Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 3

Ottoman Empire (Turkey)
I have reverted the changes made to the Turkey entry today because one does not change the words insides quotes and remove the references to those quotes. Further a lot of information was deleted which was referenced and different text was substituted which is not clearly cited. The additional wording:It is now understood that these massacres were committed not only by Ottoman muslims against Armenian Christians, but also vice versa, making this an inter-communal war, which in no way can be regarded as genocide or ethnic cleansing. is not sourced. Just because prisoners who were held in Malta were not guilty of the alleged Armenian Genocide is not relevant to the accusation of genocide committed by others in the Sublime Porte. --PBS 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed section: Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Article 301
Here is the reason why I put a "disputed" tag on the section Ottoman Empire (Turkey). I dispute the following claim: "The Turkish Government disputes this interpretation of events and in an attempt at political historical revisionism has drafted laws like Article 301 that state ...'" (my emphasis). I believe that as stated this is factually incorrect. This article was not introduced by the government for the purpose of revisionism. Under Turkish law any adult can press charges, and the Grey Wolves and other anti-EU nationalists have really stepped up on the plate. This to the embarrassment and frustration of the Turkish government, as expressed by foreign minister Abdullah Gül. Outside Turkey many people seem to think that Turkey is an almost monolithic entity, and that such charges are brought or supported by the government. This is not true in any of the cases that may be related to the Armenian issue. I further think this section does not do very well in maintaining an NPOV stance, but that is another matter. Lambiam Talk 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the reasons for drafting 301 for the time being (because it seems to be broader than just a law about historical revisionism). How would you describe the use of 301 in the Orhan Pamuk case, if not an attempt at historical revisionism (negationism)? --PBS 01:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would describe it as an attempt by anti-EU and anti-government forces to create an anti-Turkish sentiment in the EU, and by reaction an anti-EU sentiment in Turkey, to undermine the government policy and the process of moving towards a more open society, which they fear because it will reduce their influence. If this explanation seems bizarre, it is Byzantium we speak about. The bringing of charges was carefully timed to have maximum impact in the publicity just before the EU decision was to be made on opening the access negotiations in October 2005. The government did not cooperate with the prosecution, on the contrary, they made the case impossible by refusing to cooperate. Orhan Pamuk did not use the term "genocide" or in fact even suggest it. He did raise a tabu subject. The whole case has only tangentially to do with revisionism. I do not dispute that the Turkish government denies the allegation of genocide (as do several respected historians who have yet to be called historical revisionists or negationists); that is all over the place and you do not need to bring in Article 301 to establish that. All I dispute is the claim that Article 301 was introduced (and used) by the government for that purpose. It was not introduced for that purpose and not used by the government at all. There was an attempt to use it in spite of the government. Lambiam Talk 07:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who brought the Orhan Pamuk case? -- PBS 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Somehow this page was dropped from my watchlist.) It is "general knowledge" that in several similar cases prosecution writs have been produced by members of the Hukukçular Birliği (Lawyers Union), a group of lawyers with ties to the Grey Wolves, one of whose prominent members is Kemal Kerinçsiz. They also appear to have brought charges in the Pamuk case, and specifically with the Şişli prosecutor (who is sympathetic to the MHP), although Pamuk lives in Cihangir, Beyoğlu — but the Beyoğlu prosecutor is somewhat more enlightened, as evidenced for example by the outcome of the Lagendijk case. Lambiam Talk 02:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Postscriptum. I found the text of the writ (in Turkish) on a right-wing web site: . (Milli Güç Platformu = National Strength Forum.) It is indeed by the hand of Kemal Kerinçsiz, more on whom (and on the whole background) you'll find here: . --Lambiam Talk 02:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would the wording be better put like this:
 * . Nationalistic groups in Turkey, like the Lawyers Union (Hukukçular Birliği)[1], have been using Article 301 in an attempt to discourage investigation and discussion of ... . For example Kemal Kerinçsiz, a prominent members of the Layers Union, brought charges in the Pamuk case[2].

NOTES
 * 1. The Lawyers Union (Hukukçular Birliği), is a group of lawyers with ties to the Grey Wolves. [Put in some links here to URL to prove this].
 * 2 URL

--PBS 10:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it is difficult to prove a purpose (or absence of a purpose), but I happen to believe that the aim of Kemal Kerinçsiz cum suis was rather specifically to thwart the EU admission process. Just look at the timing. This belief is supported by the Time article (which, curiously, mentions the Pamuk case but missed out on KK's involvement). And I am not the only one to believe so, as you can see in the various references I gave and those at Article 301. Of course it is true that such things as the charges against Pamuk reinforce the already strong discouragement against publicly voicing dissident views, and thereby any open discussion of these issues. But to avoid writing something that is quite possibly (and, I think, most probably) false, we should not ascribe a purpose but just describe the effect. Additionally, we should be careful not to imply something by a false emphasis. There is also the everlasting influence of the army in the background, with the constant fear that if things "get out of hand" there will be another coup. This turns many moderate people into willing accomplices of the stifling of dissident voices; it is not just the nationalists. Also, but this is of secondary importance here, the taboo applies equally strong to the treatment of present-day minority groups, or the slightest suggestion that Kemal Pasha Atatürk might have been less than fully and completely virtuous.
 * So what about the following text:


 * The Turkish Government disputes this interpretation of events and maintains that crucial documents supporting the genocide thesis are actually falsifications.. Seen as historical revisionism by many historians, the topic is virtually taboo in Turkey. Laws like Article 301 are used to bring charges against people like the Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, who had stated that "Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it". Nevertheless, and in spite of vehement resistance by nationalist groups, an academic conference was held on September 24, 2005 in Istanbul to discuss the early 20th century massacre of Armenians.
 * Lambiam Talk 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the text OK now? can we remove the section tag? --PBS 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So removed. --Lambiam Talk 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

osmancan-Isn't it a contradiction to show unreal sources show that "so-called armenian genocide" happened as sources? Why to show sources that need real sources as sources. I request this topic to be discussed on neutral platform. The truth is that there is a conflict between two points of wiews, however the proofs of Turkish side are is assumed unexistent in spite of the proofs being rational and them having a reliable resource. However only proof and beliefs of armenian sided historians are being assumed and accepted which is a contradiction with a fundamental rule of the science of history which is being assumed as nonexistent is this topic. That particular rule forbids sidedness in history that kind of sidedness can be seen normal in armenian and turkish historians however it would be a disgrace to do so for other historians. The Turkish law 301 prevents the national values of turkey from being humiliated and slandered. As other countries propose laws to enforce something slander, why turkish goverment cannot enforce telling the truth as it is accepted by the goverment of turkey? The main aim of the lawsuit is defend the honour and beliefs of turkey, if a country can arrest a person of telling their beliefs even if that beliefs won't have any bad effects on that contry why turkey wouldn't arrest someone if the person slander? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmancan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 October 2006

Ottoman Empire (Turkey) part 2
This section was from the Armenian POV in its entirety. Replaced with text that is more neutral and approaches a balanced account of what has happened. Source is mainly "Armenian Allegations: Myth and Reality" by Prof. Justin McCarthy. Please do not revert this! I am appalled even the discussions on this subject is from one POV. Everything is so obviously one-sided! Also it is very hyprocritical to remove the Algerian genocide allegations saying it is from one POV - and at the same time publishing this for the Armenians genocide allegations. The Turkish point of view was only expressed as "Turkish govenrment claims..." and "it is a taboo to..." etc. etc. Come on, it is NOT the Turkish government who claim both sides suffered a lot, it is the people. 90% of them. By saying it the government's point of view implies it is not people's will. I am one of the people. I know many many other Turkish people. It is OUR view - not only the government's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 May 2006   (UTC)


 * The section is fully sourced and cited. You may dissagree with it but is it factutually incorrect to state that "Allied Powers ... issued a statement"? If not what is your objection to that paragraph, because it is not claimed that the treatment was a crime against humanity just that the Allied powers issued such a statment?
 * The section also says that "On 15 September 2005 an United States Congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide" and then quotes the US resolution. Do you deny that they issued this resolution or that the text quoted from the resolution is not correct? If not what is your objection to it because the section is not claiming a genocide toook place just that the US Congress passed a resolution stating that it did.
 * Do you deney that the BBC issued a statment stating that "The Swiss lower house of parliament has voted to describe the mass killings of Armenians during the last years of the Ottoman Empire as genocide. ... Fifteen countries have now agreed to label the killings as genocide. They include France [in 2001], Argentina and Russia." ?
 * The claim about the Turkish government is sourced. Do you have a source to back up the claim that "it is the people. 90% of them"? Have there been any results from opinion polls taken in Turkey on this subject that have been published which back up you claim? --PBS 16:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Add-on: Am amazed my update was reverted back in 5 minutes! Here is the reason: "reverted to last version by PBS because modifications deleted cited material and replaced it with unsourced marerial which included a first paragraph with a POV statment". This continues to amaze me - the reverted version is 100% made of POV statements; compared with mine which you say the first paragraph is POV. To take information from the "cited" material of one POV presents a very wrong picture indeed. Also, my version was sourced - I have put in the source to this discussions page. Is there another way to cite them? Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 May 2006  (UTC)


 * We had an edit clash. On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Also please see WP:V --PBS 16:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved the text below down from a another section so that pople can read this as a contenuity. --PBS 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Further update: Philip, you were quick to revert my change but not quick to respond here I see... Anyways, now I think I know what is required for citation. Some parts of the current section are not particularly cited and will be removed. The first paragraph refers to the WWI Allied countries comdemning Ottomans in 1915; however the cited source is a US Congress resolution. Also, WWI Allied countries, being at war with Ottomans, cannot be taken as a reliable source - they were trying to build support for war effort in their countries, and show the Turks as the bad guys. Pretty normal in a war situation. Also, an US Congress document is a political document that cannot prove or disprove anything. Therefore these are bad citations - removing relevant sections. This section _really_ needs to be rebuilt in a more objective manner - it reeks of POV... 14 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2006  (UTC)

Oh, I see we had an edit clash. Sorry about my first replace act - I felt really frustrated when I saw all the information there was only from one POV - and nothing from the other. I now see this is not wikipedia's way. Anyways, yes I do dispute the Allied Powers statement. The cited source is incorrect. Also, being at war the allied powers can hardly be taken as an objective source. Still all the material in this section is from one POV - this hardly portrays the entire picture. Must find source materials. Do they need to be online or can they be printed books as well do you think? 14 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 May 2006  (UTC)


 * The citation was changed from one of the earlier US resolutions to the one that passed. Unfortunatly they chopped the quote short in the final resolution. So I have included the earlier resoluton and another source.


 * Books are a very good source. But a citation needs a page number as well as a book title. --PBS 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the latest addition for the Allied Powers statement - this violates WP:RS. Two reasons: First, the point stated above: WWI Allied countries, being at war with Ottomans, cannot be taken as a reliable source - they were trying to build support for war effort in their countries, and show the Turks as the bad guys. Pretty normal in a war situation. Sources with agendas are specifically covered in WP:RS. Secondly, the reference is from the website www.armenian-genocide.org/ which is a partisan website as defined in NP:RS. Also this section suffers from serious WP:POV_pushing - unfortunately there is no easy cure for this as WP:POV_pushing also explains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.151.8 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ''See below the bottom of the edit window: " On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes ( ~ )."


 * The Allied Powers statment is not a violation of the WP:RS guideline or the WP:V policy, we can ask for a third opinion if you disagree with me on this. The citation is not just from the www.armenian-genocide.org the quote is also available from another source listed in the citation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr933&dbname=106& (paragraph numbered 3) However I see no harm including the reference to http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.160/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html unless you are disputing the accuracy of the information on the page. --PBS 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UCT)

I am disputing the fact that Republic of Turkey existed in 1915 so the Armenian genocide arguments should not be reflected to Modern day Turkey but to the Ottoman Empire. There was no such thing as a "Turkish" Government or Turkey in official historical terms in 1915 as mentioned in this article. Any usage of the term Turkey or Turkish government for any action before 1923 is a complete historical bias against Republic of Turkey. I am removing the title of Turkey from the title unless someone can prove to me that a country that was officially called Turkey existed before 1923.MKS 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is claiming that the Republic of Turkey existed in 1915, but your argument that Turkey did not exist is mistaken. Please look at the Telegram sent on May 24, 1915, by the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, charging another government of committing "a crime against humanity":
 * "[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization,
 * The Powers, including Britain called the country Turkey in an English worded telegram. So the word Turkey was used in this formal diplomatic correspondence in English as a name for the state which allegedly committed the crimes, while the same correspondence recognised the "Sublime Porte" as the "Ottoman Government" of that state. And Turkey was certainly then, as now the common English name for the country, for example British soldiers (Tommys) fought "Johnny Turk" no matter where the Ottoman solders originated from they did not fight "Johnny Ottoman". --PBS 10:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In that same logic Americans are Yankees, Australians are Aussies read wiki article nickname for tons of more examples, and as a matter of fact the usage of the word Turkey was a deragotary inside joke in British politics (due to the animal name) (same level as using such deragatory national nicknames which I wont mention here) and such and the fact that Allied powers (British, French and Russians) will of course demean a country that they are at war with at 1915 in that document you mention, in the same spirit insistedly calling Istanbul as Constantinople (heck Pope Benedict still calls Istanbul as Constantinople, and it is simply not since 1453). Wikipedia is not a place of slangs or degradations but of official historical facts. I wish everyone respected that especially since this article talks about people stepping on each other.MKS 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "In that same logic" No I was talking about names of nations in common English usage not nicknames. Your argument does not change the fact that both in popular usage and formal diplomatic correspondence Turkey was a name which was used in English for the country. --PBS 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Algeria
Unless there are some sources which say that Algeria was a genocide it should be removed. Bouteflika as quoted in the Scotsman article "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions" is not claiming that a genocide took place he is using the term as an adjective (and interestingly using the old rhetoric trick of repeat something three times, so beloved by Churchill). --PBS 08:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am deleteing this section in the article, see also Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide --PBS 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This section has been recreated by user:David Falcon is making a mockery of the definition of a genocide, he also created two articles on the matter one main article has been voted for deletion and the other was a POV fork and had been speedy deleted. This section only shows the Algerian point of view. In addition this section is a POV fork on Algerian war of independence. Accusations of genocide do not mean genocide really took place, need references from somewhere else than politically motivated accusations, are there any serious work by independent scholars to support these allegations? There has been multiple discussion on the matter, as why it does not constitute a genocide, as there was no planning or official policy to systematically kill arabs or berbers, this was a independence war with all the atrocities that comes with it, including massacres, this accusation ignores the fact that vast number of arabs were siding with the French in this war (the Harki) who later were massacred by FLN. The figure of 1.5 million dead is a recent revision by Algerian authorities that come out of the blue without any serious research work and that has only a purpose to suit a political agenda. Most of the references in this section either do not support the allegations they are meant to support, or only report the point of view of Algerian authorities and not the international community as a whole, one of the references come from Socialist Worker a far left activist journal which can not be considered as a neutral source of information. I would invite people to discuss on the section before coming to an agreement whether to delete it or not. I must add that User:David Falcon is motivated by a Turkish point of view and his anger because of the recognition of Armenian genocide by French parliament. I offered him to ask for mediation in our dispute on his talk page he but never replied, I now assume bad faith from his part. If this section is to stay in the article, it needs to be entirely rewritten from a neutral point of view Blastwizard 12:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If Bouteflika had meant that a Genocide had taken place he could have said "The French committed Genocide in Algeria". Bouteflika is saying "genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions" is no more a statement that a Genocide took place in Algeria than if he had said "I could murder a beer". One can not argue that this article could be used as a source for including a "beer murder" section in the Murder article. If this section is to be included in this article it must have WP:V sources that a Genocide took place. WP:V states:
 * Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
 * Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
 * The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
 * --PBS 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing, I have seen users 'PBS' and 'Blastwizard' names in almost every article regarding Turkey. I think these guys have serious problems with the Turks and they sacrifice Algerian Genocide article for their personal competitions.David Falcon 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Find a single article on Turkey that I edited, I buy you a drink. Blastwizard 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot put any article or part on genocide committed by French in Algeria. Ok you may not agree it was not a genocide but masssacre. So, we can say "genocide claims". But users 'PBS' and 'Blastwizard' have been vandalising what I created on the subject. They argue that the references I use are not reputable sources. I used in the article BBC, Scotsman, Aljazeera, Socialist Worker, Al Ahram, Le Monde, Diplomatic Observer etc. What are the reputable sources? CIA notes or French papers. I think these two guys are manipulating the others and they are behaving like ultra-nationalist (if not racist). They use genocide term for any nation, but not for the French. More than 1,5 million people were massacred and I cannot mention it anywhere. I add my contribution which was vandalised many time in order to prove that the article is not biased or anti-French:David Falcon 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding non neutral point of view is a form of vandalism on Wikipedia


 * Between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians died during the Algerian War of Independence . Algerians argue that the massacres should be named as genocide and France must apologise to the Algerians However the French do not accept the claims. Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika says that French colonization of his country Algeria was a form of genocide   . In memoirs, some French officers have described torture of Algerians during the war. Edouard Sablier, for instance, one of the soldiers who took part in the repression, later described the situation: “Everywhere in the towns there were camps surrounded by barbed wire containing hundreds of suspects who had been arrested… Often, when we set out to inspect an isolated hamlet in the mountains, I heard people say, ‘We should punish them by taking away their crops’.”  A paper called Ohé Partisans, published by the French Trotskyists, described Sétif as an “Algerian Oradour”. Oradour was a French town where the Nazi occupiers had murdered over 600 people, including children..
 * Was the FLN supporters better when they massacred 123 people including babies ? Or is it OK because they are non westerners ?Blastwizard 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * However France has never accepted its responsibility in tortures and massacres in Algeria. Paris says that the past should be left to historians. French President Jacques Chirac, upon harsh reactions to the law encouraging the good sides of the French colonial history, made the statement, "Writing history is the job of the historians, not of the laws." Writing history is the job of the historians" According to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, "speaking about the past or writing history is not the job of the parliament."
 * The Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika said in a speech in Paris on 17 April 2006 "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions".
 * There has been already a lot of discussion on what president Bouteflika meant there, he was saying that colonisation destroyed culture, he used the word genocide for shock effect, like a tabloid title.


 * Algeria first became a colony of France in 1830. When the Algerian people rioted against the French colonial rule, the French dispatched 400,000 troops to pacify the anti-colonial uprising. The French colonial forces launched an air and ground offensive against several eastern cities, particularly Setif and Guelma, in response to anti-French riots. The crackdown lasted several days and according to the Algerian state left 45,000 people dead. European historians put the figure at between 15,000 and 20,000 . French attacks continued not only in Algerian territories but in France as well. The Paris massacre of 1961 was the most vivid example: On October 17 the French police attacked an unarmed demonstration of Algerians, who demanded the freedom of their country from French colonial rule. How many demonstrators were killed is still unclear, but estimates range from 32 to 200 people. The incident had not been officially confirmed until 1999 as the French Governments hide the truth.
 * There were executions and widespread arrests during the War of Independence. "Many European lawyers refused to defend the accused. Villages were bombed from the air and a town was shelled from a cruiser at sea. The attacks were more or less random. The point was not so much to punish the original rioters as to teach the whole Muslim population to know their place. Settlers set up their own unofficial death squads and killed hundreds of Muslims. German and Italian prisoners of war were released to take part in the massacre."
 * Abdulkerim Gazali, editor of the Algerian newspaper La Tribune, likens France's occupation of an independent and sovereign Algeria to Nazi Germany's occupation of many European countries and claimed this was racism..
 * After a war which ended in Algeria's independence in 1962, eight million Algerian residents were deprived of French nationality and hundreds of thousands of 'pieds noir' (French who settled in Algeria and were re-patriated at the end of the war) were forced home to a place which was not home.
 * Ahmed Ben Bella also argues that the French committed a genocide against the people and Algerian culture: "Algeria's indigenous population was decimated in the early years of French settler colonial rule, falling from over four million in 1830 to less than 2.5 million by 1890. Systematic genocide was coupled with the brutal suppression of Algerian cultural identity. Systematic genocide was coupled with the brutal suppression of Algerian cultural identity. Indigenous Algerians were French subjects, but could only become French citizens if they renounced Islam and Arab culture. A ruthless policy of acculturation followed, and the remaining Algerians were forced to cease speaking their native Arabic and use the French of their colonial masters instead. The indigenous Muslim population of Algeria was not permitted to hold political meetings or bear arms. They were subjected to strict pass laws that required indigenous Muslim Algerians to seek permission from the colonial authorities to leave their hometowns or villages.".
 * Mr Ahmed Ben Bella is of course a white dove, and very neutral in his point of view of course. If you read the article on Algerian war of independence, it says he organised the elimination of all Algerian who would have been able to negotiate peace with French. Blastwizard 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Algeria called on France to apologise in 2005 for crimes committed during the colonial era . Amar Bakhouche, speaker of the Algerian Senate, similarly reacted that France did not apologize for massacres it committed in Algeria.
 * Because apologies from the French ambassadors in Algeria who is the official representative does not count? What's the point to have an ambassador then? Blastwizard 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1945 Massacres was one of the most tragic massacres French committed in Algeria. As Le Monde put it, "as France celebrated victory in Europe on 8 May 1945, its army was massacring thousands of civilians in Sétif and Guelma - events that were the real beginning of Algeria’s war of independence." Bouteflika also urged the Paris Government to admit its part in the massacres of 45,000 Algerians who took to the streets to demand independence as Europe celebrated victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 . French authorities then responded by playing down the comments, urging "mutual respect". French Foreign Minister Barnier told Algeria in an official visit to make a common effort to search history "in order to establish a common future and overcome the sad pages". Giving interview to El Vatan, an Algerian newspaper, Barnier said that "Historians from two sides must be encouraged to work together. They must work on the common past".


 * 45,000 is too much but is nowhere near thye 1,5 million you claim ! And again the number of victims is not what qualifies a crime as genocide or not anyway. Blastwizard 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The archives in France on the issue have been kept closed till now. The French collected all documents regarding the massacres and genocide. For many, the closed archives are another signs of the Genocide in Algeria. Amar Bakhouche, the speaker of Algerian Senate, reacted that France keep the archives related to that period closed. He says the greatest majority of archives related to that period were brought to France and they were kept closed. "They are not open for French and Algerians. We urged to immediately open them for public" he said. David Falcon 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User Blastwizard says that "I am motivated by a Turkish point of view and his anger because of the recognition of Armenian genocide by French parliament". There is no link between the Turkish view point and my articles. Almost all of the references are from the Western or Arab media. I have just given Armenian cease as an exampler. There is no court verdict on Armenian genocide but the user freely use the term. So what is wrong to name the French Massacres as genocide if there is no need for a legal verdict. I think Blastwizard tries to get Armenian support for his ultra-French position. This is an Algerian and Arab issue and I do not care the Turks or Armenians.David Falcon 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what it looks like when reading the article on the diplomatic observer reference which when you go to the main page show that it is a very Turkish point of view with a lot of bias, in addition a lot of references come bizzarely from Turkishweekly which is not apparently a broadsheet Turkish newspaper but something edited by a Turkish think tank dedicated to non western point of view, if you can't read in between the lines I'm very sorry for you. In addition your sources come from somewhere freedom of press is still very theoretical ([]) since you like quoting media. I am not looking for Armenian support, I was just using the Armenian genocide as an example and given your reaction to this I thought it was interesting to look a bit more in details on the subject, I also used the Holocaust as an example, something you apparently forgot (I didn't) as I quote you from my talk page "All the genocied committed by the European powere were forgetten" .You didn't read or want to ignore my constructed argumentation, why these massacres do not qualify as genocide, which is that the people were killed not because of their ethnic origin but because of brutal repression of an uprising. All the non French people who know me who laugh out loud hearing the accusation that I'm ultra-French. What I would like is you to read History of Algeria, I doubt there is a French bias in it, it is well written and presents facts with well balanced point of view. I think you have a problem with nationalism not me, if you read my posts carefully I said that the atrocities perpetrated by the French in Algeria may qualify as war crimes but not genocide,l would such a statement make an ultra nationalist?  Blastwizard 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

David is is customary to append ones comments at the bottom of the section you are writing in please see Talk_pages. --PBS 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I do not think that this section is suitable for this page is because most of the pargraphs have nothing to do with genocide. going through your refrences:
 * 1) http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/algeria1954.htm -- no mention of genocide
 * 2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4926128.stm BBC: 20 April 2006 "Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions," Mr Bouteflika said on Algerian television on Monday. --This does not say a genocide took place
 * 3) http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=583792006 -- Same quote as the BBC no mention of Genocide other than "genocide of our identity..."
 * 4) http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8B729BDE-FC76-4E68-B8CD-116A54777D82.htm "This wasn't only a genocide against the Algerian people but also a genocide against Algerian identity," he said. -- But this quote is contradicted by the previous two.
 * 5) http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/printer_23863.shtml] France committed a "genocide of Algerian identity" during the colonial era, he said. Same quote
 * 6) http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/985/Algerian_President_Attacks_French__Genocide_.html France committed a "genocide of Algerian identity" during the colonial era, he said.same quote as the last one word for word.
 * 7) http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=6388 Genocide not mentioned
 * 8) http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20051210&hn=27378 -- article on French colonial history mentions Arminian Genocide not Algerian.
 * 9) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-22-bouteflika_x.htm France's colonization of his country a "genocide of (Algerian) identity." -- Same quote as previous ones
 * 10) http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/533/profile.htm Gamal Nkrumah writes "Algeria's indigenous population was decimated ... falling from over four million in 1830 to less than 2.5 million by 1890. Systematic genocide was coupled with the brutal suppression of Algerian cultural identity." he writes that Ahmed Ben Bella said " French repression cost us two million lives. It was genocide." --First unaquivical statments that the French committed genocide in Algeria.
 * 11) http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C50D0EF1-4FCE-48C6-89A9-D059B34F7B0D.htm In a Reuters report "Many Algerian political figures and historians, who call the massacre a genocide, not only want an apology but demand compensation. "Sixty years later, France does not recognise its crimes against humanity," Algerian French-language newspaper La Tribune said on its front page."
 * 12) http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0397/9703036.htm no mention of Geneocide
 * 13) http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/algerians_liberte.htm No mention of Genocide
 * 14) http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/420/in2.htm No mention of Genocide
 * 15) http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=10155 Algeria asks France to admit its responsibility in genocide-like massacres and human rights abuses in Algeria before the independence. -- This is not Genocide but genocide like.
 * Many Algerian political figures and historians, who call the massacre genocide, not only want an apology but demand compensation. "Sixty years later, France does not recognize its crimes against humanity," Algerian French-language newspaper La Tribune said on its front page. --This is quoting the article above which was a reuters report.
 * Accusations from Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika that France used similar crematoriums in Algeria as were used during the Nazi regime have caused tension between two countries. "The occupiers had chosen the way of genocide and termination. This went on during the fatal occupation process. Who remembers the shameful crematoriums that the occupiers built in Guelma? Those crematoriums are the same as the Nazis' death crematoriums" Bouteflika's messages were read in a panel in Setif University. -- and more of the same.
 * 1) http://www.diplomaticobserver.com/news_read.asp?id=1206 Meanwhile Amar Bakhouche, the speaker of the Algerian Senate said in AB Haber.com that France insisted not to apologize for Algerians who were killed in 8 May 1945, “France firstly must clean in front of his own house. ... "These things committed by Frances are called "genocide", but they have been tried to be described in another manner in France" he said -- Another Algerian
 * 2) http://mondediplo.com/2005/05/14algeria No mention of Genocide.

I think that there are enought references here to write an article. You shoud junk references like the socialistworker because it is not a respectable source for this type of article, and junk references which just repeat previous ones choosing the most respectable one for inclusion. The article title should not have genocide in it, because genocide is predominantly an Algerian POV and not shared by the French establishment (according to the sources you have provided) and hence is not a WP:NPOV title. As I suggested in the debate Articles for deletion/Algerian Genocide:
 * I suggest that if David Falcon wishes to peruse this subject that he has a look at 1971 Bangladesh atrocities for an example of a suitable descriptive article name, layout and the level of references and citation. BTW [the atrocities] article was forked out of the Bangladesh Liberation War

--PBS 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda

 * ''Human Rights Watch believe the genocide was an indirect result of Belgiums racist institutionalization of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. [http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-09.htm Leave None to Tell the Story; Genocide in Rwanda, Human Rights Watch, March

I do not read the article the same way that you do it is mentioned as a contributing factor, but it does not say that "genocide was an indirect result of Belgiums racist institutionalization of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups". The Belgians ran the country for only 4 decades, ending more than 3 decades before the genocide. If the genocide had happened soon after independence there would be some justification for this argument, but to over emphasise European influences is demeaning to the locals, in just the same way as claiming any achievement by a post colonial country has only happened because of the influence of the colonial power. So I am removing the addition. --PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire (Turkey)
''The first target of the Ottoman Empire during the 1900's was the Hellenic ...

No citing of sources so I am removing this new entry. See the sources for the Armenian Genocide which follows it if the last sentence is not clear --PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hellenic Genocide
Text removed from the article:
 * Turkey also prohibits any public reference and denies the genocide of Greeks in Pontus, but also Asia Minor (#1 The Blight of Asia, by G. Horton full E-text available), Constantinople (now Istanbul), Eastern Thrace, Imbros, Tenedos and Cappadocia. Most of the victims were killed between 1895 and 1955. The estimate brings victims to some 2.000.000 Greek children, men and women of all ages.(#2 The Hellenic Genocide Quotes from historical documents) <(#3 Home page of Pontus and Asia Minor Genocide'' The Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies)


 * ''In Pontus alone, 353.000 Greeks died and more than 500.000 fled to Greece or Soviet Union.(#4)
 * ''The Greek parliament has established 19th May, as an official memory date. (#5)

reference: --PBS 10:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) does not say that Turkey "prohibits any public reference and denies". To include this statement a citation to source which makes this should be included.
 * 2) Says quotes but they do not cover the statments like " Most of the victims were killed between 1895 and 1955" or "some 2,000,000 Greek".
 * 3) is a source not a citation. To be a citation the link should at least point to a web page which contains the facts quoted in the article. The way it has been done is similar to me saying "and God said let there be light" (See the Bible)" instead of quoting book of the bible and passage number. I did a search on "Asia Minor Holocaust Research Unit" and it did throw up sites which confirm that this is more than a blog site. see:, and
 * 4) No citation given.
 * 5) No citation given.

Alleged Laos genocide
If this alleged genocide is to remain on this page then it should be stated who and for what organisation are making the allegations that a genocide has taken place. It should include at least one citation from a verifiable and reputable source. To balance the piece it should also include the alleged perpetrators POV as well. A quick Google on [Laos genocide] returns lots of pages, so this should not be too difficult. --PBS 07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Russian "Genocide" in Afghanistan
I think that this should be brought up as a BELIEF of there being a genocide. Many civilians were killed not because they were specifically targetted but because of lack of discpline with Conscripts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.74.85 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the source provided, the author argues that it was a genocide if one defines genocide to include political groups. I think that the piece would be better if the author of the source was named in the article and his reasoning added to the piece. --PBS 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Japan
i saw nothing on Japan's atrocities in WWII, so I added some stuff. i think someone should add more(if not, i will when i have time, since I find it extremely unfair Germany gets half a page on atrocities, and Japan gets two sentences on absolutely nothing)

Lebaon
The section on Lebanon is purely subjective. It contains uncofirmed information such as the number of deaths and bias in the writing style. Moreover, because Israel is not directly targeting civilians, it should not be defined as a genocide. Certainly not more so than other incedents aimed at civilians like septermber 11th, whose death toll was several fold the death toll so far in Lebanon, and Terorrist attacks against Israel, or any other war in history that has had civilian casualities for that matter.

Palestinians
If Palestinians are going to be included as a genocide, then there equally well should be a section about Palestinian terrorists targeting Israeli civilians. It should also be mentioned that the treatment of Palestinians in as second class citizens, which is not a genocide, is not unique to Israel, but also is the case for Palesinian polulations in other Arab countries, including Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Lebanon.


 * I concur, Wikipedia was not meant to be a soap box for every claim of victimhood in the world. I went to Genocide watch's web page and shockingly enough they listed both sides as peretrators of violence.  Here is the link.  I'm going to edit this section to reflect a more balanced view in the next few days unless someone beats me to it. 68.203.127.188 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur, too, very strongly -- the suffering of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation, and their dispossession, is both real and tragic, and much of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is worthy of condemnation, even outrage, but it is not genocide. To call it genocide is to pervert the meaning of the word 'genocide.' Indeed, it seems to me to be an anti-Semitic tactic: since European Jews were in fact the victims of genocide, and since that genocide was one of the primary factors in the establishment of the state of Israel, some pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel groups and individuals have decided to call the Israeli oppression of Palestinians genocide -- even though the Israelis have not tried, and are not trying, to exterminate the Palestinians. The Wikipedia editors should step in here.


 * Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." It does not mean extermination as you seem to think. Fourtildas 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide Ages
Who thought it was a good idea to try forcing history into 1500-1950, 1951-1990 , 1991+ periods ? What about the genocides that span multiples of your periods such as Guatemala 1960-1996, and West Papua from 1966 to today. 211.30.222.139 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did. It makes the list(s) more managable.
 * Before 1950 is pre-CPPCG, Any claim that a genocide took place can only be a claim as there was no international convention covering the crime. For example the perpetrators of the Holocaust were found guilty of crimes against humanity based on the London Charter, with its antecedence in the 1943 Moscow Declaration not with international laws on genocide.
 * 1951-1990 covers the period that CPPCG was a treaty but not enforced.
 * Post 1990 covers the period that CPPCG has been enforced.
 * --PBS 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am new here (please bear with me), and I just wanted to bring up a question on the logic of applying the term genocide to historical events of the distant past. My first instinct was that it was a mistake of anachronism in scholarship, or theory; but at the same time history tends to repeat itself, and perhaps this is history repeating itself on larger scale. Scale seems to be a important factor in determining genocide. Modern technology in logistics and means of coercion enable widespread slaughter (by man, not disease) on a scale previously unkown. Along that line, is genocide a crime of modernity? Other factor are also important, as this is a highly charged topic. Is it relevant that the author of the term "genocide" did not refer back to ancient "genocides" but rather to modern examples? Again, does anyone have misgivings using the UN's definition of genocide, in which Stalin and others political interests were protected? My second point is that, disregarding the first point, the list appears incoherent, maybe a list of alleged genocides could be drafted. Also, why are only the genocides of the last 500 years termed "alleged" but not those previous, including an uncited religious persecution (Cathars), one of countless of the genre. Also, the cases for the Roman genocides in Gaul are a stretch. In the case of the Helvetians, they were invading another tribe's land, which the Romans were defending; the primary intent here being to defend not to annihilate. Moreover, the casualties were combative, and the others were enslaved. Same objections would apply to Gaul, where the casualties are from a war of conquest, not extermination. If wars of conquest qualify as genocide, we have some serious work to do. I can help with Antiquity. Miscellaneous: Huron genocide by the Iroquois? A là Carthaginian genocide by the Romans, Plataean genocide by Spartans and Thebans in The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. It was a regular occurrence of those times, there are many, many more instances.The Jackal God 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it relevant that the author of the term "genocide" did not refer back to ancient "genocides" but rather to modern examples?
 * Articles on Wikipedia are horses designed by a committee. The reason why the 500 years upto 1990 are alleged is because I changed the title on those sections.I did it because it solved some concerns other editors had expressed (see Tibet). I did not do it before the modern era, because I think that whole section "Ancient/medieval genocides" is even more of a mess than the later sections. I have been (slowly) working backwards trying to tidy up the article, (See Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 2 to see some of the culling of the modern era which took place earlier this year), but have not even started to address the "Ancient/medieval genocides" section, hence the lack of citations in that section.  I think the best way to tackle the pre-modern era is to ask for citations for recognised scholars who claim that the event was a genocide. That should cull most of the entries, and for those it does not, it will at least give some coherent reasons as to why the event should be included in this article. --PBS 10:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, does anyone have misgivings using the UN's definition of genocide, in which Stalin and others political interests were protected?
 * The UN definition is the best around because modern international and domestic laws use it. So any prosecutions depend on it. They do not depend on any other definition and any further legal development will be using the UN definition. In fact if one reads the section "in part" in the Genocide article one will see that modern international interpretations of that phrase is working around Stalin's restrictions by arguing that the status of the people targeted within a group is significant if it threatens the existance of the whole group. The sub sections should source who is making the claims of genocide (othewise it falls under WP:OR) and which definition they are using (See for example the Soviet Union in Afghanistan), but if they do not mention a different definition, it is reasonable to assume that they are using the UN definition. --PBS 10:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginies
The entry on Australia is largely correct, but the detail seems to leave a bit to be desired. Can anyone provide refs for the information contained there? MojoTas 04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deaths due to man-made famine
After 5 years in existence, Wikipedia still has no article highlighted the deaths caused by the biggenst Communist regimes, USSR and China. Each killed tens of millions of people.

How long are we going to squabble over whether these deaths should be classified as genocide or massacres? Please read the Museum of Communism FAQ. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the Holodomor article? This artificial famine is courtesy of the USSR.  I am not sure about China related articles on this subject.--Riurik (discuss) 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Great Leap Forward, noting a range of estimates of death of 14-43million in 1958-1962.

USSR
From the history of the article:
 * this is an article about Genocide, not the discussion of cases non-agreed universally, keep those to their narrow articles. Pls no POV forks -- user:Irpen 18:34, 15 September 2006
 * Rv: USSR and genocide definiton is relevent -- user:PBS 23:24, 15 September 2006

From the header of the article:
 * Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clearcut 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 alleged genocides should be understood in this context and not regarded as the final word on these subjects.

Ripen if we were to use your definition there would only be 3 entries on this page all post 1990 as only 3 genocides have been found to be such by an international tribunal. Even if those by domestic courts were to be included, there would only be half a dozen more. This is precisely what appears on the Genocide page, in which case this page would be redundant and you might as well put it up as an "Article For Deletion". Is that your position? --PBS 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ireland, Boer genocides by the English
Hello,

I'm puzzled to see (and I searched several articles) that the terrible policies applied by the British rule in Ireland are not stated here, whereas they seem to be include some of the most horrid crimes ever.

Also, don't the first concentration camps qualify British war practices during the Boer wars as genocide?

Somehow, the British are not mentioned in this article, while they were among the first to practice modern "crimes against humanity".

128.93.62.30 10:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The actions against the populations of both nations are not usually considered to be genocides. If they are to be included here then a WP:V source is needed with the person's making the claims as it is for example with the entry Genocides in history --PBS 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you have a genocide when you kill people because they are native of an area and/or for religious reasons. Genocide is just the higher degree of ethnic/religious cleansing. The fact that your teachers presented it otherwise does not change the facts. Dpotop 13:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Lame article
This article is lamer than Timur, there are way too many claims that lack serious academic sources.. It looks like everyone threw in their lot with their claims.. I think a fact and a source tag (either for the article or sections) are in order.. Baristarim 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Ireland
I agree, a controvresial topic like this though is just asking for people with a bone to pick to start ranting. I'm working on the Ireland section right now- there was no genocide but I suppose it warrants mentioning that there wasn't so as to fight the rather horrible folk-history many people sadly still believe. Not touching the rest with a ten foot barge pole though--Josquius 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That there was no genocide is your position. And wikipedia is not about truth, but NPOV, which means representing all existing views with due weight. Given that many people consider it was a genocide, it must be said so. Simply conveying the British POV is not NPOV. Dpotop 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should take out the explanations and just list the Genocides. People can get the facts from the main articles, there is not need for summarization here. Just have the countries and then list the genocide/s commited by them, linking them to the main articles.Khosrow II 17:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. But I presume User:Josquius would like the Irish genocide not to be called a genocide. So, there's the problem of what is put in this list. So, to remain NPOV, we need at least say which POVs are presented here. For Ireland, there's a net distinction between the Irish and the British. Dpotop 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before and anyone who knows anything about Britain would tell you- I AM NOT GIVING THE BRITISH POSITION. The Irish famine is not touched upon in schools however if it was judging by the way the rest of the empire is treated no doubt it would go way over the top in villifying the British just as you are doing. I am a Irish-Briton and the 'Irish' view that you are posting is one that was used only by the IRA and their ignorant supporters. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a collection of 'here is what random man on the street thinks of event A'. It is about the truth. It was no more genocide then the US governments' methods for helping New Orleans in hurricane Katrina- horribly incompetant and ineffective yes but purposfully harmful? No way.--Josquius 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for your feelings, but there are enough references (books, articles, web pages) available to make the genocide oppinion a significative point of view. Just read Neutral point of view, which is the official guidelines for wikipedia. You may not know, but wikipedia is not bound by scientific/absolute truth, but by this notion of significative point of view. Of course, there is criticism because of this, but it's still (and for a long time) official policy. Please, revise your position accordingly. Dpotop 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, getting to the point. I am not villifying the British. I am just reporting that there is a significative community that may be mislead, but whose POV must be reported. Mind you, due to the recent movie The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film), the community will certainly grow. Also, you say IRA, but I've seen this movie in a mainstream cinema next to me (in France). And it's pretty shocking, even if only 20% of it is true. Dpotop 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The actions against the population of Ireland is not usually considered to be genocide. If it is to be included here then as WP:V says:
 * ''Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

See for example in this article the entry Genocides in history

Ireland was no more (or less) part of the British Empire than the other home countries. It makes a much sense to place the Australian section under British Empire as it does to place the USA under the same, as parts of the Australian article relate to post Empire events -- PBS 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) ---

The Anglo-Irish war has nothing to do with the potato famine. And I know of no-one who alleges that the atrocities (carried out by both sides) during the Anglo-Irish war count as genocide, so I don't know why anyone thinks 'The Wind That Shakes the Barley' is relevant. Also, there were even more deaths and atrocities carried out by the pro and anti-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War which followed.

Wikipedia actually has some decent articles on both these wars and the Irish Potato Famine, as well as the various other examples of British misrule in Ireland. Maybe you should all try reading them.

There is a bit of a tendency amongst American contributors to have a bit of a mad, romanticised view of the conflict in Ireland (I hate to generalise, but it's true). You can't just look at the History of Ireland, see how badly the British have behaved, then accept the IRA's view of a world where the British are as bad as the Nazis and all the bombs planted in shopping malls and train stations over the last 40 years were justified as part of the "war with Britain".

By the way, before you all accuse me of pro-British bias, I'm Irish- I'm just a bit sick of what is a very complicated and long period of history being appropriated by "Irish-Americans", so they can bash the Brits and make themselves feel better about their country's own history. 217.196.239.189 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)seanjw

This is *not* British wikipedia, but the international English one
So that the NPOV is not defined, as User:PBS seems to think, by oppinions within the UK. Dpotop 15:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of the three opinions edited into the article by my revision two are from the USA and one from Northern Ireland. How is that "oppinions from within the UK"? --User:PBS 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From the History of the article Dpotop wrote:
 * rv - Devious manipulation. Your citation of Boyle is biased from the beginning, because you label it (through another citation) as a "Straw man".


 * I did not choose the sources, they were provided in the previous revision that you keep reverting to. But AFAICT my re-write presents a more balanced view on the accusations of that the UK government committed a genocide by not actively intervening in the famine, with a named source that has called it a Genocide. The rest of the previous edit which you keep reverting to did not contain a claim that the actions such as those by Cromwell were a genocide. Further one of the sources is quoted as saying "...what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."


 * If you think that the wording is bias because it quotes the article from which the quote comes then please try to change the wording rather than reverting to an unsourced ramble about English and Scottish behaviour in Ireland which apart from the UK government's behaviour during the famine neither of the sources state was a genocide --PBS 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "re-write" is one of the ugliest spins I have ever seen on wikipedia. You cite the Irish position, but from a book whose title comes first and tells "It's a straw man". This is dirty. Dpotop 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The title is not from a book it is from an article, which you can not have read, otherwise you would know that the author of the piece, James Mullin, uses the expression when writing about an article in The (British) Sunday Times which is critical of his views. He criticises them by saying that they -- The Sunday Times -- are setting up a straw man: "Since I subscribed to the Irish People, Irish Voice, Irish Echo, Irish Edition, and Irish Democrat, (London) and I had not read or heard of anyone making any such comparisons, I concluded that the analogy was a propaganda device called the "straw man". Rather than answer to credible evidence of genocidal acts during the mass starvation, the British would argue that the "Famine" was not a genocide because it was not the Holocaust." -- PBS 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about your intentions, and did not read that article. However, your wording of the thing is biased. If someone is alloking for info, the general impression will be the one I had. Dpotop 07:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the existence or not of a genocide, my text only stated the existence of different points ov view, each one with its arguments. Nothing more, and without trying to say that one side is right or not. The text was moreover moderated by other editors. Never mind, I'll revert it tommorow (I finished my 3RR for today). Dpotop 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But the Irish section which you are revertin to did not include a Verifiable reliable and reputable sources for most of the text and as WP:V says "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". --PBS 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it did include. The fact that the debate is included in the school curriculum in the US makes it reputable enough. Mind you again, I'm just reporting a debate. Dpotop 07:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO to state "I'll revert it tommorow (I finished my 3RR for today)" is not within the spirit of trying to build a consensus --PBS 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This applies to you, too. You shouldn't have deleted my version, but try to modify it. You should try do do it in the spirit of consensus. Dpotop 07:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, when I will need you reformatting my talk edits, I'll tell you. Don't do it again. Dpotop 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is called refactoring and I have done it again because the heading you use is inflammatory. As this is a continuing discussion on the Irish entry I see no reason to have yet another section, particularly when it uses the rhetorical trick similar to "Do you still beat your wife" --PBS 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not inflamatory. You are pushing a POV without accepting compromise, and I am pointing it up. If you're misbehaving according to official policy, I'm in my right to point it up. Dpotop 07:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Contary to what you believe wikipedia is about the truth. By your reasoning if a few psychos think grass is blue then the article on grass should be changed to incorporate their differing POV. Some people may think it was genocide yes however they are very much in the minority. Also whats with your constant insistance its the British somehow trying to cover up their crimes in editing this article with the standard British POV? As said thats really not the case....--Josquius 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're new here, I see. No, it's not about truth, and I pointed this up 3 times already, with references to wikipedia guidelines. Did you read them? This is why you can have an article on Scientific creationism, where criticism is only one small section. This is why various Christianity branches coexist peacefully. And this is why various nationalisms can exist on wikipedia, because each can express its point of view as part of the WP:NPOV. So, being a British nationalist is not bad, as long as you don't try to silence the other side, as you and User:PBS do. Dpotop 07:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I see that User:PBS has a history of British-nationalist POV-pushing, e.g. in Bombing of Dresden in World War II. And other users say the same thing I said: he spins credible sources to get the opposite message. Dpotop 07:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been here considerably longer then you mate... You are really making yourself sound rather silly here by saying we are British nationalists. This is not at all the British POV. Its the generally accepted world view. I learned about the great famine from my Irish born and raised grandmother. We are not trying to 'silence' (sheesh, whom is putting spin on things here?) the other side. We are simply writing the generally accepted fact, your POV is very much a minority one and should be treat as such. --Josquius 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's need for a sockpuppet check here, given the previous reply by User:Josquius to a message addressed to User:PBS. :) Is there some admin here? Someone's trying to evade the 3RR. Dpotop 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And, BTW, if it's so generally-accepted worldwide, then why did the US accepted the debate in school curricula? Maybe it's because it's not that generally accepted as you may think or want me to believe. BTW, I'm not an Irish nationalist. :) Dpotop 11:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1: I was replying to something addressed to me. 2: Are you for real? I seriously doubt any one would go to this much effort with sockpuppets. Part of the US introduced the debate into the curriculum as a example of how different oppinions can distort the truth. Its common practice in teaching history in schools to teach that often there is no absolute answer. In this case with it being taught to school kids and not serious academics they have chosen a subject with some degree of controversy but where its pretty clear what the 'right' answer actually is.--Josquius 12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the mad Americans. Dpotop, the Irish Potato Famine isn't seen as genocide by the vast majority of people in Ireland. We were never taught it was a genocide at school. It's seen as an example of British misrule and the British governments' indifference to people who were supposed to be British subjects, but that's very different to saying it was a deliberate attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group. A very small minority of historians claim the potato famine was used as an opportunity to practice genocide. Saying the famine wasn't genocide is the accepted opinion amongst historians- not a British nationalist POV. There may be debates in American schools, but that doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that there is some sort of debate and differing opinions. From what I've read, there are plenty of debates in America over whether humans used to ride around on the backs of dinosaurs, does that tell you anything useful about evolution? SEANJW 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Tibet
Is it suitable to place this paragraph in the article? No more evidence to verify the existence of this socalled de 'genocide',and we put this disputable 'genocide' as a fact.This paragraph need special attention,because there is no evidence to support this point of view,and all of this accusation is subjective and cann't be treated as truth. Ksyrie 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is a suitable place for this paragraph. There is a case in Spain about it which AFAIK has not yet reached a conclusion. The paragraph does not say it was a genocide it says "that the Spanish High Court will investigate whether seven former Chinese officials, including the former President of China Jiang Zemin and former Prime Minister Li Peng participated in a genocide in Tibet" which is far from saying that a genocide has taken place, just that there is a judicial investigation. It also mentions the Chinese POV that the allegations are a "sheer fabrication" --PBS 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is just what i want to say,'genocide in tibet' differ with other genocide,because there is no evidence,no figure,no photo,no witness,just accusation. An accusation is not a fact, if we put all the accusations as the 'fact', the 'fact' cann't be true. So in my opinion, this 'genocide' should be spererated in another paragraph,or just emphasize its uncertainty.Ksyrie 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the post 1990 genocides which were found to be such by international tribunals all the other alledged genocides mentioned on this page are just that alledged genocides. At least the alledged Tibet genocide is subject to a judicial review which should at some stage reach a conclusion. Even those found guilty of participating in the Holocust were not found guilty of "genocide" but of "crimes against humanity" as the CPPCG did not exist when those trials took place. --PBS 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, but just some things which can be said as the 'evidence',if there is no 'evidence' or just a photo, this cann't be classified as a 'fact',This aricle is called Genocides in history,which implies all are facts, all had happendedt in history. Even today,someone denied some of them to be false or artificial,but there is evidence.So most people can distinguish it.While this 'Tibet Genocide' is merely a accusation without any proof.Ksyrie 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

India - Bangladesh ( Bengal )
I have put an unreferencedsect template at the top of this section. Unless some Verifiable reliable sources are added I will remove the section. Also there is a lot in the section which although nasty are not directly related to the alledged genocide, eg " Additionally, British troops were involved in an unknown number of rapes and lootings of food supplies, among other things." --PBS 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

East Timor
Shouldn't East Timor be included here? There was a real attempt by the Indonesians to reduce the ethnic Timorese and replace them with Indonesians between 1975 and 1990. Around a third of the population was killed. Isn't that Genocide? I may add it myself, though I'm new here and not sure how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.161.232 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 October 2006


 * Do you know of a verifiable reliable source that claims that the occupation was a Genocide? If so then add a section to the page presentation a summary of the article. To present a neutral point of view you should then try to find a verifiable reliable source one which says that it was not one and present a summary of that article as well. --PBS 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added a section. Should be interesting to see what everyone else thinks of it. And this is how to sign, yes?Steve3742 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

According to several sources, almost 1/3 of the population was killed. They are: John Pilger's documentary Death of a Nation; Amy Goodman's radio documentary Massacre: The story of East Timor. Goodman cites this statistic many times; transcripts and archived audio and video can be found at www.democracynow.org Mike.lifeguard 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan Nairn cites this figure as well. I'm not sure where he's cited it in print, but has certainly done so on air. Mike.lifeguard 00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan movement
The source mentioning genocide (apart from those at PBS's talk page) was presented to me by User:Hkelkar at my talk page. He cited p. 75 of "Bloodbath in Bangladesh" by Prabodh Chandra (Adarsh Publications New Delhi 1971) as saying. Little did the Bangali Muslim know that while the Britisher was sowing seeds of division of India, in Bengal the seeds of the current genocide were also being sown simultaneously.In fact the seeds were of a single strain, giving ready crop instantly and more juicy harvest in the days to come.The seeds of communalism were sown by the Britisher in Bengal.The Muslim League as a political party was also founded in Bengal.The riots that followed DAD were also at their worst in Bengal.Noakhali will remain in the memory of mankind as one of the most horrible incidents of man's cruelty towards man. Apart from that, there were the fairly Hindu-sympathetic sources provided on PBS's talk page. I'll wait for a reply before readding the occurence of genocide.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page (user Talk:PBS)
 * I have found some sources, but they may be considered biased. What do you think of them?
 * http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06jan/1101ss1.htm
 * http://www.hinduweb.org/home/sikh/rverma/bsingh2.html
 * http://www.voi.org/books/mla/ch3.htm
 *  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From User talk:Nobleeagle
 * Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. If you wish to present such information them please find a reliable source (preferably one which is peer-reviewed), and try to round off the section with the other POV. See for example Genocides in history which although without peer-reviewed articles at least quotes professor at recognised universites. --PBS 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for your comments. I do know the Point of View of the rioters on this day and can write on it, for now I will have to search for a reliable source which labels it genocide. Regards.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

--PBS 08:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where's the source for Japan & Korea, Croatia and the Soviet Union. They have not presented a source which labels the massacres there as genocide... I have provided a number, one from a book based on atrocities in Bangladesh, this is double standards. I don't think Croatia, Japan & Korea and the Soviet Union have any place here either then.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobleeagle are free to challenge and remove any section where you do not think the sources are adequate. Just because there are alleged genocides in this list that do not meet you standards of citations, is not a justification to include another badly sourced and cited section. --PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Noakhali Massacre
I removed the section on the Noakhali Massacre of which the relevant paragraph on the genocide accusation is:
 * This was followed by true genocide in form of the Noakhali Massacre. The death toll from this massacre is estimated to be in the thousands, with 50-75 thousand Hindus ethnically cleansed from the region (S.L Ghosh, Ananda Bazar Patrika 1946). Some academics have termed this as genocide ("Bloodbath in Bangladesh" by Prabodh Chandra (Adarsh Publications New Delhi 1971))

If Prabodh Chandra claims it was a genocide what definition of genocide is he using? It can not be the CPPCG definition as explained in the Genocide article because it would not meet the intent to destroy, in whole or in part. Pogroms do not meet the intent, it has to be a preplanned or ongoing conspiracy, and "50-75 thousand Hindus" would not come anywhere near in whole or in part. Further WP:CITE needs page numbers for the citation from "Bloodbath in Bangladesh"

If you (Nobleeagle) want to include this incident then please write it in a similar way to other alledged genocides eg:
 * ''Prabodh Chandra (Professor of XYZ at ABC univeristy or whatever) has claimed that the Noakhali Massacre was a genocide because ... (reference:Prabodh Chandra, "Bloodbath in Bangladesh" page 999).

Hopefully you will also be able to find another person who confirms the massacre but stops short of claiming it is a massacre and include it to create a WP:NPOV --PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide in Russian Empire
I restored a modified version of a piece about genocide in Russain Empire sumbitted previously by user HanzoHattori. This is based on well established facts. See Circassian ethnic cleansing and Caucasian War. Biophys 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient/medieval genocides
I have placed an unreferenced template in the subsections of this section because they do not cite sources. If after a few days they do not have cited sources I intend to remove them. What I mean by this is like the Ireland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sections they should include citations using verifiable reliable sources which include who is making the claim that the event was a genocide, preferablely with other sources which refute the claim for a balanced WP:NPOV. If a wikipedia inline link is provided to a main article which contains the sources, then there is no need to include them here, but as far as I can tell none of these sections contain such links to articles which have adequate citations that claim a genocide was committed. Subsections included are: --PBS 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Biblical genocides
 * Scythian slaughter of Cimmerias
 * Roman Empire
 * France
 * Genghis Khan and his sons

Alot of things need to be cleaned up. First of all can the Mongol conquest really be considered a genocide? The Mongols may have been ruthless in their conquests but they did not systematically exterminate the peoples they conquered. In fact after building their empire, they governed and ruled in the same type of administration of the conquered subjects (For example Kublai continued Chinese tradition under the Yuan dynastic title). The Mongol conquests cannot be made as genocides then but rather brutal war atrocities. Had the Mongols truly been genocidal, they would have literally put every one of their conquered subjects to the sword but that's not what they did.

The same can be said about Japan. The Japanese committed horrifying atrocities during WW2 like the Rape of Nanking but that was not a genocide. They did not systematically target a group for extermination. It was an example of soldiers going psychotic. Heinous as their crimes were, it does not qualify as a genocide.

Same goes for the alleged Arab genocides. This quote doe not qualify genocide: "Their high handed policy wreaked havoc with the whole Assyrian nation. They inflicted heavy loss of life and severe damage to the social fabric ". There are thousands of cases of wars, violence in World History where there was "heavy loss of life" and "severe damage to the social fabric". Besides the source does not proide figures: How many did the Arab Empire kill? Where (which towns) were they killed? Bless sins 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it needs further sources like all sections but no reason to delete that source, it's a good one about obvious massacres of Assyrians. Amoruso 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Massacre" is not same as genocide. Many genocides can be called a "massacre", but not vice-versa. Consider the "Montreal massacre" in which 14 women were killed. It is obviously not a genocide. Please find a scholarly source that says "genocide".Bless sins 05:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A genocide is a systematic massacre of a people, which is exactly what's described in length in that article. In fact, it's one of the most detailed descriptions of genocides. It even compares it to the holocaust etc. Amoruso 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but not every massacre is a genocide. The article does not use the term "genocide". The author probably considered using it, but decided against it for some very good reasons. As for the holocaust, it is a common practice of people to draw parallel between minor injustices and Hitler's hienous crimes. Bless sins 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no question the Arab empire engaged in genocides against local populations. What do you think happened to the Samaritans? There are 600 of them left. Amoruso 05:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I myself have opinions about various political entities that (wrongfully) exist in the Middle East today. However, Wikipedia is not my opinion, or your opinion. Its the opinions of respected scholars at prestigious institutions. I don't make the rules - I only follow them.Bless sins 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire Genocides_in_history should be deleted except for "Arab Empire" (for which we should wait for sources for about 4-7 days, and then delete if we find no sources). Also, remeber that Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. To accuse an entity of massacre or violence or war is one thing - but to accuse some empire/state of genocide is something truly exceptional.Bless sins 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Genocide definitely occurred in the Bible - God gives the command in Deuteronomy 20:16, and the Israelites carry it out throughout Joshua. So, I think that section should be restored. Brilliand 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like what Bless Sins is advocating is a minimalist approach to the defintion and application of genocide, as advanced by such political theorists as Michael Ignatieff. The point is, at what point is loss of human life a genocide? if we are to apply the letter of the UN definition, specifically, the "in part," then what loss of human life is not genocide. Recently in Mexico a former ex-president was accused of genocide for his part in the "killing" (i would say massacre) of some 300 protesters. Tiananmen Square massacre? no, now it's genocide. Everything is genocide. And this depradates the value of the horror and tragedy for which this word was conjured to invoke, horror and tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust. Scale, then, would appear to have gravity in applying genocide. Besides, what it looks like is individuals applying the term of genocide to their impressions of world history without scholarly research or sources to back them up. The Jackal God 03:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guatemala's genocide during the civil war
The war crimes and overall atrocities in Guatemala was considered genocide by the UN and many South and Central American nations. Am I alone in thinking this should be added?

Bosnian Genocide & suggestion for improved organization of article
Hi, I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but victimhood is all the rage in modern politics and international politics is not different. Everyone wants their suffering labelled as "Genocide". I'm not denying that there is such a thing as genocide or the suffering which has happened. However, I think this article could be a little bit more careful about how the term is applied to various events.

Take the Bosnian genocide section as an example.
 * While it is true that the ICTY has labelled the Srebrenica massacre as an "Act of Genocide" it has not applied this term to the entire war. Applying the term "Bosnian genocide" to the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks during the Bosnian war is NOT a widely accepted term. It would be more correct to say that the term is used by "some human rights groups and Bosniak politicans". Bosnia is interesting from a genocide point of view in that the Srebrenica massacre was the case labelled as genocide in an international court.
 * It would be better to write that in addition to the Srebrenica massacre being ruled an "Act of Genocide" by the icty, some have argued that the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks by Bosnian Serbs and Croats as well as the ethcnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia and of Albanians and, subsequently, Serbs and Roma by Albanians in Kosovo, also constitute genocide.
 * Mentioning the Mujahedeen and the "impartiality of the ICTY" in this context is silly
 * the section has no sources or references despite making quite a few claims (eg 1 million displaced by Serbian ethnic cleansing).

Over all there seems to be a 'problem' with a lot of cases wanting to be labelled as genocide. To avoid having to pick and choose between them, I suggest outlining some of the most well acknowledged cases (armenians, jews under the nazis, ustasha, srebrenica massacre, rwanda and darfur) and the including the rest under a separate "other possible/claimed cases of genocide" section. What do ya think? Roncevaux 12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and I would qualify that alleged genocides be sourced with scholars applying the "term" genocide - this principle seems to have been thrown out the window here. The Jackal God 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia
in the article democide, there was a table of those events considered to be democides on the right hand side on top of the page. on there, Indonesia was listed to be having 2 democides between the years 1955-2001. i was sondering if anybody knows about this. please message me. thanks!

chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

and like, what i was wondering about since there is a section about the indonesians and the east timor stuff, it got me confused because there was= --the murders and killings of indonesians by the japanese, which japan has not stated an official apology or admittance yet

and

--there was the indonesia and east timor conflict

so, anybody care to help me?? pleazeee??

chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

China (1500-1914)
Is there a domain expert who can repair or replace the section Genocides_in_history? As it stands at the moment, it is absolutely incomprehensible. --Donperk 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sabra-Shatila - NPOV
It came as a suprise to me, because I consider it a massacre not an act of genocide, but according to the UN sources the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide See: A/RES/37/123(A-F) Section D: "2.  Resolves that the massacre was an act of genocide." Adopted at the 108th UN General Assembly plenary meeting 16 December 1982 and the 112th plenary meeting, 20 December 1982. As the hidden comment says we also need the voting numbers here for this. --PBS 20:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A "surprise"...
 * Congratulation to have found this. That is a good and serious work !
 * I think that is quite clear Wikipedia can add the events of Sabra and Shatila as a "genocide in history", unless "major historians" analysed that resolution and critized this, which I don't know.
 * For NPOV I think it is better to mention this with a minimum of facts and to refer to the main article about the subject.
 * I would suggest (after correction of my English) something like :
 * Sabra and Shatila events, where between ... and ... people, mainly civilians, were recognized as a large-scale massacre and an act of genocide at 108th General Assembly plenary meeting of 16 December 1982.
 * Alithien 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I take no credit for finding this. It was added by User:Bless sins (Revision as of 04:26, 3 December 2006). I just checked the sources and added links to those sources (Revision as of 08:12, 4 December 2006). --PBS 09:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My point of view about these events was so clear to me that I must even not have read the source.
 * Sorry for that. No prob. for the use of the word "genocide". Alithien 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After thinking and discussing about this, it comes clear to me that only stating, without more comment, that Sabra and Shatila was a genocide is not neutral. Geno-cide or ethno-cide means the purpose of a "large scale massacre" (such as Sabra and Shatila) is to eliminate an ethnic group (which it is not the case of Sabra and Shatila). Clear right examples are the amerindians, the armenians, the jews, the muslims of Sebrenica or the tutsi in Rwanda. Therefore, even if Sabra and Shatila was acted as a "genocide" by UNO I think the fact this surprised us indicates this must not be considered as such any more (or only was considered as such by UNO). Therefore we should find information about this and add this to keep neutrality. I add the NPOV flag in the article until this can be solved. Alithien 07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem is that the UN definition of "genocide" is quite a lot wider than most people (me included) would expect. It was clarified in the early 2000s but at the time of this UN resolution there was just the official definition which includes a phrase "in part" that can easily be interpretted as including a large massacre of members of a group.  This is all discussed in genocide.  A second problem is that we aren't supposed to be making our own determinations of things like this.  That would be Naughty Original Research.  We are supposed to just cite the reports and opinions of "reliable sources".  In this case I don't see how the UNGA can fail to be classed as a reliable source, but there's nothing to prevent a dissenting opinion from some other reliable source from being included too. --Zerotalk 08:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some abortions techniques or displacement of children from one group to another is also considered to be geno-cide. And of course some large scale massacres are also in the list. But that doesn't mean all. I don't want to argue that Sabrah and Shatila was NOT a genocide. (It was not or let's say I don't mind - it is what it is). I just want to ask you if you don't have the information to add from historians or scholars that would state this because as you say our mind has no value. Alithien 13:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I an please to see that one of my contributions to Wikipedia has been read by someone :-) I think that UN resolution  37/123/D says more about the politics of the UN than it does about genocide :-( but as you say "we aren't supposed to be making our own determinations of things like this" and it is in a section called "Alleged genocides from 1951 to 1990". Adding a reliable source to balance the POV would be the way to go (as it is for all the other alledged examples in this file where they have not already been added). However the POV flag is unwarrented. The article is not saying that it was a genocide just that the "United Nations General Assembly ... declared it to be an act of genocide". The balance to that POV would be to find a reliable source which denied that such a resolution was passed which is clearly nonsense. --PBS 12:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * UNGA resolutions are indeed political beauty contests, not statements of fact, nor even reasoned discourse. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I fully agree with you both except last sentence of Philip.
 * It is not neutral because there lacks that reliable source that would explain -not that the UN resolution is false for any bad ideological reason- but that historians do not consider Sabra and Shatila as a genocide
 * I lack that info -I don't know if this exists- but I think it should be found because I don't see how it would not exist. If I had it, be sure I would not have called you and would have directly added this... Alithien 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One other point See Genocide last paragraph. One can argue (as was done in the case of the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic trial) that the massacre was a genocide because "the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered". A case could be built on this argument that that the part of the population that were available to be killed in the Sabra-Shatila  massacre meets this criteria for genocide. Personally I do not like the argument the court used in paragraph 13, because I think they were wrong in fact (the Nazis were just as nasty to Jews living in Africa as they were in Europe and the Rwanda killings were substantial even if Tutsis in neighboring countries were included in the total)  and this open the door to defining genocide by perpetrators reach, which could lead to situations were small fish like  Krstic are guilty of genocide because of their limited reach, but not their superiors because the numbers killed in relation to the superiors reach was smaller than the threshold for genocide. But whether I think it was good or bad it has set a precedent for the interpretation of genocide, along with another argument in the trial that some in a group are more important than others -- which leads the door open for negating the Soviet blocking of political and economic groups in the treaty definition. --PBS 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put this in is because that it is an "Allegation of genocide", like many other examples, and like the title of the section suggests.Bless sins 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be neutral, we have to explain why it could be an allegation and not a fact. It sounds from the article that it is because the law about genocide was only inforced in 1991 (by memory). I don't think it is enough concerning Sabra and Shatila. Explained just below from an external source. Alithien 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More info
Ok. I think this is explained by this guy in the mentionned book. I looked at in google books looking for Sabra and Shatila and I think he is rather clear about how "Sabra and Shatila" genocide resolution has to be seen (pp.234-235). I will add this in the wp:fr. If I were better in English, I would do it here too but if I understand the nuances I can hardly transcript them properly in English. Alithien 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The UN is biased towards the Palestinians but ONLY if the Israelis are involved. Here, there were Israel-Allied Lebanese. But when the anti-Israel Lebanese (Shiite Amal Movement militia) attacked THE SAME camps, completely wrecked them and killed ~3,000 (the co-called The War on the Camps, at the time of Amal's Brothers' War with Hezbollah), this of course didn't matter at all (did you even heard about it?).

Palestinians are horribly victimised by the Iraqi Shia right now ("leave the country or die", no less), they were expelled en masse from Libya few years ago (and from Kuwait in 1991), etc., but this doesn't matter, because... guess the reason. Also they shoot and kindap each other in the Hamas-Fatah conflict, but the world is silent (just compare with the incredible 2002 "Jenin massacre" BS).

Or, moving away from Palestinians, massacre of 20,000 in neighbouring Syria, in the SAME YEAR (1982). Why, not a genocide? Ah, I see, no Jews in sight here too. The Lebanese were inflicting atrocities on each other and the foreigners (Palestinians, expelled from Jordan) a long time before the Israeli involvement, but... oh, you know already.

Cut this idiocy. --HanzoHattori 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't wish to get into the argument of this, because there's no point. At the end of the day, what you (and I) think is a genocide, doesn't matter becuse it is WP:OR. However, I do want to make two comments. One: genocide is not killing a lot of people, rather genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group."
 * Thus although the Hiroshima bombings killed way more than Sabra-Shatila, they will never be considered genocide, because it was not the intent of the U.S. to destroy the Japanese. It depends on intention, not on the number.
 * Secondly, are you saying that "the Israelis are involved" in the Sabra Shatila??? If no, then your entire argument is baseless, since the Israelis are not involved, they have nothing to do whether Sabra-Shatila is considered a genocide or not.Bless sins 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Israelis (IDF) were involved in the massacre in the way they cordoned off the area AND let the allied Lebanese in, there was also alleged logistical support for the Christians. The whole thing was and is such a huge matter precisely because of this - here you go, a "massacre by the Jews".

On and there's already the War of the Camps article. Let's see:

At the end of the war an official Lebanese government reported that the total number of casualties for these battles was put at 3,781 dead and 6,787 wounded in the fighting between Amal and the Palestinians. Furthermore, the number of Palestinians killed in internal struggles between pro-Syrian and independent organizations was around 2,000. The real number is probably higher because thousands of Palestinians were not registered in Lebanon and the blockade meant that no official could access the camps so that all the casualties could not be counted.

Awesome, so the Palestinians were even killing each other (the same camps, mind you). Now ask the average people on a street (outside Lebanon) if they ever heard about this. --HanzoHattori 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is moving away from the issue at hand -- should the POV template be at the top of this article because it is reported that the UN called the Sabra and Shatila a genocide in a parent section which is labeled "Alleged genocides from 1951 to 1990". It is no use arguing that under the more recent definition of genocide it would not be called one. (A) because the section is not saying that it would, and (B) see above it might still qualify as one given the arguments presented in paragraph 13 of the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004). I do not see how one can find a reliable source post the 2004 Appeals Judgement which can categorically say that it was not a genocide given the text in paragraph 13. If it can be found then it ought to be added, but the paragraph as it stands does not present an unbalanced POV and the POV template should be removed. --PBS 10:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It shoiuld be removed only when the information concerning why it is alleged is added and I have indicated where some reliable sources indicate this and why.
 * It is not alleged because there was no law at that time. See in the source why but the author is quite clear that : all democratic countries voted against the resolution or abstained and he concludes that sabra and shatila genocide case is not a good example (see in the source precise words).
 * Nevertheless you can remove the flag if you wish.
 * Alithien 12:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Inquistion
Shouldn't this be included on the page as thousands of Jews, Moors, and Protestants were killed. Casey14 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent
The entire section was ridiculous propaganda. Partition caused the genocide of Hindus from Pakistan. Almost all Hindus were thrown out of Pakistan. In contrast, there are still millions of Muslims in India. Also, it was Pakistan that conducted genocide in Bangladesh in 1971 (see 1971 Bangladesh atrocities). India Rising 16:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, genocide is state sponsored mass murder. Since no states existed in the subcontinent at the time (both India and Pakistan were fledgling states with little or no resources to combat the riots that spiralled out of control) there was no "genocide" during partition. I am apalled at the level of crap that passes for encyclopedic content on wikipedia. India Rising 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal only because there are no sources, but I don't agree with your analysis.Bless sins 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about Gujrat Genocide? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.0.137.134 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone inserted his favourite here...
IMO the article became almost useless list of modern political disputes and attempts to serve historical justice and fails to give the overview of the phenomenon. In few cases it is (IMHO) misleading or trivializing.

Some examples:
 * Epidemies are indirectly labeled as genocidal tools. People weren't that technologically advanced in the past.
 * Genocide (in broad sense and on smaller or larger scale) was frequently used as a political tool by tribes and states since ancient times until quite recently. The current text suggests it is something very exceptional and able to fit into a manageable list.
 * Second half of 19th century in China was bit more complicated than the current text suggests, with death toll in tens of millions. Whole ethnic groups joined this or that side as suffered heavily for the decision - e.g. Hakkas.
 * Persecution of Christians by Tokugawa era should not be here as it was a minor event. The much larger sect of Budhist monks has been exterminated as well, not to mention that (by the standards of the article) the second invasion to Korea is even more gruesome example.

The article could be restructured into three parts:
 * 1. Definitions, including general overview of recent political/media attempts to extend the definition. History of the term.
 * 2. Overview of the role of genocides in the history. Details of just very few well researched and undisputed genocides as embedded examples. Plus plea not to expand this part.
 * 3. The list with of all the modern disputes and claims and political attempts to redefine and extend the term. This part would contain the larger part of current text.

This way a reader would initially see stable and usable parts 1 and 2 and only then he will get into the (expected) war-zone. Possibly the part 3 may be offloaded into sub-article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A Soviet Union section
This section is very obscure and contains a lot of marginally relevant information. It mentions many questionable cases, majority of which have never been recognised as genocide. In addition, it simply misinterpret some sources by taking the quotes out of context. For instance, it states:
 * "Dr. Michael Ellman claims that the 'national operations' of the NKVD, particularly the 'Polish operation', may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention. The terror against the church may also qualify. "

whereas the expanded quote demonstrates that the author's idea has been distorted:
 * "It should be noted that there are other actions of Team-Stalin in the 1930s that might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38 (but not the victims of the operation against the ‘Harbintsy’ since these were former railway workers rather than an ethnic group). Of these, the ‘Polish operation’, which led to 111,000 death sentences, seems to have been the biggest (Petrov & Roginskii 2003). There are three objections to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide. The first is that NKVD order no. 00485 of 11 August 1937 (the order for the ‘Polish operation’) does not explicitly target Poles as such, but only members of a (former and in 1937 already for many years non-existent) Polish organisation, POV [POV is an abbreviation for Pol’skaya Organizatsiya Voiskovaya or in Polish Polska Organizacja Wojskowa] and certain specific groups of Poles.38 However, in implementing order 00485, NKVD officers interpreted it as an order to arrest Poles (since they could not arrest members of POV because nonexistent members of non-existent organisations cannot be arrested). In its implementation it was predominantly an example of killing people (and sending them to the Gulag) based on their ethnicity.39 The second objection to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide is that only a minority of Soviet Poles were victims of it. According to the 1937 census there were 636,000 Poles in the USSR in January 1937, but the number of persons sentenced in the ‘Polish operation’ was ‘only’ about 140,000 or 22%. Whether this is enough to meet the UN Convention criterion of ‘in whole or in part’ depends on the interpretation of ‘in part’ (see above).40 The third objection that many of those sentenced (about a third) in the ‘Polish operation’ were not in fact ‘Poles’ (Petrov & Roginsky 2003, pp. 166 – 171). Since no legal tribunal to try the crimes of Stalinism has been established, there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38"

In addition, in actuality the Ellman's article (as well as his conclusions) are much more general. According to him, at least two different definitions of genocide exist, strict (UNO convention) and loose, and one can come to different conclusions depending of which one is used. He concluded that whereas Stalin's action fit a loose definition of genocide,
 * ".... such a broad definition would mean that genocide was no longer a rare and uniquely horrible offence. A large number of historical events would become genocides (Jones 2006), ranging from the expansion of the Zulu kingdom in early nineteenth century South Africa, to the Atlantic slave trade, the European colonisation of the Caribbean islands and American continent, the atom bomb on Nagasaki (and possibly also the one on Hiroshima), and the economic sanctions of the 1990s against Iraq. This also means that countries such as Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, UK and USA, which participated in or were responsible for one or more of the events in the above list, would become guilty of genocide."

IMO, the section should be rewritten and all irrelevant or tangentially relevant materials and links should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)