Talk:Democide

East Timor

There is no mention of the genocide in East Timor

The significant 20th century democide part is a conceptual perversion

The "Significant 20th century democides" paragraph is based on a corruption of Rudolph J. Rummels concept of democide.

In main part criticism, not presentation

The main part of the article on democide is criticism, not a neutral presentation.

The term 'democide' as such

Rummel may have coined the term 'democide', but it got the universal value -- what means, that it may be used regardless of the validity of Rummel's numbers. After all, it describes _a type of event_, which may be applied to any such event, whether taken into account by Rummel or not. It's beyond any debate, that there are the governmental and non-govermental crimes against humanity, including the crimes against large groups of people, that are well-documented (eg. by international organisations as Amnesty International). I agree that the crimes should be documented as reliably as possible (don't expect me to discuss this matter, though; Polish penal law has provisions against those who 'publicly and against the facts' deny the crimes committed by the nazi, fascist and commmunist regimes, or other regimes, and it seems to be fiercely enforced, also against some scientists (ever heard of Ratajczak's or Bender's case ? The mere mentioning by the first one of the holucaust revisionists' views, and lacking of comment about them, was a cause for criminal charges, which (as I remember) he was finally cleared of; nevertheless, I don't feel free eg. to discuss the validity of data about Stalin's crimes, Pol Pot's crimes, Ottoman soldiers' crimes against Armenians, etc). Let the discussion about the aforementioned validity not influence the debate about the term as such, which is simply useful to describe the kind of crime that didn't have its name previously (as killing whole groups of people for their political beliefs). [Critto]

Armenian genocide

As an old fellow and a strong supporter of the Wikipedia project, I would condemn any actions that would harm the project. However, as a responsible wikipedian, I find myself commissioned to discuss this topic. It is very easy to write on disputable facts based on falsified documents, faked pictures and exaggerated figures that would only distort history and the definition of genocide. This kind of authorship can give harm to the essence of Wikipedia project. Wikipedians should be very careful about not including the questionable subjects as sheer and undiscussible facts and should also not forget that this is not an area of discussion and debate. This is the very reason that I do not simply change or delete these statements (about Young Turks) and instead try discussing them.

It should not be forgotten that Armenian genocide is still a historical hypothesis that is dominantly advertised by the Armenian diaspora and is still pending for reliable proofs. There are scholars working on this issue all over the world and some accept the existence of a possible genocide, while some do not. Both sides have reliable and emotional proofs for their own beliefs. The supporters of the Armenian genocide are showing the pictures of the burried remnants of Armenian people killed by Ottoman soldiers, whereas the supporters of the other side is showing the pictures of Turkish people, who were killed by Armenian soldiers. It is not fair to base such a disputable issue by just showing one single reference. I can find lots of debateful articles in Britannica about Turkey or Turkish people and I can also give other references which do not support the existence of a genocide.

http://azerbaycan.hypermart.net/tragedy.htm

http://azerbaycan.hypermart.net/testimony.htm

I will not copy and paste these references because of the copyright restrictions.

What I understand from the discussions about this issue is shortly as follows: The ethnic struggles between Turkish and Armenian communities began about two centuries ago. As the Ottoman Empire weakened, Russia and Great Britain provoked one of the main ethnic groups of the Ottoman State, the Armenians to uprise in the eastern parts of the Empire. First sporadic clashes were seen between the Turkish and Armenian settlements. When the Russian army began to invade Eastern Anatolia in World War I, the Armenian gangs with the helps of Russian army, started systematic attacks against Ottoman troops and their civilian Turkish citizens. The same gangs are also accused of cutting the supply lines of the Ottoman army, which was fighting with the invading Russian forces. Under these circumstances, the Ottoman Government decided to relocate the Armenians to the other provinces in the Empire. The reason for that was to prevent the fights between Turkish and Armenian communities and cut the support extended by the Armenian towns to the Russians. During the period of this enforced delocation, hostilities between two communities and famine heavily affected the Armenian people. The policy of enforced delocation was a routine application for Ottoman Empire and it had been applied to a variety of communities including Turkish people. Young Turks were guilty for not protecting their citizens duely and also by applying this primitive and ancient policy. However, not only Armenians but many other Ottoman citizens suffered from these treatments throughout centuries and Ottoman governments never seem to carry any intention of giving end to an entire ethnicity. By contrast, it is possible to see many Armenian people in the highest ranks of the Ottoman hierarchy (ministers, architects etc). Any researchers working on Young Turks can easily agree that these people never carried ideologies related with the termination of any community. Indeed, the fact that the same events did not affect tens of thousands of Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, living in Istanbul (then the capital of Ottoman Empire) is the strongest evidence why this incident can not be labeled as ?genocide?. It is also worth mentioning that in the time frame subject to those claims, an Armenian, Noradounghian Efendi, served as the Ottoman Foreign Minister. Moreover, it has been stated in some official records (see references) that when the British forces (who had complete control over all Ottoman official records) occupied Istanbul after World War I, they admitted that they could not find any evidence of an organized genocide against Armenians.

I do not say that I know what the truth is but I just want to draw attention to the other side of this discussion and to remind that we must be very careful when we are writing such sensitive and debateful articles that could easily be abused for political reasons. I do not find myself authorized to change this article, since I am not an expert of this subject. I believe that we must be very careful about these statements for some mentally sick people could more easily find reasons for their aggressive actions and it should not be forgotten that many innocent people were already killed by such people in this context.

SJK draws attention to the decisions of several parliaments of different countries. I wrote about my concerns in the Talk section why these decisions should not be accepted as real proofs and why we should not base our articles on such decisions. I believe with all my heart that the sinful secrets of history should be uncovered for the welfare and goodness of future generations. But I also believe that this should be done with a sense of equality and justice. This would be much more fair for the souls of Turkish people, who seem to have died or killed in similar conditions as Armenian people. [ErdemTuzun]

---

Article restored

(I'm so not even touching the argument above...) I've restored the "democide" link as an article unto itself. A google search turned up over 4000 instances of the word, including its use in the Journal of International Affairs (and not in reference to Rummel). I feel that is enough to warrant the treatment of the term by Wikipedia. Not incidentally, it also provides a place to put certain allegations of democide/mass murder - though as alway, we will have to be careful to phrase some of these as "Group A claims..." -- April

---

I have no problem with the article being here. One advantage to Wiki is the ability to include even the most obscure and fringe ideas. There are literally 1000s of "Journals of International Affairs". Every major university has one. I doubt many (if any) have included the term in reference to anyone or anything. The hit you likely got was the Australian Journal of International Affairs, but that's another matter. A google search with 4000 instances of the word means nothing. You'll get more today. Rummel's days as a credible political scientist whose work was respectable and meaningful ended long ago. Most of those google hits are meaningless google seeding and google bombing. Surely you've heard of that. It's perfectly fine that his ideas are given exposition here. But to treat them as being peer reviewed or given any credibility or weight outside the fever swamps of his own mind, or those of his equally deluded proponents, is ludicrous. This is fringe nonsense. It's not mainstream or pariculary insightful, useful or important in any way. It's merely propaganda.

Wikkid Won 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality. Kill vs. Murder

I'm going to have to challenge the neutrality and usefulness of this article. The definition of democide given is mass murder of persons by a government or its agents. From the numbers given it is clear that the author considers all casualties in a war to be victims of democide, which makes all war murder. Arguable but not NPOV. It's also not clear when democide is different from genocide, or whether democide includes genocide.

If the definition of democide includes war casualties the opening paragraph should say so, and it might then be better to reref to the relevant war page to get the casualty figures. If not then the figures should be revised, and it should be made clear who the victims are in each example.

Personally I think the word democide is barely differentiated from genocide in common usage. Our definition of genocide includes killings of political groups, so only a few mass killings would be considered democide rather than genocide. The article should concentrate on those rather than try to cover the whole spectrum of death.

What do people think? DJ Clayworth 16:00, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have no significant problem with the article. What distinguishes democide from genocide is the matter of targetting specific ethnic groups. Most genocides are also democides but the reverse is not true. Recent interpretations of genocide also allow for the possibility that genocides can hapeen without the killing of any individuals.

I'm not quite following your meaning here. How can a genocide not be a democide? It seems to me that any genocide is a democide, but a democide is not necessarily a genocide (as in the case of Mao's 77 million murders).

I agree with you that all wars are murder, What's not NPOV about that? Are there wars in which no one is killed? Very few. Many people would not consider the Pig War of 1859 to be a war. Including war casualties in democide is consistent with Rummel's usage. His use of the term government is much wider than the usual interpretation of that term, and can be said to include almost any kind de facto control by rebel groups. ☮ Eclecticology 22:42, 2003 Oct 8 (UTC)

Not all killing is murder, and to say so is inaccurate. The law of every country, and international law, recognise cases where killing is not murder. Self-defence and war are the usual two. Maybe there should be some discussion of why Rummel disagrees with this usage? DJ Clayworth 13:30, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can accept that killing in self-defence is not murder. That a country will include a provision in its laws saying that its military actions are not murder is at best self-serving, and does not address the objective fact. The logical consequence of your position is that when Hitler invaded his neighbours such an action could not be interpreted as murder. Rummel coined the term democide; that in itself gives him the right to define it. A definition in itself is neither true nor false. The present situation is more about someone disagreeing with Rummel's usage than the other way around. ☮ Eclecticology 18:23, 2003 Oct 9 (UTC)

It may or may not be self-serving, but every country agrees that not all killings in war are murder. The UN recognises it, so does the Geneva convention. So do the various war crimes tribunals, even the Nuremburg trials. Anyway it looks from the figures that Rummel considers every war casualty murder, whether in self-defense or not. That's a valid viewpoint, but not a neutral one. Some mention should be made in the article that this is what he believes, and to note that other people disagree with it. Of course if I've misunderstood the article please feel free to correct me. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the second paragraph of the article; I hope this satisfies your objections. ☮ Eclecticology 01:16, 2003 Oct 11 (UTC)

No it does not. SS soldiers killed in action by Allied soldiers in World War II, while their associates murdered inmates of concentration camps is not the same thing. If the word is to have any useful meaning it should only include those who are murdered by the state (with possible recless endangerment as a braketed addition) and the figures through out should be adjusted accordingly. If that is not done then the word becomes so defuse as to be usless. Philip Baird Shearer 22:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Afghanistan

I have deleted the paragraph about Chomsky's allegations about Afghanistan and replaced it with something less tendentious. It seems odd to illustrate the meaning of the word democide by picking an "example" which is at best debateable and at worst completely fictitious. If people want to make claims for or against Chomsky's allegations they can do so at the appropriate page. Adam 09:38, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Germans 1945-47

I read again the democide article, and it should be stated, that Germans weren't victims of democide after WW2. There were few massacres committed by Red Army, there were bombing and torpedoing evacuation ships and trains, accidental revange. Probably also hunger deaths. The fantastic number 2 100 000 is out of the question for total number of victims. But democide requires the active government to organise the crime. Seaman 10:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The numbers given by White are from several sources. See http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#exp The Red Army was far from being the biggest offender. The Poles and the Czechs were the worst in pursuing this form of classic ethnic cleansing. The semantic argument about whether this was democide or geneocide is not helpful. Eclecticology 12:35, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

A. Hitler said: "The lie reapeated thousand times becomes the truth." I see you as a believer of his theory. To the point: when it has occured? what really happenned? Who died? Who was involved? Answer those questions first, before saying some nonsenses about sources. Seaman 12:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood the need to find support for my position, and since we are dealing with a time period after Hitler's death I didn't think he had anything to do with it. Holocaust deniers don't like being confused by facts either. -Ec

The number of 2 milion victims of German expulsion belong to alternative history. They were never independently confirmed. Repeating the lie, makes it more trustworthy. Cautious 09:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the page advertised by you, there is only a number. If you want, you can put the number, but without description. Or try to answer my questions, to establish something that resamble truth. Seaman 12:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

White made reference to several "numbers", not just Rummell's; one of them was an obscure publication called Britannica whose estimate was somewhat higher than Rummell's. -Ec

There is only small difference: Brittanica for sure gives total for Nazi organised evacuation of German occupied Eastern Europe and acts of vendetta, crimes of Soviets and the alleged victims of expulsion. You alleged, that those guys were murdered after the war. This is incorrect. The fact there are more resources, that repeat the same incorect information, doesn't make it true. To establish historical truth, there is need for critical analysys of the data. Cautious 09:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Seaman. If you label perpatrators of alleged crimes, you yourself are chauvinist believer of group responsibility. Rummel points at communism as the reason for (alleged) crimes, you point at nations. Cautious 12:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article just listed the event, and a number, but no mention of who might be responsible. Communism has nothing to do with this; there are items on the list with underlying communist involvement, and others without. This had more to do with good old-fashioned revenge by those who had been occupied by the Germans during WW2. But as the saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." I take no position about the relative involvemnt of the Polish government with the activities of the rest of the Polish nation, but then finding blame is part of another article, not this one. Eclecticology 19:39, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Your knowledge of history must be based on completely false resources, unfortunately. I would advise you, to read more source data, then false interpretations. Communism and Nazism were responsible for horrible crimes in Eastern Europe. Polish Communist government was installed by Soviet Union with support of US and UK, against wishes of most of the Polish society. There were relatively few acts of vendetta in post-war Poland, against Germans. Those are facts.

Cautious 09:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) Again give me the answer for the questions given by Seamen: when it has occured? what really happenned? Who died? Who was involved? Cautious 09:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

After deletion discussion: OK, stay, on condition that some NPOV comments are included. Somebody can open the article and be terrified by huge number of people allegedly killed, while this is mostly playing with statistical numbers. Cautious 12:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with the general statement that many of these figures are the subject of lively disputes, not just the one about German expulsions. It seems to me that these cautions were already there. Eclecticology 19:39, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Number of Germans victims of expulsion is utter nonsense. I have no idea, about other numbers if they are correct or wrong. However, this particular number must go with some explanation. Cautious 08:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• German statistics In 1966, the West German Ministry of Refugees and Displaced Persons published statistical and graphical data illustrating German population movements, whether voluntary or enforced, in the aftermath of the Second World War. (uses Flash Player)

At the bottom left of page 5 it says, "pertes de guerre 1,100,000" "pertes pour l'expulsion 2,111,000".

Basically what it says is; civilian war losses 1 million, expulsion losses 2 million. As calculated by the German Governement. As official a figure as the 6 Million for the Holocaust. Those who try to pretend that this did not happen merit the same type of scorn normally reserved for the antisemites who try to deny the holocaust against the jews.

Germans 1945/47 How realiable are Rummels calculations)?

One example from [1]
Rummel states in row 304 that the pre war population of the former German provinces was 6500/9000/10000 thousand people low/middle/high
Evacuation row 321 4000//5000 with 618 dead
Remaining population was row 317 100/617/1134
Found in W.Germany row 346 6000/6944/7400

Crude deficit of population he estimated in 319 meaning rows 307-317 6400/8383/8866
How he could calculate that number? My understanding that the proper caluclation is:
pre-war population of 9000 with error margin 2500
remaining 617 with error margin 517
gross deficit is 8383 with error margin 3017

So his number is obviously guesswork.

Another Rummel calculation:
Now he drops his numbers and use another set:
All kinds of migration to Germany row 338 7017/7144/8369
Then he substracts those who reached Germany row 346 again 6000/6944/7400
Deficit according to him is row 349 200/969/1017

I would calculate 7144 with error margin 1225
minus 6944 with error margin 944 and
the result is obviously 200 with error margin 2169!

His number is obviuosly wrong!

In addition it is not clear wether he included the Jews killed during holocaust / I would reserve at least 100 000 killed, Poles and other minorities sent to concentration camps 100 000 is also good estimate /soldiers killed in action at least 500 000 / victims of bombing of the cities I don|t know how many/ his number of victims of evacuation 618 000/ deported to USSR around 200 000 and so on.

By the way, according to Polish sources Polish citizenship was granted to around 1 500 000 former Germans, not 200 000 Rummel claims, and it is obviuosly true, since the emigration of ethnic Germans from Poland continued since 1945. I read recently, that in 1980/ties emigrated 1 000 000 of people on the status of ethnic Germans.

I am going to remove Rummel numbers, since they are obviously not relaible Cautious 21:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Victims and perpetrators

I voted to keep this article, but I strongly object to bunching together victims and perpetrators. E.g. the number for WW2 (51 Million) includes the Nazis, the Allies, the victims of the Holocaust... all clumped together. That's immoral. These numbers must be broken, IMHO. --Humus sapiens 09:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Humus. For example, numbers of murdered Jews and Poles are well documented and represent tangible cases of murder. However, those are put in the whole number of 51 000 000 of victims of war. Numbers conserning German expulsion, represent statistical calculation. For most of this number, there is no evidence, no "dead bodies". You should compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. If you compare statistical data, let us assume that 6 milions of Jews murdered by Nazis, would give by 2000 12 milion population. Is it correct? Yes, I think so. Then we should add 6 milions as post-WW2 democid of Jews. Then we have numbers that are comparable to German expulsion. On the other hand, most of Germans, that were really victims of German evacuation and expulsion, were killed during the war during evacuation, when their ships were torpedoed or trains bombed. Why they are kept separately and don't added into victims of WW2. Cautious 08:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Counting the ones that were never born is a novel way of doing it. At that rate it would almost make sense to say that the Jews who were put in the ovens shouldn't be counted because there were no "dead bodies" left. At least I was able to give a respectable source for my figures. In response I get guesses about the meaning of statistics. The fact that the Poles were Catholics does not make them angels who could never have done wrong. Eclecticology 10:31, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

However, the fact that I am not Catholic, but I am a Pole ( of German descent) makes your sentence, "Poles were Catholics" false, isn't it? Do you know something about mathematical logic, scientific deduction etc. or you are guessing? Rummel's method presented on his web page is not counting death reports. He deducts number of people ads new born babies, then he deducts number of refugees counted in West Germany, and resulted deficit he accounts to muss murder. In case of Jews, there is a lake, were are stored ashes of 1.2 milion murdered people, 90% Jews. Where are dead corpses or ashes after 2.1 milion murdered Germans, that went unnoticed by contemprorary journalists, historians, human rights activists? Cautious 10:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A victim is a victim. This article deals with global numbers for events. The breakdown can come in each of the separate articles. The average victim of the firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden were mostly ordfinary German citizens and not Nazis. Those murdered by the atomic bombs were mostly ordinary Japanese citizens. Denying these injustices is on a par with denying the holocaust Eclecticology

"A victim is a victim". No they are not. Those murdered were murdered those who were killed were not necessarily murdered. The victims of Hamburg, Dresden and the atomic bombs were killed by aerial bombardment of defended enemy territory. No member of the Axis forces was tried for "Aerial bombardment of defended enemy territory" after World War II so you can not say that any one killed in such a way was murdered and point to a treary or case law to prove it. Philip Baird Shearer 22:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The avarage victim of firestorm in Hamburg were Polish or Russian slave worker, while Germans were almost-safe stored in air-shields. The number of victims of firestorms is quite low in comparison with victims of human hunts performed by German (mostly not-Nazis as you say) in General Government. The problem is, that only when you artificially exclude German evacuation and expulsion from the total number of WW2 victims, you got so high position of it in ranking of democide. Cautious 10:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What evidence is there for the "air-shields"? I doubt that the Nazi government, even at its technological best, would or could have planned for the kind of fire storm that happened. Since many German able men were already conscripted into the military and sent to some combat front, who would you think was left in the cities? Eclecticology 00:53, 2004 Mar 6 (UTC)

Read some history. The number of victims by 1 tonne of bombs is 3 times lower then in England. Slave workers were not allowed in. Now you get it eventually?? 212.202.128.180 16:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "A victim is a victim" argument is immoral. Just as (I hope) you wouldn't count victims of terror attacks together with deaths from natural causes, those numbers are worse than useless. Let the reader judge who's right or wrong but don't lump them together. I am not against including a URL of that site, but for the WP this list has to either vastly improve or simply go. I propose to reuse/reorganize the list from Genocide to either satisfy both articles (as it already does, kind of) or split between the two. Sorry I don't have time to do this right now. --Humus sapiens 23:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And what makes the argument immoral? Is one holocaust somehow worse than another? If some people are starved to death as was the case in some of the Chinese circumstances, is this a natural cause? If they are driven from their homes in winter and freeze to death, is this a natural cause? What is on the list is only those events where estimates put the death toll at over 1,000,000. White's compilation was based on numerous sources, many of which are disputed; that has been made clear. The list was constructed without regard to who was responsible, and it should stay that way. Disputes, about the accuracy should be worked out on the individual pages. Furthermore, not all the items on the list are genocides; several involved mass extinctions without regard to ethnicity. That does not make them right, but neither does it qualify them as genocides.

Natural cause would be deaths from the old age (or in this case, hurricanes, appendicitis, traffic accidents, etc). Why aren't they lumped together with intentionally caused deaths? Let me guess: because they are irrelevant. Nowhere I said all Germans were bad, but I am against counting Hitler & Co. (just one particular example) as victims. That would be grossly POV. --Humus sapiens Talk 01:39, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

• We have already Genocide and Holocaust about the same subject. I doubt if the democide exists in English. It seems German word only. Seaman 09:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but add links to genocide and Holocaust. The word was coined by an American political scientist, so it's not a German word only. However, as the article rightly notes, it hasn't gained much traction in English. Moncrief, 09:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is exactly difference between Democide/Genocide and Holocaust? Isn't better to merge those articles? Cautious 09:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course. To answer Cautious' query: Genocide (killing of ethnic groups) is a subset of Democide. The Holocuast (Killing of Jews et al. in WW II) is a subset of Genocide. Democides can be samaller scale and are political. Davodd 10:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. Word was obviously coined by some Rudolph J. Rummel, professor em. of political sciences at University of Hawaii. He wrote a two-volume piece titeled Death by Government and Statistics of Democide. The word is definitely not German by origin, but now it exists (Demozid) as a translation of its American English counterpart. It is used in a much broader sense than the other two, as Davodd has already pointed out. --Palapala 10:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Mr Rummel is higly controversial alternative historian. His thesis are highly POV and were never verified by other historians. Cautious 10:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not one of his fans, but the term is there, his books are there, controversial as they might well be, and he is talked about. Also they have been translated into foreign languages (like German). Doesn't that all suffice for an entry? --Palapala
        • OK, stay, on condition that some NPOV comments are included. Somebody can open the article and be terrified by huge number of people allegedly killed, while this is mostly playing with statistical numbers. Cautious 12:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep, is in widespread use. -- Dissident 20:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please google before listing VfD. BTW, bing "terrified" is a healthy reaction: those were human lives, and not "statistical numbers". --Humus sapiens 22:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Government induced famine isn't a method of execution? Even when the perpertrators even have been known to comment that this was exactly what they were doing, a purge of the population as a whole?

MSTCrow 23:02, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Of course it is! And it is being legally recognized as such. See the page about genocide and the means the person or group responsible for it may harm the victim by:

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

__ (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;__

   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Besides, Polish penal code includes (c) as means of committing crime against humanity. Art. 118 states it clearly

"118. 1. Who, in order to destroy the specified national, ethnic, racial, political, religious-based or world's outlook-based group, commits killing or causes the serious harm to the health of the person who is a member of such group, is liable to the penalty of deprivation of liberty not shorter than 12 years, the penalty of 25 years deprivation of liberty or the deprivation of liberty for life

2. Who, to achieve the goal (described) in 118.1, brings upon the persons belonging to such group the life conditions which threaten its biological extinction, applies the means to stop births within the group or forcibly takes the children of such group from the persons belonging to it, is liable to the penalty of deprivation of liberty (5-25 years)."

(translation was amateur, and my own)

You may find the code in Polish here: www.kodeks.wirt.pl

War deaths

Removed from article:

Although it is clearly Rummel's intent that the term democide should include war deaths, many have objected to the characterization of such deaths as murder./* Accusations of Democide */ It is not Rummel's intent to include war deaths. He explicitly excludes them in his definition, except for the purposive killing of noncombatants.

Someone who has read his work can sort this out, but we can't say he did and didn't explicitly exclude war deaths. —Tkinias 07:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the external references in the article:

• The Definition of Democide by R.J. Rummel, from his book Death by Government.

  I have to again be absolutely clear on this since so much takes place in time of war. War related killing by military forces that international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit is democide, whether the parties are signatories or not. That killing explicitly permitted is not democide. Thus, the death of civilians during the bombing of munitions plants in World War II is not democide. Nor is the death of civilians when through navigation or bombing errors, or the malfunction of equipment, bombs land on a school or hospital, unless it is clear that the bombing was carried out recklessly in spite of a high risk to such civilian buildings. Nor is the death of civilians in a bombed village beneath which has been built enemy bunkers. Nor is the death of civilians caught in a cross fire between enemy soldiers, or those civilians killed while willingly helping troops haul supplies or weapons. Seldom is it easy to make these distinctions, but the aim here must be clear. I discriminate between democide in time of war and war-deaths. The latter are those of the military and civilians from battle or battle related disease and famine. The former are those victims (which may include the military, as when POWs are massacred) of internationally prohibited war-time killing, what may be called war-crimes or crimes against humanity.

I think we can say that he does explicitly exclude war deaths which occure within the laws of war.

He satates above War related killing by military forces that international agreements and treaties directly or by implication prohibit is democide, whether the parties are signatories or not. The directives under which the RAF and the USAAF operated did not target civilians, the specific ones they were operating under in 1945 specifed Oil, direct war industries and comminications. Dreseden was assessed as a priary target under communications, and war industries. Further International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998) states:

In examining these events [aerial area bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.

There is far more detail on all this in the article Bombing of Dresden in World War II. I am removing the reference to the Bombing of Dresden in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 19:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I read this distinction to say a difference between collateral damage, and a policy of government to kill people. The example used of targeting munition factories stand in contrast to Dresden. The raid on Dresden targeted civilian population, it was not the result of collataral damage to German war industries. 198.133.178.17 20:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is your evidence for this? The section Reasons for the attack in the Bombing of Dresden article does not list the targeting of the civilian population as a reason for the attack. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Warlord China

Ultramarine 'corrected' Warlord China from 6,800,000 to 800,000. Was this a mistake, or is there some reason for doing so? If Warlord China is to be downgraded to 800,000 then it must be removed from the list altogether, since it is supposed to be of democides of 1 million or greater. Osgoodelawyer 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Total of These...

The total is, I would assume, not going to add up, since it was probably of the original list not the countless edits. Also, the paragraph above about the explulsion of Germans after WWII doesn't seem to be relevant, since the list doesn't, in fact, include such an event. Osgoodelawyer 16:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

copyright of tables

I think that changes that user:Ultramarine has made, particularly to the lists is to be commended. I had downloaded the PDF pages from the web to scan them into ASII intending to replace the previous list but Ultramarine has beaten me too it. But it had been my intention to sort and combing them in a slightly novel way to get around copyright problems For example "20th century democides causing more than one million deaths" could be sorted alphabetically. AFAICT the lists in their current from are a copyright violation. What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I do not think that copyright applies to data from research, but maybe to the presentation. If you have a better presentation, then please change the tables. Ultramarine 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have sorted them in a "novel" way. The C20th and dictators alphabetically. The other by end of domicide and a secondary sort by start of democide. But to re-inforce this, the tables need to be updated with R.J. Rummel's newer research, like his addition of the Congo to the C20th. This would alter two of the table and reduce the claim that the lists are a copyright violation. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Increased in usage

The current article has in the introduction

While of relatively recent origin, the word has increased in usage, particularly by legal and social activists for human rights.

See the policy WP:V: 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. If the above can not be sourced then the sentence should be removed. BTW Google searches are of no use in proving or disproving this, as that would be original research, it must be a paper from a source not connected with Rummel --Philip Baird Shearer 23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Validity of Democide as term--Delete/Merge with other articles?

Hello. I'm not a heavy editor, and this is the first time I've come across what I would consider a very questionable entry.

By no means am I an expert in the fields of sociology or mass murder, but stumbling upon this entry vexes me. Here are some of my concerns:

1) It's been well over a decade since I took any course on sociology and genocide in particular, but many of these numbers seem to be plucked out of thin air and far too 'reliable' to be really reliable. Most genocides need to give estimates- low and top, for very few are reliable. Again, I'm no researcher, but I've read quite a few books, articles online, and there seems to be great bias in these figures, as much of what I was taught and read seems skewed, although schizophrenically so- with no rhyme nor reason.

Examples: about 38m are listed killed under the PRC- till 1987. Yet I've read widely that 30 million alone were starved to death betwen 1959-1961 alone, and most estimates of the Maoist years range from 40-120 million, with all acknowledging Mao as the worst mass murderer in history. The USSR, here listed as the top killer, might be about right, with 20-60 million estimated dead in the gulags, but his preference for the high side. The Nazis are credited with almost 21m dead, but most records of the death camps list 10-12m tops. The rest may have died due to Nazi bombing, etc, but that's something that seems apart from this term's definition.

On the other side, there seems to be some egregious lowballing of other genocides. Examples: I was taught and read that under King Leopold in the Congo there were about 8m minimum, and up to 20m killed. The 13m Native Americans kiled in 4 centuries seems absurdly low for the whole New World, as I have always read 60-70 million estimated. Perhaps 13m in the first century of the Conquistadores, but not 4 centuries.

Also the slavery of Africans, for four centuries, and presumably worldwide- the Americas, Arab lands, and in Africa- seems absurdly low, as I have read 10-20m alone in the USA over 250 years. Surely including the other regions, that number is much higher.

This brings me to

2) The man, himself. In looking at his article, and that online, he seems dangerously close to being a Lyndon LaRouche/David Irving fringe figure. His website is merely agitprop. I am not a Left Winger, but this man is clearly partisan, and his bias against Communism and for America seems too convenient. I won't go into some of his other bizarre claims, and I am not saying he should not have an entry, but his term should be housed there, and this info merged with genocide.

Which leads me to

3) This term--democide--seems utterly superfluous, and merely a knock off of genocide. I understand he thinks it's more specific than genocide, in that mass killing is not always based on gene types or races, but the demo- prefix confuses it with democracy, and genocide's definition has expanded since it was coined 50+ years ago to go beyond mere ethnicity. Had he coined this term 50 years ago it might be legit, but now it smacks of propaganda.

This 'coinage' seems dubious, and I find no credible researchers beside Rummel who use this term. It seems, reading his claims of Nobel nomination, that this is a frustrated old man who is desperate for attention, and seeks to get it with this term.

In short, I don't read anything new here that genocide does not cover, the statistics are wildly inaccurate, to even a relative amateur as myself, and the proponent of the term is a highly suspect figure. This entry reads more like a vanity/self-promotion piece.

Again, I would say that his crackpottery should be noted, but isn't his own page enough? I just tire of these loons, Left or Right, who feel their scientific/political wildness is cause for real legitimization.

Again, this article reads as an advertisement to me, and is redundant--in that both genocide, and the man's bio entry, cover this ground.

Is there any way a discussion of its deletion/merger into those other articles be started? NormalGoddess 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Democide gives over 100,000 google hits.[2] Many other researchers have used the term as can be seen in Google scholar.[3] Rummel is a respected researcher and has received several awards for his research. He has been cited by many other researchers.[4] All estimates of democide are more or less controversial. I will correct the numbers for Mao which do not include his reevalution of the Great Leap Forward. Regarding Native Americans, he does not include the new diseases, like smallpox, in intentional democide, and that is was killed most. For an actual example of his detailed calculations and sources, look for example at this: [5].Ultramarine 16:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Nazi democide, Rummel agrees with your figures for camp deaths. However, the Nazi killed many millions outside these.[6][7]Ultramarine 17:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, Ultramarine. As far as the popularity of the term in Google, 100,000 is small change. Crop circle gets nearly six million. And in Googling about there seems to be a small cult about this man who quote him and requote. Your second link, as example, gave only 293 entries, a good portion of which were from Rummel or associates. In the scholar link I searched Intelligent Design and found nearly half a million hits. It seems you've merely shown how fringe this guy is in regards to crop circles and ID, two very wacky ideas- and apolitical.

But, even granting that, my point is this article is redundant, since it has info in both the bio entry for the man, and in 'genocide'.

And just on a personal note. In just looking at some of the pieces this guy has written in usage of this term, there seems to be a sense of resentment and envy that whomever coined genocide beat him to the term.

I guess I feel that the term is superfluous, the man and statistics dubious--and as you, Ultramarine have shown, even a fringe figure amongst fringe ideas, by terms of references on Google-- but even more so, there's something desperate and, well, just unseemly, about the whole episode; as if Rummel wants his little place in Webster's, and is trying to take credit for ideas and words others beat him to. This goes beyond his politics.

It just feels like he's some geek who came up with calculus a century after Newton, and resents the hell out of Newton, so called calculus 'mathemus', or something, and wants to steal credit. And again, it just seems superfluous, and a waste of bandwidth when this info is elsewhere in Wiki. NormalGoddess 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly terms naturally do not get as much attention as popular term like "crop circles". Democide gets more hits than for example "politicide" or about the same as Congo Free State. Are you arguing that the article about the Congo free state should be deleted? Your Google scholar search is misleading, use "Intelligent Design" with punctation and you get 5,000 hits for an extremely popular topic. Have a look at his scholarly research as shown in the links above, he has spent decades compiling the data. Genocide do not include for example killings of political opponents, so there is obviously a need for this term for government murder.Ultramarine 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think the point is missed. In order to justify the term it cannot be a simple synonym, or else it's really and manifestly absurd. Were I to try to steal credit for Moby-Dick or the toaster I would alter things slightly, then charge hard for credit. In both cases- quoted or not- the case for the term's relevance is extremely weak. And I did, yesterday, read through his site and published papers. Again, this only paints him as a fringe character like a David Irving or Lyndon LaRouche.

For example, colonialism's horrors- save for the Congo- are almost entirely absent. Where are the millions killed under British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and German rule outside the Americas? Again, like the lowballing of Native and African Americans, this smacks of an agenda, and apologism for America is rife on his site, as are his dubious theories on democracy and war. And it's generally accepted that Genghis Khan alone, in the less than two decades of his conquests, amassed a minimum of 20m dead. the largest pre-20th C. killer. In the four centuries afterward (only 2 of which are mentioned) his progeny were no less bloodthirsty, so the overall Mongol figure is likely lowballed. His figurs for Native American dead also seem predicated on pre-1980 estimates of pre-Columbian population. It was thought then not even a million people were in the New World, where we now know several million lived in modern Mexico alone, and that the Mississipian cultures accounted for at least a million souls. Estimates range from 15-20m minimum to three-four times that.

That all said, it just seems like he's trying to ride others' coattails, and claim credit for a term that is superfluous, for genocide does, indeed, include, in common usage, political opponents, elsewise Mao and Stalin would not be listed in all genocide totals. It seems that you are merely offering apologiae, not a logical defense of the term, much less the political implications of the philosophies behind them, which, again, border on LaRouchian territory.

But, my gripe is not with his theories, but with the sort of blatantly asterisky way a fringe figure is seeking legitimacy for others' work- which preceded it, and seems much stronger. That, and the fact that all this information is available on his entry and the genocide one. NormalGoddess 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You make lots of claims without any sources. Again, democide is not the same as genocide, the legal definiton of genocide do not include killings of for example political opponents. His total figure for colonialism this century is 50 million people. Again, most Native Americans died from the new diseases from the old world, this was not intentional murder.Ultramarine 22:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you should add the criticism to the article. The article is not factually incorrect, it report the number Rummel's research has shown correctly.Ultramarine 17:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Notice

I am going to put a disputed notice on this article. This article relies very heavily on RJ Rummel's figures and I don't believe he is a reliable source. Rummel is a hard rightwinger whose figures for communist democide are far higher than those commonly accepted by other sources, while his figures for Western democide are ridiculously low.

For example, he claims that US democide in Vietnam amounts to just 6,000 civilians! That's right, the US "murdered" only 6,000 civilians in Vietnam, in spite of dropping more ordnance on the country than was dropped in the whole of World War II combined.

By contrast, the NV government itself estimates that more than 2 million Vietnamese civilians died in the war, together with 1.1 million VC/NVA soldiers. Other sources put the civilian death toll even higher. And these figures of course, do not include Laos and Cambodia in which it is commonly estimated that US bombing killed 600,000 respectively. Rummel's figures by contrast are 60,000 for Cambodia (ten times less than the commonly quoted figure) and 0 for Laos! That's right, apparently US bombing killed nobody in Laos in spite of entire cities being obliterated by US bombing and the survivors forced to live in caves.

I must say I'm suprised there isn't more criticism of Rummel's work on the net. However I did find the following:

Rummel's conclusions have been criticized the lack of definite correlation. He neglects current conflicts between Israel and Palestine as well as India and Pakistan, all of which are democratic nations--although Rummel's defenders would retort that Palestine was never a real democracy until 2005, and that Pakistan is ruled by a strongman who wields a great deal of undemocratic power. Moreover, were Israel truly at war with Palestine, Palestine would be destroyed due to the enormous disparity of power, and if Pakistan and India were truly at war with each other then tens of millions would die. Rummel's real point is that democracies rarely go to war with each other, and liberal democracies (defined by free speech, free press, and universal franchise) never do. Neither Pakistan nor Palestine, at this time, qualifies as a liberal democracy.

Rummel's conclusions have also been criticized for not considering the number of deaths due to anarchy and the lack of government, through mechanisms such as civil conflict, the breakdown of society, and foreign invasion. Some have found the data that he uses to be questionable.

Other people point out that his methods of calculation of the death toll are highly controversial. He compares the statistical data before and after a certain date and derives an estimate about the number of killings that occurred between. However, he fails to establish evidence of actual killing. Moreover, his results are based on an absolute trust in statistical data and statistics are prone to errors.

However, he himself uses the wider sense of "killed by", including all kinds of "reason-result" relationships between acts of government and actual deaths. Moreover, in calculating the number of victims, he doesn't feel he needs evidence of a death; the result of statistical calculation is, for Rummel, effective proof that death occurred.

For an example of alleged manipulation: Rummel estimates the death toll in the Rheinwiesenlager as between 4,500 and 56,000. Official US figures were just over 3,000 and a German commission found 4,532. The high figure of 56,000 also merited the notation "probably much lower" in Rummel's extracts.

Another flaw in Rummel's statistical calculations is that he doesn't use error margins.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/R._J._Rummel

Your only source is a Wikipedia clone which cites a very old version of the Wikipedia articlea about Rummel. Please cite some reliable sources. Ultramarine 09:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I need a "reliable source"? This guy claims that no civilians were killed by American bombs in Laos! In spite of the fact that Laos had the most intensive aerial bombardment of any country since WWII (or was it, most intensive, period?) It's his claims that are not credible in my view. Gatoclass 11:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rummel do indeed note that the US commited democide by bombing in Laos. See his website. Ultramarine 11:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. According to lines 242-243 of his chart (at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB13.1.GIF ) he appears to concede that 3,000 Laotians died from bombing. Laos was the most heavily bombed place on earth, with more than a million tons of bombs dropped - a bombing sortie every nine minutes for the entire duration of the war - and Rummel says it resulted in 3000 dead. And yet it's been widely reported that 5,700 Laotian civilians have been killed by unexploded ordnance since the end of the war alone.

Rummel also makes the astonishing claim that a paltry 6,000 Vietnamese civilians died from US democide during the war (see chart). This in spite of the fact that the total number of civilians killed was probably in excess of 2 million. This simply defies credulity.

Some of Rummel's other figures are also extremely dubious. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica estimates that 50,000 boat people drowned trying to escape Vietnam after the war. A couple of other sources put the figure as high as 200,000. But Rummel gives a figure of half a million. Why is his figure so much larger than everyone else's, and how could he (or anyone) possibly know what the true figure was? Gatoclass 13:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that democide explicitly exclude people killed in battle. So Viet Cong fighters killed during bombings are excluded. His 3,000 from Laos is the lower limit. If you dispute that more civilans were killed, give a reliable source. The same for Vietnam. Regarding the Boat People, that would democide by Communist Vietnam, not the US. Note that Rummel usually only compiles many estimates by other people. His sources for the Boat People can be found on his site: [8].Ultramarine 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Uppsala University debunks Rummel's methodology. I quote: ...The first part shows that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito’s Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/1/85

Here is Rummel's response: [9] Ultramarine 14:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Historian Edwin Moise has the following short review of one of Rummel's books:

Rudolph J. Rummel, Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994. 510 pp. From what I have seen of it, the section dealing with Vietnam is dreadfully inaccurate. Examples:

p. 246, bottom, says that in the Red River Delta "98 percent of the peasants owned the land they worked." This is incorrect; Rummel has relied on careless authors who misunderstood statistics that actually (if you trace this figure back to its original source, Yves Henry, Economie agricole de l'Indochine, p. 108) said that 98% of the people who owned land worked part or all of the land that they owned.

p. 250: "The party's Politburo believed that 95 percent of the land was owned by the wealthiest 5 percent of the people." This is baloney; the Politburo neither believed nor suggested it believed in any figure even close to this.

p. 250, just below the middle of the page, does a computation starting from a quota of five landlords to be executed per village in 15,000 villages. Leave aside the question of whether there was such a quota (the source is grossly unreliable). The source that claimed there was a quota of five executions per village used the word "village" to mean the administrative village, xa in Vietnamese, of which there were less than 4,000 in the area covered by the campaign. The book from which Rummel got the figure of 15,000 villages was talking about a subdivision of the xa, the natural village or hamlet.

p. 252: Rummel says that there was a rebellion in the province of Nghe An in November 1956, bloodily suppressed by the Communists. "Rebellions also broke out elsewhere. The worst of these, near Vinh, involved protests . . ." The problem with this is that Vinh is the capital of Nghe An province. An author (Douglas Pike) who didn't know where Vinh was, looked at some accounts of the Communists suppressing a rebellion in Nghe An, and some accounts of the Communists suppressing a rebellion near Vinh, and didn't realize that both sets of accounts referred to the same incident. He wrote it up as two different rebellions, one in Nghe An and the other in some unnamed province that contained the city of Vinh. Rummel borrowed his error. This is about average for the level of knowledge of the people from whom Rummel gets his information.

Another example of Rummel's habit of counting the same thing twice: His figure (p. 253) of 360,000 for the total number of people the Communists killed in the period 1953-56 was achieved partly by counting the people killed in the land reform twice. He took Gerard Tongas' estimate of 100,000 for the people killed in the land reform, and decided it was actually a figure for the number of people killed in the rent reduction campaign, so he could add it to the estimates by other authors for the number of people killed in the land reform campaign.

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/EdMoise/atroc.html

Gatoclass 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Would be more credible if in an academic paper or book. Certainly, all figures regarding mass murder are more or less disputed, which is noted in the article. There is not even a consensus regarding the exact number killed during the Holocaust. No evidence has been shown that all of his figures are wrong and he is probably the only researcher who have tried to study all reports regarding mass murder and attempted to compile them. Ultramarine 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think I've compiled enough evidence here regarding Rummel's reliability to justify the retention of the dispute notice. Gatoclass 14:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What evidence? That some other researchers disagree regarding numbers killed in Vietnam and Yugoslavia? There are disputes regarding every number of mass murder and this is noted in the article. Ultramarine 14:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not simply a matter of disagreeing on the figures - these authors are clearly implying that Rummel's research is substandard. But even if they weren't doing so, the fact that his figures are disputed by others knowledgeable in the field is by itself enough, I believe, to justify the dispute notice. His numbers are being disputed, and by reputable scholars. Gatoclass

Obviously every researcher who disagrees with other researchers find their research substandard. However, no evidence has been shown that Rummel's research on democide has been falsely represented. The article clearly states that there are different opinions regarding numbers killed so the article is not factually incorrect. Add criticism of this research and other numbers to the article if you think that this is necessary for NPOV. Ultramarine 17:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm content to let your compromise edit stand for the time being. However, the more I look at Rummel's figures and his methodology, the more I'm persuaded that the guy is a shonk. I'm going to continue to look into this issue as and when I can find the time, with a view to adding some balance to the Rummel pages. Regards, Gatoclass 04:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Disputed Notice

I've been meaning to come up with an edit that would reconcile me to the removal of the POV notice on this page for some time, and I finally got around to it today. I've altered the caveat on a couple of Rummel's tables from "Note that most figures for mass murder are more or less disputed" to "Note that Rummel's figures for mass murder are not necessarily accepted by other academics", and removed the POV notice accordingly.

Edit: I've altered the caveat slightly to "Note that Rummel's figures for mass murder do not necessarily have broad acceptance in the academic community" which I think is more NPOV because it doesn't imply as the previous caveat did that no other academic agrees with him. Gatoclass 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One-Sidedness

This article seems too one-sided. Rummel this... Rummel that...

Mr. Rummel should be aware that the term "democide" was not in fact created by him. The term was used in the 1951 article by Theodore Abel, yet Abel is not cited as a source...interesting use of plagiarism Mr. Rummel.

I don't know about previous uses of the term (though if true it should certainly be added), but this article does exhibit a great deal of one-sidedness. As mentioned above, it seems much more a promotion of Rummel and his research than a description of the concept of democide (if it can be considered a distinct concept from genocide). There's a lot of material here that's more relevant to Rummel than the democide concept. There are three separate links in the main text to his website, his FAQ, and one of his books. This choice line illustrates the problems: "In short his data are all estimates available in English for all nations over a period of a century, and available in the libraries he worked in...." HarshLanguage 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Israels democide

Why is Israel not on his list? if it wasnt state terror they have done, if it isnt genocide on islam and arabs, then it must be democide, especially if you look at Rummels list and fabricated numbers. He has clearly dubbelstandards of Israels killings and removal of arabs is not in the list, how can he try and put Turkey on the list? they did less than Israel, and he doesnt have sources and scientific explanations for the numbers. This is so strange, so can I also say, Israel 1948 tilll present, democide: 20.000.000 ? come on ````

Democide is a neologism

According to Webster's dictionary [10], the American Heritage dictionary [11], and dictionary.com [12] , democide is not an established word in the english language. Using Neologisms certainly violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. This article should be a candidate for speedy deletion. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.

Why Wikipedia prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. [13]

Why this article qualifies

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Abe Froman 16:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

200,000 Google hits, cited in 400 academic works in Google scholar. These dictionaries do not mention "state terrorism" or "house demolition" either, should they be removed? Ultramarine 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

*1. Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline mentions dictionaries as word sources, not google hits or academic works.

*2. Invoking state terrorism is a red herring. State Terrorism is a phrase, not a word. Abe Froman 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic sources the most reliable, see WP:RS. "State terrorism" or "house demolition" are equivalnt equivalent to new widely used words.Ultramarine 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the guideline. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. From the guideline: "articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate." Abe Froman 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is not only simply defining the term any more than house demolition is. From the guideline "the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal" which has been done.Ultramarine 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

* Democide belongs in the article about the author, or in an article about governments killing its own people. Democide clearly meets the standard in the guideline for avoiding neologisms. Indeed, "articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate. " This article should be moved or merged. Even supporters of this article can agree to this.

* The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [14] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Abe Froman 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As anyone can see, the article is about more than simply a definition. Also as anyone can see by going beyond the first page, there are many more than four scholars.Ultramarine 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The google sidebar in the link only lists 4. Try citing the works directly to get a higher number, if one exists that is. Abe Froman 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The sidebar is not a complete list of the authors.[15] The next page for example lists an author not in the sidebar, ED Richter, as one example.Ultramarine 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite directly from the works. WP:CITE does not tolerate all-in-one link farms. Abe Froman 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CITE:

Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

Abe Froman 21:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This a talk page, not the main article page. Anone can easly follow the link.Ultramarine 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The link you are using is on the main article page, in the lead. As you must see, it violates WP:CITE for failing to indicate it is an intermediate link farm, not authoritative citations to the original works. Abe Froman 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no intermediate source, I am citing the search result of Google scholar.Ultramarine 22:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

With the google hits argument, you are making an argument that hurts you own case. Using "Google Hits" as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments Not To Use In Article Deletion Cases". [16] I have reproduced this for your benefit.

Google test

Please read also the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Examples:

Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. --GoogleBoy 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Delete Only 10 Google hits, non-notable. --GoogleGirl 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as popular as has been claimed.

A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Wikipedia:Search engine test.

Abe Froman 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Google scholar is not the same as ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available.Ultramarine 22:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is rich. Google is not google, just like this word can be a word without existing in any dictionary. You realize how ridiculous this sounds. Abe Froman 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the AFD, it's a common mistake about linguistics to believe that a word isn't real unless it's in the dictionary. There are various reasons why words in current use fail to appear in dictionaries: mainly time lag between compilations, but also dictionary politics, prescriptive bias, space considerations, etc. Only a few decades ago you could have used that argument to prove that the stronger swear-words weren't words, because most dictionaries bowdlerised them out. Go read Merriam-Webster on the topic: If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?. Gordonofcartoon 15:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar searches scholarly sources which are the most reliable sources available, ordinary Google do not.Ultramarine 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, undeniably a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Cite using the actual scholarly papers themselves to avoid this subjectivity problem Abe Froman 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A search enginge for scholarly sources, the most reliable available, is different from one going through all the web. The only caution against Google Scholar is that "Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability" since it may miss material not available in online journals. That is not the issue here, Google Scholar has found many 400 academic works, so if it have missed some academic works that are not available online, these would only makes the notability stronger.Ultramarine 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've appended one specific source - i.e. one that talks about it, rather than merely using it - after the intro para. If anyone cares to trawl Google Books for more, that would solve the objection. I don't have a detailed ref handy, but I recall the historian Simon Sebag Montefiore uses it in his "Stalin: the Red Tsar" book. Gordonofcartoon 09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Neologism argument

Above, Ultramarine has stated that there are over 100,000 google hits. A cursory check of google has shown that there are approximately 33,400 currently. The majority of them, if they aren't written by Rummel himself, certainly reference him. Therefore, I propose that this article be merged into [Genocide] and Rummel's own articles. Wikipedia is not a place where neologisms should be thrown about willy-nilly. I had no idea this word existed a week ago until I saw it here on Wikipedia in a list of genocides. Research since then has shown that it is a convenient blanket for a number of extant terms, under Rummel's POV! Since the term is not being widely used, there are no sources for democides other than the ones Rummel is listing; therefore, the term is loaded in his favour.

Further, I propose that if the article cannot be merged, it should be put up for deletion again. Unless somebody can turn up some articles that aren't by or about Rummel? Perhaps ones that also give equal weight to the term democide alongside terms such as genocide, so it doesn't seem like merely an adverisement for the term? Brady Clarke 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of context

I first read this and didn't really understand the significance.

"Rummel's counts 43 million deaths due to democide during Stalin's regime inside and outside the Soviet Union. This is much higher than an often quoted figure of 20 million."

So what?

"One of his main findings is that liberal democracies have much less democide than authoritarian regimes."

Well... yeah. Most people would consider this self-evident.

"His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war."

Ok. And?

Now, after reading through his site, I see the point he's making. The essence is that he's encouraging war as the lesser evil; specifically, wars that "spread freedom", or "liberal democracies", which would then prevent future democides. So he strongly supports Bush and his wars because, even though they're destabilizing and killing lots of innocent people, they will ultimately result in democracies and prevent some future horror that would have killed even more.

I didn't get this at all out of this article and it should be made clear, especially in the introduction, the context of why he came up with this term and what he believes the implications are. If others have used the term before he did, of course, their context should be explained, too. — Omegatron 02:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The point Rummel is making is that democide is a specific type of wiping out of large groups of people, different from other forms because it's done by governments against their own people; and furthermore that liberal democracies are to be preferred over other forms of government, based on the the number of people killed by their own governments. His theories predate (1992) Bush's election to office. — Loadmaster 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rummel

This article seems to be way more about this guy rummel than about democide. The "research" section talks about no one's research but Rummel's, and the definition section is full of "rummel defines" "rummel says" language. If those qualifiers are necessary then the article is POV, if those definitions truly define the widespread usage of the word then all the "rummel" qualifiers are not needed and should be taken out. Right now this article looks like a soapbox for this one guys views and needs serious work including especially usage by other people (preferably not referencing Rummel) in order to be useful. Right now, a stub consisting of just the lead paragraphs would be better than the article as a whole Jieagles (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

He is the creator of the the term, so obviously he is prominent. As noted in the intro the term is used by many other scholars. The research section mentions other scholars.Ultramarine (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

American Genocide

Should not the USA's (or at the very least the early colonists) succesfull efforts to get rid of native americans by dehumanizing them, and by coming up with excuses for them to be removed even though it was their land, (including when indians were forced to move from their land even after the United States Supreme Court be counted as genocide? If not, what category does this action fall under?