Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 8

Americas
Main article: Population history of American indigenous peoples From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus set foot on the Americas to the 1890 massacre of Sioux at Wounded Knee by the United States militia

"militia" should be amended to "military" if this refers to Custer's 7th cavalry

Does the statement about the decline to "1.8" actually mean 1.8 million? It wasn't clear to me, though maybe I'm being too pedantic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.199.200 (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing Page
there used to be a page titled "List of Genocides" or something similar, that had the numbers in simple box format, as well as the number of killings under certain dictators. What happened to this page?--74.178.227.242 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See above under the section Politicide -- PBS (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See also List of wars and disasters by death toll there is a POV list of genocides there. -- PBS (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The list was deleted on Aug 20, 2010 by the user PBS with the explanation "moved list to talk page as most of the list was not about genocides". The list as it was may be seen on this history page. Sctechlaw (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sikh Genocide
Why was the Sikh Genocide removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.46.147 (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of the well recorded genocides by Temurlane and Nadir Shah in India, Iran and Afghanistan......but Eric Margolis is quoted as mentioning Mongols as genocidal. Well, Temur and Nadirshah have been historically authenticated as much worse according to contemporaray accounts in the countries they raided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.8.208 (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to learn more about Genocide
I think the article is focused too much on the international law and presents examples. Genocide is horrible and so against humanity, however during the known history, people never stopped doing it, so I think there should be something beyond the international law. for example, explain it from different point of view such as anthropology or philosophy may provide more help. I just thought its not enough to say it from international law or simple facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion based on Dutch Wikipedia article
The Dutch page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Overzicht_Genocides.5B5.5D lists a genocide committed in the Chatham Islands by the Maori against the Moriori. It doesn't have a source. I suggest that we discuss whether this should be added to the English article. 82.20.0.62 (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read about it... it should definitely be added. --Yalens (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC involving this article
Content noticeboard

This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam War is NOT genocide
Genocide is the deliberate killing of a certain religious, ethnic, or national group. The Vietnam War was never a deliberate and systematic killing of any religious, ethnic or national group. Using Agent Orange is not genocide, because genocide must be deliberate. Agent Orange's purpose was to destroy crops and trees. The human side-effects were not fully understood at the time.

I have removed the Agent Orange part, in addition to this part: "A film called U.S. Techniques of Genocide in Vietnam describes the use of elaborate U.S. weapons against civilian targets in Vietnam such as anti-personnel weapons designed to kill human targets while causing minimal damage to buildings, steel pellet bombs that zigzag in all directions and the internationally banned dum-dum bullet. "

Because it is not notable in any way; just because a film says it is genocide does not make it so. The citation isn't working either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.56.170 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I personally agree that Vietnam was not an act of genocide, the standard for inclusion here seems to be that one or more notable people said it was. So Jean Paul Sartre calling Vietnam a genocide may be enough. However, you were correct to remove the two references. The Agent Orange material is classic synthesis where a mental operation of the reader is necessary to relate it to the topic. It was also sourced to a blog, but the writer has been published by third party sources on this topic so it probably passes WP:SPS. The other link is dead and the film turns out to be a production of the North Vietnamese army in 1968 with minimal Google hits. At most it might be a reliable source for the assertion that in 1968, the North Vietnamese accused the Americans of committing genocide in their country.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree lets make it at least two independent scholars state it was a genocide. I have just removed two entries based on one source which says that something was a genocidal massacre. genocidal massacres are very nasty but they are not genocide. -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The existing Sartre ref was a washout--probably non-reliable self published page which made no reference to genocide. I found that Sartre did publish an essay arguing that US intervention in Vietnam = genocide, so have changed the text accordingly and added the reference. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

China under Mao should be excluded
Vietnam isn't the only questionable candidate for deletion. Who in the world placed Mao Zedong's rule in China as Genocide?!! True, tens of millions of people were killed, but due to mismanagement, not due to deliberate killings. The famine during the Great Leap Forward, for instance, was an accident, not a deliberate destruction of peasants. Why in the world would Zedong have any interest in destroying loyal peasants? What's next, adding an earthquake as Genocide? --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems also to raise the question of how something can be a genocide if the killers and victims are the same ethnicity. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be WP:OR, there is no impediment to the contention that one can commit genocide against one's own people. As for @Justice and Arbitration, "mismanagement?" Scholars are increasingly viewing genocide for its fundamental nature and acts involved--as opposed to the convention which was passed which stripped murder for political/et al. reasons to acquiesce the Soviet Union--and including both Stalin and Mao, considered "canonical cases" of genocide. Nor is culpable negligence to be dismissed out of hand (to the question of "mismanagement" if it were that to begin with). P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? The definition given in the lede is "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." Examples which would fit within this are Germans-Jews, Hutu-Tutsi, Americans-Vietnamese, etc. But not Chinese-Chinese. You seem to be using "genocide" as a synonym for "mass killings by states" (which has its own series of controversial articles). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In numerous cases, it was not Zedong's intent to destroy, but actually to improve the status of Chinese citizens. The fact that some of his ideas were so ill-considered that they actually resulted in the opposite doesn't really change the question of "deliberate destruction". As already mentioned, the goal of Great Leap Forward was to boost steel production, not kill people. Famine was just a side effect of bad planning. In the end, Zedong was the one who canceled the plan and returned the situation back to normal by importing food from overseas. Compare that to Holodomor which shows signs of a deliberately caused famine by increasing the quota for crops of the Ukranian peasants. Zedong's Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries on the other hand, was deliberate, but is closer to democide. Tibet could be categorized as Genocide, but that is already in the article, and thus Mao's section should be deleted.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am boldy deleting it based on the reasons given in this discussion.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the section. I would also note that of the sources I could check online, only one (An Indian newsmagazine, Outlook) used the word "genocide" and that source acknowledged that what happened in China is NOT genocide under the Lemkin definition (which we use in the lede). It proposed an alternative definition, not widely accepted, which would essentially make "genocide" and "mass killing by states" interchangeable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted sections
PBS--not sure I agree with your changes (which I am not reverting, you being an admin and all). Wouldn't we need consensus on this page as to the "two reference" rule? Also, I am not sure the "genocidal massacre" distinction vs. "genocide" is that clear. The term "genocidal massacre" seems to be used very loosely, to mean either "incident of one ethnic group rising up against another" as during the partition of India, or "one of a series of genocidal actions carried out by the state against its people". The latter definition at least belongs in this article, and at least one of the sections you deleted, concerned Ugandan state action against tribes. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Administrative rights gives me no special status for editing the content of an article. I would never and no administrator ought to use administrative tools over a content dispute in which they are involved. If they do so then they should be reported to WP:ANI.


 * A genocidal massacre is not genocide. They have different definitions and this is an article about genocides in history not genocidal massacres in history, or any of the other related event such as forced mass migrations. It simple really all we list here are events that without giving undue weight to minority views (of fringe views eg killing seals is genocide).


 * The reason for two independent view can be easily justified under WP:UNDUE this is a very contentions area and often book sales are helped by making controversial statements. If something is widely seen to be a genocide then it is trivial to find two or more sources to back that up. There is clear cases were two sources are not needed if the one source is for example a judicial finding (or the findings of an official international body such as the UN), this is because we are not reporting that an incident was a genocide but that a court found it to be so. See for example the sections "Dirty War in Argentina" and the section immediately following it.


 * It does not matter if you or I think that what the Ugandan government is or is not genocide. If it actions are widely seen to be genocide (and not just a civil war and barbarity) then it will be easy to find several independent reliable weighty sources to back it up.


 * The thing that I think that confuses some editors is that they seem to believe that we should be constructing a list of genocides. We are not (and should not), we are constructing a list of events that some notable people (often genocide scholars) or reputable organisations describe as genocide and if there is dissent by notable people or reputable organisations then for NPOV reasons we shoudl mention them as well (for example the sections "Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon")


 * The current section on the Greek genocide is a good example of how not to do it, it does not mention who considers it to be a genocide instead it describes the events and the opinions from the time and by its position on this page leads the casual reader to infer the by its location the implication that Wikiepdia considers those events to be a genocide. Yet a look at the introduction of the article Greek genocide would furnish all the information needed to turn the section into a factual statement of what happened, who considers it to be a genocide and who does not.


 * I used to actively edit this article but have backed off, as it was always a chore and never a pleasure to police it and knock sections into shape so that they briefly describe the facts and who thinks it a genocide, or delete the section if few notable sources consider it to be a genocide. I just wish someone would go through the list section by section now because this article is in need of it. -- PBS (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why has British genocide been excluded? Kenya and South Africa?
Why has this article not covered the British genocidal actions in South Africa at the turn of the century (where "concentration camps" where invented by Kitchener), and more recently in Kenya in the 1950s? I quote the following article: "Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya by Caroline Elkin. The massacre of some 300,000 Kikuyu by British forces in the 1950s is arguably the least known mass slaughter of the 20th century".

All genocides must be mentioned, giving all victims a chance to be treated equally with the dignity and respect they deserve, and not be "airbrushed" out of history. We must be thorough and comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.191.159 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt it has been purposely excluded, why don't you add both of those to the list? Wikipedia is important because everyone can edit it so give it a shot!--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Before they can be included there has to be reliable sources that state that the events were genocides. -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Boer Genocide
 * Kikuyu Genocide
 * Use these sources from books.google.com as a start, but also try looking in you local libraryProfitoftruth85 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kikuyu Genocide
 * Use these sources from books.google.com as a start, but also try looking in you local libraryProfitoftruth85 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Use these sources from books.google.com as a start, but also try looking in you local libraryProfitoftruth85 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Use these sources from books.google.com as a start, but also try looking in you local libraryProfitoftruth85 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Use these sources from books.google.com as a start, but also try looking in you local libraryProfitoftruth85 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Use these sources from books.google.com as a start, but also try looking in you local libraryProfitoftruth85 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this page actually used to have a section dealing with the Boers a time back. I could be mistaken though.... there is info on it elsewhere in wikipedia, so it wouldn't be hard to transfer it. --Yalens (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have only looked at the first source the pages 152–153 can be discounted, Page (12),13 hardly makes this a main stream view: "Again this may be true in most cases, but it does not explain why Abraham Lincoln permitted genocide against white southerners in America, or why the British sought to destroy the Boers, or most obviously how Hitler turned an electoral victory into one of the most egregious genocides in history. Other anomalies include the American genocide against the Japanese, the Africans against Africans, British against the Kikuyu, and India's actions against the Gujarat Muslimns."

Particularly when he states on page 6 "Consequently they [Charny and most other respected scholars who have addressed addressed the question of genocide] fail to understand that a genocide can occur without anyone being killed". In this Allen Cooper is far away from what is generally considered to be genocide not only among the scholars, but also in international law. --PBS (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that is definitely a nondesireable source. But that doesn't mean you can label the view (correct or not, as this page includes "alleged genocides") as fringe just because one person who supports also supports some other, somewhat unrelated, odd idea... at least in the case of the Boers, I strongly suggest we use sources from other pages with regard to the incidents in the Second Boer War. Articles to borrow from include Emily Hobhouse (who exposed what the British apparently called "concentration camps" at the time....) and Second Boer War to list a couple...--Yalens (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now reviewed the two other sources mentioned and with the pages available to preview on line, they do not appear to support the view that what happened to the Boers was a genocide. The nearest I could find was on searching Levene for "Boer" was: Levene (2005) page 270 mentioning that the Boers thought they were subject to extermination, not that Levene thought it a genocide.


 * The point is, that if it had been a genocide as the British won the war why did the British not exterminate all of the Boer population or at the very least "ethnically cleans" the two states territories which now had diamond and gold fields of the Boers? Instead when peace was agreed, the British allowed the interned Boers to go back to their farms and towns. The peace proved to be an enduring one, with the Boers fighting with the British in the two World Wars, the first of which started only 10 years after the end of the Boer War and for which only a small minority of Boers supporting the Maritz Rebellion.


 * We include in the article two alleged genocides one carried out by the English and one carried out by the British. In those cases there are a number of sources that express the opinion that these were genocides. To date no one has produced any reliable sources that state that what happened in the camps was a genocide. The major link seems to be that the British called their camps "concentration camps", which was used by the Third Reich as a euphemism for their death camps, which is why states since then have used other euphemistic terms for concentration camps such as "fortified villages" (British term Malaya) "strategic hamlets" (American term Vietnam) etc. -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those were just some quick sources that I pulled from google books, but much of the scholarship on the Boer Wars describes them as a genocide. Someone just needs to visit a library and get some books on the subject.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Genocide carried out against Azeris was removed by some users here there are enough reliable sources to include Azerbaijan in the article.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The so-called recognition from 30 members of the European Parliament includes 20 members from Turkey and Azerbaijan. That leaves 10 uninvolved members out of a total of 636. This is not significant enough to be claimed as a recognition. The rest of your sources are primary material from closely involved countries. Simply fails WP:UNDUE and WP:V as well as WP:RS. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How about the othet genocides in the article? Are they more reliable than this Khojaly which happened only 2 decades ago. You prove to be biased. Ip is right contesting the removal. Dighapet (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please avoid any personal comments. My personal motivation is not your concern. Discuss the policies and reply to arguments in a logical fashion please. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. But you are free to remove any other weak cases as well. I have not read the other sections. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. How very comfortable to ask not mention other cases. I will not remove others. Anyone who wants changing and removing big section should discuss first, not just blindly remove. So why did you not ask MarshallBagramyan to first discuss removing Khojaly massacre but warned me and ip user? Double standards? Please be fair. Marshallbagramyan's removal was unjust and you should warn him. Dighapet (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. I explained this on your talpage but I will repeat it again. Marshallbagramyan's revert was based on policy and it was fully justified due to the absence of any reliable source calling this a recognised genocide. So far you have not provided neither sources nor arguments to support your addition of this material into the article. The onus is on you to prove that this is a recognised genocide and you have not done so. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I explain to you that it is a genocide not less of any genocide shown on the page of genocides. Here I can post plenty:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Ucl0kvNaVAC&pg=PA184&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BKTRPNR_nlgC&pg=PA164&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=4-9wzzy41PMC&pg=PA484&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false

http://www.google.com/search?q=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&start=10&sa=N

http://books.google.com/books?id=BMYRAQAAMAAJ&q=Khojaly+Genocide&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=yByJTZmqF8vIcaStubkM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK

http://books.google.com/books?id=N1tdb5-rGa8C&pg=PA37&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=M7EWi89eCA4C&pg=PA2878&dq=Khojaly +Genocide&hl=en&ei=ZByJTYbZJoSxcdGIzaMM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Khojaly%20Genocide&f=false

When you review all be respectful and do not speak with double standards. Dighapet (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I applaud Dr. K. for taking such a tactful and judicious stance regarding this issue, especially regarding the sources used in that section. As responsible editors, at some points we are forced to make judgment calls regarding the insertion of contentious material. While I do not wish to comment on the merit of the other events listed on this article, I will comment on the one(s) I removed because I am relatively familiar with them. Tying together five or six events, each separated by about three or four decades and spanning an entire century does not fit into the definition of genocide. If we take the UN Convention's definition of a genocide, then we understand that a genocide is an attempt to wipe out an entire people through either killing or assimilation. The events included in that section, leaving aside the disputes revolving around them, were singular in nature and in no reliable source do we ever come across that there was some concerted plan enacted by a group to annihilate the people of Azerbaijan. There might be a lot of sources originating in Azerbaijan which might say otherwise, but the absence of third-party sources to corroborate such claims is indicative enough that not enough credence should be attributed to them. I should like to note that there is strong evidence to suggest that user Dighapet is a sock puppet of another editor who was recently banned from editing articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (see here).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Marshall Bagramyan. I agree that the sources are not reliable. The Google results above mention Azerbaijan's claims of a genocide but there are no third party reliable sources to support this as a genocide. As far as the sock aspect of the whole situation I am not familiar with the local socks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis  22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This article sucks horribly (Vietnam? seriously? Says who? Satre? Oh, lol), but the Khojaly Massacre section was roughly the worst. You simply can't make any kind of sensible case out of that, certainly not one that belongs here. This page needs clear criteria for inclusion, if it's not just going to be a random List of so-called genocides that somebody somewhere accused somebody else of at some point on history - which is more or less what it is now. Moreschi (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is tough to keep the article from deteriorating. The constant edit-warring and constant argumentation over obviously wrong points make keeping up the article to some acceptable standard very difficult. I understand why PBS commented above that he doesn't feel like editing this article anymore. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 11:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the outcome. The suggestion has been made elswhere on this page by PBS that we agree to have two reliable independent third party sources at a minimum to call something a genocide. Regardless of the existence of sources, each example should also fit the definition in the lede of "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." Based on this discussion, I am going to boldly delete the section on Mao's China, which does not meet the definition because it alleges Chinese-on-Chinese violence in which no-one was singled out for being a separate ethnicity. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Also, this really needs to be split into two main sections - those actions generally regarded as genocide by the majority of serious scholarship (Armenia, the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia etc), and those alleged to be genocide (Irish Famine and so forth). Quite where you put the Holodomor I don't know, but we have to draw the line somewhere between the Holocaust and Australia's Stolen generation. Moreschi (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"The so-called recognition from 30 members of the European Parliament includes 20 members from Turkey and Azerbaijan" Waht that does mean? It is not your duty to decide who signed it, the only reality is Azerbaijani genocide recognized by Council of Europe.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It means that it's not really recognized by the PACE. Just because the Turkish and Azerbaijani delegates and a handful of their supporters adopted this resolution does not mean that the PACE has now taken an official stance on the matter. The wording belongs to those who drafted the resolution and it's really doubtful that a text drafted by impartial authors would make such outlandish claims as "Genocide became an integral part of the Azeri history starting from the partition of the Azeri lands with the treaties of Gulustan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828 (!)." That statement alone would imply that there has been a concerted plan to wipe out the Azerbaijani people for over two hundred years. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the word genocide is abused nowadays for sensational impact and most of the time the word is used to describe events which do not even come close to meeting the definition set by the UN.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Azeri genocide should be included as Azerbaijan like other countries also have legal right to state. It is funny, how all counter users are from Armenia due they are the guilty party --NovaSkola 21:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Marshal do you remember how France recognized the Armenian genocide it was just like this case so it is not your duty investigate the ethnicity of people who signed. There is a decision about Azeri genocide and it should be included. --193.140.194.102 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples which are not reliably sourced or consistent with definition
Further to the Azerbaijan discussion immediately above, we seem to have started a clean up effort to remove sections which don't belong here because they are either not reliably sourced or don't fit the Lemkin definition given in the lede. Vietnam, Mao's China and Azerbaijan have all been removed in the past couple of days. I am starting this new section so we can discuss other examples which may not belong in the article. I just noticed that the section on the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, besides being pure synthesis, relies on an alternate (non-Lemkin) definition, so I think this should be the next to go. For any opposed editors, please be aware that there is an article entitled Mass killings under Communist regimes (which has problems of its own) where much of this material is already covered or could be moved. Actions not targeted against another group based on their religion, ethnicity etc. do not belong here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "don't fit the Lemkin definition given in the lede." It is not up to editors to decide what is or is not a genocide. Use the sources Luke. There are two dozen different genocide definitions and Lemkin is not the best as it pre-dates the Genocide Convention. The criteria should be is this genocide widely reported to be a genocide in reliable sources? The threshold for that may vary but as a rule of thumb if several genocide scholars or an international organisation such as the UN, and countries not directly involved state it is a genocide, then we should include it, along with any differences of opinion including that of accused states or successor states that state it was not a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Article fix-it list
Various points and problems that need cleanup.

1. Is this a list? It sure as hell looks like a list. Then shouldn't it be moved to List of historical genocides, or some such similar title?

2. Demarcation. This article needs to draw a line between the Holocaust and the stolen generation. Similarly, in line with mainstream scholarship, we have to demarcate somehow between events like Rwanda or the Holodomor, where malicious intention is not in doubt, and events like the Great Irish Famine, where it is. That is not to the say the Irish Famine does not belong on this page - it clearly does - but its dubious status as "genocide" in the literature needs to be reflected here in the way we organize the page.

3. Sources. We can't have patched-together synthesis sections like that I just removed for the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is, I know, an entire genre of genocide scholarship. What are the major authors? What are the important books? How do they treat various alleged genocides? Shouldn't we have a paragraph, at least, discussing problems with anachronism somewhere? Do we really need the hugely argumentative "Turkey and the Armenian genocide" section? See List of important operas for a good example of how to bring knotty, "subjective" problems into line with mainstream academic opinion. We need some kind of similar method here. Moreschi (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested list structure:

1: intro, giving legal definition of genocide, etc 2. "Events widely regarded as genocide", chronologically organised - can anyone think of a better heading? 2. "Events sometimes regarded as genocide", chronologically organised - again, needs a better heading. 3. And perhaps a third section listing "prosecutions for genocide"? 4. Notes 5. References - put main sources, reputable genocide literature needs to be listed here and the list needs to be sourced from it.

Thoughts? And any better suggestions for the headers, there has to be something...Moreschi (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your outline. Also that we have at least two reputable sources to call something a genocide, and in addition, it must meet the Lemkin definition (reliable sources without Lemkin definition, no inclusion). Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain
Exactly how do Sri Lanka, West New Guinea, Brazil, India, Ethiopia, Argentina, East Timor, Guatemala, Zanzibar are more genocide than Khojaly Genocide?!!! Do you understand that if you few users decide what to call genocide and what not call genocide, you're creating not proper information? This is how some people in the past created the words "Armenian genocide" because their writings were unopposed and because nobody investigated anything. More turks died in those years but only armenians were mentioned. So answer me how are all these genocides I mention are more genocide than Khojaly where they shot civilians Azeris where half of them were women, children, old people? Dighapet (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the legal definition of genocide. Furthermore, there are credible sources which put the responsibility of the deaths at Khojaly on Azeri soliders, not Armenians.--Moosh88 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What happened in Khojaly was obviously not ethical behavior on the part of the Armenians, but it was not genocide, and furthermore the only claim that it was genocide comes from Azerbaijan- which has considerable political motive in calling it such, considering it is still technically at war with Armenia as no peace treaty was ever signed... to say the Khojaly is a widely accepted example of genocide when in reality only Azerbaijani sources say so is a pretty clear NPOV breach. --Yalens (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Moosh, stop there. What you say is armenian propoganda and everybody knows that. Khojaly genocide is a fact. Yalens, OK, but nobody answers my question above. Is Khojaly less of those other genocides? Dighapet (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Dighapet; we are trying to reconstruct this page on a basis of academic consensus. I think it's pretty clear, in academic terms, that the "Khojaly genocide" was nothing of the sort, outside of modern Azeri propaganda. Doubtless there are also many events that don't belong here which are currently listed - your help in removing them is appreciated. Also, please read WP:ARBAA2, and note that when discussing events related to Armenia-Azerbaijan, a calm and constructive tone is appreciated. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects." This sentence justifies the inclusion of Azerbaijan in the article.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some sources to shed light on Khojaly. http://justiceforkhojaly.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/the-truth-about-the-events-in-khojaly/ Eynulla Fatullayev, editor-in-chief of Gundelik Azerbaijan and Realniy Azerbaijan newspapers has spoken about the Azeri role in the events at Khojaly for which he has been persecuted in Azerbaijan.  If what he claims is false or there is no substance to it, then why go to the trouble of locking him up?--Moosh88 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is like taking Vahe Ihssan's views as a source for Armenian Genocide so your argument is ridiculus. I still insist Azerbaijan should be included in this article, otherwise we have to delete 80 percent of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.102 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the case, there are plenty of examples listed on this page which can hardly be considered genocide besides Khojaly. If you would like to contribute you can help improve the article so we can move those events to more appropriate locations.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * there was a section instead of improving it you removed it dont you remember? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.102 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Was Vahe sent to jail by Armenia? Didn't think so.--Moosh88 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Vahe killed by Armenians. Anyway I will bring Azerbaijani section back if you wont give any logical reason for removal--193.140.194.102 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the "logical" reasons have already been provided above by numerous editors and you were overruled and warned from re-adding such contentious entries. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How to fix this page
I've been watching this (and other contentious pages) for some time and I have noticed a pattern in (most) of the controversy:

NO ONE is willing to provide a definition of what is to be included, and stick to it. Someone always creeps out of the woodwork with an agenda and wants to include something that is only a "little bit" outside what should really be included.

The fix is easy, but it will take someone w guts.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede begins, "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". This is the definition drafted by Rafael Lemkin and adopted by the UN. All of the examples in the article should be consistent with this definition. Anything else can be moved to other articles like policide or Mass killings under communist regimes (or is probably already there). Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The reality is that the word genocide is one of the most-abused words today, being used more for shock value than for anything else because of the connotations it carries. I remember several years back, when the insurgency in Iraq was in full swing Arizona Senator John McCain warned that if US forces pulled out, it would result in "genocide". He never got into specifics but still got his point across, nonetheless. It seems highly unlikely, for example, that isolated massacres should be added to this list since the most important thing, "intent to destroy in whole or in part", is clearly lacking. I think what some of the other users suggested above as quite useful: rather than citing information of about how many people died during this or that period or conflict, we need sources, preferably written by historians or specialists in that area, which clearly call the events that.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What Marshall said, basically. Note that this page can and should include events which are not universally agreed to be genocide, or even events where this is the minority academic opinion, but they need to be listed as such in a separate section to events like Rwanda, Holocaust, etc. And of course at all times sources need to be reputable scholarship, not random agitprop. Moreschi (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. By the way, the Turkish denial of Armenian genocide material should be re-included as not more than one or two well-sourced sentences per WP:WEIGHT. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So did Nikola Jorgic aid and abet in the crime of genocide? He was found guilty in a German court, but the ECHR stated that the German courts took a minority legal view on a broad definition of Genocide that subsequently has not been followed by the ICTY and ICJ (see the next section for a source). -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary then to give a definition in the lede? Why don't we just link to the definitions of genocide article? In that case lets also identify which definition a particular example falls under, or even reorganize the article by genocides which have been held such by legal authorities, those which fit the UN definition, those which fit only alternative definitions by experts, etc. Again, I don't think its original research to keep some scholarly rigor and logic in this article. It shouldn't be a mere patchwork of everything anyone has ever called a genocide, any more than Reptiles is a patchwork of every animal ever referred to as such regardless of whether it meets the definition. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the majority of cases people don't state which definition they are using. For example the UNs resolution (Genocides in history) does not do so. People like Marin Shaw have their own definition (2007), and will state that an event was a genocide, but they expect you to know in which book they last defined their definition and don't always redefine it in new publications. The problem we here are then faced with is if we find a paper by Shaw that does not include his definition or cite it, we can not cite his definition for him as it would be a syn. Believe me I would like nothing better than to be free of Wikiped'a constraints and be able to judge for myself what goes into a an article like this one, but the best we can do is to limit entries to those supported by reliable sources.-- PBS (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead and other issues
@Yalens: I understand where you're coming from, but that para is simply the most wretched flannelling and needs to go, to be replaced by something actually listing the sources for the article clearly stating the criteria for inclusion (see List of important operas, List of major opera composers for a roughly applicable method on how to do this). At any rate we need to make it clear - as that paragraph totally fails to do - that it is not our judgment applicable here, but that of the relevant serious literature. Moreschi (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the page has been somewhat abused and ruined by the insertion of random fringe viewpoints on things that supposedly constitute genocide. However, in order to avoid being POV ourselves, we should leave the paragraph in- this page after all should not be regarded as an absolute authority- and include anything in the page that is considered genocide by considerable scholarship (considerable scholarship excludes things like otherwise reputable Azeri historians overblowing Khojaly, that is an exception). I don't think anyone on wikipedia could produce an identical list to the next 10 or so people of which of these things are genocide. It is good to delete things that are blatantly fringe- Vietnam, Khojaly, etc... but we can't extrapolate that to mean everything that the person editing at a given moment doesn't believe is genocide. As for the paragraph- I see nothing wrong with it. It is more or less a disclaimer: this list is not final. Without it, say hello to endless POV wars (and we have enough already...). --Yalens (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I'll try to come up with some replacement text some time this week before revisiting this so you can see what I'm about. I'm nuts busy right now but will dutifully toddle off to chase up the relevant literature. Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * re this - Kakar may well be a RS for other subjects but I do not see how he's part of the literature of genocide scholarship (I could be wrong here; if so, please correct me). Given that that section is entirely sourced to him it doesn't really seem right to keep it, as we're trying to reconstruct this page based on the relevant bits of academia. I've seen various pieces in the literature of classical scholarship mentioning that Caesar's conquest of Gaul might arguably come close to genocide, but those don't get a mention here, and nor should they. Moreschi (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit clash
 * I agree with Yalens the paragraph should remain in the lead. It warns readers that this is an incomplete list and that the subject is very open to political points of view. That is not Wikipedia points of view but external political points of view. For example when the French parliament passed a vote in 2006 that the 1915 massacre of Armenians was genocide, the Turkish parliamentarians retaliated by introducing a motion in their parliament that France committed genocide in Algeria in the 1950s. This motion finds its origins in allegations originating from politicians in Algeria (see Foreign relations of France)


 * I have reverted the page move. I think that the article name "genocides in history" is more appropriate given the second paragraph:
 * The preamble to the CPPCG not only states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world", but that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity" (My emphasis)
 * Moreschi if you still want the page moved then please put in a WP:RM.
 * Also Moreschi I have partially reverted your removal the accusations of genocide in the Afghanistan by the Soviet Union (cutting it back to the wording it was for many years), which is fully sources and yet you leave a section like "Partition of India in 1947" in place which does not have one source, and you have left the "Greek genocide" section in place that has no accusation of genocide in it (although see the article Greek genocide for appropriate accusations and sources). Why remove Afghanistan and and not the other two? -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply to Afghanistan, before you deleted the section, did you do a survey to see if he is cited? For example Google scholar returns several articles that cite him including
 * -- PBS (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why not cite the actual literature? As to why I haven't removed other unsuitable material, because I haven't got around to doing so yet? Re the title, see below, although I can't actually see what your arguments are driving at. Moreschi (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why not cite the actual literature? As to why I haven't removed other unsuitable material, because I haven't got around to doing so yet? Re the title, see below, although I can't actually see what your arguments are driving at. Moreschi (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for deleting Afghanistan is that it argues an alternative definition to the one given in the lede. The material is already included in other articles such as Mass killings under Communist regimes and might be added to policide. As a matter of logic and encyclopedic writing, all examples in this article ought to conform to the lede definition. Alternately, we could change the lede, but the result would be that this article would become indistinguishable from one entitled "mass killings by states", so I oppose that solution. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not matter that a different definition is used, this is not uncommon (see definitions of genocide). It is not at all unusual for academics use a different definition to that used by the courts. What is uncommon in this article is to be able to find what specific definition is being used and be able to spell it out. If we were to go for one definition and ignore other definitions as used by experts in the field of genocide studies then we are breaching WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to make consensus decisions re fringe and undue viewpoints without breaching WP:OR. Not everyone who says something is a genocide is an "expert". Under those standards, we should also avoid citing uses which are plainly illogical and inconsistent. I probably wouldn't have to search too long on Google to find a reliable source containing the words "A frog is a reptile" but I doubt anyone would let me add it to Reptiles. If we want to list other expert-proposed examples which conform only to a non-Lemkin definition, we should change the lede.  Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an example. I personally tried to rescue the Vietnam entry by better sourcing the Jean Paul Sartre ref. Another editor took it out. I am very comfortable with the idea that Vietnam as a genocide is a fringe viewpoint, and that Sartre is not an expert. "Genocide" is one of those highly emotional concepts which get used in almost contentless rhetoric very easily, and I thought there was consensus we need to bring some rigor to the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing a experts opinion on what constitutes genocide because it does not fit your preferred definition of genocide is a very slippery slope. If is the other side of the coin from including an event that seems to meet the requirements of genocide. I have already provided another expert view on the Afghanistan was a genocide, if needed that can be tacked onto the section but I see no point in doing so. The logic being displayed here would remove the entries "Dirty War in Argentina" -- judge used a (different definition) and UN declared genocide at "Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon" (no definition). I think the point being missed is that genocide is not a precise formula and thanks to the retrospective nature of the term as laid out by the UN and used by genocide scholars, it is not possible to list only those genocide found to be so in a court of law. And because it does carry political overtones there are bound to be cases like the "Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon"  genocide which would not be considered genocide if the latest judicial definition were to be applied.


 * Now if you really want to see just how complicated this becomes have a look at the German counts findings over Bosnian Genocide cases. If one was to use ICTY criteria and the majority of legal scholars then the German courts judgements were against the majority of legal opinion and that of later international courts findings, but the ECHR ruled in Jorgic v. Germany Judgment (12 July 2007) that no Breach of  Article 7 occurred and the men found guilty of genocide in German courts are still in prison. With complications like that it is not possible for us to have simple rules on this page. -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was not moved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Genocides in history → List of historical genocides — From Genocides in history to List of historical genocides. This is a list, not an article; the list even says this in the lede, and we should be explicit about this in the actual title of the wretched page. This seems fairly clear and obvious, but apparently somebody disagrees, so here we are. Moreschi (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose because as the second paragraph of the article says the preamble to the CPPCG not only states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world", but that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity" (My emphasis). So I think the name "Genocides in history" is more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the title "List of historical genocides" is in any way contradictory to the CPPCG statement. It's just a different way of phrasing it that's more in line with usual naming practice. Moreschi (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not what is meant by a "list" in WP. It's all written in prose. See WP:LIST and WP:SAL. You may feel that most of the article is a series of short sections on individual episodes with little connection, but that does not make it a list. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Johnbod and just don't see the point of a move in any case. Smallbones (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I'm strongly in favour of "listifying" the titles of articles which take a list format, but I don't believe this one does. Rather, it purports to present a historical timeline of genocide. The present title seems an excellent fit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose We are here to improve the article, not change what its about. It was originally meant to be about the use of genocide in a historical context. --Yalens (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Palestine
The Palestine section which has been reverted a couple of times is a hodge-podge created by a new editor who has posted a half dozen new articles alleging the massacre of Jews in Ottoman times, sourced to blog posts, self published polemics, and vague tertiary sources. None of the sources I was able to check use "genocide" so there are both point of view and synthesis problems. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish famine genocide?
I'd argue for removing the Irish famine from this list, since the definition is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". Although a great many people died, I don't think there's any evidence this was a deliberate policy to kill Irish people, it was more the result of utter incompetence, negligence and contempt for Ireland on the part of the British government and it's English absentee landlords, who demanded exports from their land whilst being ignorant or uncaring of the harm they caused. The section's text even notes that it doesn't qualify as genocide. Gymnophoria (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Neanderthals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/28/neanderthals-demise-modern-human-invasion

Add them to the list of crimes by Europeans? Hcobb (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering civilization, and indeed a distinct group that could arguably be called Europeans, had yet to really evolve? No. I'd remind you not to classify this as a genocide when not even your source does. Don't synthesize points. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is degenerating and has moved into editorial POV
The only way this page can work is if accusations of genocide are backed up with reliable sources and attributed in the text. For example take the Soviet Union section:

And? Unless there is going to be some further sourced comment about these being genocides then it is not within the scope of this artile

Good that the accusation is attributed, but is Michael Ellman a noted genocide scholar. Is this giving undue weight to one persons point of view?

Yes it is well know that they did this but killing a social group is not genocide because they are not one of the protected groups. What is needed is a genocide scholar explain that despite the international definition of what constitutes a genocide the killing of these 20,000 polish offices was a genocide because....

Again this is an accusation without any notable in-line attribution from a neutral institution or notable historians and/or genocide scholars that has stated that these actions constitute genocide.

The only entry in the USSR section that comes anywhere near the standard that is needed in this article is the section on the Holodomor (Genocides in history).

I have just used the USSR section as an example but a lot of the other entries that have been added to this article in the last year suffer from similar problems. -- PBS (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * user:PatGallacher please explain this edit. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Biblical references to genocide
I have removed the following material:

''According to Hebrew scriptures, during the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, Moses and Joshua ordered several genocides. "And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods... And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host...Have ye saved all the women alive?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him...But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"(Numbers 31:7-18). At the conquest of the City of Jericho,they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:21).''

The issue is sourcing. The purpose of this article IS NOT to allow individual editors to search through history for examples of what the individual editor believes are examples of genocide. Instead, we should be looking for examples ALREADY IDENTIFIED by reliable sources as examples of genocide.

If reliable sources have concluded that Moses committed genocide, then produce those sources. Removal of this material should not be controversial -- this is Wikipedia 101. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply from original insertor:


 * Adam Jones, Genocide: A comprehensive introduction cites the Midianite slaughter as genocide (p. 4). He also cites the slaughter of the Amalekits as genocide:
 * "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (I Samuel 15:2-3), so this passage from the Hebrew Scriptures could be added.


 * Chalk and Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide, 2001 also these Old Testament cases as genocide (pp. 62-63).


 * So should I restore the text and insert these sources. Frankly, these acts, on their face, fully meet the legal definition of genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGrady (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked up your source at []. It seems like the source is saying something different (but similar) from what you added. Rather than simply referring to "Hebrew scriptures", the author uses the Old Testament as an example of “religious traditions of contempt and collective defamation, stereotypes, and derogatory metaphor indicating the victim is inferior, sub-human (animals, insects, germs, viruses) or super-human (Satanic, omnipotent).”


 * He further states, "An example of this mindset is the text that underpins the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim cultural traditions: the Old Testament (particularly its ﬁrst ﬁve books, the Pentateuch)." It seems that the emphasis is less on the actual historical events and more on the particular religious mindset reflected by the author(s) of the Bible.  It seems that if material is added to the article citing this text, that it needs to be considerably rewritten to more accurately reflect what the author is actually saying.


 * In fact, it seems like the work brings up an interesting idea that needs further expansion in the article -- religious groups are not merely the targets of genocide but are also sometimes the originators of genocide. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of qualified sources that have labeled these OT actions as genocide. I will do a bit of sourcing and resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGrady (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your problem with using the source YOU ALREADY PRODUCED and paraphrasing what it actually says? You can't unring the bell and pretend that you didn't make us aware of this source.  I suggest you submit any proposed language here for discussion and consensus before adding it to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any reason why you didn't remove that large piece of text right above it? Copy/pasted by the looks of it (all the original reference numbers still in it). And from an IP. A quote like As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).. doesn't inspire confidence, considering similar declines in the late middle ages in Europe are still not fully understood. And India states nothing like whet this text mentions. DS Belgium (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)