Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 11

Croatia
The NDH in WWII did not only rule in Croatia, they ruled in Bosnia as well. To exclude this in your article is irresponsible, as many people from Bosnia (Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats) were members of the Ustashe and actively participated in the genocide. According to the wikipedia page on the Ustashe, 12 % of the members of the Ustashe were Bosniaks. In any event, the NDH and the genocide they enacted did not happen only in Croatia, it happened in Bosnia as well. As someone has pointed out, mass killings does not constitute genocide. Although the NDH and their policies were ruled in the Nuremberg trials to have constituted genocide, the same cannot be said of the Chetniks. Even in the partisan, Communist courts, Chetniks and their leaders were not tried for genocide, they were tried for war crimes. Point out to me a single LEGAL case in which the Chetniks of WWII were found to have committed genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The description of Chetnik crimes as genocide is well sourced. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War_persecution_and_genocide_of_Serbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the sources shows no article, the other source is by Dr. Marko Hoare, a very biased source. Crimes do not constitute genocide. That is why I asked for one LEGAL source or LEGAL ruling/precedent in which the crimes of the Chetniks in WWII have constituted genocide. No such one exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to individuals to determine whether something constitutes genocide or not, it is up to the courts. As someone above has said mass killings, persecution, targeting of civilians, and other crimes of war do not necessarily equate to genocide. That is why (at least for Modern genocides) courts are established who are to study the evidence and make the decision. Not individuals who may or may not have a bias or nationalistic institutes. Again, provide one LEGAL source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have hence added "though there is no legal basis for these claims" because, again, there is not a single legal source to substantiate such claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to find a source to say that... you can't just put you're own opinion down on a page. --Yalens (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find a source to say a trial which never happened never happened. I also cannot find a source which points to the Chetniks of WWII as having legally committed genocide. That is because no such source exists, since no court has ever made such a conclusion. Further, I strongly believe the source of Dr. Marko Hoare to be biased and unreliable. His blog, greatersurbition, reveals his bias. He is of Croatian origin whose mother was Bosnian. Although this alone does not make him biased, his work on his blog greatersurbition reveals a bias. The same goes for the the source, "The Genocide Institute", an institute founded by Bosniaks. The third source I believe is reliable. I urge you to validate the reliability of the sources I have expressed concern with.


 * A court decision isn't necessary for conclusion. Statement by any usable source is. Why are you refocusing it on that issue anyways? --Yalens (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The focus on Hoare's mother (who he falsely claims was Bosnian) and ethnic origins by 99.88.140.98 simply shows the nastiness of his style of discussion, and indeed the nastiness of the cause he champions. It's almost always a sign of a bad scholar if they simply try to dismiss someone as 'biased', without actually addressing any of their arguments or points. Everyone has a bias, when one accuses another of 'bias', what they really are saying is that 'their views aren't the same as mine'. Hoare's book is published in Oxford University Press, is widely cited, and was generally well reviewed, so I daresay his interpertation carry's more weight that yours.

Leaving aside the fact that the Chetniks were charged with 'extermination of the Muslim population', and that other sources (such as Jozo Tomasevic) have effectively accused the Chetniks of genocide the fact remains that many examples of genocide here were never validated by a legal ruling. It's not really disputable that the Chetniks intended to "cleanse" vast sections of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Sandzak and Dalmatia through a system of extermination and expulsion (much as the Ustashe tried to do the same to the Serbs), and that this programme was not simply spontanious acts of 'revenge' by local commanders, but was centrally organised and sanctioned by the high command of the JVO. I think thus, that they at least warrent a mention in this article. Ana Radic (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"So I daresay his interpretation carry's more weight than yours". Correct spelling would be "carries". "Spontanious acts of revenge" should be "spontaneous". "Warrent" should be "warrant". Calling into question someone's academic background can only be successful if the questioner knows how to spell or use the language in question. Clearly, you do not. I have a BA in English Language and Literature and a BA in History from Ohio State University, and am currently working on an JD in Law from Ohio State University. I call into question Dr. Hoare's source because a review of his blog, "Greatersurbition" reveals someone who is indisputably biased and someone who can clearly be regarded as a Bosniak nationalist. Similarly, I would call into question such sources as Ina Vukic on the Croatian side and Karl Savich on the Serbian side, both of which are highly educated with books published on the subject as well. To even attempt to compare the genocide committed by the Ustashe and their sympathizers with the Chetnik crimes is an exercise in futility and self-assuring nationalism. As far as Holocaust Museums go, Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal, and the US Holocaust Museum all have displays for ethnic Serbian victims of genocide during WWII, a genocide that resulted in anywhere from 320,000-340,000 (US Holocaust Museum), to 500,000 (Yad Vashem, Simon Wiesenthal Center) victims. The same cannot be said to victims of the so-called genocide against Bosniaks in WWII. Likewise, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that the crimes of the Ustashe against the Serbs, Roma, and Jews constituted acts of genocide. Again, the same cannot be said of the Chetnik crimes, although of course many were tried and convicted in Tito's Communist court for war crimes, war crimes, not genocide. There is a large difference between war crimes, persecutions, mass killings, etc... and genocide, a distinction that you and many others seem to not understand. Having studied the region and the language, it seems to be a political tool used by each side respectively, but especially Bosniaks, to equate any type of persecution or war crime with genocide. It is a propaganda tool and one that has rarely held up in court. To date, the only genocides in the former Yugoslavia to take place in the last 70 years were the WWII genocide of ethnic Serbs and the 1995 genocide of Bosniak males of military age at Srebrenica. Plain and simple. To compare Bosniak suffering during WWII to ethnic Serbian suffering of WWII is callous, without factual basis, and nationalistic at its very core. It simply cannot (and should not) be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.98 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, all you can do is focus on my spelling? That really is feeble for one so qualified. Carl Savich is an apologist for the nazi-collaborationist Chetniks, and the nazi-quisling Nedic regime, has no qualification beyond a masters degree, and has no books or articles published by any respectable acedemic publisher. So there is absolutely no equivalence between Hoare and Savich. This is not about comparing the Ustashe and the Chetniks (although I would argue that they are essentially equivalent), indeed not all genocides are equivalent. The Ustasha genocide for example is not equivalent to the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide is not equivalent to the Holocaust. But to say that Chetniks crimes it can't be included here because there has never been a legal ruling convicting the Chetniks of genocide is just silly, and an obvious attempt at nationalist whitewashing of history, as numerous genocides listed here have never been "validated" with a legal ruling (e.g. the Armenian Genocide). Again, it's almost always a sign of a bad scholar if they simply try to dismiss someone as 'biased', without actually addressing any of their arguments or points. The point here is that numerous scholars in the field believe that the Chetnik's crimes constitute genocide, including those published in scholarly institutions, and thus should be at least mentioned. If you disagree with that, or any of Hoare or anyone else's conclusions, feel free to write a critique of their work and have it published in an acedemic journal, rather than simply smearing them as a "Bosniak nationalist" (even though you said in the previous post that Hoare was a Croat).

"To date, the only genocides in the former Yugoslavia to take place in the last 70 years were the WWII genocide of ethnic Serbs and the 1995 genocide of Bosniak males of military age at Srebrenica."


 * Even going purely by legal rulings (and we are not compelled to do so), and leaving aside the fact that over 500 children were massacred at Srebrenica, this is completely false. The ICTY in December 2012 convicted Zdravko Tolimir, Assistant Commander of Intelligence and Security of the VRS, for genocide, and in the process established that the group targeted for genocide by the VRS was the Muslim population of East Bosnia as a whole – not just of Srebrenica – and that the genocidal act extended to Zepa as well as Srebrenica. Nikola Jorgić was convicted of genocide in Germany in 1997, and his conviction was subsequently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2007. Ana Radic (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is pointless arguing with nationalists of the Balkans, so I will refrain from doing so. Also, I refuse to talk to anybody who can honestly compare the war crimes of some members of the Chetniks with the cold-blooded slaughter of 300,000-500,000 civilians, many of whom died in organized, systematic death camps. The Ustashe are an embarrassment not only to the region, but to the world at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop strawmanning me please, this isn't about equating the Ustashe and the Chetniks (though I would argue that they were essentially equivalent, but that is a different discussion). The fact remains that there are reliable sources describing the Chetnik's treatment of non-Serbs as genocide. Your, or any other, user's opinions about the author of said source is of little relevence, quite frankly. Ana Radic (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Though I would argue they were essentially equivalent". Disgusting and perverse nationalism. Discussion closed. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205930.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005449 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As well as not addressing my point, this user's sympathy for Serb fascism is very clearly demonstrated by his claim that, by drawing a parallel between the crimes of the Chetniks and those of the Ustashas, I am guilty of "disgusting and perverse nationalism". Apparently, if one recognises the crimes of both Serb and Croat fascists, one is guilty of "disgusting and perverse nationalism"! The Chetniks were equated with the Ustashe even in Tito era literature, and the Chetnik genocide of the Bosnian Muslims has been written about by eminent Serb historians, such as Vladimir Dedijer. Of course, one is free to disagree with the Titoist analysis of the Chetniks and Nedicites, though I think it is broadly accurate. But it is another thing entirely to accuse people of "disgusting and perverse nationalism", just because they say what the Titoists had been saying for half a century. Now, in 1990, the Bosnian Serb historian and Partisan veteran Vladimir Dedijer, himself an expert on the Ustashe, had this to say: "In World War II, genocide was carried out against the Muslims on the part of members of the movement and armed forces of army general and Minister of War of the Yugoslav government in London, Dragoljub Mihailovic. With this crime too, there existed a clear genocidal intention to destroy the Muslims as such." Dedijer wrote this in the introduction to his book, 'Genocide against the Muslims" (Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 1990, p. xx, xxii), co-edited with another prominent Yugoslav expert on the Ustashe, Antun Miletic. So by your logic, Dedijer and Miletic must also be guilty of "disgusting and perverse nationalism". The Chetniks did not have their own "state", and with that handicap in mind, their willingness to kill members of other nationalities appears to have been as great. Indeed, the proportion of Serbs who died in the NDH was only slightly larger than that of Muslims and Croats (17%, compared to 12% and 10% respectively, the vast majority at the hands of the Ustashe or Chetniks). The genocidal ideology of the Chetnik movement has been well documented by other eminent historians in the west such as Jozo Tomasevic, Marko Attila Hoare and Sabrina Ramet, all of whom argue by the way, that Chetnik massacres were essentially equivalent to those of the Ustashe in their form and intent. I'm sure the 10,000 Muslim civilians - women, children and old people - slaughtered by the Chetniks in the Foca massacre of February 1943, would have been gratified to learn of your fine moral gradations, denoting their suffering as less real than that of the Ustashe's victims.  Note that he says "some members of the Chetniks". Thus, it would appear that this user is a genocide-denier in relation to World War II. I recognise both the Ustasha and Chetnik genocides - does this user? Or does he deny one of them ? Your moral outrage does not compensate for your lack of arguments, or your failure to address my actual point. You are correct though, that this discussion is just turning into a pointless and unproductive argument, and it is best if we stopped. Ana Radic (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The attempts of Communist Tito and his allies to equate the criminal actions of their opponents follows one simple trend- they all opposed Communism. As such, it was necessary in his mind to divide political and military groups into two categories- with him, or against him. For those that were against him, they were all equally evil and all equally guilty. In this regard, it made it that much easier for the Communists to do what they did best- execute non-Communists. It is simply insane to try to compare the systematic murder of 500,000 people who were killed in DEATH camps to the murders of a maximum of some 65,000 people. Maximum. While Titoists and Yugo-nostalgics and Communists have found it easy to discuss the crimes of the Chetniks, Ustashe, and SS Divisions, they have ironically bottled up any discussion on their own crimes. This bottling up of Partizan war crimes continues to this day. What about the executions of POW's by the Partizans? Of women, men, and children who were sympathetic to opponents of Communism or who simply were not Communist in ideology? What about the class warfare and executions of members of the upper class? Execution and purging of Germans, Italians, and non-Communists of Yugoslavia? I suppose this is victor's justice but in my mind there is no apologizing for Communism. I certainly am not a Chetnik apologist, I simply find it absurd to compare the crimes of the Ustashe to the crimes of the Chetniks. Likewise, although all three ethnic groups committed crimes in the 1990's, I also do not equate Croat or Bosniak crimes with those of the Bosnian Serbs and Croatian Serbs, although (as I said), all three certainly did commit crimes. The scale of the crimes of the Ustashe is simply unmatched in the HISTORY of the region, and certainly the Chetniks of WWII do not even come close. You claim that I deny the genocide that Chetniks committed, however, please name me a single court case outside of the region (even Tito's Communist mock-court did not charge them with genocide) that established that those crimes equated to genocide. In terms of these sources, 3 out of 4 come from the region or have ties to the region, so, quite simply, they are unreliable. Further, name me a single holocaust or genocide museum, again, outside of the region, that honors victims of this so-called Chetnik "genocide". I invite you to tour the websites of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the US Holocaust Museum, Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and Research Center, the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, or any other INTERNATIONAL, reputable holocaust museum or research center. You will find that these reputable, professional museums are also "genocide-deniers", omitting any mention of a so-called Chetnik genocide against Muslims. Here is an article about the Chetniks from Yad Vashem. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/microsoft%20word%20-%20160.pdf. I certainly do not deny that Chetniks committed crimes (as it seems every military formation in Yugoslavia did, does, and will do), but I do contest biased sources coming from the region, all of whom have political or nationalist propaganda to instill, none more so than glorious Tito himself. To be honest, I do not know I would I consider as worse, the Chetniks or the Partizans. I can see both sides, but personally, I would say the Partizans were worse. If you would like personal examples of Partizan crimes, ask me. I have several stories and have met dozens of refugees here in Columbus that fled from the glorious Communists in fear of their lives. Do not mistake me for a Chetnik sympathizer, for I am very much split on them. I understand that many of these groups (remember they were never homogeneous) committed various crimes.


 * Whether or not the Partisans and Communists committed crimes (and they did), has no bearing on the fact that the Chetniks also committed genocide, and quite frankly have nothing to do with the article or discussion, so you bringing them up is a complete non-sequitur. The Chetnik genocide was not linked to the Nazi holocaust, hence why no Holocaust Museum discusses their crimes in great detail. We are not going to go by court cases, because if we did, then most of the genocides listed in this article (including the Armenian genocide), would have to be removed. Besides, Tito's court actually did convict Chetnik commanders of "ordering the extermination of the Croat and Muslim population" (the actual word "genocide" wasn't used, but that is because the world had not been adopted into widespread use yet). In my view, and in the view of numerous reliable sources, Both the Ustashe's persecution of the Serbs and Chetnik persecution of the Muslims and Croats, in the amounted to genocide, as they each involved an attempt to destroy a nationality, or nationalities, in whole or in part. As I said before, the only real differance between the Chetniks and Ustashe was that the Ustashe had their own 'state' and had much greater backing from Nazi Germany. There is no doubt that the Chetniks' crimes were not simply caused by a breakdown in command and control, but were organised, intentional and systematic, and part of a systematic policy (unlike the crimes of the Bosniaks and Croats during the 1990s), and with these handicaps in mind, their rediness to kill members of other nationalities appears to have been as great as the Ustashe. (The claim that 500,000 died in Ustasha camps is no longer considered accurate by most historians, and the estimate of 65,000 for the Chetniks is a relitively conservative estimate, not a "maximum").
 * Anyway, the actual point of this discussion is not whether or not the Ustashe and the Chetniks were equivalent, but whether or not the Chetniks' crimes amounted to genocide. We have numerous reliable sources which claim they did (and whether or not the authors have links to the region is irrelevent, and your attempt to dismiss them on these grounds amounts to outright racism). Ana Radic (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many Serbs who would claim that they had genocide committed against them during the 1990's, especially by Croats during Operation Storm. I dismiss these views not because I am "racist", but because genocide (especially in the Balkans) is used as a propaganda tool, a word that is used like a weapon of war in order to draw attention and support to the side that accuses the other of genocide, and unfortunately in some cases, to create hatred or revulsion towards the so-called perpetrators of genocide. These holocaust museums also include the Rwandan Genocide and the Bosnian Genocide at Srebrenica, both of which have no association with the holocaust, not to mention the Armenian genocide. As educated as Dr. Hoare is, he is no expert on genocide, does not work for one of these professional genocide museums, and certainly has no expertise in legal matters. Although there are reputable sources which claim a so-called Chetnik "genocide", the omission by these four most respected sources on the subject and the amount of fishing that is required to obtain a source that claims genocide (especially an international, non-regional one) is testimony to the fact that most people, museums, associations, courts, etc... do not view Chetnik crimes as genocidal in nature. Chetniks also were not charged with "extermination of the Muslim population", they were charged with treason and war crimes. However, Tito's Communist court is far from a trust-worthy source. In any regard, I agree that there are reputable sources which contend that Chetnik crimes equated to genocide, however, these sources are few and far between and are far outnumbered by reputable sources which omit a so-called Chetnik genocide. I disagree that Chetnik crimes come anywhere even in remote proximity to the Ustahse genocide, and I disagree that I am racist. I love all peoples of the former Yugoslavia, I just wish you all could love each other a little more.


 * Since you have conceeded to the claim that there are reliable sources, I will not respond to everything. There is not a single reputable source which claims that Operation Storm was genocide (though there are a few which claim that it was ethnic cleansing, but this was subsequetly refuted by the ICTY, and is controvertial). There has unfortunately been very little scholarship from outside the region on the Chetnik movement, only more recently have volumes on the Chetnik genocide begun to emerge. Historians in the West tended to focus on the Chetnik's Nazi collaborationist character, rather than on atrocities, and this has only begun to change in recent years. Although it is not universally accepted (hence the term "some authors"), many of those who have studied the Chetniks in any detail have concluded that their policies were genocidal in character (to name a few, Marko Attila Hoare, Jozo Tomasevic, Sabrina Ramet, Enver Redzic, and Tomislav Dulic, none of these are Titoist or Croatian nationalist historians). Most of the sources you cite do not deny that the Chetnik's crimes were genocidal in nature, but do not deal with them at all. Hoare writes for the Journal of Genocide Studies and teaches a course on genocide in Cambridge University (one of the top universities in the UK), and worked for the ICTY, so your claims about him are absurd. The book cited in this article is a standard referance work on the Chetniks and WW2 Yugoslav history, and is widely cited even on this site. Finally, yes, Mihailovic was charged with having personally "‘given orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and Croats". Ana Radic (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You are more stubborn than me even, Ana. The source of Herbert Prokle's book is originally the University of Michigan Press, reprinted by Danubian Society or what you have. Originally printed by University of Michigan Press though. I advise you to re-check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't find any evidence that it was published there. Even if I am wrong, and I could well be and I apologise if I am, it should go in the "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" section. Ana Radic (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ana, send me a link to evidence that Mihailovic was charged with "giving orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and Croats". Literally every source I have found confirms what I have believed to be the charges against him, namely treason and war crimes. The wikipedia page itself mentions only treason and war crimes for Mihailovic. Here is a link to Brittanica Encyclopedia. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381916/Dragoljub-Mihailovic Not that Tito's court was the highest tribute to fairness and justice anyways, but I have never heard he was charged with "extermination of the Muslims and Croats" before in Tito's court.

The reliability of Tito's court is not the issue here (and if you are going to dismiss the charges against Mihailovic on these grounds, you have to do the same for many Ustashe war criminals). See ''Zecevic (ed.) (2001) Dokumenti sa su djenja Ravnogorskom pokretu 10 juni–15 juli 1946. god., vol. 1 (Belgrade, SUBNOR Jugoslavije).'' for the charges against him. He was charged with (my translation):

1. High Treason. 2. For having "incited national and religious hatred and discord among the peoples of Yugoslavia, as a result of which his Chetnik bands carried out mass massacres of Croats and Muslims as well as of the Serb population that did not accept the occupation" 3. For having "given orders to his commanders to exterminate the Muslims and the Croats, whom he called Turks and Ustashe respectively"

Ana Radic (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Send me a link. All I can find is war crimes and treason. Not that Tito's Communist court is reliable, but if he was charged with "extermination" I would like to see it. Again, all I can find is treason and war crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.140.128 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Check the source I stated (I'm not sure if it's on the internet). The translation may vary between "extermination", "annihilation" or "destruction". Ana Radic (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka II
I note above this was removed and discussed before, as it is being removed again would the user doing the removal please explain his reasons here. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The title of the article should be changed to "Alleged genocides" or another article with the title "Alleged genocides" must be created and this bogus allegation of Tamils being genocided can then be listed there. As u are (or should be) very well aware the Tamils have shown a much greater population growth rate, than the Sinhalese, who are accused of this heinious crime, in the time span under discussion, and the Tamil language, which is in reality an alien language to the island has been made an offical language. SriSuren (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Spencer, Philip Genocide Since 1945 p19 Routledge has it down as a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also "Sri Lanka massacred more than 20,000 and possibly more than 40,000 people in a few weeks by shelling displaced ethnic Tamils in rebel-held areas." Ethnonationalism, Genocide, and the United Nations p129 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And State Crime and Resistance p80 calls it a genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None of these books are significant or credible books. They seem like self-publications that show up on Google Books. Also none of the authors have Wikipedia articles nor are they of any critical standing. Further on your second point, it is not disputed whether a large number was killed. What is disputed is the claim of 'genocide' which is not a new term for the tamil diaspora and has been in their vocabulary for years before the May 2009 incidents as they have described the whole war as 'genocide' from its beginning. Neither the United Nations, nor Amnesty International, nor Human Rights Watch, nor the International Crisis Group, the main NGOs and organizations of some credible standing have accused the Sri Lankan government of genocide. This seems like enough reason not to include Sri Lanka. SinhaYugaya (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have sources supporting an alternate point of view, we can discuss that and maybe add it to the page for balance. Otherwise, SriSuren, it seems you're just carping because you don't like it.--Yalens (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed the response from SinhaYugaya, you think a book published by Routledge is self published? And the author Philip Spencer has no "critical standing". Really? And that Genocide, Ethnonationalism, and the United Nations also published by Routledge is self published? And that Hannibal Travis also has no standing? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they were self published, they felt like they were self published because they are published by by some academia printing company that churns out hundreds of journals and books each year. Does simply being an academic grant you notability? There's thousands of them and these two have achieved no notability beyond being professors at 2 so-so universities. In any case neither of these individuals have any critical standing on Sri Lanka because they are not experts on the Sri Lankan situation and only present passing mentions of Sri Lanka in their books. It's a contentious issue and something that the establishment be it the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group have not labelled as 'genocide'. Including Sri Lanka here is giving the niche voices of the Tamil diaspora and a few unknown academics more legitimacy than it deserves. SinhaYugaya (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So two guys who specialize in genocide studies are not good enough? Try your luck with that one at the RS notice board. As for NGOs'. Genocide watch seem to think there was an issue. As does Francis Boyle in The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka: The Global Failure to Protect Tamil Rights Under International Law where he writes that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called the actions of the Sri Lanka government a genocide. So that is another two NGOs'. Also this HRW report which says there was a genocide. "The terms gross violations or gross abuses apply to acts of genocide, arbitrary, summary or extrajudicial executions, forced or involuntary disappearances, torture or other gross physical abuse, and prolonged arbitrary deprivation of liberty." Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, I guess all you have to do is claim to be an expert and you are set. Any useless academic at a subpar school is set. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have not said it was a genocide. Francis Boyle cannot claim to do so when both organizations have not said so. Amnest International and Human Rights Watch have said they were war crimes not genocide. And that HRW report is waxing in general terms about countries not prosecuting crimes which include genocide. It doesn't specifically claim Sri Lanka committed a genocide. And that came out in 1992 so it wouldn't apply to what is being added to the article. UpendraSachith (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As has been said so many times before, this page is not a list of confirmed genocides, its a list of alleged genocides. Obviously every one of the ones listed here is disputed by someone. For inclusion, merely claims by reasonably usable sources are necessary. You're fine to post sourced dissenting opinions, but don't just whine because you're a proud Sri Lankan patriot and don't like it. --Yalens (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In reply to DarknessShines, I didn't claim they weren't RS but merely stated they weren't enough to establish a claim of genocide especially considering the passing nature of their mentions. Further, only Phillip said genocide the other person said "mass murder". Genocide Watch is hardly an NGO, it's a glorified blog. What Boyle said isn't sufficient to establish what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said. The report you cite doesn't state "Sri Lanka committed genocide". It's vague what is being said and they seem to be encouraging more investigation and openness.
 * In reply to Yalens, if that is the case the title of the page should reflect the alleged nature and be "Alleged genocides in history". SinhaYugaya (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, really, its impossible to make the page in any other way seeing as not a single example here is completely uncontested (not even the Holocaust)- that's the nature of the topic. And indeed, the page alludes to this in its lede:
 * Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. 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. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects.
 * (ec)Seeing as the inclusion of Sri Lanka is backed by numerous usable sources, its inclusion alone shouldn't be a source of complaint. If you think the section is unbalanced, we can talk about that.--Yalens (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Re the both of you, take it to the RSN board if you think these sources are not good enough. @UpendraSachith I removed your BLP violation, Boyle is a well respected auther and researcher in this field and he is more than capable of letting us know what Amnesty and HRW have said. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at Boyle's page. He claims that Israel is committing genocide. Why aren't they included on this page?


 * "Israel has never been anything but a Bantustan for Jews setup in the Middle East by the White racist and genocidal Western colonial imperial powers in order to serve as their racist attack dog and genocidal enforcer against the Arab and Muslim world."
 * "represent Iran in an international tribunal for trying the Zionist regime on charges of genocide of Palestinians"


 * Also, he claims that France committed Genocide in Algeria and America committed genocide in Vietnam. Shouldn't these be included as well? http://www.zcommunications.org/united-states-and-nato-the-axis-of-genocide-by-francis-boyle
 * SinhaYugaya (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Algeria and Vietnam were discussed heavily in the past here (I wasn't part), and looking at the archives, so was Israel and the Palestinians. If you want to revive them for discussion you can. --Yalens (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Boyle is not a very good source, because much of what he says is fringe. The following outburst is typical of his oeuvre: "Israel has never been anything but a Bantustan for Jews setup in the Middle East by the White racist and genocidal Western colonial imperial powers in order to serve as their racist attack dog and genocidal enforcer against the Arab and Muslim world. From the very moment of Western imperialism's genocidal conception of Israel in 1947-1948, Israel has historically always functioned as Jewistan – the world's Bantustan for the Jews. So Israel might as well finally change its name today to Jewistan, own up to its racist birthright, and make it official for the rest of the world to acknowledge."  Clearly, these are not the words of a mainstream observer of world affairs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Boyle's quote there seems quite... emotional, to say the least. But our chilly reception of his antics aside, do we have anything that would discredit him as a source for use here (self-published? Affiliated with some government?)? As far as I know we don't. However, in the case of the Sri Lanka section, I've removed him simply because the section's quite long as it is and it doesn't need the inclusion of a controversial author. He remains on the page in one other instance- the Ireland section. --Yalens (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say Boyle is not only full of BS, he's acctually actively damaging for the peoples and groups he claims to support, and just incredibly stupid. For more than 10 years now, ater Chechen representatives in the US agreed that he should represent them, he attempted 3 times to have Russia prosecuted for 'genocide in Chechnya', and rejected every time for the same(!) technical reasons. He would have changed these technicalities, prepared a better case (which was horrible, the evidence was a long list of articles and reports badly translated from Russian in really broken English - instead of trying some real evidence like the many ECHR rulings into hundreds of cases of murders, 'disappearance', torture and mass killing, or Amnesty talking openly about the 'disappearance' campaign as a 'crime against humanity'), he would have done something, but he didn't. Also, as of Israel, they of course very have many "Semitic" Jews and even many black Jews, and lots of Arabs (Muslims, including having a legal anti-Zionist Islamist party with a splinter group in the parliament) and other citizens (including Arab Christians, Armenians, Assyrians, Maronites, Circassians, Druze, Samaritans). Tldr: Boyle is a horrible so-called "expert" on genocide, and an unreliable source for Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about Sri Lanka, not Boyle. Currently he isn't in the section anymore. --Yalens (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He's just a really bad "expert" and should be not used in the article at all. --Niemti (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any major differences between Israel and Sri Lanka to allow Sri Lanka's inclusion while excluding Israel. A couple of users have stated that Boyle is not credible so let's move on from him. The rest of the sources cited in the article are reporting claims made by fringe groups -- the Tamil nationalists in the diaspora and the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. They are not "Mainstream observers of world affairs" and are very much of the fringe, the UN and other have simply called the events in Sri Lanka war crimes and not genocide. Thus there is no basis for inclusion on this page. SinhaYugaya (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "While there was a high number of deaths, that does not make it a genocide, as there was no intention to wipe out a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, race, etc." - this is what a user said about Vietnam. I would convey the same feeling in this case. The fact that there was only Tamils in the areas of Sri Lanka that had rebelled against the state doesn't mean the state's intention was to destroy the ethnicity rather than the rebellion. Any individual in the rebel area faced the same risk no matter what ethnicity depending solely on their political affiliation. In Vietnam too there was only one race -- the Vietnamese -- and they died in a high numbers but it's not a genocide. Tamils not in the rebel areas were not targeted. SinhaYugaya (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually 'races' other than the Vietnamese live in Vietnam. The Vietnamese are not even indigenous people of Vietnam (and the natives are still persecuted by the government). --Niemti (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SinhaYugaya, it's not our job to decide whether there are "major differences between Israel and Sri Lanka", and I would advise you to stay away from that analogy (the last thing we want is to invite another Arabs vs Jews edit war here...). It's not our job to decide what is and is not a genocide. What is our job is to decide whether there is sufficient sourcing making a given claim to merit conclusion in the page. The page shouldn't make any statement on the verity of any of these claims, despite what the editors think. That's how to maintain NPOV on this page...--Yalens (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed information that seemed to be outdated and removed a source that is not credible like Boyle. A user claims this is a violation of NPOV. I would like hear him explain how that works. SinhaYugaya (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed referenced material which doesn't suit your point of view. If there is some new policy that we remove "information that seem[s] to be outdated", then please point us to it. RashersTierney (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a policy of using reliable sources. You might want to check up on that. One of the removed pieces is a Tamilnet piece and is not corroborated by the organization PPT it is reporting on. Second, per discussion above uncredible sources like Boyle were decided not to not be included. There's much that doesn't suit my point of view that is included and I haven't removed as long as its worthy of inclusion. There's far more explosive content that I could have removed I was attempting to match my point of view to the article. SinhaYugaya (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a stalker who keeps reverting these edits as retribution for reverting his attempts to remove massive amounts of data from a page. I cannot revert again as I would be edit warring. Yalens help me out. SinhaYugaya (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You were reverted for removing sourced content. Now you are accusing an editor of hounding and asking another editor to revert for you, which I am quite certain is a violation of policy, you may wish to remove that. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not. You believe Francis Boyle is a valid source so I don't place much faith in you. Anyway, I didn't ask for a revert I asked for a comment. SinhaYugaya (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Deportations of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians
I removed the section named Deportations of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians as totally unsourced. It was however restored half-an-hour later by Darkness Shines. Of the five references in the section two are dead links used to source the fact that deportations took place. (Not genocide.) Two of the links refer to the prosecution and death before trial of Arnold Meri (Never convicted of anything.) The only relevant reference is a link to the web site of the Lithuanian Museum of Genocide Victims. The fact that a museum exists does not a genocide make.

For Wikipedia to state allegations of genocide as fact, we need high quality scholarly sources. So far none have been provided. Unless sources are provided, I will remove the section in about 24 hours. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added one just after I reverted you. A dead link does not mean the sources are not valid, see WP:SOURCEACCESS Darkness Shines (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware and 100% agree with WP:SOURCEACCESS. However, as I said above, the two sources were not used to established genocide, only the non-disputed fact that deportations took place. What the requested sources need to establish is that deportations = genocide. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not genocide. See the world's academic consensus for details. Maybe put these deportations in a section of disputed genocides that aren't recognised as genocide? This would avoid the risk of the reader thinking that genocide occurred when it didn't. Spitfire3000 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "the world's academic consensus" And that would be where? The lede is quite explicit in this "The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects." And these mass deportations have been described as genocide. I will restore it with further references. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between what constitutes genocide from a historical perspective (as in Genocides in history), and what can be prosecuted as "genocide" in a court of law. As an example, no historian would argue that the Second Chechen War is a genocide of the Russian people by the Chechen resistance, but blowing up 400 children in a Beslan school constitutes an act of genocide under most jurisdictions.
 * The proper place to discuss the prosecution of Arnold Meri would thus be in Genocide under municipal laws. Take it to that article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a list article of genocides and alleged genocides. See my rewrite. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Rwanda
Some clown appears to have removed the Rwandan genocide from the list, though it is mentioned in passing twice in the article. Also, the "Alternative meanings of genocide" section is full of original research and personal opinion, as well as written in a non-encyclopedic tone that veers between news style and elementary school textbook style (cf. use of "you", etc.) 24.23.163.55 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Genocides against Africans Missing
The page does not yet include the transatlantic slave trade and American slavery nor the genocide against the Congolese people perpetrated by King Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths - see http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/). These should be included in the '1490 to 1914' section, under a subsection '2.2.9 Africa'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.227.129 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 17 June 2013‎
 * I think this is an important discussion to have. To that end, here's an attempt to briefly summarize this discussion in places where it's already happening. Here's a key paragraph from the end of the "Congo Free State, 1885-1908" article on the Yale Genocide Studies Program (cited by 37.152.227.129 above):
 * Dean Pavlakis adds: There is some debate over whether the Congo catastrophe qualifies as genocide, because the Congo state did not act with the intent of eliminating one or more ethnic groups.[2] However, the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide includes deliberate killings, for whatever motive, of members of an ethnic group with the intent to destroy them as such, “in whole or in part.” This suggests that the Congo Free State, in deciding to wipe out particular ethnic groups that resisted its inhuman practices, did indeed practice genocide.[8]
 * It seems that this discussion has already been happening over at the Congo Free State article in the "Lack of recognition and use of the word "genocide"" section:
 * Adam Hochschild does not characterize the deaths as the result of a deliberate policy of genocide, but rather as the result of a brutal system of forced labor. The Guardian reported in July 2001 that, after initial outrage by Belgian historians following the publications of Hochschild's book, the state-funded Museum of the Belgian Congo would finance an investigation into Hochschild's allegations. The investigatory panel, likely to be headed by Professor Jean-Luc Vellut, was scheduled to report its findings in 2004. An exhibition by the Museum of the Belgian Congo, called "The Memory of Congo" (February 4, 2005 – October 9, 2005), was set up to tell the truth of what happened in both the Free State and Belgium's later colony. Critics of the museum include Hochschild, who wrote an article for the New York Review of Books claiming he found "distortions and evasions" in the exhibition and stated "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."  Early Day Motion 2251 presented to the British Parliament on 24 May 2006 called for recognition of "the tragedy of King Leopold's regime" as genocide and gained the signatures of 48 MPs.
 * The Leopold II of Belgium article does not use the term genocide at all, instead referring to "atrocities, enslavement of the native population, beatings, widespread killing, and frequent mutilation." (in the "Exploitation and atrocities" section)
 * Finally, "When You Kill Ten Million Africans You Aren’t Called ‘Hitler’" specifically cites this article:
 * There’s a Wikipedia page called “Genocides in History”. The Congolese Genocide isn’t included. The Congo is mentioned though. What’s now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo is listed in reference to the Second Congo War (also called Africa’s World War and the Great War of Africa), where both sides of the multinational conflict hunted down Bambenga and ate them. Cannibalism and slavery are horrendous evils which must be entered into history and talked about for sure, but I couldn’t help thinking who’s interests were served when the only mention of the Congo on the page was in reference to multi-national incidents where a tiny minority of people were eating each other (completely devoid of the conditions which created the conflict no less). Stories which support the white supremacist narrative about the subhumanness of people in Africa are allowed to be entered into the records of history. The white guy who turned the Congo into his own personal part-plantation, part-concentration camp, part-Christian ministry and killed 10 to 15 million Conglese people in the process doesn’t make the cut.
 * mennonot (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As the first census did not take place until 1924, it is difficult to quantify the population loss of the period. Sleeping sickness and smallpox ravaged the country and must also be taken into account. In 1924 the Congo's population was reckoned at 10 million. Africa's population was estimated to be 120 million in 1900. Tobby72 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like this discussion on King Leopold II and genocide in Belgian Congo has happened in the past on this talk page. Those discussions can be found in the archives here: and here:  and, quite thoroughly, here:  mennonot (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who was the idiot who deleted the Congo Free State Genocide from this article. Is this a sign that Western "intellectual" establishment is growing increasingly intolerant of any legitimate criticism directed at the horrific crimes commited in the name of Western and White supremacism, crimes which are beyond any parallel in recorded history?RaduFlorian (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Romans
What about actions of the Romans against Carthage (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/485/), or even Dacia (present-day Romania) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqxiMUhxoLI)? I feel these incidents should be looked into as examples of genocide in antiquity as the intent of the aggressor was to eradicate the opposing cultures completely. WiebeTokkel (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Already in Genocide of indigenous peoples Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up, the article used to be horrible, now is less but still would use of copy edit. Anyway, it's a different article. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying my work is horrible, real nice of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory masqurading as skepticism
Theres a section on the article about "doubts" on the Aboriginal stolen genocide. Why is this given equal weight to the actual claim? The idea that it didn't happened rates alongside holocaust denialism or "9/11 didnt happen" type theories and has no credibility in academia (Its almost the sole domain of a single cranky failed academic) and its patently offensive to the many numerous survivors of the stolen generation who witnessed the events first hands and are still well and truly alive and with us now to recount the events. I'm not a wikipedia guru, but don't we have a rule to filter out the tin-foil hate denialist garbage? 203.59.221.6 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Applying the term "genocide" to a time when it wasn't understood
It's very modern to define a term, apply it to the present and future. Then try to apply it to a time when it wasn't understood. We may believe that Manifest destiny is a bad idea now, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Like widespread abortion today. How will future generations perceive that? Pointing fingers at some past people and labeling them seems preposterous. Great to document them in a single article, but to label them "genocide" is just moral posturing. Most of the deaths prior to (say) 1900 should not be in any article with "genocide" at the top of it. It just isn't credible. I'm sure this has been brought up before. Editors are sometimes just too media-oriented (pov) to be editing an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't need to rely on vague handwaving about the future and the past. We rely on reliable sources, which makes it really easy: If reliable sources say that something is genoicide, so should we.
 * Hey, why not try editing Christopher Columbus to get rid of hundreds of neologisms - for instance that page uses the word "America" seventy-four times but Columbus never did, since the name was coined after his death. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Connie Willis has been quoted as calling this mindset "chronocentrism," the notion that the mores of our time and place are the supreme pinnacle of thought and ethics, and that benighted dwellers in the outer darkness of earlier times can be righteously judged, ex post facto, on our terms. (paraphrased by Michael F. Flynn). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm surprised that you don't see the irony; complaining about "moral arrogance" whilst suggesting that selective quotes from a couple of contemporary American scifi writers should change how we cover almost all of human history. bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not use reliable sources?
A statement reads, "American writer David Quammen has likened the colonial American policies and practices toward Native Americans with those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling them "brutal, hypocritical, opportunistic, and even genocidal in the fullest sense of the word."

The problem here, IMO, is that Quammen is described in his article as a American science, nature and travel writer. IMO, this is not the type of scholarly author that we would want here. There has to be hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarly books and articles on this topic, many of which are fair game.

Chavez is a separate topic. 1) He wasn't WP:NPOV about anything at all that I know of. 2) Try and place material that he said on his article. There is (or was, prior to his death) a significant claque that edited out Chavez' favorable comments and correspondence with Carlos the Jackal; also his statements that were known to be false, that his dismayed his supporters, but he reiterated anyway. If editors have to resort to Chavez as WP:RS, said editors have a serious problem presenting an npov case. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Quammen is an expert on subjects related to the American west. Student7, are you the former user anon IP beginning with 88? Montanabw (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No to IP usage (feel free to check if you doubt me). But 88's edits did call my attention to Quammen.
 * Observations by a science, nature and travel writer might be allowed when we don't have anything else. This sometimes happens for current events, particularly in a remote area. But for these events, there has been plenty of time for scholarly research by historians. For example, you have David Stannard. Stannard would be the quality I would expect at this stage in time. Quoting lesser lights that weren't contemporary, appears to damage your arguments. As though there weren't many scholarly supporters of Native American genocide. Which may be the case, for all I know. Okay, maybe Mark Twain, since he was contemporaneous, thought not strictly a historian. (I don't know what he has written, if anything BTW).
 * The Chavez material probably wasn't entered by you. I will remove it, if there is no npov objection. Student7 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I rm Chavez material. I honestly think that your pov would be better served by a more WP:RS in place of Quammen, but whatever. Student7 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)