Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 13

Shaka Zulu & Tamerlane
The page does not yet include the Mfecane ('the crushing of people') by Shaka and Tamerlane's mass murders.

William Rubinstein, Genocide: a history, p. 22:


 * "One element in Shaka's destruction was to create a vast artificial desert around his domain ... 'to make the destruction complete, organized bands of Zulu murderers regularly patrolled the waste, hunting for any stray men and running them down like wild pig.' ... An area 200 miles to the north of the center of the state, 300 miles to the west, and 500 miles to the south was ravaged and depopulated ... When asked by a European traveller why he had exterminated the whole tribe, including women and children, Shaka 's reply was that 'they can propagate and bring children, who may become my enemies'. Himmler gave a similar reason (among others) for exterminating all the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe."

Similarly, the Turko-Mongol conqueror Tamerlane was known for his extreme brutality. Rubinstein wrote:


 * "At Isfahan (Persia) in 1387, Tamerlane's army massacred the entire population and built a pyramid of 70,000 severed heads. ... Near Delhi, India in 1398-9, Tamerlane slaughtered 100,000 captive Indian soldiers. In Assyria (1393-4) - Tamerlane got around - he killed all the Christians he could find, including everyone in the Kurdish Christian city of Tikrit, thus virtually destroying Christianity in Mesopotamia. Impartially, however, Tamerlane also slaughtered Shi'ite Muslims, Jews and heathens."
 * Tobby72 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If we have a usable source saying that what they did was specifically genocide or genocidal, then we can include it.--Yalens (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Part One: Overview :
 * "According to Yale historian Michael Mahoney, Zulu armies often aimed not only at defeating enemies but at “their total destruction. Those exterminated included not only whole armies, but also prisoners of war, women, children, and even dogs.” ... Mahoney characterizes these policies as genocidal. “If genocide is defined as a statemandated effort to annihilate whole peoples, then Shaka's actions in this regard must certainly qualify.”
 * Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Dictionary of genocide: M-Z, p.422
 * "Timur's conquests were accompanied by genocidal massacres in the towns and cities he occupied."
 * Tobby72 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Shaka could not have even dreamed of killing the huge amount that King Leopold of Belgium and his cronies killed in Congo. The fact Shaka's very DOUBTFUL "democide" finds its place on such an article while Leopold's INDUSTRIAL genocide gets deleted is a sign of White Supremacism creeping its way back into "academic mainstreamn". King Leopold's Congolese Genocide WAS in fact the first systematic and industrialized genocide in History, along with that against Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals which, by the way, had also been carried out in the name of White Supremacism. RaduFlorian (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Congo
So you think those people carrying out this slave system were not AWARE of its consequences? Do you think King Leopold and his henchmen were not aware of the CONSEQUENCES of their policies? Are you taking us for 10 years-old kids, with this 10-years old logic of yours?RaduFlorian (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Free Congo State was not genocidal, it was a brutal slave labor system. It was designed not to kill people of whatever racial, ethnic, religious or even just political reasons, but to extract as much profit as possible from a colony in an extremely ruthless manner. Yes, there's a difference. --Niemti (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We could have a section on Colonial Genocides, source here for the Congo. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything about "an intent to destroy" any ethnic group by Leopold proven in the article, I see an intent to make money through slavery enforced by terror. It's like to say this more recent crime was genocidal (it wasn't). --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is right at the end "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." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And in this the article totally contradicts itself and makes zero sense, writing: because the Congo state did not act with the intent of eliminating one or more ethnic groups immediately followed by This suggests that the Congo Free State, in deciding to wipe out particular ethnic groups. (I'm deeply sorry for my "10-years old logic of mine".) --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The people who ran the Congo Free State were FULLY AWARE of the consequence of their policies, they were fully aware that mass enslavement and starvation would lead to massive deaths, which makes them perfectly guilty of genocide in my opinionRaduFlorian (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it does exactly what we are supposed to do, gives both views. At least that is how it seems to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would if it named these "particular ethnic groups" that were "decided to be wiped out". Instead, it talks about a general system of exploitation and terror (also noting that the officers were white, but foot soldiers were African, mostly from other countries). The whole thing was similar to a criminal enterprise (literally) of Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone (including profit from resources as a motive and a widespread practice of hacking off limbs as a vehicle of inflicting terror upon the population), and note how he was never accused of genocide ("just" a host of war crimes and crimes against humanity). --Niemti (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It really just comes down to how secondary sources treat the subject. From what I've read some call it genocide, some don't, some say "sort of", some discuss it in depth. The article should reflect that. Volunteer Marek 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a misunderstanding of what is and what is not constituting genocide. Actually no one even has even to die in a genocide as defined in the UN lgal definition (and I'm serious, it's actually things like "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" or "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" which is something like that), while every sort of mass deaths don't necesserily constitute genocide without precisely "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" (Lemkin actually intended to include political and social groups, but this was rejected by the UN because of the USSR). Slavery isn't genocide (it's slavery), terror isn't genocide too (it's terror). Different crimes. Apples and oranges. Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University: "Slavery, for example, is called genocide when - whatever it was, and it was an infamy - it was a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate the living." (Analysis: Defining genocide) --Niemti (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again trying to reduce the conversation to Niemti's 10 years-old-logic: the slave masters and slave merchants ie the people who are running the slave system are fully AWARE that enslaved people are likely to die in massive numbers so you simply CANNOT separate the system from its OUTCOME ie mass-dying ie mass-murder. According to your simple logic, a slave master whose actions lead to 100 slaves dying of overwork is less guilty than a Nazi who kills one Jew deliberately. According to your SCREWED logic, Leopold the Second who kills 10 million Blacks through starving and overworking them while being FULLY AWARE of the CONSEQUENCES is less guilty that Hitler who kills 6 million Jews in a deliberate way and the Hitler who kills 20 million Slavs through starving and overworking them is also a lot less guilty than the other Hitler, the one who kills 6 million Jews in a deliberate way, so you see what I'm getting at? I think it's plain to see White Supremacists have forged an alliance in the latest period with supporters of Jewish exclusivism and it's difficult to ascertain which of the two has more hands than the other in the whitewashing of the horrendous genocides committed by White imperialists in both Africa and the New World.RaduFlorian (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my GOSH, my "10-years-old logic". TOO long DIDN'T read, LOL. --Niemti (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Knowing that people are going to die from your policies does mean that it is genocide. I'm sure the leaders in the Congo free state knew what was going to happen or had some idea. Mass murder does not necessarily equal genocide. No one here is denying the truly awful nature of the Congo free state. What do you mean by I think it's plain to see White Supremacists have forged an alliance in the latest period with supporters of Jewish exclusivism.Stumink (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The intent" is everything, and King Lepold's intent was just to make money from rubber through a ruthless exploitation of his private colony, and nothing else. Just like Liberia's Charles Taylor sponsored the RUF "rebels" in Sierre Leone (and was recently convicted for this) only to make money from diamonds extracted by slaves, and not because he was concerned that in Sierra Leone are too many people with too many limbs (because yes, they were also chopping off limbs en masse). --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are we even having this conversation? We have RS which call it a genocide, that is all that matters here, not what editors think. The content goes in per policy, and that really ought to be the end of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, let me see? "Controversially, Hochschild compared the death toll in the Belgian-administered Congo to the Holocaust and Stalin's purges." (This ref, the rest are books that I can't check.) Well, according to Wikipedia (the article King Leopold's Ghost), "Hochschild does not use the word genocide, but describes how the mass deaths happened as a result of the forced labor system instituted at Leopold's direction." Furthermore the ref article says (in the sub headline no less): "Historians will investigate charges of Congo genocide" - it was in 2002, so are they still investigating over a decade later, or did they just find nothing? ("We will look at these claims, we will investigate them, and by 2004 we will attempt to provide an answer to Hochschild's book," Guido Gryseels, the director of the museum, said." - 2004 was also long ago, no?) Aaaand the Wikipedia article (this article) cites Paul Kagame, who was himself accused by the UN of genocide in Congo which I guess makes him a great authority on the subject of genocide in Congo indeed. So I'd agree with "Why are we even having this conversation?" too, but for a completely different reason. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So, are you still content of the claims that are apparently about a decade outdated following an investigation by historians that didn't confirm it (and originating in misunderstanding of a book, with the author actually not claiming this at all), and with a claim of a regional leader who was himself accused of committing genocide in Congo? (I thought you guys would at least have some decency to not quote the individuals accused of organising genocide by UN investigators about their opinions on "genocides in history", but apparently you think it's "RS". Ah, Wikipedia.) --Niemti (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and in the meantime, you don't even mention this: at all, and only mentions Kagame as a supposed expert on history or something. --Niemti (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your fixation with African vs African genocides is simply amazing, Niemti. Everywhere you show up you seem obsessed with either wholly negating European Genocides against Africans or equating European genocides against Africans with African genocides against Africans. The favourite line of White Supremacists all over the web: "Yep our ancestors enslaved and killed some Blacks but Blacks themselves were killing Blacks long before that and are doing this right now". So why single out White Supremacism when Blacks themselves are "just as bad"? Never mind that fact there is but A SINGLE African vs African genocide that is fully documented, ie the Rwandan Genocide and never mind the fact it never came close to King Leopold's genocide in terms of the sheer number of people killed. Never mind the Rwandan Genocide was fully INSTIGATED by White colonialists, first by the Germans and then by Belgians who chose to systematically favour Tutsis over Hutus thus undermining the harmonious relations that had prevailed in both Rwanda and Burundi for centuries. Instead of addressing the question of EUROPEAN GUILT for the Rwandan Genocides, you seem busy with constantly adding African genocides in South Africa or in DR Congo. The Mfecane parapgraph as well as the paragraph on Tutsis killing Hutus in DR Congo in 1996 are both your creation, admit it, just to "even things out" when things DO NOT need to be evened out in this question of White genocides vs Black genocides. There was a lot of tribe vs tribe violence in DR Congo during the 1990s and early 2000s yet "intent" for genocide was far less visible than anywhere during the Congo Free State, as most of those 5 million Congolese died of starvation, and European INVOLVEMENT in the Second Congo War, mainly through Western arm dealers fueling the conflict between tribes but also through Western CONTROL OF THE MINING INDUSTRY, which caused Black tribal leaders to vie with other Black tribal leaders for the title of "highest bidder". Your White Supremacism and bias against Black Africans and in favour of Western GENOCIDAL "civilizations" shows wherever you pop up, Niemti.RaduFlorian (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And your fixation with imaginary genocides is simply amazing, RaduFlorian. To quote Hochschild himself (who unintentionally started the whole misundestanding): "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." --Niemti (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You accuse Niemti of being biased against Black Africans and of being a white supremacist. Based on what? His claim that the Congo free state was not genocide or for wanting to add UN allegations of genocide against Kagame during the Congo wars. Judging by this discussion, if anyone is being biased, it is you Radu considering you blamed 1990's ethnic killing by Hutus's and Tutsi's in the Congo and Rwanda on westerners and colonial belgians. You are clearly being baised against Europeans and Westerners here. Stumink (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stumink on this point. Westerners (or Northerners) may at times have had more advanced technology and government, which allowed large-scale killing to be more efficient, but they certainly didn't have a monopoly on genoicidal intent. When locally-run media tells everybody in ethnic group A to exterminate all the cockroaches in ethnic group B (or "Get them before they get us")... that's not something you can blame on an external bogeyman, whether the media are based in Kigali or Belgrade. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact Tutsis and Hutus in both Rwanda and Burundy lived in harmony with each other prior to Europeans popping up and starting to systematically privilege Tutsis over Hutus, is undisputable. Sure, the Tutsis did form an aristocracy prior to European arrival yet there was nothing like chattel slavery and serfdom or systematic discrimination in pre-colonial Rwanda and Burundi. The systematical disenfranchisement of Hutus and priviliging of Tutsis were EUROPEAN inventions, they began in Rwanda and Burundi only AFTER Germans and Belgians started popping up like poisonous mushrooms (yes, "poionous mushrooms" is the word)!RaduFlorian (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to to stop abusing Caps Lock, and we need to rid Wikipedia of the fringe tehories you added to this and maybe other articles. --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)--Niemti (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't added anything to this article for if I had added anything, make sure it would have been more harsh than it already is. I just objected to you and your people deleting the Free Congo State section and also to adding a supposed Hutu Genocide in DR Congo section, just to "even things out" in an instance when things should NOT be evened out.RaduFlorian (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "My people." OK, my people, are we deleting this stupid red-herring confusion altogether, or just explain how it was one big misunderstanding it was? --Niemti (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hear my voice, my people. Respond to me, my people. --Niemti (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can not tell much about this, but User:Jacob Peters is back, and I just reverted his edit. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Congo has been discussed several times before for the last time that it was see
 * Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 9 which links to
 * Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 7 which links to
 * Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 7
 * Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6

To summarise just because something including mass murder is a crime against humanity does not make it a genocide. Genocide has an additional component which is the intent to destroy a group. Adam Hochschild is a leading academic in this field who published a book called King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa that cause a furore in Belgum. In Adam Hochschild states:

When one has the expert who brought this atrocity to a modern audience stating that the atrocity was not a genocide and that "no reputable historian" has made such a charge, we should remove the section that says otherwise. -- PBS (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight?
I pasted the Brazil section on "genocides 1951 to 2000" to box below since it seems to describe events that rather seem to belong to Massacre, with maximum 100 deaths. As for now it doesn't seem to be in wp:balance with other sections dedicating like a single sentence to tens of thousands of deaths. Thus, before reinsertion I think it either needs to prove a greater impact, or be substantially shortened. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Helmet Massacre of the Tikuna people took place in 1988, and was initially treated as homicide. During the massacre four people died, nineteen were wounded, and ten disappeared. Since 1994 it has been treated by Brazilian courts as a genocide. Thirteen men were convicted of genocide in 2001. In November 2004, after an appeal was filed before Brazil's federal court, the man initially found guilty of hiring men to carry out the genocide was acquitted, and the other men had their initial sentences of 15–25 years reduced to 12 years.

In November 2005 during an investigation by the Brazilian authorities, code-named Operation Rio Pardo, Mario Lucio Avelar, a Brazilian public prosecutor in the city of Cuiabá, told Survival International that he believed that there were sufficient grounds to prosecute for genocide of the Rio Pardo Indians. In November 2006 twenty-nine people were held in custody for the alleged genocide with others such as a former police commander and the governor of Mato Grosso state implicated in the alleged.

In a newsletter published on 7 August 2006 the Indianist Missionary Council reported that: "In a plenary session, the [Brazilian] Supreme Federal Court (STF) reaffirmed that the crime known as the Haximu Massacre [perpetrated on the Yanomami Indians in 1993] was a genocide and that the decision of a federal court to sentence miners to 19 years in prison for genocide in connection with other offenses, such as smuggling and illegal mining, is valid. It was a unanimous decision made during the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 351487 today, the 3rd, in the morning by justices of the Supreme Court". Commenting on the case the NGO Survival International said "The UN convention on genocide, ratified by Brazil, states that the killing 'with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group' is genocide. The Supreme Court's ruling is highly significant and sends an important warning to those who continue to commit crimes against indigenous peoples in Brazil."


 * Those are legal findings genocide is a legally defined crime. This article is based on legal findings when they are available (eg the Serbian state was not involved in Genocide in Bosnia because the World Court ruled that it was not). What are the alternative criteria that you use to define what is or is not a genocide? -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please describe the reported genocides, not just the reports
I moved the section on West New Guinea/West Papua to box below, because before reinsertion it needs to describe any actual genocide instead of just the layout of the reports. It is possible to apply genocide conventions and report the current conditions of any region in the world, and you can count many deaths since any point in history if you include natural deaths, even without any genocide being involved at all. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In 2004 the Yale University Law School published "Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control", a 75-page report on the applicability of Indonesian control to each of the genocide conventions. During 2005, the Sydney University Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies published "Genocide in West Papua? The role of the Indonesian state apparatus and a current needs assessment of the Papuan people", a report on the current conditions of the territory. The report estimated that more than 100,000 Papuans have died since Indonesia took control of West New Guinea from the Dutch Government in 1963.


 * Mikael Häggström you write above "It is possible to apply genocide conventions and report the current conditions of any region in the world, and you can count many deaths since any point in history if you include natural deaths," It is not up to Wikpedia editors to apply the genocide convention to the current conditions that is OR, it is up to Wikpedia editors to asses if someone has reported an event to be a genocide or (or not as the case may be) whether that meets the requirements of Wikiepdia policy for inclusion on this page. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In this case the justification for inclusion lies in the last sentence of the last paragraph of the first report:

In the final analysis, whether the sum of acts committed by the Indonesians against theWest Papuans rises to the level of genocide turns largely on the question of whether these acts were committed with the requisite mens rea or intent to destroy the West Papuan group. Obviously, few perpetrators of genocide leave behind a clear record of intent akin to Hitler’s explicit statements of intent to destroy the Jews or the Rwandan Hutu government’s carefully laid plan to rid Rwanda of all ethnic Tutsis. Usually, intent must be inferred from the perpetrators’ acts, considered as a whole, along with any other available evidence that the victim group was targeted as such. In the West Papuan case, any such inference necessarily remains tentative given the difficulties in procuring comprehensive qualitative or quantitative data about Indonesian human rights abuses in West Papua, past and present. However, the historical and contemporary evidence set out above strongly suggests that the Indonesian government has committed proscribed acts with the intent to destroy the West Papuans as such, in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the customary international law prohibition this Convention embodies.


 * I suggest that the section is put back but with am attributed quote for the last sentence, to make it clear that of is the opinion of the Yale Law School. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

British Ceylon
I reverted this as the first source I checked was misrepresented, source says "The male population above the age of 18 were ordered to be killed" Editor wrote "The entire Uva region male population above the age of 18 years were killed in" The source does not support that, Darkness Shines (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Tobby72 left a message on my talk page about this addition with the opinion that it was not suitable. When I looked it had been reverted out so I did not comment, However DinoGrado has since reinstated it.

DinoGrado throughout history nasty things have happened, but just because many people died does not make an event a genocide. Genocide has a very specific legal meaning, but it is used loosely as a moral one by many people because in the words of historian Donald Bloxham: "If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation (Bloxham in Addison (2006), p. 180)"

It is easy for people to look at an event and say this is really appalling thousand died, this must have been a genocide, but that is not something that can be added here unless several reliable sources have published that opinion.

To use an every day crime to explain why. Just because a killing looks like a murder does not make it one unless there has been a trial to say so (a legal proof), or (moral opinion) because a number of third party sources have described it as such. With Legal proof then it is quite acceptable to state murder in the passive narrative voice, if it is the opinion of a number of people then in text attribution should be used. Further: if the killing of a person takes on political connotations then simply publishing a couple of opinions that it was a murder may well need to be discounted because they are a minority political POV trying to score a moral point (WP:UNDUE). If neither of these criteria (legal proof or third party opinion) are met while the event can be described as a killing it can not be described as murder. If there is a list of murders then a particular killing can not be included in that list even if it is not specifically stated that it is because it falls foul of WP:SYN.

In this case who is it that says that the events in the section you title "British Ceylon (Sri Lanka)" were a genocide? -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I want looking for sources on this as a genocide, and have so far found none on Google books. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The following is a quotation from A Moral Audit of the British Empire by historian Piers Brendon published in History Today;


 * Resistance evidently licensed disproportionate retaliation. When crushing opposition in Ceylon in 1818, the British killed over one per cent of the population. Thirty years later not a single European on the island perished in the only insurrection worthy of the name. But 200 alleged rebels were hanged or shot, and more were flogged or imprisoned.


 * Massacring all the men and systematic murder of others in the region of uprising by destroying houses, poisoning the wells, killing all cattle and other useful animals, burning all paddy fields and by destroying the irrigation systems is a genocide by every means. The total number of deaths was well over 100,000 and these events satisfy the definitions of Genocide. -- DinoGrado (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We need a few decent sources which call it a genocide, that is what I have looked for, without success I will add. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Darkness Shines:Even if you find those so called few decent sources, you people are not going to add it with your western POV and the Conflict of Interest you all have in the subject. Reliable third party sources such as these  may have been good enough to add this genocide to Wikipedia, if the victims of the genocide were Westerners or their allies, but to the editors having POV - West IS Perfect,  these sources may be indecent. So it is better for the editors with ethics to stay away from Wikipedia as it is a good place for the wiki morons like User:Tobby72 to show their true colors in destroying articles related to non allies of western countries, rival religions & cultures. -- DinoGrado (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If I find a decent academic source I will add it, stop saying editors have a COIm I know I do not. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * DinoGrado, you're the hardcore Sri Lankan nationalist with a record of obfuscating your government's human rights violations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

DinoGrado you are speculating and not assuming good faith. I suggest that you come up with some reliable sources that state that these events were a genocide, and when you do we can discuss them here on the talk page in good faith. Until such time as you do come up with reliable sources that state these events were I genocide, I suggest that the section is removed from the article. -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

North Korea
"political genocide" is not genocide (thanks to Stalin). There is not clear in text accusation accusation by a reliable source that genocide has or is taking place in North Korea. -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peru
"uprising in which over 100,000 people perished ... Throughout the region, non-Indians were systematically slaughtered" but what expert source has stated that this was a genocide? Such a sources should be attributed in the text of the article. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand
Currently the article contains in the narrative voice of the article the statement "In the early 19th Century there was a genocide of the Moriori people by the Maori tribes of Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama" Which expert source on genocide states that these events were genocide? -- PBS (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Poles, 1937–38
"A few scholars have argued that the killing ... was genocide". If it is a minority view this implies undue weight is being given to that view to this section. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Deportations of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians
The sources in the first section state that the deportations were crimes against humanity. They do not state that the crime of genocide occurred (it would be surprising if they did given the time line for the creation of the crime of genocide). The section goes on to says: "Latvia has since convicted four security officers who had been involved in the mass deportations", it does not say that they were convicted of genocide. It is much more likely that they were convicted of "crimes against humanity", or non international law crimes such as murder.

If this section is to remain there needs to be either a source stating that genocide occurred or that in the opinion of and expert published in a reliable source that the deportations constituted genocide. There a citation to the BBC on the Soviet deportations from Estonia that states that "Estonia's contention that genocide took place is not widely accepted". Unless there are sources to the contrary, this section should be reduced to just mentioning the museum and the Estonian view balanced with the BBC comment. -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
Ethnic cleansing may include genocide but it does not have to. "marks of genocide." and "character of genocide" is not genocide. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after World War II
one fact "or as ethnic cleansing" does not need 10 citations! -- PBS (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dominican Republic
No source is provided to says that the events mentioned were a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor
Can the IP explain how this is not a removal of content? Cos I am seeing a lot of that section disappeared in that edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your claim that sourced content was removed is absolutely false. The first paragraph's 4 sentences are all LEFT INTACT, albeit rearranged and accompanied with different viewpoints to make for a complete account of this historical event. Please read the section carefully before blindly reverting another editor's work. This is the second time you have falsely alleged that sourced material was removed. But if you actually took the time to read and compare the two versions, you would note that the text of the previous version was preserved in my edits. The first paragraph of the old version contains only 4 sentences, and if you read my version closely, you would see that ALL OF THE SENTENCES ARE LEFT INTACT and accompanied by different viewpoints because the old version is far too biased and incomplete.


 * The old version:

"During the Soviet famine of 1932–33 that affected Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and some densely populated regions of Russia, the scale of death in Ukraine is referred to as the Holodomor, and is recognized as genocide by the governments of Australia, Argentina, Georgia, Estonia, Italy, Canada, Lithuania, Poland, the USA, and Hungary. The famine was caused by the confiscation of the whole 1933 harvest in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, the Kuban (a densely Ukrainian region), and some other parts of the Soviet Union, leaving the peasants too little to feed themselves. As a result, an estimated ten million died Soviet-wide, including over seven million in Ukraine, one million in the North Caucasus, and one million elsewhere. American historian Timothy Snyder speaks of '3.3 million Soviet citizens (mostly Ukrainians) deliberately starved by their own government in Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933'"

"In addition to the requisitioning of crops in Ukraine, all food was confiscated by Soviet authorities. Any and all aid and food was prohibited from entering specifically the Ukrainian republic. Ukraine's Yuschenko's administration recognised the Holodomor as an act of genocide, and pushed international policy to reflect this. This move is opposed by the Russian government and some Russophile members of the Ukrainian parliament. A Ukrainian court found Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, Pavel Postyshev, Vlas Chubar and Mendel Khatayevich guilty of genocide on 13 January 2010 As of 2010, Moscow's official position is that the famine took place, but it is not an ethnic genocide; current Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych has supported this position. A ruling of January 13, 2010 by Kyiv's Court of Appeal recognized the leaders of the totalitarian Bolshevik regime as those guilty of 'genocide against the Ukrainian national group in 1932–33 through the artificial creation of living conditions intended for its partial physical destruction.''"


 * My version, with the text from the above version preserved. The sentences from paragraph 1 of the old version are LEFT INTACT., and are in bold below.

"The famine in Ukraine is referred to as the Holodomor. Ukraine's Yuschenko's administration recognised the Holodomor as an act of genocide, and pushed international policy to reflect this. Some countries' governments think that the famine amounted to genocide, specifically Australia, Argentina, Georgia, Estonia, Italy, Canada, Lithuania, Poland, the USA, and Hungary. This view is opposed by the Russian government and some Russophile members of the Ukrainian parliament. A Ukrainian court alleged Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, Pavel Postyshev, Vlas Chubar and Mendel Khatayevich were guilty of genocide on 13 January 2010 As of 2010, Moscow's official position is that the famine took place, but it is not an ethnic genocide; current Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych has supported this position. A ruling of January 13, 2010 by Kyiv's Court of Appeal claimed that Soviet leaders committed 'genocide against the Ukrainian national group in 1932–33 through the artificial creation of living conditions intended for its partial physical destruction.''"

"Based on Soviet registration documents and mortality statistics, historians conclude that the number of deaths due to the famine amounted to about 4.5 million throughout the Soviet Union. [Conquest claimed that the famine resulted in 7 million deaths in the Ukraine, one million in the northern Caucsus, and one million elsewhere. "

"Some accounts claim that the famine occurred as a result of food confiscated by the Soviet authorities. American historian Timothy Snyder speaks of '3.3 million Soviet citizens (mostly Ukrainians) deliberately starved by their own government in Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933' But according to historians Davies and Wheatcroft, 'We have found no evidence, either direct or indirect, that Stalin sought deliberately to starve the peasants. The top-secret decisions of the Politburo, endorsed by Stalin, never hint at a policy of deliberate starvation. Moreover, in their most secret letters and telegrams to Stalin, his closest associates Molotov and Kaganovich treat hunger and death from famine as an evil for which the kulaks or wider sections of the peasants, and inefficient local organisation, are largely responsible, but which must be mitigated as far as possible by local and central measures.'"

66.215.103.120 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised that an IP user has shown up to inject Davies/Wheatcroft propaganda. Ugh...here we go...--Львівське (говорити) 22:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013, for Genocides in History, 1951 to Present
[Hi Wikipedia! I began an edit of "genocides in history" two weeks or so ago, and Darkness (Darkstar?) Shining let me know my edits were being held until I provided the proper source information. So, I am on line now, trying to complete the entry I began in the "1951 to Present" category, detailing ongoing genocide of American Indians through radioactive poisoning.

(I must make mention that when I began editing the entry, there was not a semi-protected status on the topic... hum... very curious. It's possible I struck a very deep cord of truth...)

Therefore, here is the text I suggest be included under the "1951 to Present" category, then a subcategory "Americas" could be inserted (and the existing text for "Argentina's Dirty War" could also be inserted under this suggested subcategory) with this text below the title of "United States":]

Radioactive poisoning of Native American peoples of the Navajo Nation (AZ, NM, UT) and the Great Sioux nation (SD, ND, MT)has been permitted since 1944 and encouraged by federal and state government officials since 1951. More than 4000 open pit uranium mines, uncounted hills of mine tailings, and at least 7000 unmarked open pit uranium test bores with radioactive slurry pools surround and punctuate both Indian nations. Additionally, the largest single radioactive material disaster in the history of the United States, which occurred on 16JUL1979 at the Church Rock Uranium Mine in Navajo County, NM, went relatively unreported in the national press and then Governor Bruce King refused to request the spill site and neighboring villages be declared disaster areas.

Although by 1951, when approximately 4000 Navajo men began accepting positions as uranium miners, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS)were fully aware of the inherent health dangers of radiation exposure, they failed to warn the miners and their families of these risks. Nor did the miners give USPHC consent to conduct epidemiological testing on their exposure and the long term health effects from uranium poisoning.

As the twenty latency period matured between exposure to radioactive poisoning and occurrence of symptomatic health problems, President Nixon signed a secret executive order in 1972 that established a "National Sacrifice Area" for the continuation of uranium mining on Great Sioux Nation lands. Eventhough enforcement provisions of Nixon's executive order are presently unknown, a period referred to as a "reign of terror" began on the Sioux Pine Ridge Reservation. Still mysterious campaign contributions allowed a corrupt tribal chairman, Richard 'Dick' Wilson, win an election and create a paramilitary force with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and local white ranchers. This paramilitary force, who called themselves the Guardians Of the Oglala Nation (GOON) coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)in intimidating, falsely arresting, maiming, raping and killing between 75 and 300 individuals from 1973 to 1976. These terrorizing activities, legally protected by ambitious district attorney William Janklow, (who later became governor of South Dakota) effectively disrupted the nascent American Indian Movement (AIM) efforts to protect the tribal culture and stop the poisoning, and the results permitted Dick Wilson to transfer rights of more than 400,000 additional acres of tribal lands to energy extraction corporations complicit in the systematic radioactive poisoning. The federal government has denied having a role in the violence and claims the deaths were not acts of murder but "suicides, accidents, and accidental poisonings".

On 29APR2013, Pine Ridge Reservation reports that an application for uranium mining was given preliminary approval by the State of South Dakota, even though the Canadian based company's proposal includes a new mining system whose techniques are similar to gas fracking, whereby liquids are injected deep into the earth, and uranium concentrated fluids are funneled back to the surface. The company claims it will recycle the water necessary to extract the uranium back into the aquifer after removing radioactive content.

The violence begun during the reign of terror continues today while incidents of crime are five times higher than the national average. Incidents of bone, skin, and lung cancer are at the highest rates per capita in the United States, while diabetes (from overworked kidneys processing the contaminates) and escalating rates of miscarriages and birth defects are also attributable to the radioactive poisoning in the Great Sioux Nation.

Jdfuna (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) jdfuna

Jdfuna (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC) jdfunaJdfuna (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)]
 * None of those sources call this an act of genocide, it belongs in the article on that subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey - Just noticed your note here...

I am proposing the radioactive poisoning is an act of genocide, especially since the criteria set by the United Nations and the Hague (as detailed on this wiki entry) are met. A previous call for genocide was taken by a senator of SD based of the forced sterilization of more than 3000 women and 100 men by the Indian Health Service, and I believe this case of radioactive poisoning is far worse and a much bigger problem.

I take this position as an architect and author who has been researching dirty wars, corporate and government spying on democracy, COINTELPRO, and our current "homeland security partner" programs as they relate to extreme right wing politics and the rise of neo-fascism in the United States. The position I've developed after research is that there is a discernible pattern: what was historically practiced on the American Indians was adopted and revised during the '70's.  At the same time, if you look at history in the South, post emancipation reaction by white conservatives led to the creation of the KKK, an extreme militia that viciously murdered thousands while regaining political dominance in Washington, DC. These techniques were perfected and used on the Black, White, Brown and then Red liberation movements during the 1960's and 1970's.

Today's targeting of liberals, the occupy movement, environmentalists, professional women, the poor, single mothers, illegal immigrants, etc., follows these same patterns, namely collaborations (read racketeering) between law enforcement, justice department and local militias that further specific political agendas benefiting specific peoples while murdering those who are either in the way or on the other side of the proverbial aisle.

(BTW, there seems to be a developing problem with this computer as I write you this note... a several second delay between typing and the text appearing, and only parts of the text appear... dirty war, indeed.)

I further state that these are also elements of a dirty war in progress, that the right wing tea party (who controls the GOP) is the political arm of white supremacist agenda, and these groups are not only controlling national security policy and practice but are responsible for targeting specific cultural, political and racial groups for harassment, false arrests, false imprisonment, defamations, assisted suicide, assisted homelessness, and eventually virtual or real assassination.

Pretty strong, huh? This is where my research has led... yeah, I was an innocent until the Oil Spill crisis...

So, shall I keep on editing this entry for Genocides in History?

Jdfuna (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)jdfuna
 * Sorry no, read WP:OR. we need reliable sources to make that connection, we cannot do so ourselves. We have an article on this, Uranium mining and the Navajo people so the content is better suited there. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Caucasus
There have been many recent atrocities in the Caucasus that could be included here. Former Lithuanian President Vytautas Landsbergis described the actions of Vladimir Putin's regime in Chechnya as genocide, as have many Russian dissidents. What about the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Shouldn't any of those at least be mentioned here? Charles Essie (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution
Neither of the above mentioned events are in the article. Although I found out before that the GLF was not a definite genocide, the CR was. And arguments could be made saying the GLF was genocide, as private family farms were targeted. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Native Americans
Why is it that other genocides are generally unequivocally labelled as such and yet the Native American section says "It is argued that" they suffered genocide? That wording sounds very problematic. Asarelah (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * lack of consensus among scholars / recognition? --Львівське (говорити) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, most scholarly articles I've read about the topic indicate a general consensus about it being a genocide. Asarelah (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles cited are incredibly biased and reflect our eurocentric culture here in the United States. How about in the spirit of Thanks giving we reflect on the attitudes of the pilgrims? A Thanksgiving sermon delivered at Plymouth in 1623 by “Mather the Elder” gave special thanks to God for the devastating plague of smallpox, which wiped out the majority of the Wampanoag Indians. “Mather the Elder” praised God for destroying “chiefly young men and children, the very seeds of increase, thus clearing the forests to make way for a better growth,” (i.e. the Pilgrims). William Bradford, governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote, “It pleased God to afflict these Indians with such a deadly sickness, that out of 1,000, over 950 of them died, and many of them lay rotting above the ground for want of burial. Also it is largely undisputed that smallpox infected blankets were giving to the Native Americans as an act of warfare and genocide. Please rethink your views about the colonialist attitudes and intentions.

Copyedit
Per tag, slogged through this. Feedback encouraged! Comments: Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the reason for splitting Cambodia and a couple of others into a separate section. I'd say merge them back.
 * I created/expanded the sources section, added a bunch of sfn's and removed duplicate inline full cites of the same work. In some cases, separate chapters by different authors in a single compendium were cited. I left them separate, although they should probably be partially merged. I leave that for others.
 * I added that "genocide" in the article was essentially in the eye of the beholder, as no other consistent scheme presented itself. It seems reasonable to split those that have been "certified" by some legal authority from the rest. I did not do so.
 * I removed a lot of the meta-stuff about reports and teams and authors from the text. This is about the acts, not the reporters/analysts of the acts.
 * Got the word count down by about 25%. It's a start.
 * I merged many of the multiple refs for a single fact into single refs. I left the named ones alone, except where I factored them into the sources section. The net reduction in ref count was close to 100. Still way too many. 1-2 refs/fact, 1 for those that are uncontested, are surely enough.

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Ninja Dianna (Talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza and Palestine
I notice if I search for Gaza or Palestine in this article, no text comes up. The genocide of Palestinians has been going on since the first half of the 20th century so it warrants inclusion in the history section. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you provide reliable sources discussing said genocide, then you are most welcome to add it yourself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're going to add it, don't put Gaza and Palestine. The former is generally considered part of the latter, so that would be redundant. --Yalens (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Genocide is the deliberate destruction of a people. The population of Arabs in the former British Mandate has been skyrocketing. --Monochrome _ Monitor  14:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
The statement that the "Nazi Holocaust is universally recognized as genocide" is unencyclopaedic. I am not referring to Holocaust Deniers - though they certainly exist - who alone make the statement incorrect. The expression is too emphatic to be meet Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest "widely recognized" is far more accurate and appropriate.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Genocides in works of fiction

 * The Old Testament describes the genocides of Amalekites and Midianites, the latter taking place during the life of Moses in the 2nd millennium BC. The Book of Numbers chapter 31 recounts that an army of Israelites kill every Midianite man but capture the women and children as plunder. These are later killed at Moses' command, with the exception of virgin girls. The total number killed is not recorded, but the number of surviving girls is recorded as thirty two thousand. Jones quotes Holocaust Studies Professor Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited ... encompasses the call for genocide in its canon."

I recognize that people think that their religion has history in it, and perhaps some do have some instances, but this isn't one of them. I recommend a separate article to cover genocide in literature, as this is still potentially useful knowledge. There are other non-historical and still significant works on the topic.

The above reasoning is incorrect. The Old Testament is an historical record that records actual historical events, as well as being a work of literature and theology. The reader can be the judge of the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. Please do not remove this section. If you have reason to doubt the accuracy of Biblical sources, please refer to appropriate Bibical scholarship. I have re-instated the section. PS please sign your contributions in future if you believe they have any validity. David e cooper (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, whoever made the above comment is quite immature. Shii (tock) 03:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)