even intended to be targeted.


 * Having said that, Evolver of Borg, it is absurd to suggest that intent alone (e.g., alleged "brainwashing") could possibly be construed as genocide in itself, and it's abusive of the Convention to suggest that its focus on intent means any such thing. Oh, I know, you're going to point out that suicide bombers exist.  Suicide bombers and anti-Semitic intent are already listed in the article.  Your brainwashing claim is excessive and completely subjective (POV), and your insistence on it strongly suggests a motive to propagandize, not to give objective information.


 * The problem here is that Lemkin intentionally coined "genocide" with the goal of making it so clear, and so awful, and so universally condemnable, that the word itself would never fail to capture the attention of those who hear or read it. This worked, so now everybody with a dull axe to grind wants to be able to use it any time they want to generate the same level of sympathy.  I think anti-Semitism and all forms of racism (such as, I don't know, sweeping generalizations about and universal condemnations of an entire ethnic or religious group) are truly horrible things and are plenty condemnable in their own right.  If the words "anti-Semitism" and "racism" don't feel powerful enough to express how awful the situation makes you feel, I'm real sorry about that, but the fact that you feel incredibly strongly about it does not mean you get to use the stronger word "genocide" about every occurrence that makes you feel bad.  This article is a summary of facts (on both sides, and your side's claims are already included), not a therapy session or a soapbox or even a place for detailed hashing out of the entire nature of the Israel/Palestine conflict.  If you think your claims have such merit that you can hold your own against a whole room full of Israel/Palestine scholars, then go try your luck on those articles. &mdash;Bsktcase 16:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Noticing I didn't make myself clear enough for Bsktcase to understand, but will have to continue arguing nonetheless, I'll clear up what I said regarding intent. A show of intent is required for something to be classified as genocide. The last paragraph of your note really shows how stubborn and immature you are acting regarding this topic. It shows how you try and have more of an idea of how the Convention can be applied to both POVs than you actually do.


 * Furthermore, you haven't even read the full article. It escapes me as to why you don't read to paragraph above the points before deleting the brainwashing point, "Other actions by Palestinian organizations and neighboring Arab nations are subject to accusations of anti-Semitism and therefore genocide:". Brainwashing of youths by Hamas, supported by the PA, is a show of intent, therefore genocide. Evolver of Borg 9:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll watch this page for a while too and get familiar with the article. My name is Tom and you can visit my user page if you would like. Tom - Talk 19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The length of the section about Israel/Palestine in the article project, and of this section of the Talk page, is simply gross indecency while the million of Rwandan victims are covered by only one sentence.

The only decent thing to do is to shorten the section to one sentence, strictly shorter than its first paragraph, something like : "Claims and counterclaims of genocide by both sites in the (...find a NPOV formulation...) are common, and by no way universally acknowledged. For detailed information about this region, see Arab-Israeli conflict." --French Tourist 21:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree something like that should suffice and would be an improvement. And I'm sure you meant to say "both sides of the".  Tom - Talk 02:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On your Rwanda point Tourist, there is a seperate, detailed article under history of Rwanda for that. Israel-Palestine is ongoing and the information coming out differs, whereas older genocides have a finished history and facts. So until it (Interfada) finishes, no point in shortening. Good to see more users on this article. Evolver of Borg 16:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Evolver, sorry, but you're just being rediculous here. This is just getting inane...French Tourist has it down 100%:  it deserves the same amount of space as the others, if ANY space.  The claims are already in the Arab-Isreali conflict page.Habsfannova 18:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Evolver, sorry, but you're just being rediculous here. This is just getting inane". Spelling Hab, spelling. Now onto my point...

From that introduction, it is obvious you have not studied this area in depth. To understand the Rwandan Genocide and its factors takes quite a while, and to do that you need to study its whole history. I can say I have done this in the context of the genocide and my Comparitive Genocide Studies Teacher, who is an IAGS member (see links in Genocide). Genocide is Genocide, there is no difference in brutality between things like being hacked to death with a machette or being blown up as you sit on a bus on your way to work, but you can't just condense the facts, there are too many. Figures only, yes, but facts no. And no, a search for the word genocide in the Arab-Israeli conflict does not yield anything.

Another point, make yourself a profile page and fix up your language useage. The statement "French Tourist has it down 100%" is poorly thought and lowers my opinion of you when I read something like that. Not to be offensive, but please, think of what you want to say and sound mature.

Evolver of Borg 19:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inane is a word....look it up.

But, hey, whatever. You're obviously not going to address the point here. Keep picking at my spelling and usage errors. Have fun. I'm not here for a fight, just to try and extend my knowledge a bit. I'll just stick to trying to improve my little hockey articles, and try not to deal with people like you. See ya. Habsfannova 13:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolver, it isn't cool, and will eventually get you in trouble, to carry on Wikipedia discussions in the manner you did this one. Habs was very reasonable, patient, and accommodating. Remember we are all here to build a great encyclopedia. We need you, and we need Habs. A liberal application of compliments and apologies never hurt anybody. Tom - Talk 20:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inane? Insane? Are they even different words?

Apologies if I come across as aggressive, but when people like Bsktcase get stubborn and insist on their POV being NPOV as opposed to straight facts you put down, you tend to get a bit frustrated. If you are going to stay on this page however, you have to remember the sensitive issues you are dealing with. Evolver of Borg 10:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PA State Television
I just added the link to the film, Relentless, in which I saw the clips. For those interested the shots of PA State-TV are available to watch in the trailers section. Evolver of Borg 18:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've just reinstated previously removed material that needs to be included & expanded. There was no mention of the US (but of course someone didn't mind leaving Australia in there), which is ridiculous - much more on the systematic killing of Native Americans could be included. And there is no mention at all of Spain in Latin America! Also ridiculous. Hopefully we can find something to include on the same soon - beside Japan in China, and so on. I also removed a link to a propaganda site; the article should not promote one POV by offering evidence for it and remaining silent on the other. -- Simonides 15:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Then, how is 'Japan in China'. Which should be called genocide, and which should not? -Poo-T 16 Nov 2004

America
While I support the US info being here, the crime doesn't neccasarily come under Genocide because of the holes in the convention. The Indian Removal Act was more of a case of Ethnocide, as Jackson didn't sign in the act with the intent of killing the natives, that would be more of a Indian Genocide Act, rather wanted to move them out of the way, something he knew would cost lives. For the meantime, keep it under Ethnocide with a link in the genocides page. Evolver of Borg 19:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Beothuk of Newfoundland
The notion that the Beothuk were killed outright by European settlers, or the notion that they were consciously destroyed is extraordinarily flawed despite its popularity. For the details of the process please see Ralph Pastore's work on the Beothuk. Mr. Pastore is regarded as an eminent, if not the preeminent scholar on the Beothuk.

The destruction of the Beothuk can only be understood with reference to the relationship between the Beothuk and the Europeans and the ecology of the island of Newfoundland. Four factors must be considered:

1. Unlike the continent proper, there was never a developed fur trade on the island of Newfoundland during the colonial period. Nor was there significant missionary activity.

2. The early population of Newfoundland was migratory. Whole populations of Europeans would leave when the fishing season closed. They would leave their fishing stations and equipment unattended.

3. The population of Beothuk people was also extremely low. Pastore puts the figure in the hundreds at most.

4. Newfoundland is an extremely ecologically tenuous place. Historically, aboriginal inhabitants tended to rely on a combination of fish, seal and caribou supplemented with berries. Seal and caribou were particularly important sources of protein. However, both were prone to be randomly unavailable in a given season. Seals freqeuntly did not arrive on the ice floes in a given year, and the caribou were (and are) prone to rapid population reduction when the grasses they depend on are destroyed or rendered inaccesible by ice storms.

I will now develop these four points:

1. As there was no fur trade or missionary structure to foster a relationship between European settlers and the Beothuk, the only "relationship" that developed was one of mutual mystification and ignorance. The Beothuk and the settlers knew virtually nothing about each other. To this day, little is known about Beothuk culture and language.

2. The migratory population patterns of Newfoundland allowed the Beothuk to acquire European goods with ease. Essentially, they would wait until the Europeans left and then raid their stores and buildings. They were particularly fond of nails and acquired these by burning down European structures and harvesting them from the rubble. Thus, despite an absence of an exchange relationship, the archealogical record indicates that the Beothuk possessed substantial amounts of European nails and cooking supplies. When the Europeans returned to being the fishing season, they would often find their stations plundered. Given the contemporary discourse of "civilized man" versus "savage" it is easy to imagine how the European settlers perceived these actions. This ensured that whenever contact occurred it would usually be hostile. It was frequently at long range.

3. The small population of the Beothuk and their social structure (hunter gatherer in groups of 50 to a hundred, often much less) they were inordinately politically weak. They did not represent a significant physical threat. Contrast this with the position of Aboriginals in the Maritimes and New England area where the aboriginal peoples remained a substantial military threat.

4. The final factor comes into play when the consequenences of the preceding three are considered. The relationship that developed was hostile. The Beothuk naturally preferred to withdraw from the physical presence of the Europeans. Why would one seek contact with a people whom had nothing to offer you that you couldn't steal and who regarded you as a threat? For their part, the Europeans tended to sit in their coastal stations ruminating about "savages" whom they frequently had never actually seen. Gradually, the settlements grew to dominate the majority of the coastline. The Beothuk retreated to the interior where they had only a caribou population that was prone to die offs to rely upon as a major source of protein.

Gradually, they starved to death. This was not discovered until decades had passed. The contemporary settler did not know or understand what had happened to the Beothuk. He did not know or understand how difficult it was to survive "off the land" in Newfoundland. Indeed, in the vast majority of instances, he had never even SEEN a beothuk. They were discussed in the same sentimental vein as creatures of superstition.

Ultimately then, this is not "genocide" in the contemporary sense of the word. There was no conscious policy beyond ill will and distrust engendered by the unique relationship dynamics. There was no serious attempt to go out and kill every last Beothuk. There was instead a process of marginalization generated by mutual ignorance and distrust that was aggravated by the ecological characteristics of the island and the unusual settlement pattern.

It is significant that this story be known as popular wisdom posits the Beothuk as the "people who were killed for fun". This has been taught to generations of Newfoundland and Canadian school children with no evidentiary basis whatsoever. The story is extremely tragic. But it is not a story of a true "genocide" in modern terms. Indeed, it does not even fit the bill for a mass killing and population displacement of even the biblical variety.

Again, please see the work of Ralph Pastore.

Genghis Khan
I do not see why Genghis Khan "and his sons" should be accused of genocide. Certainly many were killed in their wars, including whole towns at the first sign of resistance being wiped out to the last man, but the violence was in no way motivated by ethnic differences. On the contrary, the Mongols had a remarkably culturally tolerant system. However, the Genghis Khan did at one point consider actually wiping out the entire Chinese population and razing all of the towns to turn the whole territory into more economically productive (for nomads and noone else) steppe. Thankfully he was dissuaded by some of his more 'civilized' advisors, and stuck to a more profitable policy of taxation. That said, Genghis Khan early in his career did systematically wipe out the Mongol tribe that had killed his father and exiled his mother, brothers and himself to the wilderness, killing the men and absorbing the women into his tribe. But it would be very wrong to characterize the Mongol expansion as a sweep of genocide.--Pharos 07:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Totally Agree - Especially given the quote used to describe one of his acts.
 * "Around two-thirds of its 1.5 million inhabitants were slaughtered without regard to religion, ethnicity, gender, or age."
 * Unless someone gives response against its removal in the commoning days, I'll remove it--Seanh 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Cleanup
I just removed a few things due to NPOV and removed that stupid statement from an anon user on this page. Mao's China isn't genocide because the Soviet Union blocked political killings being in the convention. Iraq paragraph cleaned up and unneccasary lines removed.

On another point it's good to see the India stuff added. However when the verses are as poorly written and POV as they are they can't remain there. If there is no evidence you can't just come making claims on the page. If you have a source of evidence though come and rewrite the paragraph. Evolver of Borg 16:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

West Papua
Where does this genocide belong -- as it is a current genocide and has been for forty years (the combination of high and inaccessable mountains made complete genocide in the 1966 to 1978 aerial bombings ineffective and allowed population re-growth).

But any regional category would be misleading as it is a truly multi-national genocide; Papua is a Australian continental island; it's under Indonesian (Asian) military occupation; the United States has both enabled the occupation & continues to support it; the Red & White Defence Front is an Indonesian terrorist group burning townships & their farms, as is Laskar Jihad but LJ also has Al Qaeda members assisting with the Church burnings & killings.

Also it is one of the very few which has had a proper legal review to certify that it is genocide.

ref: Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua - Application of Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control - Yale University

If you are going to excuse Mao as such, you'd have to remove the Japanese, Boers and Nazi execution of Soviets.


 * Given that it is located in Asia (more or less), putting it there seems to make more sense than listing it under "United States" (which, in turn, is under "Americas").

Revolutionary France

 * the revolutionary National Convention ordered a pacification of the province, with specific instructions to kill children and women of reproductive age.

Do we have references for that? Remember that, at the time, there was both pro-revolutionary and counter-revolutionary propaganda, and that counter-revolutionary propaganda permeated the British outlook on the situation.


 * Women are reproductive furrows who must be ploughed under.

Problem: this quote is found only on a single site apart from Wikipedia mirrors. I'd like to get the original French version. David.Monniaux 18:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Massacre - Turkey
This topic is widely disputed. The way its presented is unacceptable. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia
International courts have found that genocide occured in two recent conflicts: In Rwanda (1994) and in Srebrenica (1995) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Judgements by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)and the United Nations International Criminla Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) gives useful definitions of the elements of he crime of genocide under internatioal law. The jurisprudence is available at www.un.org/icty and www.ictr.org. Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina should be added as places where genocide occured. Marcussen, 25 April 2995.

Rwanda
I should certainly hope Rwanda is under no discussion. I think telling people to kill a race to eliminate it because they are evil is close to defining the term.

Deleted
User:JamesBurns deleted the following piece claiming that the below lacks evidence.

Alexander's genocide of Persians

 * - The Macedonian generalissimo Alexander and his army of sixty thousand ravaged Persia's capital city, Persepolis, around 331 BCE, slaughtering nearly all the inhabitants, burning the great palace of Xerxes, and plundering vast wealth. While the butchery and the destruction of priceless cultural treasures is inexcusable by modern standards of morality, it cannot be rightly termed genocide: after all, the Persian ethnos was not placed in serious danger. There is evidence that the Macedonian conqueror was perfectly willing to coexist with the Persians, both as a culture and as an ethnos, provided they showed him submission. Of course Alexander was responsible for many acts of genocide perpetrated upon smaller groups of people, such as his near-extermination of the Thebans, his extermination of whole tribes in Bactria and Thrace, and his brutal campaigns in India. 

The ones who support the above claims, please provide references. Mikkalai 04:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

USSR
Remove these from Pro Russian demagogy
 * there was never any discrimination against Ukrainians in the USSR
 * this is complete nonsence - removing


 * the Soviet government, not Russians, contributed to the famine,
 * historically Russians have no quarrel with Ukrainians and
 * well, it can be said about anything, e.g it's not German people but Nazi government who made Holocaust

More changes to follow... Ilya K 18:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-edited
 * estimates 2,000,000 - 7,000,000 people
 * numerous articles and books show that estimates would range between 7,000,000 to 15,000,000 people

Certainly not 15,000,000 people killed in something that qualify as genocide.... Ericd 08:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

After some research 7 to 10 according to most sources. Ericd 18:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There was no opression of Ukrainians in USSR ? http://www.angelfire.com/alt/ceri_evans/writings/nationalism_ussr.htm "Since the war the non-Russian nationalities have to varying degrees faced a policy of cultural and linguistic assimilation, along with discrimination in the allocation of jobs, housing and land. Assimilation was openly advocated by Khrushchev and adopted as a goal by the 22nd Party Congress in 1961. The consequences of this policy for the Ukraine were well documented by the communist dissident Ivan Dzuba in his book Internationalism of Russification?, for which he was jailed and later forced to recant. A similar fate faced others who raised their voices against the cult of the 'Soviet nation', a term adopted by the 24th Party Congress. It is significant that the largest single group of political prisoners in the pre-Gorbachev USSR were Ukrainians jailed for the 'crime' of nationalism. " --Molobo 00:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bosnia
Oldadamm, why did you remove this information:

(1992–1995) Bosnian Genocide was an organized murder of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), during the Bosnian War, where authorities of Republika Srpska and its Army targeted for extinction a wide group of Bosnian Muslims.

Statement by Radovan Karadži& co-founder of Republika Srpska and its first president, alluded to the origins of this ideology on March 4, 1992 to the Bosnian Parliament:

..."the road to which you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same highway of hell which Slovenia and Croatia took. Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation... Muslims can't defend themselves if there is war here"... It also included organized ethnic cleansing carried out by Republika Srpska against Croats, Roma, and Bosniaks throughout the period displacing nearly a 1 million people. More than 7,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred in Srebrenica in July 1995 alone. Total numbers of killed in Bosnian Genocide are still being determined but they range anywhere between 100,000 and 250,000. See also History of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

--AI 02:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC) --Derim Hunt--

The number of "massacred" people in Srebrenica is not true! If there were 7000 murdered, why did they only found about 2100 corpses up to today in the area of Srebrenica and its sorroundings? Additionally I would like to say, that there was no genocide during the 90ies in whole Europe. In Yugoslavia there was a civil war and a lot of people were murdered. But also see the ethnic cleanings in the Kraina... .Please keep neutral!

5-6000 bodies were found. 2100 have been identified. 8102 are listed missing. Now the facts and see Srebrenica massacre for genocide consideration and other information.--Dado 14:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Genocide of Hindus by Pakistan
I find that genocide of the Hindus in Pakistan particularly in the late 1940s needs to be mentioned and incorporated in the article. This qualifies as genocide as 1) it was particularly aimed at systematically eliminating the Hindus in Pakistan irrespective of their ethnicity. 2) it was practiced throughout Pakistan, West Pakistan as well as East Pakistan( now Bangladesh) 3) the evidence of change in percentages is very clear. The genocide involved murder, permanent displaceent and complete loss of property. 4)The numbers involved run to 7.45 millions, involving 3.06 millions in West Pakistan and 4.39 million. 5) The Hindu % percentages dropped between 1941-1951 from: a) 20.91% to 3.36% in West Pakistan. ( Now stands at 1.5%) b) 29.45% to 23.14 in East Pakistan. c) 26.03% to 15.11 for all of combined Pakistan.

These are official census figures of Pakistan, consider this. 1.Punjab + Bahawalpur : 24.58% to 2.77% 2.Sind+Khairpur+Karachi:28.6% to 8.53% 3.NWFP Provinces      : 4.6%  to 0.1% 4.Baluchistsan        : 8.53% to 1.47%

These sort of figures involving millions and organised decimation cannot be ignored either by Wiki or the world at large.


 * Now, a drop in numbers isn't necessarily due to genocide. I do not believe that immigration out of a country/region due to even religious discrimination is considered genocide. Pluse, you continue to mention East Pakistan, a non-existent entity! So, I will express doubts about adding such demographic change figures in genocide. However, if you could find explicit evidence of systematic elimination from some source, we should definitely add the topic. -- Urnonav 04:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed two external links which were current news items, and not of lasting interest to the topic.

Yeah,honestly, almost all of the Hindus in Pakistan moved out during the partition. Can't you say the same about Muslims in India?

Japan
As revolting as the Japanese acts at Nanking and with Unit 731 were, they should not be considered genocide. Genocide is aimed at wiping out entire races or ethnicities. As horrible as these killings were, there was no attempt on the Japanese part to wipe out the Chinese race.


 * TakuyaMurata is the above what you meant by "(&#8594;Japan - remove; this is not genocide)" ? In the article, Genocide the following is written:
 * Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate action(s)leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories.
 * According to that definition, what happened in Nanking is genocide.--AI 23:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the basis of my removal. Needless to say, what happened in Nanking is controversial. However, at least, it was not deliberate, and there is no report that Japanese military personnel targeted at Chinese as a race. If we want to include Nanking Massacre, then first Nanking Massacre should be saying it was a genocide. -- Taku 23:32, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Taku, ok lets wait and see how others respond. I am neutral to this.  I imagine others are going to restore the information anyway and you will have a dispute with them.--AI 01:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In any case, if incidents like Nanking Massacre are genocides or not should be setted in each corresponding article. If someone can provide good references and rewrite those articles, I am willing to reflect changes to this one as well. -- Taku 22:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Turkey
How many countries recognise the assyrian genocide and greek genocides? If we are saying Turkey denies these genocides then should we not say how many countries actually acknowledge it to get an idea of the validity of these claims? --E.A 14:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

India
Neither the massacre by General Dyer nor the one of Sikhs by the Indian Army are genocide. There was no intention to destroy a particular group. I intend to remove unless someone disputes this.

Exile 16:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at this, very few of the incidents described as genocides fit the normal definition of a deliberate attempt to exterminate an ethnic, national or religious group. I'm not sure about Pol Pot for example. Was he trying to exterminate all Cambodians?

Perhaps we need an article on "Democides" - deliberate killing of large numbers of people, for whatever reasons. This would include Pol Pot, and Stalin's persecution of the Kulaks. There is of course a grey area over "unintended consequences" - where people starve as the result of a war, a foolish economic policy, or economic sanctions, sieges or blockades - or die of an disease introduced by invaders or colonisers.

We could also have an article on "Massacres" which would have small scale deliberate killings such as Amritsar, Bloody Sunday, Boston massacre, etc.
 * But we have some lists on these. Reading in addition to writing often helps (although I agree with your estimate of the subject). Mikkalai 04:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What a cheerful subject this is.

Exile 17:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genocides in history
Someone tried to remove this entire section. Why? Also note that the section on Japan regarding the Nanking massacre has also been removed and is awaiting discussion. Are these events genocides or not?--AI 03:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism regarding this section might begin. I have restored the last worthwhile edit to that section.

Al, the material quoted comes straight from hate propaganda sites in India. If you simply google on the text, it would take you to those links. Only the part about the ransacking of the capital of Vijaynagar is confirmed by any major historian in India who is not allied to any extremist group. From what I know, Wikipedia does have a policy not to allow hate groups such as anti-semites in US to take over pages on history.

I also feel that the General Dyer incident in Amritsar does not go down as a genocide - however terrible it may have been. ee

Attribution of Genocide
I think that it would be helpful if the principle were maintained in this article that genocides were not attributed to whole people groups. This would be a perpetuation of the whole objectification that is characteristic of genocide. I think that the section on Germany follows this quite well (as indeed do most of the sections) - identifying the victims of genocide and, where attributing any blame, identifies the Nazi party, whose ideology included genocide.

The sections that currently do not meet this are the "Boer Wars" (for which references for the numbers would be good) and "Rwanda".--sf-andrew 19:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the Croatian entry
I seem to recall having to remove junk from the Croatian part of this page on more than one occasion. This is a can of worms... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   1 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

I don't think it's junk. I think it's omitting that they were some ethnic cleansing more recently by Croatians. (BTW : There's no doubt than the Serbians did worse...) Ericd 1 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Well armed
"in aggressive state and well armed with sticks and stones"

Well armed indeed against machine-guns. Ericd 1 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
 * Note: This was a comment about Amritsar. Ericd 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Ustasha massacres are even in the Encylopedia Brittanica - how stupid can you rewally be???


 * I think this anonymous contribution is related to Croatia (see above). Please read again my comment, I'm not denying the Ustasha massacres. Ericd 18:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Anything goes
I think I will change my mind toward VfD for this article. Is it possible to agree to report only facts that match a definition of genocide ? Ericd 1 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

1984 Anti-Sikh riots
Hoodlums of the INC? I dont think so. The majority was cammoners getting revenge on Sikhs. It can hardly be described as genocide, since it was not organized. Any proof that Congress had a hand in it? No. YOu dirty forigners and humanitarians, put your snobby noses out of India.

Kashmir
This section seems to be at times incredibly inaccurate and pov. I'd especially like to see sources for the claim that "mostly Muslim and some Hindu civilians" have been killed and for the claim that most of the atrocities are blamed on Indian military (and not terrorists) by Human Rights groups and the UN. --Kefalonia 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article still states the following: "Most of the atrocities including rape, torture and massacre are attributed to the Indian Army personnel in the region, mostly by human rights groups and the UN ." I don't want to judge the objectivity or neutrality of this article, but this particular article focuses heavily on the India military or similar, not on the terrorists or the Pakistani military. The HRW article says that the Indian military also commited atrocities, but not that it commited most of the atrocities, so this should be corrected in the article.  --Kefalonia 13:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Notice how the section is about Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Administered), so it has to focus on the Indian side. Besides there is nothing that commonly classifies as genocide that was conducted on the Pakistani side. Also it is well documented that Indian military did have a greater hand in killings than separatists. The separatists (or "terrorists" in less NPOV version) do kill people but not as much as the army has. And selective killings were done by both the military and separatists. Also there is a Muslim majority in Kashmir and any good source will tell you that more Muslims have died than Hindu. The HRW article has several pages on Indian military actions and there is one page on separatist actions. Look at the linked sources. Not all the groups are Pakistan-based either, that is only allegation. Hope that helps. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.

Soviet Section

 * Shouldn't there be more added to the Soviet Section such as the genocide of Jews after World War 2 and the genocide of Germans, both in the USSR and occupied Europe after the end of WW2, also what about the genocide of other ethnic groups that found themselves on the wrong side after WW2, like the massacre of the cossaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.241.73.130 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that these acts were acts of genocide? --PBS (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

crimes against humanity
From the history of the article:
 * 13:04, 1 April 2009 Joebobby1985 (→1915 to 1950: Nowhere in the mentioned sources does it say that this was when the concept of crimes against humanity were introduced. It's worthwhile reading upon 19th century history.)

What the source says:H.RES.316-->Text of Legislation is:

Although the concept of "principles of humanity and universal morality" had been around for some time, eg at the Congress of Vienna 100 years before when Britain pushed for a declaration on the Slave Trade, as  (see Crime against humanity. Do you have any source to show the use of "crimes against humanity" in international relations before 1915, and it clearly existed as a concept after that date, so "In 1915, during World War I, the concept of Crimes against humanity was introduced into international relations for the first time" is not an unreasonable statement given the cited  H.RES.316 source. --PBS (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, first off I apologise for a rather late response. I have added in the new sources with regards to King Leopold's rule along with detailed information. However, due to the composition of section titles (where the section after 1915 starts off with giving brief information on when the concept of Crimes against humanity were introduced) I would like to propose a change to the section titles accordingly. The "1915 to 1950" title can be editted to "Late 19th century to 1950" in which it starts off from the first use of the term, to 1950 for convenience.


 * Kind regards and again, I'm awfully sorry for the late response.
 * Joebobby1985 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There has already been some conversations about The Congo Free State in the Archives, and most historians as the archives show do not consider it to be a genocide so the events do not need to be detailed in this article. The sources you have supplied do not support your assertion "The first inter-state accusations made against King Leopold II dated back to 1907, when he was accused of crimes against humanity by the UK." Indeed this source, one of the ones you provided says "The second time the phrase is known to have been used was in May 1915, when the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia made a declaration regarding Turkey’s massacres of its Armenian population at the beginning of the First World War". The breakdown into the sections as they are have been like this for some time and I am not convinced that your edits have improved the article so I am reverting them. What is the advantage that you see to a section starting "Late 19th century"? --PBS (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, well the article states in its first few paragraphs that it includes genocides and alleged genocides. Therefore The Congo Free State certainly seems feasible under this heading in all fairness.


 * As for the UK accusing King Leopold I forgot to put the other source in. It was from a book so I'll try to find that and add that in later with the page numbers.


 * You also mentioned "Indeed this source, one of the ones you provided says "The second time the phrase is known to have been used was in May 1915, when the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia made a declaration regarding Turkey’s massacres of its Armenian population at the beginning of the First World War"." However, this was the second time the phrase was used whereas the original text noted it as the first. The subsequent section deals with the same issue so it's just mere repitition to be honest. On the other hand what I intended to point out was the first time it was used and I used it within that context.


 * As for what advantages I see in changing the section title: The "1915 to 1950" section starts off with giving an introduction of when the term was first used, however since the term was first used to describe the events in the Congo Free State the title would indeed need to be adjusted accordingly to that. I preferred to use a "Late 19th century" title to be rather vague due to the fact that it is difficult to associate the whole vent to just one specific year.


 * Kind regards and thank you for the quick response.
 * Joebobby1985 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not genocides alleged by editors of Wikipedia but alleged by reliable sources. See the archives about the Congo listed there is a reliable source that states most historians do not describe the working to death of millions of people as a genocide. As to he section heading the current wording states "In 1915, during World War I, the concept of Crimes against humanity was introduced into international relations for the first time when the Allied Powers sent a correspondence to the government of the Ottoman Empire,..."(my emphasis) which is what the source you provided confirms. That the phrase it had been used by another entity in a letter is not directly pertinent to this article. That it was used by the British government is relevant as this is still their position. Further those found guilty at Nuremberg were found guilty of all sorts of crimes including crimes against humanity because the concept already existed thanks to the WWI declaration and the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (but the Charter would have been in danger of being retrospective if the previous declarations about CAH had not been made), they were not found guilty of the crime of genocide because it had yet to be defined as a criminal act (which is not the same as saying that a genocide did not take place).


 * One thing which Google Books is good for is finding earlier dates for a phrase than one cited in more recent books. For example by putting in search dates from 1790 to 1890 it is easy to see that there are lots of earlier publications that use the term "Crime against humanity". Here is one from 1854. Here is another one from 1855: The Sunday of the people in France by I. Mullois, S. Bunbury, on page 21. Here one which is much earlier; Public characters [Formerly British public characters] of 1798-9 - 1809-10, Published 1804. pp. 526,527 "offensive war is a high crime against humanity and Christianity." by Dr Knox from a sermon he gave in Brighton in 1793, almost 100 years before George Washington Williams sent his letter.--PBS (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah the bolded part clears things up a bit. Then I'll try and get a hold of the book I mentioned where it's stated that the UK officially condemned the actions in the Congo in 1907. (Don't worry it's from a neutral source, something you find on a rare occassion these days when it comes to controversial topics such as these).


 * However, I have still yet to be convinced with regards to the actions in the Congo not being an act of genocide, especially as there have is clear evidence of an order given by a higher authority to collect the right hands of the Congolese people. Although that might not fit exactly into the definition of genocide due to there not being an explicit aim of wiping out a race/people, I (just personal opinion after having researched the subject) do think it would fit under the label of an genocide when compared to that of other allegations. The "most historians" part also doesn't seem very convincing (and has never been convincing) as that sounds more like an estimate/guess due to the fact that it sets a barrier with regards to research. So if I just brainstorm a bit here I'm thinking of "most historians" according to what? Who are these people? And what about the ones that aren't included among "most historians"? Are their research methods/conclusions (if there are any) not worthy of a mention?


 * Anyhow sorry about the little brainstorm session, I understand that Wikipedia is not suited for opinions (rightfully so) and that majority > minority (especially with regards to the amusing maps put up on the topic of Portuguese colonialism on another page simply because the 'majority' see them fit) when it comes to editing articles, and I respectfully disagree with that approach for the sake of research (again, another personal opinion) but I must admit that it does prevent further complications. I'm guessing that's just the North American method :p and if I have a problem with it I should just take it up with the Wikipedia staff I suppose. To avoid any misunderstandings, I don't intend to take part in any editing war either as that's against my nature nor do I have the time, will nor energy to take it up with the Wikipedia staff. I'll continue with my own method of personal research and I just wanted to drop a kind suggestion to approaches when it comes to research, that's all.


 * Kind regards.Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S: Thank you for introducing me to Google Books, it seems like a useful tool. I wasn't aware of such a tool due to the fact that I'm horrible with computers.
 * I'm please that you will find the tool useful. As to the convincing you please follow the link to the archive which has the details of the following: "Adam Hochschild includes in his article a paragraph that starts: 'The exhibit deals with this question in a wall panel misleadingly headed “Genocide in the Congo?” This is a red herring, for no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different.'" --PBS (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clear up any possible confusion, I wasn't challenging the "See the archives about the Congo listed there is a reliable source that states most historians do not describe the working to death of millions of people as a genocide." quote you made, as that really is the case or else we would have had almost every war being labelled a genocide. I had only intended to comment on the 'most historians' term with regards to its use in general as its used very frequently.


 * I had already read the archive. However, as mentioned apart from the forced labor system there has been an order to kill. In addition to this, Article 2 of the CPPCG does not state in any explicit way that there needs to be charges made by the victims (in this case Congolese historians) against those who may have committed the act. So in other words, it doesn't sound logical to me to rule out a possible genocide just because the victim party has not engaged in any form of accusations. Although they won't fit under "alleged genocides", I feel it's enough if there are accusations made by any party and that it may/should be worthy of a mention to broaden the perspective, especially when there is sufficient literature written on the subject. One may argue that if an act should be considered as genocide then it needs to have met the prerequisites of a hearing in the ICJ in that manner, but on the other hand most of the cases mentioned here have not even gone through the process of the ICJ let alone having gone through a hearing.


 * Kind regards.Joebobby1985 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See the article genocide definitions and also genocide. To be included here there is no requirement that the charges are laid by the surviving victims of a genocide, but there is a requirement that he events are described as such by reliable sources. In the case of the Congo Free State Adam Hochschild has stated "no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide;"(source in the archive) --PBS (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The various challenges to the definition of genocides in the link you gave only makes the term more vague and strengthens my view on the flexibility of the term that's being used today for many cases of a "genocide", as you acknowledge I suppose. What I meant by sources was not just Adam Hochschild alone, in fact the main portion of the sources I indicated were the sources that contained the quotes from Hochschild. These sources seem pretty reliable to me as they're not linking to any biased government sources or diaspora views and there's even much more waiting to be found out there and it's not very hard to so... but I realise the term 'reliable' is always relative. Despite all this, if you're still persistent with regards to the events in the Congo Free State then I humbly respect your opinion. I'm not one to force results through research down someone's throat as that's against my nature as I stated and this is as far as I'll go. I'm only guessing this is a flaw of Wikipedia where one is forced to convince someone who already has a point of view on the issue, through discussions; I've had a similar experience when presenting a correct map of Portuguese colonialisation in the Americas but was faced with the same views that defend the status quo, contrary to the approach that should be of a researcher especially when dealing with issues like these. Nevertheless, I bid you a good day sir.


 * Kind regards.Joebobby1985 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Genocide of palestinians
What about the genocide of palestinians that Israel is commiting?? Nobody talks about that?? I think all we know how many palestinians are dying just for being family or neighbours of some suicide terrorist. Israeli forces sistematically destroy their houses as a punition, it's not a secret. Can you imagine (wherever you are, in the US, Europe, or somewhere in your confortable country) your house being destroyed just because your brother/son has killed someone?? What about the so many olive trees cut off as a punition?? Is this the democracy of a "western" country like Israel??

We could be here writing hundreds of examples of what the israelis are doing to the palestinian peolpe, but even in the 21th century is not polite to say they're commiting genocide, just because they have suffered so much in the WW2 that now everybody feels guilty and no one is brave enough to tell them "STOP".

I strongly believe it must be a section in this article about the genocide of palestinians. 89.131.5.91 (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Other historic genocides to add, further note
I came to notice the lack of mention, nor examination and inclusion of five infamous acts I can think of are legitimately viewed as genocides or acts of "ethnic cleansing" in world history is not in the article.

1. The decline of the Californio population of Mexican-era California during the Mexican-American war, which ended by the U.S. annexation and Anglo-American settlement of the 1850's. One story about the U.S army command under General John Fremont captured the colonial capital of San Jose, California in 1847 and his troops expelled every single Spanish-speaking individual out of the community. To observe U.S. census records of persons of Spanish/Mexican descent in 19th century California declined from being an ethnic majority (over 50% of an estimated 150,000) in 1848 to 5% (under 100,000) of the state population by 1900 may be viewed by scholars whom studied ethnic group declines as a "genocide". Some parts of the Western United States were settled by Hispanic/Mexican people for over 400 years, such as the central coast of California, the valleys of northern New Mexico and along the Rio Grande, the present-day US-Mexico border in southern Texas is sometimes called "the lost land" by Mexican-Americans; and how Chicano/La Raza activist groups since the 1960's spoke of past actions by the U.S. government that nearly eradicated a culture in formerly Mexican land (the Aztlan movement) of the Western United States during the late 19th century.

2. The total of eight centuries of genocides, linguicide programs and crushed uprisings of the Langue d'oc regions also known as Occitans of Southern France by the northern French. It may be the first recorded genocide in world history when in 1209 the Holy Roman Empire (the Frankish kings) sent thousands of troops returning from the Crusades to quench a peasant rebellion to had killed tens of thousands, the beginning of endless pursuits and policies by the northern French (as the Kingdom of France and the French Republic since 1789) against the Occitans. After the French Revolution and the fall of Napoleon I in the 1810's, the French Republic abolished all the historic provinces of the former kingdom and replaced the southern half with 39 departements (or 7 to 8 regions). Meanwhile the republic endorsed a frantic cultural elimination of the Langue D'Oc by ethnicity, cultural identity and the most by language death. In the 1880's, an aggressive and humiliating campaign by the French Ministry of Education with strong planning and endorsement by Prime Minister Jules Ferry, was committed to a program to literally replace historic language (i.e. Occitan, Provencal, Arpitan, Auvergnat, Limousin and Gascon) to student pupils in French public schools, the policy called for shunning any pupil caught speaking "patois" or regional "dialects". A century or so later, nearly every language spoken by the peoples of southern France is moribund, endangered or its' decline was successful. Sounds like a cultural genocide, the periods of violent repressions and strict anti-regional language policies, and finally the 1992 French constitution made French the "official and sole language" passed before the European Union Charter of Human Rights in 1993 passed a resolution: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages for protection of minority and regional languages, but exempted France from compliance with the treaty out of all member states.

3. The Japanese occupation of the Korean Peninsula from 1890 to 1945 when Japan surrendered to the Allies to ended World War II and had withdrew colonial rule over Korea. The occupation and annexation period by an expansionist Japan was notably brutal, oppressive and disregarded Koreans not as "equal human beings" by ancient racial homogenity dogmas of the Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese attempted to culturally replace the Koreans' five-millennia old cultural identity as a nation, but since 1910 the Japanese government introduced over one million Japanese settlers into Korea and confiscated thousands of square kms. of farmlands from Korean peasants, also to call for demographical renovation of the Korean Peninsula into a "second Japan" ethnologically. Later the Japanese military police were sent there to repress any dissent by Korean Nationalist groups such as the 1919 Korean National Uprising against Japanese rule, which was brutally repressed by the Japanese. By the end of WWII, it's widely thought over 1 to 5 million Korean civilians were killed, many more may have starved or imprisoned, and a huge influx of Korean slave labor sent to the Japanese machinery factories. The Korean people continue to address a small global awareness to their nation's suffering under a resilient post-war Japanese government to the international community. The Japanese government continually downplays the Korean colonial occupation, although in 2005 the Japanese government and the speech given by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made a formal apology for their predecessors' many crimes against humanity in pre-WWII Korea.

4. In Chile, the right-wing military regime's bloody handling of political dissidents under President-General Augusto Pinochet in the overthrowal of the left-wing Salvador Allende government in 1973, when Allende was found dead after the Chilean air force's bombing of the presidential palace. When Pinochet and the Chilean army took over, they instituted a crackdown on all political dissidents (the majority are leftists such as communists and socialists loyal to the Allende presidency) and an estimated 50,000 were arrested (or "disappeared") often without a fair trial, taken to public squares or stadiums, later to military concentration camps and about 5,000 to 10,000 of them were executed, buried in the country's vast Atacama Desert or bodies dumped into the Pacific ocean along the coastline. The Pinochet regime ended in a peaceful democratic election to restore civilian rule in 1990, but starting from Pinochet's arrest by Spanish agents in 1998 and given a trail for the World Court of International Law. Pinochet was cleared due to physical illness and old age, he dies in 2006 without any charges made against him. The involved former Pinochet regime officials suspected of human rights abuses and homicide, are given trials held by civilian Courts in Chile ever since. The victims of the Pinochet regime is ruled a politicide (a form of genocide) by most scholars.

and 5. The "Blackbird" slave trade of the South Pacific when tens of thousands of Polynesians as well the Kanaks of New Caledonia were forcibly taken to slave ships by European slave traders and bound for Australia where the majority were forced to indentured servitude in the plantations of Queensland, and South America with the worst cases of captured people from Easter Island sent to the Guano mines of Peru. The illicit slave trade peaked in the 1880's and 1890's, but was outlawed by the year 1900 by the newly established dominion parliaments of Australia and New Zealand, and South American nations when the general public viewed "blackbirding" a barbaric action of forced slave labor. It can be ruled out a genocide due to the near termination of whole tribal groups on some islands in the south Pacific and the high fatality rate associated with slave labor conditions. The practice formally ends in 1906 when thousands of Kanaks and Polynesian farm workers are expelled and returned to their home islands, but from mass disapproval by white Australians on having "non-whites" in their continent. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You wrote above "inclusion of five infamous acts I can think of are legitimately viewed as genocides or acts of "ethnic cleansing" in world history is not in the article." This is not a list of what Wikipedia editors think are genocides, but is a list of events that are stated to be genocides by reliable sources. The articles on "genocide" and "genocide definitions" explain the difference between a mass killing and a genocide, the paramaters are usually size, type of group killed and significantly the intentions of the perpetrators. Two articles that might help you understand how we get to the point where what seem obvious cases of genocide are not included here:


 * The Bosnian Genocide article goes into what is and is not a genocide in considerable detail explaining why Momcilo Krajisnik was guilty of multiple crimes against humanity but not genocide, and while to date only Radislav Krstic has been found guilty of complicity in genocide in an international court for his part in the genocide that took palace during the Srebrenica massacre(others have in national courts). The article quotes the European Court of Human Rights "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide" (Jorgic v. Germany July 2007).


 * The second example is a section from this article Genocides in history . It is like your example "4. In Chile, the right-wing military regime..." but the source is a judge making the claim that it was a genocide, it is not an analysis by a Wikipedia editor claiming that because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. --PBS (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, on what constitutes a genocide goes by what's defined under the process of prosecution or declaration of genocide from how it is considered in international law. The Bosnia civil war and the atrocities in Rwanda were evidently coordinated mass murders between whole ethnic groups (no doubt about it), while the crime of Apartheid and Maafa may contain several levels of racial oppression to signify a genocide and the decline of American Indians and Australian Aborigines according to demographic statisticans attribute serious population declines from government policy to carry racial overtones to reduce the population numbers. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected
Per the report at WP:ANI, this page is protected for two weeks or until consensus is reached on the issue above. I am now examining whether additional sanctions are required per WP:ARBAA2.  Sandstein  09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided all contributors to the recent edit war with the following precautionary notification: This is to notify you that, per ARBAA2, editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process while editing content related to Armenia and Azerbaijan may be given sanctions which may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.  Sandstein   09:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, your project (i.e. your agenda) seem very different from the project. Meowy  23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia
I found this edit: Revision as of 18:38, 23 October 2007 by user:Arcot which introduced the sentence with this "Historian dismisses Tasmanian aboriginal genocide "myth"" as the source. But the source only says "He argues only 118 Tasmanian Aborigines were killed directly by the British. The rest died from a lethal cocktail of introduced diseases." it does not mention what the diseases were, so I'll remove the specific diseases from this article. If anyone objects then I'll have to re-instate it, until the protection comes off. --PBS (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that this source is pretty much the only source that argues this, and nobody else agrees. The natives were murdered by settlers, as everybody knows.Likebox (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Likebox you have made this edit citing With intent to destroy By Colin Martin Tatz pp. 78-79 Given the wording in the first paragraph on page 78 ("diseases introduced by convicts and settlers ... seriously depleted Aboriginal numbers") which paragraph do you think over the two pages supports the sentence you added to this article namely "The majority were killed at the hands of settlers" (my emphasis)? --PBS (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Khojaly
I have noticed this section is being removed many times in which I felt the need to undo the changes. It's important to keep in mind that the article at hand is written with regards to genocides or alleged genocides. Without having to dig through much sources it's possible to pull out two sources that would qualify the case in this regard: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/c3/ac351-9.htm and http://assembly.coe.int/documents/workingdocs/doc01/edoc9066.htm

With this in mind, I kindly ask of anyone who's removing this section to stop. If you have any opinions on the credibility of the sources linked please feel free to put them forward.

Kind regards. Joebobby1985 (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles do not exist to serve as carriers of pure propaganda. Meowy 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me but what on earth is that supposed to mean? I presented you with available sources from official documents and your best answer is "this is pure propaganda"? That sounds like the usual over-nationalist view that denies anything against their own interests. Deleting it like this is just plain abrupt, please stop. I ask you kindly to present a valid arguement. I mean no offense.Joebobby1985 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of any "Khojaly genocide" in those "available sources from official documents"! Meowy 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The source http://assembly.coe.int/documents/workingdocs/doc01/edoc9066.htm notes "Recognition of the genocide perpetrated against the Azeri population by the Armenians" in its title along with "On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city." which sort of creates the base for an informal title of "Azerbaijani Khojaly".


 * Granted though that there is no explicit mention of a Khojaly genocide. Nevertheless, there is still a case of (alleged) genocide here and it would certainly be better to reach a compromise on finding a suitable title and just adding that in. However, deleting the whole section is plain abrupt and a loss of content as mentioned before, and I'm sure you would agree that the documents do indeed point to the presence of an (alleged) genocide at the very least. Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The documents you cite are examples of lie-filled political propaganda manufactured by Azerbaijan and they are dubious sources at best. Regardless of that, there is no mention AT ALL of a "Khojaly genocide" in those sources. Please stop POV warring. It sounds like it is just your opinion that what has happened could be called genocide. Your opinion is not enough. Meowy  13:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd consider "lie-filled political propaganda" as a biased remark to be honest. The thing these sources point out is that there is at the very least an allegation of a genocide and this article also notes in its first few paragraphs that it contains "genocides" and "alleged genocides". As for the title, I've already mentioned about reaching a compromise on finding a suitable title for the section but unfortunately you have made no suggestions in this regard.


 * On a final note please refrain from empty accusations like "POV warring" or the sort. I'm simply pointing to documents of at least an (alleged) genocide and that fits in with the article's purpose.


 * PS: It seems you've deleted the section again and noted the reason as "unsourced claim". It does (or at least did) have a source, but if you're just dismissing it because you believe "it's a lie" then that does not really fit with the article's purpose. If people were able to delete whatever they believed was a "lie" here I'm pretty sure there would almost be no content here.Joebobby1985 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it! The article does indeed contain a list of "genocides" and "alleged genocides" but they are genocides that have been written about, or genocides that have been alleged in credible sources (preferably multiple credible sources). You seem to want to add this for no other reason than you believe it should be classed as an "alleged genocide". You have cited no source, credible or otherwise, that specifically calls events at Khojaly a "genocide". What you are doing is called POV warring. Meowy 17:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Like previously stated in an edit summary, which should have sufficed for any editor with good intentions, this draft is not considered as a reliable source. This draft was prepared by Mehmet Ali İrtemçelik representing Turkey, see the bolded name on the list of individuals who signed it. Mehmet Ali İrtemçelik is the same who campaigned against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Europe, mostly Germany, where he made pressures to remove the mention of the Armenian genocide in the syllabus of the city of Brandenburg among many other things as well as the most active in preventing the recognition by the German Bundestag in 2005 and the following official recognition. The draft prepared by Mehmet Ali İrtemçelik was the bunny out of his magician hat on 26 April 2001 to answer to the originally tabled 24 April 2001 draft concerning the Armenian genocide put forward by Tatána Jirousová which angered the Azeri and Turkish members (known ardent deniers of the Armenian genocide) of the Concil of Europe. The only thing the draft which was signed does, is exposing the individual who prepared it as well as those who have signed it. Every single line there is bogus and not supported by a single notable non-partisan material. Even the line regarding Khojali is bogus, it reads: On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly and fully destroyed the city. As seen from the Khojaly Massacre article, the official figures from Azeri authorities (which is disputed) is of 613 individuals out of the claimed six thousand of people. Even taking the official Azeri authorities' figures (who have a history of exaggeration to demonise Armenians), as official figures, they changed it from barely over a hundred, to four hundred something to then stabilize for the six hundred range), that's about 10% of the village population, very far from the 'whole population' not even claimed by Azeri authorities who claim the village population are refugees and are waiting to return in Khojali. Furthermore, to not forget that 20 out of the 30 members who have signed were either from Turkey or Azerbaijan and who played a game in their deluded world by retaliating to the draft prepared two days prior. This does not include that several of the remaining were part of claimed Turkish friendship cocuses and pushers of Turkey into the European Union, who thought hard that by antagonizing Armenians and accusing them to have perpetrated repeated genocides extending to a century (afteral the draft accuses them to have committed several genocides, which would make laugh even Justin McCarthy himself, known ardent Armenian Genocide denier) they'll have Turkey excused for having gotten rid of such monsters who would have the third Reich shy away.

In conclusion, removing the material amount to removing vandalism. There is really something pathetic about reinserting and fighting over a passage which claims an Armenian genocide history against Azeri extending to a century (which would make of it the worst reported genocide). It seems that some have nothing better to do than antagonizing other groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How is an EU Council or UN source not credible? Don't they authenticise the fact that there are allegations at the very least? I'm baffled by your way of thinking on what a credible source should be and the accusations/name calling you're throwing left, right and center. The last bit is even more irrelevant to the whole case (I apologise if that's not from you, it says unsigned). The question we should be dealing with is this a genocide/alleged genocide? Whatever viewpoint you might believe (on whether it's a genocide or not) you can see there is the case of at least an allegation, and that is ultimately the purpose of the article: to form a collection of genocides and alleged genocides in history.Joebobby1985 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry seems that latest addition wasn't made by Meowy and was by Onlyoneanswer, my bad. First of all you claimed the section as "vandalism" and proceeded in deleting the whole thing, even if it had been rearranged by Meowy and Kansas Bear. As for an answer to your post please see the previous paragraph on it being irrelevant to the case at hand.Joebobby1985 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not even qualify as alleged, you're gamming it, the term alleged in the article was meant to cool down parties, so that if some do not want to claim genocide (for example the Armenian genocide for Turkish users or Turkish readers) it still can be included. The term alleged permits also cases not submitted to international trials (since the term genocide is a legal word in terms of international laws) and which are obviously documented and could reasonably be included. The term alleged is for sure not there to include every claims made by parties. To be an allegation, the allegation should be believed by those making them, and reported as an existing allegation in notable publications. The draft submitted to the Concil of Europe, it's content isen't even claimed by the most fanatic Azeri nationalists, and their most ridiculous estimations fall short of claiming whole population of Khojali have been massacred (as it is the case in the daft). The draft is only so ridiculous which would justify its removal anywhere else, when used to support any claim like you're doing here. There have been many cases during the NK war, one of which for example Maragha, which unlike Khojali was not in the middle of a war, where the Armenian population just vanished in a period of less than a day. Some Armenians claim it genocide, does not mean it is one, neither that it even qualify as alleged and this regardless of if Armenia submit it and several parties with conflict of interest sign. Also you claim EU Concil or UN, that's not accurate, only those who have signed the draft claim so, the EU concil distance itself from such drafts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In all fairness most people who believe something is a "genocide" don't like to have the word "alleged" written in front of it so I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to just "cool down" parties and form a compromise,(and also feel free to have a look at the dictionary definition of the word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alleged). Anyhow, you said "To be an allegation, the allegation should be believed by those making them", so do you really believe the people who are submitting these documents to the relevant institutions don't really believe it? That's daft and biased. Claiming an official source to contain "ridiculous" information does not change the fact that there is the presence of allegations either. You have your opinions on a matter and that should be respected, as well as others who have different opinions on the matter. In addition to this, if there is an allegation and official documents of a Maragha genocide or any of the sort then feel free to add it here to be honest, any addition with official sources should be welcomed. But as for the case at hand I'm sure you would (in accordance with the true definition of the word alleged) see this would fit in with the article's purpose. Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to that you mention that the whole of the EU Council or UN have not approved it I think. However, you would find that only a few of the genocides/alleged genocides are recognised by them. The fact I'm trying to point out here is that there have been official submissions made to these institutions in that regard. I'll also quote you here: "only those who have signed the draft claim so", is that not enough to at the very least (for those who believe it's not a genocide) to qualify it as an alleged genocide? There is a submission, there are official documents (evidence), and there are claims. Whether you support it or not does not change the fact that there are these claims. Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, cool down..., check the history of this article..., one of the two reasons was indeed to cool down. The reason why the term alleged was added has nothing to do with what you imply by it. Check the articles title for a clue. and no I will not be adding a Maragha genocide, second wrong does not make it right. And yes, I am claiming that the individual who prepared the draft does not believe in the content of the draft. To be an allegation, the allegation has to exist. The draft claim that the whole population of Khojali was massacred. This allegation does not exist anywhere worth being cited, not even Azeri official allegations. One man (Mehmet Ali İrtemçelik) allegation, does not make a notable genocide allegation. Fringe allegations have no place, as you'll end up having several genocide allegations per ethnic group. That was not what was intended when the article Genocide in history was created. And what are we debating about, just checking the title of the article disqualify your addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the third paragraph of the article with regards to your comment about the title. You also claim "one of the two reasons was indeed to cool down", what was the other? Perhaps it was the true definition of the word "alleged", as stated in every dictionary out there? You also claim it's one man but there are signitures on there and say "This allegation does not exist anywhere worth being cited, not even Azeri official allegations.", feel free to check the document submitted to the UN (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/c3/ac351-9.htm) and I'm sure you would find that was not submitted by one man but was by the country of Azerbaijan itself via the Permanent Representative to the UN. Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just more additions to official sources: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/52/plenary/a52-85.htm (the Armenian response to implications of a genocide) and http://www.human.gov.az/?sehife=etrafli&dil=en&sid=MTMyMjMzMTA4MTMyNjE1Mw== (Decree of the Azerbaijani President claiming a genocide). Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was clear enough, second reason being, that genocide has legal conotations, and that the may be law-binding. Those who signed the draft did it in retaliation to a prior draft, in any case, that makes a fringe allegation. And fringe allegations cooked for the occasion do not qualify as notable enough to be included. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Read it and reread it as long as you don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean no offense, but did you even read my last post? I urge you to at least have a look at the last source I cited referring to a decree by the Azerbaijani President. Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to that I just found a most recent source. (http://www.un.int/azerbaijan/62%20Session/Press%20Release%202008/Khodjali.pdf) by the Mission of Azerbaijan to the UN which explicitly claims a "Khojaly Genocide" and even cites to other sources via footnotes. Fact is, there are claims and hence there are allegations. The fact that there are allegations are clearly seen in the sources mentioned before.Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, Armenia and Azerbaijan (while Azerbaijan being the initiator) have accused eachothers of genocide. And? That does not make it an allegation of genocide in an article on Genocide in history. What you are doing amount on pushing a fringe which those authoring it know it being baseless. Find any notable publication making such an allegation. Again for the upteenth time, for it to be included there should be a notable allegation. A notable allegation does not mean a letter prepared by a political official, it means a legitimate work, in a peer reviewed publication supporting the position of genocide. Can you do that? If you can't, what you are doing is a waste of time. Because believe me you are misunderstanding the term 'alleged' in the context of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this then http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav030602a.shtml. It mentions the accusations and is not a source tied to the Azerbaijani government. Saying something like "What you are doing amount on pushing a fringe which those authoring it know it being baseless" is uncalled for and biased. People making claims don't actually believe it themselves? Like I said before, that's daft. It's also not very helpful to twist the word "alleged" from its obvious meaning according to what you like for it to mean. Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, from a man stating: the bloodiest page in the policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide regularly perpetrated by Armenian chauvinists. So do you have any peer reviewed publication making the case for a Khojali genocide, so that neither of us waste his time? Talking of twisting, it is apparent that you are gaming this article, by using the word 'alleged', when you have it all wrong in its use. Unless you find a peer reviewed publication, there is no point in wasting my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I'm beginning to question your motives on if you really want to reach a compromise. No, the man stating that is the President and he's actually quoted to say it, not the actual author of the publication. The author of the publication is pointing to the accusations of a genocide and how it may jeapordise the Karabakh peace process. I suggest you reread the article. Fact is there are allegations and you're denying it even though it's staring at you in the face when you're reading the article. Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously going nowhere, Clare is a she, not a he, I was refering to the president not the author of the article who was based in Baku when she wrote that. My point was that the Azerbaijan claims that Armenians regularly perpetrated genocides..., not only Khojali is claimed to be that. That was to show you the differences between blunt claims and notable positions, published in peer reviewed publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And where I claimed I wanted to reach compromise, there is no compromise in removing nonesense which would denigrate legitimate cases of genocides by simply being compared to that nonesense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the first paragraph of that source if you want to find a reference to only claims of a "Khojaly Genocide". Please refrain from diverting the attention from the source to irrelevant details. You also claim I have the wrong use of the word "alleged" when all dictionaries out there would prove you wrong in that manner. I'd also like to remind you that labelling claims as "nonsense" is biased and does not fit with the articles purpose of it being a collection of genocides and alleged genocides. Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that you have no notable work making claim of genocide at your disposal, only political claims from a government who claims genocide regularly perpetrated by Armenian chauvinists. Come back when you find what I asked you. I will not repeat myself for the word alleged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you don't seem to accept any source that explicitly states there are claims. It doesn't matter which sources are shown to you, you will refuse to accept it as "notable work" and just disregard the primary sources of official claims (as pointed out by the various official documents) along with any other articles that talk about the claims of such a genocide which jeapordise the Karabakh peace process. The sources I have pointed out to already explicitly state the presence of claims. As for your comment of "Come back when you find what I asked you" please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIV Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I only accept notable works making the case of genocide, all the other cases present in the article have them. Will you come with one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by an indefinitely blocked sock puppet account struck out. --PBS (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed your strikethroughs. There is no rule I know of that says that edits by blocked users have to be removed or struck out (if there is, please cite it). Moreover, I think the contributions have value to this ongoing discussion, a discussion that I am participating in. Meowy 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The strikeouts severed their purpose primary purpose in allowing Joebobby1985 to request a third opinion. user:Meowy you should not have removed the strikeouts without asking me first, and I would remind every one who reads this that Joebobby1985 Onlyoneanswer is an indefinitely blocked sock-puppet account. --PBS (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a typo - Onlyoneanswer is an indefinitely blocked sock-puppet account. --Anderssl (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake (I'm please that at least one person read my comment :-) --PBS (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a request for a 3|third opinion on this dispute. It seems to me that it is well established in the sources provided that the government of Azerbadjan alleges that Armenian forces conducted a genocide in the town of Khajoli. On the other hand, this claim seems to be a little dubious, given the definition of genocide at the start of the article as an assault on an entire group - ethnic, racial etc. An attack on eno one single town, as horrible as it may have been, isn't the same as an assault on an entire people. The source from the Council of Europe points to a genocide perpetrated over time during most of the 20th century - that's a slightly different perspective. I think if there is a notable claim to such a large-scale genocide, it should be possible to find more (notable and reliable) sources describing it - such as works by historians etc. In that case the paragraph should be renamed and rewritten to reflect this larger claim. Otherwise, if this is a dispute only about a claim that the massacre of civilians in the town of Khajoli constitutes genocide, it would seem necessary to explain how one isolated incident in a larger conflict can be described as genocide.

Finally, referring to the opinions of others as "lies and propaganda" seems pretty unhelpful in advancing the discussion. Please remember to be civil. --Anderssl (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for bad spelling. I meant Khojaly of course. --Anderssl (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, first of all thank you very much for the effort in picking up the case in the third opinion section. An attack on one single town would indeed not really fit into a case of genocide alone, but the Azerbaijani officials seem to note the "massacres" as just a part of the process, while Human Rights Watch also noted their observation "During the winter of 1992, Armenian forces went on the offensive, forcing almost the entire Azerbaijani population of the enclave to flee, and committing unconscionable acts of violence against civilians as they fled. The most notorious of these attacks occurred on February 25 in the village of Khojaly." (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/WR93/Hsw-07.htm). Nevertheless, Azerbaijani sources seem to refer to the most recent claim as the "Kho(d)jaly Genocide". The President of Azerbaijan's decree (http://www.human.gov.az/?sehife=etrafli&dil=en&sid=MTMyMjMzMTA4MTMyNjE1Mw==) even dates his claims back to the 19th century. Sadly the Presidential decrees don't put footnotes/referencing and such. I had heard about sources with such claims with regards to the 19th century previously in books by historians (but only vaguely; I didn't get the chance to read them yet) so I refrained from mentioning them previously as I am unable to pull out the exact quotes from those books. (I could try to contribute in that regard and help expand the section some time later I suppose, as soon as I'm done with my nerve wreaking thesis).


 * Anyhow, I'll revert the latest deletion back to its old state for now and add more details as I find them later on (and have the time). To be very honest, this discussion created an impetus for me to find even more information and sources (sources that aren't even referenced in the Khojaly Massacre article) through research via the internet alone.


 * Kind regards. Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Azerbaijani government's claims of genocide are absolutely frivolous. Not a single scholar specializing on the genocide has even given an ounce of credence to their claims and I challenge anyone to find a single reliable source which calls the attack and an alleged massacre of a town during a territorial conflict a "genocide." The fact that Azerbaijan's narrative begins from 1828 and claims that Armenians have been "genociding" them for 200 years is enough to show what lengths the government goes to fudge the truth and how lauble their claims are. The resolution sponsored by PACE is not a source and as the user above me noted, was a politically-motivated piece of legislation that was conjured up by Turkish and Azeri parliamentarians. Joebobby1985's POV-pushing is absurd and I find it even more disturbing that users are so willy-nilly able to accept claims which have no historical foundations. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course they are politically motivated, as the introduction of this list makes clear "In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts." If we do not include this one because it is POV pushing should we delete all pronouncements of genocide by all political organisations? For example should we remove the section Genocides in history because it was a UN resolution, or should we document such incidents not because the incidents are or are not genocides, but because the are allegations of genocides made by one or more notable organisations or people? --PBS (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What Meowy, Onlyoneanswer, and MarshallBagramyan are all saying, and which I wholeheartedly agree with, is: the Azerbaijani government aside, who else supports this drivel? There is a tendency among many people to cheapen the use of the word genocide by hastily and unacademically throwing it around at the very first instance of violence. Senator John McCain of Arizona said if the Anglo-American force left Iraq too early, 'genocide' would occur. It's preposterious, of course and this case is no different. The word 'genocide' came to be associated with Xojaly in order to counteract Armenia's supposed monopoly of its tragedy. And what better way to do this than to fabricate and piece together non-related events going back to the mid-1800s that document a 200 year long genocide?! There have been serious works, many of which I personally do not agree with, on the studies of massacres which have been equalled to genocide, such as the Holodomor and Srebrenica, in area study journals but just because a government is trying to foist their views upon the whole world doesn't mean that we should provide them the platform to mislead and deceive on as popular an informational website as Wikipedia. If the government of Turkmenistan was saying that the sky was green would we then add it on the corresponding Wikipedia articles? Just because Azerbaijan says that the churches and monasteries of Nagorny Karabakh are Caucasian Albanian, we should then place that view even though a single serious scholar doesn't support that view? We're here to presenting the results done by serious scholars and I second MarshallBagramyan's challenge. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the claims of genocide are so ludicrous as you guys claim, it should be easy enough to come up with reliable and notable sources which refute them. Those can then be incorporated into the article, and the Wikipedia readers can be allowed to judge for themselves.


 * That being said, I would love to see an article titled "Claims about the color of the sky", with an entry for countries claiming it is green, others claiming it is made of blue cheese, etc. ;) --Anderssl (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that no one has supported the Azerbaijani government's claims of genocide is ample proof of a refutation of a genocide (the word massacre has been utilised but certainly not 'genocide'). If no one seriously claims the sky is green, alas, there is no need to present 'refutation'. Even the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which in no way can be construed as a genocide, is referred to in scholarly works on genocides (see, e.g., Genocide: Conceptual and historical dimensions (1997) by George J. Andreopoulos). The disputed passage is complete tosh as well: of Xojali's total population, less than 10% of its populants were actually killed in this attack according to the Azerbaijani government figures.

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate a single, unbiased and reliable source arguing for its conclusion.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so here is a source that refutes the claim that the sky is green. It took me 0.5 seconds to find. Now whenever you find sources to support your claims, I am sure the community will agree to have them included in the article. --Anderssl (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't understand my point, you provided a source on the fact that the sky is blue, not that the sky is not green. I'm claiming there was no genocide, and to be a source dismissing genocide, there should be something to be dismissed. Academics review and critic positions published by the academia, if there is no academic material sustaining a position you can not expect me to find an answer to the non-existing position. Politicians and lobbyists can make any claims they want, but as long as there is no peer reviewed publication supporting a thesis, that thesis is non existent from the academicians point of view. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look TDA, you seem to be misunderstanding something: Wikipedia is not an academic publication, and sources are not limited to peer-reviewed academic articles. Please review the editing policies and do your best to make a constructive contribution to the debate. We all agree that the claim about genocide in this case is debatable, and in my mind the paragraph about Khojaly would benefit from being rewritten with those criticisms in mind. But that will only be possible if we agree to include divergent viewpoints and let the Wikipedia readers judge for themselves - as long as this discussion remains deadlocked, we won't be able to establish consensus and improve the paragraph. Feel free to propose an improved version of the paragraph here on the talk page. --Anderssl (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mate, are you listening to yourself? All the editors who have engaged in the reverting have been more than fully active in the discussion. It's wrong for you to speak for a consensus to be reached when in fact the status quo excluded any mention of it. There are numerous editors here expressing their opposition to this cockamaney nonsense. It's up to you to achieve concensus by making proposals and asking the input from editors. Donald Bloxham, a genocide scholar, raises a good point when he writes: Like the above users claims, He writes: "Yet it is as inaccurate for Armenians to conflate the Karabakh situation or either of the Sumgait and Baku episodes with the events of 1915 as it is for Azerbaijan to claim that the Armenian massacre of at least 200 Azeris at Khojaly in 1992 was an act of genocide. Periodic pogroms on either side, and more systematic evictions, do not constitute genocide, yet both sides have succumbed to the temptation of the misleading deployment of the term in pursuit of nationalist goals. (The Great Game of Genocide, Oxford University Press, 2005 pp. 232-233) That's as damning a resolution and as credible of a source that we can find to refute these silly claims.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * TDA: I fully understand your position that if an outlandish political claim is made it can be difficult to find a refutation, not because the political claim is right, but because those who disagree will not dignify the statement with a response.
 * But Wikipedia is not being claiming that the events in Khojaly were a genocide it is being claimed that the Azerbaijani government have stated it was. A United Nations member is far more notable than many of the other claimants of various alleged genocides on this page. See my point above about Genocides in history. If we were to delete this section for the reasons you give should we trawl through the article removing all such resolutions? For example do you want to remove the first paragraph of the Genocides in history that starts "On 15 September 2005 a United States Congressional resolution,..."? If not why not? --PBS (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No RS'on on this self-proclaimed 'genocide'. The Azerbaijany myth on genocide is criticized by scholars, including Sergei Markedonov as a propagandist tool. And there are reliable sources on such claims. According to Donald Bloxham, during the Karabakh conflict, the Azeri and Armenian governments regularly accused each other of genocidal intent, although these claims have been treated skeptically by outside observers. . Gazifikator (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you alter your last contribution to this talk page and replace the with parenthesises so that the source is visible on this talk page? Instead of just repeatedly removing the section in the article why not add Donald Bloxham's observations to help explain that the Azerbaijan claims should be treated with skepticism? --PBS (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

An "allegation" is not just someone claiming something - for it to be properly called an allegation it has to be backed up by some reasoning or evidence, and (for inclusion in a Wikipedia article) that reasoning/evidence has to be within a valid source. Otherwise this article might as well contain everything! I hear mass genocide being committed as I type, a lawn mower killing millions of innocent shoots of grass. Will we include that too, if I make a website about it or send a press release about it to the COE? And that is not an entirely silly claim, where does it say that the victims of "genocide" have to be human? Meowy 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So do you deny Khojaly Genocide?It is unbeleviable when all of you complain about denial of Armenian genocide by Turkey.Denial is the last phase of genocide, as you know.Many historians also deny Armenian genocide such as Bernard Lewis so should we remove Armenian genocide?Armenian genocide is a political concet too.Since Armenian government refused opening its archives for investigations by historians but supports recognition of Armenian genocide by other countries.Abbatai (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no such thing. To claim otherwise is a flight of fancy. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "genocide" label has been pushed by the Azeri government and an international parliamentary organization. These claims are in itself worthy of mention in the article. To illustrate the varying views on this matter, we can quite easily discuss the opinions of a few experts, such as Donald Bloxham. As PBS stated, this should be an effective compromise between both sides. As always, keep nationalist pride outside of this discussion. This has quite clearly turned into a dispute between Azeri and Armenian editors, with arguments from both sides being made on frivolous policy-irrelevant grounds. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And it's mentioned as so in its respective article. Why bother giving it a voice of legitimacy here?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.I cant see any words that claims a genocide should be a fact if it is written by genocide scholars.In Nagorno-Karabakh war a group of Azeris were killed by Armenians because of their ethnicity. Also for the UNHCHR:In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;(What happend in Khojaly is)

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(You can see it on 1 million Azeri refugees.)

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(Deportation of Azeris from Karabakh and other regions of Azerbaijan that occupied by Armenia)

So it really overlaps with genocide.Abbatai (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have just defined the Dersim Genocide, yet you voted to delete that article. Citing no reliable source(Genocide By George J. Andreopoulos, p144). Apparently, your idea of reliable sources is a Council consisting two-thirds of Turks and Azeris!
 * "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.Not suppressing a political group. -- Abbatai"
 * You should re-read the definition; Killing members of the group. Contradiction after contradiction....... --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not our task to interpret historical events in the context of the UN's definition of genocide. We rely solely on reporting what reliable sources (or even partisan sources for this specific article) have said on the matter. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the decision of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is enough it is not our duty to discuss whether it was a propaganda or fact.Abbatai (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you set a dangerous precedent here, Nishkid. IF reliable sources can be, in this case, a majority of Turkish and Azeri diplomats voting to label Khojaly a genocide, then one simply need find any source(Kurdish or otherwise) calling Dersim a genocide(Genocide By George J. Andreopoulos, p144). What is absent here is the realization that certain editors are here to promote their hatred of another race or anyone that stands in the way of that,.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We have an obligation to appeal to common sense. For the record, I don't consider the statement made by a largely Turkish-Azerbaijani MPs in retaliation for the voting of an Armenian Genocide bill a reliable source nor should it be construed as so. If no academic work treats Xojaly in that respect, how is that we are giving it a platform to air its views? Yes, we all know it's propaganda but for the average ordinary person who has never heard of Azerbaijan or Xojaly, this is simply going to mislead them. For the third time, please cite a non-biased, reliable source, per Wikipedia's guidelines, to support the content of that paragraph.

I don't think the Azerbaijani government knows the meaning of genocide and it's clear that its shock effect on world opinion has had an impact ever since 1992. Were we to believe that a massacre took place, how can we, if we are all capable of utilising logic, understand this in the context of the UN definition. I've read all about original research and interpretations on Wikipedia but this is pushing it. There's a reason why the Baku and Sumgait massacres are not in this article (even though the Azerbaijanis there had intent on specifically killing Armenians), despite the fact that it has been viewed through the prism of genocide studies.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TDA you did not answer my question higher up the page, if we remove this one why leave mention of any political comments on genocides and alledged genocides on this page. How do we judge the difference? --PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Nishkid64 is getting the purpose of this article wrong. It is a listing of genocides and alleged genocides. An "alleged genocide" is very different from a "genocide allegation". Basically an alleged genocide would be an event which has had some academic recognition as being a genocide or having some genocidal component to it, but, for whatever reasons, does not have a majority recognition. This Khojali issue is a genocide allegation, not an alleged genocide, and it is an allegation that is contained solely in what is quite clearly Azeri-sponsored propaganda. Meowy 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Transmit your complains to PACE not Wikipedia.Abbatai (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One possibility would be to agree that any motions agreed to by politicians, that are not agreed by a majority of the members of that body will not be included in this article, and only the parliaments of the member states of the United Nations or bodies to which the states are affiliated (such as the UN and the EU, Council of Europe, AU, etc) will be noted. What we can not do is have one country's views singled out as unimportant and biased but include others, as it is a clear breach on the NPOV policy.

What this proposal would do is remove all those cases where Mr. Smith of the parish council of Pratt's Bottom has entered a motion that there was a genocide in Ruritania last year. It would also remove early day motions and similar where a small minority of an international body or national parliament put up a motion they know will not pass but are non the less submitted because to do so scores political points (but when included in this article my present a bias, as readers will often not know that there is a significant difference between a resolution passed by a national parliament (or international body) and proposed resolution which does not have enough support to be be debated by a national parliament (or international body) let alone pass). --PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of examples of this type of point scoring can be found in the Council of Europe. The first is recorded at the website of www.armenian-genocide.org Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution it is "Written Declaration No. 275" signed by 50 members. The Council of Europe is http://www.coe.int/ under how to search is this page which also describes some of the different types of "Adopted Texts", "Documents, Working Papers" ... using this search engine it is possible to look at all Working Papers and search for Document=8829, that returns Commemoration of the Armenian genocide of 1915. (Notice it is themed under ["crime against humanity"] which is a [search criteria] as is ["Armenian"] and ["Azerbaijan"], (unfortunately for our purposes there is no themedd search criteria for "genocide"). Using ["crime against humanity"] or ["Azerbaijan"] it is easy enough to find Doc. 9066 "Recognition of the genocide perpetrated against the Azeri population by the Armenians" (30 signatures), but looking though the list of "Written Declarations" which include ["Azerbaijan"] as a theme, it is clear that there is a punch and judy show going on, with claims and counter claims, see for example Doc. 6678 "Situation in Nagorno-Karabakh". I have not checked but I would be supprised if any one who signed document 6678 also signed document 9066. In my opinion this indicates that "Written Declarations" (which covers a host of different specific titles) should not be used on this Wikipdia article or any other Wikipeida article on genocides or alleged genocides, as they can be confused with "Adopted Texts" which are much more significant. --PBS (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are alleged genocides with less reliable sources in this topic.However you (pro-armenian users) only focus on Khojaly genocide Why?Because you are trying to hide the past guilt of your country.The same thing is also used on Armenian genocide article as a reference but your claims only for Khojaly.This is a reliable source, just because you say it shouldnot be used on Wikipedia as reference doesnt make it unreliable.Your claims arenot wikipedia policy.Abbatai (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this 'hiding the guilt of your country' nonsense! I count 179 references - books, articles, academic websites - for the Armenian genocide and not even one academic source to even support the inclusion of the word 'genocide' with Xojaly. The PACE source is as partisan is as it gets. If you cannot furnish anything besides this simple motion then this question is closed.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS: thanks for your well-considered proposal. This sounds fairly reasonable to me, although I would prefer to modify it a little: "Written Declarations" adopted by only a small minority in the PACE (or similar declarations in similar bodies) should not be used as a primary source. Cathegorically excluding these sources all together sounds a bit too drastic in my opinion. But these sources should clearly be used with caution, and never as a primary (or the only) source.


 * As for the specific Khojaly question, I think the discussion of 'reliable sources' is a little confused. Since this is about a genocide allegation/alleged genocide (sorry Meowy, don't really understand the difference between those two), a reliable source doesn't mean a source who can be trusted to tell the truth about what happened in Khojaly, but one which can be trusted to tell the truth about the allegation. That is, the PACE website is a reliable source to document the fact that an allegation of genocide was put forward in Doc. 9066, the Azerbaijani president's website is a reliable source to document the president's claims about genocide, etc. The real question is not about whether these sources are reliable, but whether they are notable enough for inclusion here. I'm still up on the fence on this, and I definitely think the paragraph should at the very least be rewritten to include criticism of the claims put forward. But with the current level of debate, this will take some time... --Anderssl (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I expect to get blasted from all directions now, but since we all seem to agree that at least a rewrite is in place, here's a proposal:

"'''The government of Azerbaijan claims that Armenian forces performed acts of genocide against Azerbaijani civilians on several occasions throughout the 20th century. The claims center on the Khojaly Massacre, in which around 200 Azerbaijani civilians in the town of Khojaly were killed by Armenian armed forces during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Human Rights Watch described the events as 'the largest massacre to date in the conflict', and Azerbaijani politicians have unsuccessfully tried to get this recognized as an act of genocide in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. (cite web"

I put references in parenthesis so they'll be visible here. This is meant as a sketch, just to get something concrete to discuss. Feel free to bring out any objections, on one condition: That you also provide your own version of the paragraph, that you think is more accurate (and preferrably not longer than the current version, that is probably already a bit too long). --Anderssl (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me offer the first correction myself: on closer inspection, it should probably not cite the number of civilians killed since it appears to be controversial, and getting it right would require more space. Perhaps it should just say something like "The claims center on the Khojaly Massacre during the Nagorno-Karabakh War. --Anderssl (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What about adding March Days.


 * Please propose a specific wording to be included in the paragraph (and please sign your comments). --Anderssl (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Diamond Apex has been silenced by a fake sockpuppet allegation maliciously concocted by Nishkid, I was similarly attacked by another administrator, but managed to get the lie refuted. Since this article has been handed to the propagandists, use the worst wording you can imagine to please PBS, Nishkid, Sandstein, and co. Meowy 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you might believe, I am not happy to "win" the discussion by you guys leaving the debate. I'd much prefer if we could establish consensus by having all relevant viewpoints reflected in the final result. That should be possible if you guys would engage the points made by others and try to move the discussion forward, rather than just repeating the same absolutist claims over and over... You don't seem to recognize that the article now says almost exactly what you guys have been saying all along - that the genocide claim in this case is highly doubtful. If you can't recognize that... I honestly wonder what you are hoping to achieve in a consensus-based encyclopedia? --Anderssl (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Leaving the debate" - that's a fun one! I guess that dictators worldwide say to themselves that they are unopposed because the opposition has chosen to "leave the debate" when actually the opposition are all in prison, in exile, or lying dead in unmarked graves. That is the reality of your consensus-based encyclopedia. Meowy  18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am shocked and appalled. I'll notify Amnesty International of your case immediately. --Anderssl (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please disregard that sarcastic comment, I didn't mean to be obnoxious. But Meowy, I don't really see how your situation is analogous to that of a political prisoner - you are still allowed to take part in the discussion, right? Since you are still able to add comments to this page, it's kinda hard to understand what is preventing you from making constructive contributions to the discussion. --Anderssl (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)