Jump to content

Talk:Genocides in history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.104.219.76 (talk) at 20:09, 7 October 2013 (→‎IP Editor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Conspiracy theory masqurading as skepticism

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

Formatting and linking

I have cleaned up this article again because it seems that a bunch of my edits were incorrectly reverted. Here are my edits:

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, for quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics.
  • remove date links
  • remove repeated links (e.g., "genocide") and links to plain English words per WP:REPEATLINK (e.g., nation, disease)
  • remove boldface per WP:BOLDFACE
  • spell out acronyms (like PKK) on first use per WP:MOS
  • use a person's first and last name the first time he/she is mentioned (Tito, Obote, Mao)

Ground Zero (talk) 29 November 2010

Shaka Zulu & Tamerlane

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

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

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

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

"At Isfahan (Persia) in 1387, Tamerlane's army massacred the entire population and built a pyramid of 70,000 severed heads. ... Near Delhi, India in 1398-9, Tamerlane slaughtered 100,000 captive Indian soldiers. In Assyria (1393-4) - Tamerlane got around - he killed all the Christians he could find, including everyone in the Kurdish Christian city of Tikrit, thus virtually destroying Christianity in Mesopotamia. Impartially, however, Tamerlane also slaughtered Shi'ite Muslims, Jews and heathens."
Tobby72 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a usable source saying that what they did was specifically genocide or genocidal, then we can include it.--Yalens (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Yale historian Michael Mahoney, Zulu armies often aimed not only at defeating enemies but at “their total destruction. Those exterminated included not only whole armies, but also prisoners of war, women, children, and even dogs.” ... Mahoney characterizes these policies as genocidal. “If genocide is defined as a statemandated effort to annihilate whole peoples, then Shaka's actions in this regard must certainly qualify.”
"Timur's conquests were accompanied by genocidal massacres in the towns and cities he occupied."
Tobby72 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The Free Congo State was not genocidal, it was a brutal slave labor system. It was designed not to kill people of whatever racial, ethnic, religious or even just political reasons, but to extract as much profit as possible from a colony in an extremely ruthless manner. Yes, there's a difference. --Niemti (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you think those people carrying out this slave system were not AWARE of its consequences? Do you think King Leopold and his henchmen were not aware of the CONSEQUENCES of their policies? Are you taking us for 10 years-old kids, with this 10-years old logic of yours?RaduFlorian (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a section on Colonial Genocides, source here for the Congo. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything about "an intent to destroy" any ethnic group by Leopold proven in the article, I see an intent to make money through slavery enforced by terror. It's like to say this more recent crime was genocidal (it wasn't). --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is right at the end "There is some debate over whether the Congo catastrophe qualifies as genocide, because the Congo state did not act with the intent of eliminating one or more ethnic groups.[2] However, the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide includes deliberate killings, for whatever motive, of members of an ethnic group with the intent to destroy them as such, “in whole or in part.” This suggests that the Congo Free State, in deciding to wipe out particular ethnic groups that resisted its inhuman practices, did indeed practice genocide." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in this the article totally contradicts itself and makes zero sense, writing: because the Congo state did not act with the intent of eliminating one or more ethnic groups immediately followed by This suggests that the Congo Free State, in deciding to wipe out particular ethnic groups. (I'm deeply sorry for my "10-years old logic of mine".) --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people who ran the Congo Free State were FULLY AWARE of the consequence of their policies, they were fully aware that mass enslavement and starvation would lead to massive deaths, which makes them perfectly guilty of genocide in my opinionRaduFlorian (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does exactly what we are supposed to do, gives both views. At least that is how it seems to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would if it named these "particular ethnic groups" that were "decided to be wiped out". Instead, it talks about a general system of exploitation and terror (also noting that the officers were white, but foot soldiers were African, mostly from other countries). The whole thing was similar to a criminal enterprise (literally) of Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone (including profit from resources as a motive and a widespread practice of hacking off limbs as a vehicle of inflicting terror upon the population), and note how he was never accused of genocide ("just" a host of war crimes and crimes against humanity). --Niemti (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really just comes down to how secondary sources treat the subject. From what I've read some call it genocide, some don't, some say "sort of", some discuss it in depth. The article should reflect that.Volunteer Marek 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misunderstanding of what is and what is not constituting genocide. Actually no one even has even to die in a genocide as defined in the UN lgal definition (and I'm serious, it's actually things like "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" or "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" which is something like that), while every sort of mass deaths don't necesserily constitute genocide without precisely "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" (Lemkin actually intended to include political and social groups, but this was rejected by the UN because of the USSR). Slavery isn't genocide (it's slavery), terror isn't genocide too (it's terror). Different crimes. Apples and oranges. Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University: "Slavery, for example, is called genocide when - whatever it was, and it was an infamy - it was a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate the living." (Analysis: Defining genocide) --Niemti (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh my GOSH, my "10-years-old logic". TOO long DIDN'T read, LOL. --Niemti (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that people are going to die from your policies does mean that it is genocide. I'm sure the leaders in the Congo free state knew what was going to happen or had some idea. Mass murder does not necessarily equal genocide. No one here is denying the truly awful nature of the Congo free state. What do you mean by I think it's plain to see White Supremacists have forged an alliance in the latest period with supporters of Jewish exclusivism.Stumink (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The intent" is everything, and King Lepold's intent was just to make money from rubber through a ruthless exploitation of his private colony, and nothing else. Just like Liberia's Charles Taylor sponsored the RUF "rebels" in Sierre Leone (and was recently convicted for this) only to make money from diamonds extracted by slaves, and not because he was concerned that in Sierra Leone are too many people with too many limbs (because yes, they were also chopping off limbs en masse). --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we even having this conversation? We have RS which call it a genocide, that is all that matters here, not what editors think. The content goes in per policy, and that really ought to be the end of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me see? "Controversially, Hochschild compared the death toll in the Belgian-administered Congo to the Holocaust and Stalin's purges." (This ref, the rest are books that I can't check.) Well, according to Wikipedia (the article King Leopold's Ghost), "Hochschild does not use the word genocide, but describes how the mass deaths happened as a result of the forced labor system instituted at Leopold's direction." Furthermore the ref article says (in the sub headline no less): "Historians will investigate charges of Congo genocide" - it was in 2002, so are they still investigating over a decade later, or did they just find nothing? ("We will look at these claims, we will investigate them, and by 2004 we will attempt to provide an answer to Hochschild's book," Guido Gryseels, the director of the museum, said." - 2004 was also long ago, no?) Aaaand the Wikipedia article (this article) cites Paul Kagame, who was himself accused by the UN of genocide in Congo which I guess makes him a great authority on the subject of genocide in Congo indeed. So I'd agree with "Why are we even having this conversation?" too, but for a completely different reason. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh, and in the meantime, you don't even mention this: [1][2] at all, and only mentions Kagame as a supposed expert on history or something. --Niemti (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

And your fixation with imaginary genocides is simply amazing, RaduFlorian. To quote Hochschild himself (who unintentionally started the whole misundestanding): "This is a red herring, for no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different." --Niemti (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse Niemti of being biased against Black Africans and of being a white supremacist. Based on what? His claim that the Congo free state was not genocide or for wanting to add UN allegations of genocide against Kagame during the Congo wars. Judging by this discussion, if anyone is being biased, it is you Radu considering you blamed 1990's ethnic killing by Hutus's and Tutsi's in the Congo and Rwanda on westerners and colonial belgians. You are clearly being baised against Europeans and Westerners here. Stumink (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stumink on this point. Westerners (or Northerners) may at times have had more advanced technology and government, which allowed large-scale killing to be more efficient, but they certainly didn't have a monopoly on genoicidal intent. When locally-run media tells everybody in ethnic group A to exterminate all the cockroaches in ethnic group B (or "Get them before they get us")... that's not something you can blame on an external bogeyman, whether the media are based in Kigali or Belgrade. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact Tutsis and Hutus in both Rwanda and Burundy lived in harmony with each other prior to Europeans popping up and starting to systematically privilege Tutsis over Hutus, is undisputable. Sure, the Tutsis did form an aristocracy prior to European arrival yet there was nothing like chattel slavery and serfdom or systematic discrimination in pre-colonial Rwanda and Burundi. The systematical disenfranchisement of Hutus and priviliging of Tutsis were EUROPEAN inventions, they began in Rwanda and Burundi only AFTER Germans and Belgians started popping up like poisonous mushrooms (yes, "poionous mushrooms" is the word)!RaduFlorian (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to to stop abusing Caps Lock, and we need to rid Wikipedia of the fringe tehories you added to this and maybe other articles. --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)--Niemti (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything to this article for if I had added anything, make sure it would have been more harsh than it already is. I just objected to you and your people deleting the Free Congo State section and also to adding a supposed Hutu Genocide in DR Congo section, just to "even things out" in an instance when things should NOT be evened out.RaduFlorian (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My people." OK, my people, are we deleting this stupid red-herring confusion altogether, or just explain how it was one big misunderstanding it was? --Niemti (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Romans

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

Already in Genocide of indigenous peoples Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up, the article used to be horrible, now is less but still would use of copy edit. Anyway, it's a different article. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying my work is horrible, real nice of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the term "genocide" to a time when it wasn't understood

It's very modern to define a term, apply it to the present and future. Then try to apply it to a time when it wasn't understood. We may believe that Manifest destiny is a bad idea now, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Like widespread abortion today. How will future generations perceive that? Pointing fingers at some past people and labeling them seems preposterous. Great to document them in a single article, but to label them "genocide" is just moral posturing. Most of the deaths prior to (say) 1900 should not be in any article with "genocide" at the top of it. It just isn't credible. I'm sure this has been brought up before. Editors are sometimes just too media-oriented (pov) to be editing an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to rely on vague handwaving about the future and the past. We rely on reliable sources, which makes it really easy: If reliable sources say that something is genoicide, so should we.
Hey, why not try editing Christopher Columbus to get rid of hundreds of neologisms - for instance that page uses the word "America" seventy-four times but Columbus never did, since the name was coined after his death. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not in source?

An editor rm new material saying that he couldn't see them justified in the source. The material was:

"The Allies condemned the deaths (called a "massacre" at the time) of the Armenians in 1915. The Ottoman Empire officially agreed, in the Treaty of Sevres that the reason for moving the Armenians, had been illegal. The Allies stated their belief that this had been a crime prior to this time.(ref) http://alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/armlegopi.shtml (endref)"

See " It is worth remembering that U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., had called the massacres “race murder” and that on 10 July 1915"

and

See "Pursuant to article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres:

“The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1 st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal….”(4)" (footnote theirs)

and

" on 28 May 1915, the Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia had issued a joint declaration denouncing the Ottoman Government's massacre of the Armenians as constituting “crimes against humanity and civilization." In fact, the new Turkish government convicted Enver and others, using the term 'crims against humanity and civilization."

and

"“The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.

“The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found…. The Turkish Government agrees that arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by summary procedure.”(5)" [footnote theirs]


(continuation of paragraph) "It became important to establish this as an existing internationally-recognized crime preliminary to the Nuremberg Trials in 1948 so those responsible for the Holocaust could be legally tried.(ref) http://groong.usc.edu/dezayas-memorandum.html (endref)"

See "the provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sèvres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ... offences which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian... race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles 6 c) and 5 c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of 'crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments."17"

The term genocide itself was officially used in the indictment of 18 October 1945," For the first time the word "genocide" was formally used in a legal document.

See prior ref "74. In his opening Statement at the International Military Tribunal, the British Chief Prosecutor Lord Hartley Shawcross stated: “There is thus no substantial retroactivity in the provisions of the Charter. It merely fixes the responsibility for a crime already clearly established as such by positive law upon its actual perpetrators. It fills a gap in international criminal procedure. There is all the difference between saying to a man, ‘You will now be punished for what was not a crime at all at the time you committed it,', and in saying to him ‘You will now pay the penalty for conduct which was contrary to law and a crime when you executed it, although, owing to the imperfection of the international machinery, there was at that time no court competent to pronounce judgement against you.'”

"There was probably no general understanding of the act of genocide prior to the early 19th century.(ref) http://hnn.us/article/7302 (endref)

See (after detailed analysis of the accusations) "in the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."

There are a number of these historical analyses on the web. It is apparent that, judged by the standards of their own time, which is the only real standard to which they can be held, they weren't doing anything particularly wrong. Student7 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor

Could the IP editor please explain why he is currently going through a great many articles on genocides and blanking content from them? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert WP:FRINGE or otherwise revisionist material into these articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is Guenter Lewy fringe. Stannard and Churchill both controversial sources to. This source is used on Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. The section needs a differing opinion just like every other controversial genocide. There should be counter opinions instead of just quotes supporting the genocide label. Tjis is the case with most of other genocides. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewy is a well-known genocide denier, see Tony Barta, With intent to deny: on colonial intentions and genocide denial, 10 J. of Genocide Research 111 (2008); Norbert Finzsch, If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, 10 J. of Genocide Research 119 (2008); David Stannard, De ́ja` vu all over again, 10 J. of Genocide Research 127 (2008). We need to pull his material from both articles. GregJackP Boomer! 20:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep him. He is still a notable scholar and there needs to be a counter claim. I don't think the objection of these scholars is enough to not make him RS. Stannard, Churchill and Casarini's claims are also controversial.88.104.219.76 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocides_in_history&oldid=576189179"