Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Genocides in history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Iraq sanctions

Why aren't the Iraqi sanctions listed here? Isn't it the case that two UN Assistant SG's, Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both resigned from their positions and denounced the sanctions as "genocide"? Gatoclass 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Halliday has called the sanctions genocide.[1][2] -- Why not write up a section? But a quick trawl of the Internet and I could not find an article that states that Hans von Sponeck used the term. BTW is Hans von Sponeck a relation of Hans Graf von Sponeck? --PBS 22:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is a POV for Dennis Halliday genocide comment

Some legal experts are sceptical about or even against using such terminology. “People who talk like that don’t know anything about law,” retorts Mario Bettati, who invented the notion of “the right of humanitarian intervention”. “The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that’s not at all a crime against humanity or genocide.”[3]

--PBS 23:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking

This incident, in which the Japanese Army in 1937 was released on the Chinese city of Nanking and directed to annihilate 300,000 Chinese civilians over the period of a few weeks, is considered a genocide. See Nanking Massacre article for sources.Jimhoward72 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the entire holocaust of the Asians by the japanese, from the late 1800s to 1945, including the Koreans, Chinese and Southeast Asians should be mentioned. Or at least a link to japanese war crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.184.238 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir

From the edit history of the article:

11:40, 5 September 2007 202.163.92.135: The Indian forces genocide against the Kashmiris should be added to the article.

See archives Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 1#Kashmir, Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 2#Kashmir --PBS 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for Bangladesh photo removal?

I find that the photo depecting a "racial cleansing" in action with a Pak army checking the private parts of a Bengali has been removed. Is there any particular reason why it was removed by PBS? Thanks.--Idleguy 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture was removed with this comment in the history:

11:40, 5 September 2007 202.163.92.135 (The Indian forces genocide against the Kashmiris should be added to the article.)

I have no opinion on the photo. --PBS 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

American Holocaust?

Why is there no mention of the +100 million Native Americans that were killed by the Europeans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asach (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Joshua's genocide of canaan people

why aren't there any statements about his genocide in canaan?YODAFON 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanola

The genocide in Hispanola is mentioned but I find the figure of eight million to be highly questionable. I do not believe this island was capable of supporting such a large population to begin with. While I do agree with the contention that Columbus exterminated virtually the entire population, I think this figure needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.57.156 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The section on Hispaniola does not contain a claim that it was genocide. Unless one is provided I intend to remove this section. --PBS 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the source given for the quote in the Hispanola section, (Prologue and Pestilence and Genocide excerpts from the book American Holocaust by David Stannard, Oxford University Press, 1992) I think a better quotes to use are:

"During the course of four centuries - from the 1490s to the 1890s - Europeans and white Americans engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." (p.147) * "[It] was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world."(Prologue)

American Holocaust The Conquest of the New World A review on the website of the Oxford University Press (the publishers). --PBS 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Americas

This section seems awfully long for a subject that most scholars do not consider to have been a genocide. I know it was previously deleted altogether, which would be acceptable to me, but I know some editors think it should be included. I suggest it be reduced to two modest paragraphs at most. All the info about the deaths by disease seems superfluous (a simple statement that most of the deaths were by disease and a cite or two should be enough). Mamalujo 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

it stinks of anti-western POV as well (as historical revision tends to do), omitting the fact that the Aztecs delivered atrocity akin to the worst of genocides upon their neighbors until the Spanish arrived, as well as the extermination of the Hurons by the Iroquois. Just off the top of my head, there could be more amerindian on amerindian hate crime... The Jackal God (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Slave Trade

Hello, I added this paragraph under "Americas" but it was removed:

Slave Trade

The human toll resulting from the Atlantic slave trade (which includes the conflicts and forced procurement of slaves in Africa and deaths resulting from the trip also known as the Middle Passage is estimated at between 8 and 16 million people.

I am wondering why it was removed? While some may see the loss of slaves as as "losses in inventory" others view it as a holocaust. I am quoting from the wikipedia article Atlantic slave trade: "The slave-trade is sometimes called the Maafa by African and African-American scholars, meaning "holocaust" or "great disaster" in Swahili."

Because of the number of trips over a number of decades one could say that the traders expected and planned for the losses of life they incurred. While it wasn't intentional extermination (the slaves were part of a business venture after all) one must say that the losses, if they weren't expected on the very first trip across, were factored into the "costs" of later trips. If the traders were willing to accept the costs of millions of deaths... I think that counts as a genocide. 71.252.124.129 23:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Mark Cimino 7:50 PM Oct 11, 2007

To whoever did it, thank you for putting "Slave Trade" back. However, now that I reflect on it, should there be a separate section called "Africa/Atlantic Slave Trade" since the slavery process extended from Africa to the Americas? According to the Atlantic slave trade wikipedia article one estimate is that half the deaths took place in Africa. Also, perhaps there should be a note explaining why this counts as a genocide -- that the business of slavery included the decimation of African villages and the expected attrition of lives in the middle passage. 71.252.124.129 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Mark Cimino 9:14 October 11, 2007

This is an article about recorded genocides, unless a reliable source third party source claims that an action was a genocide it should not be included on this page. Please read the genocide article, as you say "it wasn't intentional extermination" then if can not have been a genocide because the legal definition of genocide includes the phrase "with intent to destroy" and it only relates to certain types of groups. --PBS 12:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   But slaves were exterminated on purpose. When they were deemed useless they were killed. and millions died that way. 
What is Genocide?

(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

The slave trade is this. It complied to nearly all of the UN's definition.

--Vehgah (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A bad sentence

David Hiskiyahu, 12-Oct-2007 ----

This is a bad sentence: ' .. upwards of 11 million people (excluding Jews) were systematically "exterminated" (a Nazi term) by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Holocaust, of which over 10 millions were Slavs.[45] ..'

One may think that 10 million of collaborators were Slavs, while the intention of the article is to say that 10 million out of 11 million people killed, in this given context, were Slavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Croatia

I have moved this section here because neither the main article or this text has any sources -- let alone a reliable source -- claiming that this was a genocide. Several sentences have had {{fact}} on them since June and there is a quote without a citation (see WP:POINT) --PBS 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(1941 - 1945) Genocide against Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia. The Croatian Ustasha regime committed genocide against Serbs, Jews and Roma (Gypsies) during World War II. They also mass murdered other political opponents.

After the invasion and destruction of the Yugoslav army by the Axis Powers in 1941, they supported the creation of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) which was run by the Croatian fascist group the Ustaše. The leader of this state Ante Pavelić put into effect a campaign of persecution and genocide against the Serbs, Jews and Roma.

This policy was set out by Mile Budak, the Minister for Education & Culture who in his speech of 22 July 1941, said that:

The basis for the Ustashe movement is religion. For minorities such as the Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies, we have three million bullets. We will kill a part of the Serbs. Others we will deport, and the rest we will force to accept the Roman Catholic Religion. Thus the new Croatia will be rid of all Serbs in its midst in order to be 100% Catholic within 10 years.

The Independent State of Croatia was the only state created by the Axis Powers that ran its own concentration camps independently of Nazi direction, the largest being the Jasenovac concentration camp.

The number of people killed, deported and converted by the Croat Ustashe between 1941-1945 could be more than 1 000 000.^{[citation needed]}. See Ustaše#Victims and Jasenovac concentration camp for details. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (citing the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust): "Ustasa terrorists killed 500,000 Serbs, expelled 250,000 and forced 250,000 to convert to Catholicism. They murdered thousands of Jews and Gypsies."^{[citation needed]}

This Serbian Genocide resulted in elimination of the presence of Serbian people in a large section of Croatia and Bosnia. Independent State of Croatia]] (NDH) occupied a large section of Bosnia and Hercegovina and Serbia/Srem and massacred hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

The article currently states that the Independent State of Croatia "ruled the part of Yugoslavia that was occupied by the Axis Powers during World War II". Is this really correct? If thought Serbia, at least part of the time, was under German occupation and that other parts were under Italian/Albanian influence/control. If so, we should change the text.Osli73 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the numbers killed is so uncertain and controversial I agree that the article should cite a range. However, it appears that academics have been able to pinpoint a tighter range than that cited in the article. This from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's site:

Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac.
Germans and Ustaša killed approximately 32,000 Jews from Croatia between 1941 and 1945. The precise number of Jews murdered in the Jasenovac complex is not known, but estimates range from 8,000 to 20,000 victims. These numbers do not include Jews whom the Ustaša authorities turned over to the Germans for deportation to Auschwitz and other camps.
Statistics for Romani victims are difficult to assess, as there are no firm estimates of their number in prewar Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The best estimates calculate the number of Romani victims at about 26,000, of whom between 8,000 and 15,000 perished in Jasenovac.
There are only loose estimates for the number of Croats murdered by the Ustaša. This group included political and religious opponents of the regime, both Catholic and Muslim. Between 5,000 and 12,000 Croats are believed to have died in Jasenovac. There are no reliable statistics on the number of Muslim victims.

From this maybe we should state a range of 393,000-434,000 killed, with the vast majority being Serbs. I think a table is always helpful. That would also make it easier to present different estimates and ranges next to each other. How about thatOsli73 10:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

India

I removed the following recent addition stating in the edit history that the source does not use the word genocide:

A recent (as of August 2007) book by Amaresh Misra estimates that the number of people murdered by the British in retaliation for the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was 10 million. His calculations are based on triangulation of several different sets of records. If Misra's estimate is proved correct, this was the greatest genocide in history, worse than the Holocaust or Stalin's purges. Other historians have questioned these figures suggesting that the total includes refugees (as the figures are based on regional depopulation figures) and famine (a not uncommon occurrence in India at the time).(Guardian August 24, 2007 India's secret history: a holocaust)

However I am aware that some might argue that holocaust and genocide are interchangeable and that the Guardian use the word holocaust. But there are several other points on this particular entry:

To be a genocide there has to be intent to commit genocide, and the proportion killed must meet the "in part" requirement.
WP:Undue weight: One historian publishing a book on such a controversial issue, does not provide evidence that a consensus is emerging among historians to revise the historical consensus. If over the next few months more historians publish works supporting him then this may well become an event that I would support adding to this page, even if the majority view is still that it was not a genocide.
Also the sentence "If Misra's estimate... is unsourced and is WP:OR until sourced.

--PBS 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union genocides

I don't understand why somebody claims following "In legal terms, the word "genocide" may not be appropriate, because there was no proven intent to destroy a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group."

The good example is Soviet extermination of Poles 1937-1938. We have documented the whole operation directed for the ethnic group selected due to nationality. We have documented number of victims. What else is needed to remove this false statement?? Cautious 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To be included in this page a there needs to be a claim in a WP:RS source that an event was a genocide.

It is sometimes not easy to make the distinction between mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing. For example before the recent international court cases many people thought that ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was a form of genocide because it was argued the it was done with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national/ethnical/religious group, but the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Jorgic v. Germany noted in its findings that in the case of Prosecutor v. Krstic (2 August 2001) the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled "customary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. Hence, an enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide." (ECHR Jorgic v. Germany. § 42 citing Prosecutor v. Krstic, IT-98-33-T, judgment of 2 August 2001, §§ 580). See also ICJ Bosnian Genocide Case (February 26, 2007) --PBS 10:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't understand why this criteria is not used in the discussing article regarding other alleged genocides. Why it should be applied only in case of Polish peasants decimated by NKVD and not in other cases? 2. Please apply above criteria to specific case of Polish minority in USSR.

a) the group was targeted because of their nationality

b) the significant part was killed

Cautious 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Our conversation is now split over two pages Please see talk:Polish operation of the NKVD#Mass murder for more on this specific "operation". To be included in this page a there needs to be a claim in a reliable source that an event was a genocide. --PBS 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We mention that a number of the actions of the SU targeted specific ethnic groups and many of them lead to a large number of deaths. As I understand it, the reason why there is some dispute of the genocide label is the same as for many of the other examples, e.g. Australia, Americas, Ireland. It's generally taken that genocide requires the intention to kill a large number of people from a specific ethnic group. In many (although perhaps not all) cases of the SU, it's not clear the intention is there. Bad policy, reckless indifference and targetting groups for harsh living conditions without the intention to kill is often not considered genocide even if mass death of targeted individuals is the end result. Nil Einne 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We mention them because there are cited sources to those genocides or alleged genocides. To date entries for the Soviet union with the exception of the Holodomor have not bee added with cited sources. For those sections that are already in this list we need some objective way of assessing if we are giving undue weight to them. Does anyone have any suggestions of how we could go about finding that information. --PBS 13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Polish state officialy considers Katyn Massacre to be a Soviet genocide, just for the record. If needed I can find references.--Molobo 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Primitive genocides

We seem to have missed the primitive genocides. ex. The Erie tribe of the Americas was exterminated by their fellow American Indians so recently we have the written records from Western observers. Just noting there is a LONG way to go to make this an acceptable page.67.161.166.20 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove section titled "France"

The contention that the suppression of the Revolt in the Vendée constituted a case of genocide is a marginal one, indeed it only has several published supporters in the whole academic world, and the expert/scholarly consensus is that it was not a case of genocide. Therefore I propose that the section be removed wholesale, and the content transferred to the appropriate article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e#Claims_of_genocide (I have already copied and pasted much of the content to the latter article).

With regards to the case of Napolean and Haiti, although very controversial in itself (and having only one published, highly polemical source), I don't object to keeping it in the article per se - although there is a question of weighting, and whether this incident should stand on the same foot as the other sections on instances of genocide. I perhaps think it should be kept, but an appropriatethe title, such as "Napolean and Haiti" or something similar...

Please comment. Ledenierhomme 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is sourced and an opposing POV is given. I think it should stay. --PBS 11:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to keep a claim, in an encyclopedia, that is in deference to the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion? Really... why? Ledenierhomme 04:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dresden Bombings were acts of Genocide. "Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, wrote: Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes and, as Leo Kuper and Eric Markusen have argued, also acts of genocide." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II ("How we can prevent genocide" by Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch and "The History and Sociology of Genocide" by Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, p. 24.)

Now, I don't agree with this characterization, in fact I think it is ridiculous and devalues the sufferers of genuine genocide (war crimes certainly, not genocide). However, Stanton is probably a more reliable source than Secher, so ought we to include the Dresden bombings in this article? I think not. Ledenierhomme 05:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is in the Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Debate over the bombing of Dresden article/section your quote was not quite right:

Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, wrote: Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes and, as Leo Kuper and Eric Markusen have argued, also acts of genocide.[59] Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn write in their book "The History and Sociology of Genocide" (page 24) that [the] definition of genocide also excludes civilian victims of aerial bombardment in belligerent states. In this we differ from Jean-Paul Sartre and Leo Kuper.

If someone wishes to include it here (with the balanced POV) I would not object. I think you have to have a look at the history of this article to see how far it has come: 1 January 2007 , 1 January 2006, 2 January 2005, 20 September 2004. I am very pleased that you are asking these questions, because people often come here and put in their favourite victims' claim that such and such was a genocide, without producing any sources. It is difficult to keep the article anywhere near balanced apart from demanding that any claim is sourced. (At the moment see the Talk:Bosnian Genocide for such a debate). As I wrote above on 20 October "For those sections that are already in this list we need some objective way of assessing if we are giving undue weight to them. Does anyone have any suggestions of how we could go about finding that information?" -- PBS 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to leave this section in, then we must, as I say, add in dozens, perhaps hundreds, other conflicts. Are we really willing to let this article to expand to such an extent that it becomes meaningless? To the extent that it will include virtually every major and conflict, colonization, and civil war whereby marginal authors and academics have simply made a CLAIM of genocide? Off the top of my head, this will have to include the westward expansion of the United States of America, every colonial power's conquests in Africa and Asia (dozens), the current American invasion of Iraq, the Allied bombing of Dresden and the dropping of Atomic bombs on Japan, British concentration camps during the Boer War, the Reconquest of Spain, several Central Asian ethnicity-driven conflicts, and I am sure there are many more besides. Such an article would possess entries of such undue weight, that it would devalue the occasions of those conventionally considered genocide to the point of farce. Perhaps Wikipedia would have to come up with a new word for what non-Wikipedians call genocide - because the Revolt in the Vendee is certainly not. - Ledenierhomme 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Small (I don't want to say insignificant - because they aren't) examples should probably be avoided as there could technically be so many that the article would become a complete disaster. I'd say get rid of it. Magus05 ^(talk) 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of the examples that you give have been added to this page, at one time or another. But they have been removed because they did not carry sources. I am currently involved in exactly this type of debate on the Bosnian Genocide page, because IMHO the ICJ ruling should carry more weight than a blog page, or a minor news agency. But in that discussion I am in the minority. What is and is not included on this page should be governed by Wikipedia policies. In this case there are several sources from different authors who meet the WP:V criteria, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." which means it passes the [[undue weight ]] test and so I think the section should remain. --PBS 11:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can obtain plenty of sources that identify the examples I have cited as genocide. They probably won't come from peer-reviewed journals, but they will certainly come from more respected sources than Secher. Are you really prepared to see this article become farcical? Maybe that's what you actually want. Certainly you're not interested in consensus, as you have completely ignored my points, and casually cast aside the concerns of Magus05 and Alithien. You are attempting to position yourself as an authority on a historical event you couldn't even spell! Ledenierhomme 13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There are probably thousands of examples out there like this that have plenty of documented sources, but that doesn't mean they should all be a part of this article. Why should this one example be included over all of those others? It shouldn't. As you stated, the content of this article should be governed by Wikipedia policies, such as this one. --Magus05 ^(talk) 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Magus05. The question is: what is the motivation of those who have added in the existing sections? It seems to me this page is more about "naming and shaming" and trying to score cheap political points, than giving an accurate history of genocide. To use the highly loaded phrase of "genocide" (when other terms such as "politicide", "gendercide" etc exist) to describe a part of the French Revolutionary Wars is so self-evidently laughable, it doesn't bode well for Wikipedia. Are there any admin monitoring this page? Any quality control? If it's a list of "alleged" genocides, what's to stop me from "alleging" genocide has been comitted by just about anyone and everyone? I'm sure there are wing-nuts out there who have published books accusing the "Coalition of the Willing" of genocide in Iraq. It looks like this article is gradually going to include just about every conflict in history where the participants degenerated into massacres, etc. Certainly most civil wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.6.243 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Still more evidence that I have the support of neutrals. Unfortunately I seem to be the only one bold enough to edit. My request for formal mediation has been denied. Ledenierhomme 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC Comment - from my initial inspection into this, the high death toll seems to be, largely, a result of warfare. please state arguments made for the genocide claims (and who supports/rejects them). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article for the information you require as it is detailed there --PBS (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

i made an initial skimming over the material (And plan to make a more thorough one). the point of the RfC is not to send other editors on a goose hunt. one of the involved parties should consider listing things in bulletins or captions (etc.) in order to help people make a rational suggestion without spending hours over the material. hence, it seems no one dared get involved in this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the section is only four paragraphs long. If a person is going to make an informed decision on the issue it I do not think it unreasonable to expect that person to read that much and to read the discussion above. --PBS (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC comment - went over it. it is my belief (non expert on the topic) that notes about this subject could/should stay but be heavily shortened (listed as a controversial theory) and mostly directed to the main article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove section titled "Tibet"

For similar reasons. To create sections on cases where certain governments or regimes are simply accused of committing genocide, in an article entitled "Genocides in history", I think is both dishonest and dangerous. Ledenierhomme 09:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In this example there is the opinion of a jurist of some repute and an ongoing court case so I do not think that it should be removed.--PBS 11:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which court? The Supreme Court of India - host-nation of the Dalai Lama. We really need to hold to some kind of objectivity in articles such as these, throwing around unproven accusations of such a serious nature is, as I say, dishonest, misleading, and dangerous. Not to mention offensive. As someone who has visited sites of recent genocide (Bosnia) and Tibet, I find it grossly offensive that Tibet's supposed "cultural genocide" is in this article mentioned in the same breath as mass graves in the Balkans. Ledenierhomme 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a measure of "objectivity in articles such as these"? which is within the content policies of Wikipedia. One can insist that POVs are sourcesd WP:V one can insist that there is a balance in the POVs WP:NPOV, and one can insist on WP:UNDUE, but this last one is the most difficult to quantify and enforce because it is so open to different individuals points of views. --PBS 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, that a measure of objectivity, should necessarily exclude sections where even if you accept what the most fervent polemicist are claiming, it still does not fit the conventional definition of what "genocide" is. - Ledenierhomme 07:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See genocide definitions, there are many scholarly definitions of genocide. --PBS 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest which one of those definitions either the revolt/war in the Vendee, or Tibet, would fit? Ledenierhomme 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No I would not, I prefer to leave that to the third party sources, and in the case of Tibet I think that the Spanish court is better qualified than I to decide. As this topic interests you, Ledenierhomme, you might like to have a glance at the Bosnian Genocide article and read the section on the talk page where there is an outstanding RfC (see Talk:Bosnian Genocide#Lead paragraphs). --PBS 11:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Clever way of admitting there are none. Even under the most liberal definitions, the killing has to be imbalanced, and a specific group of people, have to be targeted for annihilation. This Revolt in the Vendee was fought as a subset within the wider context of the Revolutionary Wars. The only way Secher and Chanu can keep a straight face while claiming the conflict to be genocidal, is to grossly exaggerate the Royalist casualties and denigrate (or in the case of Chanu, ignore) Republican casualties. There simply is no evidence to suggest anything approaching the kind of ethnic cleansing that we see in Bosnia, for example. And to any serious student or teacher of modern French history, this is self-evident. It's no more genocidal than English Civil War, or an infinite number of other civil conflicts. The fact that no one is able to even challenge the refutations of McPhee, Martin, et al, over the last two decades, ought to be convincing enough for a Wikipedia mod to accept that that Secher's thesis is radical, to say the least. - Ledenierhomme 12:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

PBS, up to now, you followed the policy : no source, no genocide ; a source, an alleged genocide.

Ledenierhomme wonders if we should not move to "no source, no genocide" ; several reliable sources, an alleged genocide.

I think he is right. For such serious accusations, crediable and scholar work should be required. Or at least "official accusations" (from UNO, ...)

What do you think about this ? Alithien 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In principle I would like to go that way BUT see what I wrote above "What would you suggest as a measure..." --PBS 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I intented to post in the former section. There is an article on wp:fr that talks about this matter (Vendean repression) and they give 3 historians that seem reliable. I asked the editor who wrote this article to give their mind about their reliability or if this is just a "controverse". (I say this just for information - that could help). Well, a good criteria could be :

for historical events more than 50 years old, several scholars must have published peer reviewed articles on the topic.
for events dealing with recent facts, official organisations (UNO, country governments, famous NGO) must have complained several times about the genocidar character of the event.

What do you think about that ? Alithien 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, I think that would be an excellent set of criteria - and I thank you for putting in such clear and concise terms what I have been trying to say. Secher's book (along with recent compendiums by Jones and Johansson et al) are merely publications - they are not peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. All the peer-reviewed, scholarly articles that I have cited in the article, refute the characterization of genocide. - Ledenierhomme 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien if we were to implement such a policy where are the Wikipedia policies to back it up? --PBS 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PBS,

Sorry but I am not sure to understand what you mean. English is not my mother tongue and I don't catch the nuance.

I think the requirement of "peer-review" is already requested by wikipedia but I don't know where exactly. Certainly in WP:RS. We should check.

If I added the 50 years, it is only to open the door to official accusations as for Sudan but we could discuss the opportunity to proceed that way.

Alithien 09:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this [4]. Alithien 09:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, PBS, what do you say to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Scholarship ?? - Ledenierhomme 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it with some reservations, I think that international court judgements, and commentaries on treaties and are at least as important or more important in this area. There is also positions of governments to consider as well as international organisations such as the United nations (for example the "Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon" exists because the United Nations General Assembly decided the massacre was a genocide). This is not the problem, it is relatively easy to decide on the quality of a source. What is more difficult to do is to balance neutrality and verifiability. Excluding a POV because only a limited number of sources can be found can be seen as a breach of WP:NPOV but overemphasising a position can be seen as undue weight. For this reason I do not think it is possible to draw up a rule that is too mechanistic in deciding what is in and what is out in this article. --PBS 13:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could state :

reliable peer reviewed

OR

internation recognized court (such as UNO for sabrah and shatilah) or The Hague International Tribunal for Ex-Yugoslavia etc.

But thinking about this, this is maybe already what is done... ?

Alithien 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reynald Secher Traditionalist Catholic historian" is POV

Since when is it appropriate to identify the religion of historians cited in encyclopedia articles? Do we identify elsewhere "Soandso, Baptist historian", "Soandso, Orthodox Jewish historian" or "Soandso, atheist historian". It is just not appropriate it is an attempt to discredit the historian's work not based on the work but on an ad hominem and, that being the case, it is impermissable POV. I am removing it. Mamalujo 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit was done "added additional context, rem non-authoritative statements." without discussing it here first. Secondly what makes "Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Solveig Bjeornson, non-authoritative? --PBS 09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The likes of Jonassohn and Jones have merely published a book. Just because something is written down, does not make it authoritative. Again, why would you want to keep a claim or claims, in an encyclopedia, that is in deference to the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion? What purpose does it serve? - Ledenierhomme 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Under what Wikpedian policy are you judging that Kurt Jonassohn is not a reliable source? --PBS 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. "Secher's book (along with recent compendiums by Jones and Johansson et al) are merely publications - they are not peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. All the peer-reviewed, scholarly articles that I have cited in the article, refute the characterization of genocide." - Ledenierhomme 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledenierhomme (talk • contribs)

Hi/Salut writing "Mr X, this very biased historian" is of course pov-ed and not acceptable.
Alithien 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen from the above discussion any argument that refutes my position that references to the scholar's politics and religion are POV. As such, I'm deleting the references, again. Please address these issues before adding the info again. Mamalujo 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

great majority of authorities

Unless backed up with a citation "great majority of authorities" are weasel words and WP:SYN. Ledenierhomme if you want to say it find another way to do it or find a source to back up the statement. --PBS 08:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Recent non-expert, non-authoritative authors" is a value judgement that needs a source to back it up. --PBS 08:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest we would discuss here and do not proceed to any modification before it is discussed here. It is useless to revert and re-revert ... Alithien 09:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You want a source to say peer-reviewed articles produced by the head of the Institute of the History of the French Revolution at the Sorbonne, and a number of other experts from the USA, UK, and Australia (not to mention the rest of France) are more reliable sources than random books? Is that not self-evident? When a scholarly article contradicts the claims of a tabloid or gossip magazine, do you ask for an additional third-party source to point out which is more reliable? These academics - Martin, McPhee, etc - work completely independently of each other, yet verify each other's claims. On the other hand, Secher is the only "academic" who has published the genocide claim (he has been supported by two others, of the same political bent). Until I am satisfied that (a) you have actually read the sources, and therefore stop making silly mistakes like writing "Verdee" instead of Vendee; and (b) you can demonstrate an understanding of the difference between having a multitude of respected academics with peer-reviewed articles and someone who simply manages to get something published on paper; forgive me if I don't take your input on this article too seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Scholarship - Ledenierhomme 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is self evident -- and I think it is -- then it does not need stating explicitly (Let the facts speak for themselves). If it is explicitly stated that the "great majority of authorities" then it needs a source otherwise it is in breach of WP:SYN.

Also please note that WP:V says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Are you sure that the two books you are dismissing (published by Routledge and Transaction Publishers are not from "respected publishing houses"?

The other authors who cite Secher or support his views, may well be of the same political views, but that does not invalidate their publishing or that fact being mentioned in this section. The reason for this is because if Secher was the only person to have made the claim then his views could excluded under WP:Undue weight. But once more authors/scholars start to cite his work, he may still be in a minority but his views should be represented to create a balanced POV even if the majority expert view is that he is not correct. (see Neutrality and verifiability and Fairness of tone)

Please understand that you and I are on the same side, to understand my take on this please consider Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles as well as the sections in the NPOV mentioned above). An interesting way to approach this is to consider as an intellectual exercise how you would debate the issue at a debating society debate not with your point of view, but that of a point of view that you disagree with. (see Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy)

There is also a practical reason for presenting both POVs for disputes like this in as unbiased way as possible, because if they are not handled in a fair and unbiased way, one is doomed to fight the same arguments on the talk page every few months. Just have a look how often deleted paragraphs are re-inserted into this article by different people. By presenting a section from a NPOV then it is possible to keep the POV disputes to a minimum and for those disputes to revolve around specific details in how to implement any changes within existing policies and guidelines. --PBS 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote here above, I asked on wp:fr what they think about these sources.

For such a topic, I think they can help ! Vendée still remains in France and Secher is a French historians. They should have more information on the topic.

I keep you informed.

Salutations, Alithien 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Non-expert, non-authoritative authors"

In a recent edit in the France section I deleted an unsourced reference to Adam Jones and others as "non-expert, non-authoritative authors". One problem with unsourced statements of this kind is that they are not verifiable. Sometimes, even when partly true, they are misleading. Other times they are completely contrary to the facts. That is the case here. To demonstrate, I've included the bio of Jones from the book referenced: "Adam Jones, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. Prior to that, he was Research Fellow for 2005-07 in the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, and taught for five years at the CIDE research institute in Mexico City. He is editor of two books on genocide: Gendercide and Genocide (Vanderbilt University Press, 2004) and Genocide, War Crimes & the West (Zed Books, 2004). He has also published two books on the mass media and political transition. His scholarly articles have appeared in Review of International Studies, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Journal of Genocide Research, Journal of Human Rights, and other publications. He is executive director of Gendercide Watch, a web-based educational initiative that confronts gender-selective atrocities against men and women worldwide." Perusal of scholarly reviews of the subject book and other work by Jones shows exactly how false the unsourced posting regaring his work was.

The Vendee is not universally recognized as genocide. Jones says as much in his book, and others who consider it genocide admit that. But attempts to cast it a a fringe view or a discredited theory advanced only by dilettantes are wrong. Mamalujo 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a review by Yale University press in 2007 of another book that Jonasson co-wrote "The History and Sociology of Genocide Analyses and Case Studies" by Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn. In the review it says "Frank Chalk is associate professor of history and Kurt Jonassohn is professor of sociology at Concordia University, where they direct the Montreal Institute for Genocide Studies". Jonassohn's book mentioned in the French section has been quoted and cited in other publications, eg Valerie J. Hoffman quotes Jonassohn in "What Role Do Religious and Cultural Identities Play in a Global Society?" an article published in "Swords into plough shears." (The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). --PBS 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So now positive book reviews are evidence of scholarship? I can find positive book reviews for Mein Kampf as well. These are special interest books, published for mass consumption, they are NOT peer-reviewed, and they are NOT experts or authorities on the Revolt in the Vendee. Ledenierhomme 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is that the reviews state that the authors are professors and work in the area of genocide studies, that their books are published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis & Transaction which are "respected publishing houses"(WP:V) and are not to use your words "Recent non-expert, non-authoritative authors", because they are experts in the field of genocide studies -- an area of research with its own journals like Holocaust and Genocide Studies and courses at some of the most prestigious universities in the world ( eg Genocide Studies Program at Yale University) -- and in that respect their publications fit the Wikipedia policies for inclusion in an article about genocide. --PBS 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are fit to be included, but it needs to be mentioned that they are not experts on the Revolt in the Vendee or modern French history, or French history at all. An expert on, say, espionage, is not an authority on, say, The War of the Roses. See the difference? Ledenierhomme 13:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If this was the main article (Revolt in the Vendée) you point would have some validity, but this is an article about genocides in history and they are experts in this field. Using your logic, someone could add to this article an unsourced comment that the historians of this period of French history are not qualified to judge if it is a genocide or not, because they are only historians and have no standing in the field of genocide studies. --PBS 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, the article is called "genocides in history". This is not (or at least shouldn't be) an article devoted to apportioning blame or guilt to certain parties. It is historians who engage in research related to events that happened in 1793 - not contemporary specialists on genocide. I refer you to my initial analogy. If the Vendee revolt was happening as we speak, it would be entirely different. But, like the War of the Roses, it is a matter for historians - genocide specialists have to (or at least should) rely on what historians have to say. And in this case, historians are virtually unanimous that there was no genocide in the Vendee. Ledenierhomme 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(out-dent)Are you suggesting that only current alleged genocides are the province of genocide studies? Do you not consider that past genocides and alleged genocides my also be part of their area of expertise? --PBS 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am saying. I thought that was clear. That's why one group are called "Historians", and the other, well... "genocide studies" is a very recent development, no one is clear exactly where such "specialists" stand. I'm not familiar with any top university that has a "Genocide" department. Jones and Johansson have to rely on the work historians like Langlois carry out. Ledenierhomme 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus and compromise on France section

I would suggest, rather that edit warring, the editors work for a consensus version on the France section. I am glad to have sourced criticism which accurately reflects the critiques of those who deny the Vendee as genocide. I think the section should be shortened, especially in light of the limited acceptance, but it should be complete. An extensive listing of the names and the institutions of the scholars who deny the Vendee's status is a waste of space. It is sufficient to say that the thesis was a relatively recently conceived break with the traditional historiography and that many scholars vehemently deny the clasification as genocide (certainly all the cites to the several works can remain). If there are reliable and recent (as acceptance of the classification appears to be growing) cites to the degree of acceptance among genocide scholars, there is no reason why that shouldn't be included either. If a survey of the International Association of Genocide Scholars or the International Network of Genocide Scholars indicates that most don't accept it, fine. Or if a noted scholar, preferably an advocate for the classification, recently admited that most don't accept it, fine. If necessary I will try to draft a short but complete entry, which I believe would be acceptable to all editors and which well notes the limited acceptance and the criticisms. If someone else feels up to the task, all the better. Mamalujo 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The "thesis" has not gained or lost any acceptance since it was published in 1986. Whereas Jean-Clément Martin, as one example, has published at least eight times on the subject since then. Add to that the presumably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times the issue has been discussed in respected publications, I am not aware of a single article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that has published in support of a genocide characterization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship

It is regrettable that bar one, the sources which rubbish Secher's claims are not available online - but that just means you'll have to do some genuine research to verify the claim "a great majority of authorities" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith). Martin, Jackson, Gough, Langlois, make it clear that they are addressing a fringe position (as an example of the dismissive tones of the establishment on this issue, you can view the online source where McPhee calls Chanu's casualty figures "ridiculous").

I look forward to seeing your draft entry. I hope you compose it in such a way that it would not give the wrong impression to an "intelligent layperson" reader. - Ledenierhomme 03:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (WP:V a core content policy) it is up to you who wish to include the statement "a great majority of authorities" to do some genuine research to verify the claim is true by providing a third party source, otherwise "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, ..." (WP:V), the reason for not removing it immediately and placing a {{fact}} template on the sentence is to give you time to come up with a source. You will be reading this and getting exasperated because it is a quite common problem on Wikipedia that such statements are hard to find, (I know I've been on the receiving end more than once) you will be better off thinking of another way to get the point over that does not breach Wikipedia's core content policies. --PBS 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to say this: READ THE SOURCES (or else learn French and read many of the online sources en Francais). Until you have read the sources, your guesswork on what they do, or do not, contain are meaningless. I've given nine citations, all from the most reliable sources possible - Wikipedia accepts more than just hyperlinks. Ledenierhomme 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that you have found a source for "Nevertheless, the great majority of authorities on modern French history have have rejected the characterization of genocide" (Hugh Gough, « Genocide & the Bicentenary: the French Revolution and the revenge of the Vendée », Historical Journal, vol. 30, 4, 1987, pp. 978). --PBS 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One problem with the cite from 1987 is that the conception of the Vendee as genocide was very novel then. I have no doubt that that assessment was accurate at the time. The problem is that the idea has indisputably gained wider acceptance since then. It may be the case that it is still currently a minority view - I don't know - but I think such a statement should be sourced from a source dated 2004 or later.Mamalujo 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See above. "The "thesis" has not gained or lost any acceptance since it was published in 1986. Whereas Jean-Clément Martin, as one example, has published at least eight times on the subject since then. Add to that the presumably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times the issue has been discussed in respected publications, I am not aware of a single article in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that has published in support of a genocide characterization." The fact is, people don't take Secher seriously, and with good reason. As regards to your desire to see "a statement should be sourced from a source dated 2004 or later"..... now I am convinced that you have no understanding of historiography whatsoever. Ledenierhomme 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

The France section originally began with Secher's charge, then clumsily digressed into a description of the event itself, then presented pro- and anti- views in a choppy fashion. I reorganized it in order to present the material in a more logical sequence - description of the event first, followed by Secher's charge and those who support his views, followed in turn by those who refute him. Ledenierhomme reverted with the edit summary that I should discuss these changes first. Since I've now explained my reasons for these changes, I've reverted back.

Ledenierhomme also reinserted statements about the black revolt leader Dessalines which are contradicted by their own sources (sources which are clearly substandard in any case). Apart from which, Dessalines' actions are completely irrelevant to the topic of this page. So I have again removed this material. Gatoclass 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not "reinsert" any statements, I simply undid all your edits. This section of the article has been the subject of controversy for some time now - several people have been contributing to the debate, as you can see. Your preferred ordering is merely subjective - I happen to prefer the the way it was. You've changed the wording, and removed citations without explanation. This is against Wikipedia policy. "Bold editing" is encouraged, but with such a controversial article it would be best if next time, edit piecemeal, and we'll try to come to a consensus on each edit. Ledenierhomme 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Against policy to "change the wording"? I dont think so. And the only citations I removed were those concerning Dessaline.

And yes, of course my preferred ordering is "merely subjective" - as is yours. I changed it because I saw obvious problems with it. In fact, I thought it actually improved the strength of the argument you were trying to make. However, since you are apparently determined to shoot yourself in the foot by reverting to the former version, I'm not going to stand in your way. Gatoclass 06:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed citations 35 and 36. I encourage you to try again - but with respect to the lengthy discussion that has occurred here. - Ledenierhomme 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

traditional definitions of genocide

User: PBS, I have advised you already not to edit an article which you have clearly demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge on (wrong spelling, mainstream opinion, scholarship and peer-review, historiography etc). I don't see why you feel compelled to contradict every single edit I make, and demand a source for virtually every sentence, but here goes...

1) It is self-evident that it does not fit the traditional/conventional definition of genocide as both Republicans and Royalists were/are of the same ethnicity, culture and religion. You do know that don't you?

2) There clearly is a traditional/conventional tradition of genocide. The term was coined in 1944 to describe the unparalleled horrors of the Holocaust. The definition presented by Lemkin was accepted and repeated throughout the Western world, and was adopted by the United Nations in a special convention in 1948 - it remains so expressed in the UN to this day, and remains the most commonly understood meaning of the term. According to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions, it was not until 1959 that someone, Peter Drost (whoever he is), presented a broader definition. Many broader definitions have been presented since, but none of them have been admitted to national or international law, or become dominant in either layperson or academic understanding (or any respected dictionaries or encyclopedias). You've mentioned that you value international jurist/court decisions on the subject of genocide - have you ever known a court to rule a genocide has occurred under one of these broader definitions? Of course not, as virtually every nation-state who has fought a "one-sided" war would be guilty - including all permanent members of the UN security council.

It is obviously quite ridiculous to provide a source for the fact that the Royalist Vendeans were/are of the same ethnic, religious and cultural make-up as the Republican Vendeans and the rest of France, but I'm going to reference McPhee (4th paragraph) just to stop you edit warring, for whatever reason you have for doing so (the mind boggles). - Ledenierhomme 06:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme, I think you mean to write "I think you have clearly demonstrated..." otherwise it is a personal attack and as the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks says "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia."

I am please to see that someone has read the article Genocide definitions that with the exception of one entry was written by me. But as the main source I used was Adam Jones (in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction) an author you have dismissed as a "Non-expert, non-authoritative author" I am surprised that you are willing to base an argument on that list. As to your assertion that " The definition presented by Lemkin was accepted and repeated throughout the Western world, and was adopted by the United Nations in a special convention in 1948" is not quite correct; as the Genocide article says "The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but the USSR along with some other nations would not accept that actions against groups identified as holding similar political opinions or social status would constitute genocide, so these stipulations were subsequently removed in a political and diplomatic compromise."

It is you who opened the door to questioning the credentials of different academic specialisations, and as three of the specialists on genocide studies mentioned in the article state that it is a genocide, I do not think you should dismiss my request for a citation for a sentence that says "Conventional wisdom amongst historians has not ascribed the term or concept of "genocide" to the Revolt in the Vendee ..." because it is a controversial assertion without a source, and I would remind you that verification policy states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."--PBS 08:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying a source for the sentence, but I am puzzled why you used a book review when above you wrote:

So now positive book reviews are evidence of scholarship? I can find positive book reviews for Mein Kampf as well. These are special interest books, published for mass consumption, they are NOT peer-reviewed, and they are NOT experts or authorities on the Revolt in the Vendee. Ledenierhomme 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can you explain. I am pleased to see that Peter McPhee, an historian, is willing to use a definition of Genocide from Kurt Jonassohn one of the people you dismissed as a "Non-expert, non-authoritative author", but it throws up two problems with this as a reliable source. McPhee writes in the the review that "For this reviewer, the civil war in the Vendée cannot be described as 'one-sided mass killing;' " so it does cover "Conventional wisdom amongst historians" as he clearly states it is his opinion and he is basing his opinion on a definition by a man who is quoted in the article as saying "The reason we consider this a case of genocide is that exterminatory intent was clearly stated in the orders of several generals as well as in the several decrees passed by the government." --PBS 08:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Still, you fail to understand the difference between an authority or expert on an historical event or period, and merely a published author. All kinds of people publish books. Only respected scholars and experts become Heads of Departments at universities such as Melbourne, Paris/Sorbonne, London, Nantes, etc. Your sources are "three of the specialists on genocide studies". Specialists according to who? What is "genocide studies"? I'm not going to go over the same ground with you. I've already tried to explain the difference between someone like McPhee or Martin and someone like Jones or Jonassohn (peer-review, academic standards of scholarship, minority views, etc). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views - "We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about." You are editing/deleting material in contravention of both Wikipedia policy and general academic conventions. These conventions you may have not been familiar with up until this point, but let me state them for the umpteenth time: when dozens of articles by respected authorities and experts either totally ignore, or strongly refute, claims by a single author, it behooves the reader not to place the claims of one, non-authoritative source on an equal footing with the dozens of respected authorities - which seems to be what you are trying to achieve in this section.

The fact that you seem only to be able to engage with material that you can find online, and in English, should give you a hint that perhaps you are not the most qualified person to be making demands on both material and those users who add it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." And with regards to "Fringe theories" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_in_specific_contexts "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (as Mumaljo did, accusing the historical establishment of a "Marxist bias"). "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources"

Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, you need to keep in mind quality, in addition to quantity. Just because a piece of information or an argument has a source, doesn't mean that it is a reliable source, and ought to be included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - Ledenierhomme 10:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"you fail to understand the difference between an authority or expert on an historical event or period, and merely a published author." I hope you mean "I think you fail...." please read the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Now back to the point in this article. The source you have cited does not support the sentence "Conventional wisdom amongst historians" because McPhee writes "For this reviewer, the civil war in the Vendée cannot be described as 'one-sided mass killing;' ". He does not state that his view is held among historians in general. --PBS 20:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the one trying to put forward a fringe view. I've provided the names of all the leaders in the field - which in themselves, constitute a majority.

"Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."

"The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."

None of your/Secher's contentions have. As such, following Wikipedia policy, we ought to remove the section wholesale.

Ledenierhomme 11:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN it may be that they "in themselves, constitute a majority" but you have to find a source that verifies it because perhaps it can be used to support the other sentence as the current citation by McPhee does not state that his view is held among historians in general. You have sourced this phase "Conventional wisdom amongst historians has not ascribed the term or concept of "genocide" to the Revolt in the Vendée, as it is maintained that the conflict does not fit the traditional definition of genocide as no specific ethnicity, or religious group was targeted." with: Hugh Gough, « Genocide & the Bicentenary: the French Revolution and the revenge of the Vendée », Historical Journal, vol. 30, 4, 1987, pp. 978. Please can you quote the passage from that book that supports the sentence, --PBS 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the burden of proof is on YOU. I'm merely relaying the "prevailing view in the relevant academic community" (the highest authority would presumably the Sorbonne's institute on the French Revolution; but it doesn't matter. EVERY authority that has published on Secher's claims has rejected them. end of story). And with regards to quoting passages - it's not my fault if you don't have access to academic journals. I could go through and find dozens of quotes from each scholar revealing that Secher's view is a marginal one. But what would be the point? You still can't get past the fact that Secher is ONE published author. And not only have his views been rejected in journals by the mainstream, a single article supporting him DOES NOT EXIST. If that's not a fringe view, I don't know what is. I don't have the time nor the inclination to gather such quotes, I've wasted enough time with this as it is. And I'd be surprised if many or any of them explicitly state "Secher is in the minority here", because that is assumed knowledge. That would be like a reporter interviewing a whack-job conspiracy theorist and stating, "by the viewers, I want you to know that Mr Johnson's view's of alien domination of the White House are not generally accepted in the broader community." It's self-evident. the quote/s in question from Gough are: "it is doubtful that this attempt to re-write the history of the revolution will have any lasting impact" (p. 987). He continues: "the real danger, however, is that the revival of polemic as a means of scholarly exchange" (p. 987). and for good measure: "It [Chanu's and Secher's polemic] is unhistorical because it ignores the context within which events took place in order to make a contemporary political point, and one-sided in its omission of the violence of the ancien regime and the counter-revolutionary tight both during and after 1789." Gough finds it relevant to point out the "right-wing" bias in Secher and his circle. in p. 985 he calls Martin's work on the revolt "the most balance and well informed to date", incorporating the work of Tilly, Bois, Petitfrere and Faucheux. He quotes Furet condemining the "absurdite" (p. 987) of the Right's attempts to use his recearch to further their political agenda. - Ledenierhomme 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no point to get. If you want to say the "prevailing view in the relevant academic community" then you need a source that says it otherwise it is WP:SYN. The source you have given to date does not support the statement. To give you a simple example. In Football (word) it is self evident that most English speakers mean American Football when they say "football" but unless a source can be found that states that this is true it is WP:SYN to write so in Wikipedia, hence the article says "There are 215 million people who speak English as a first language in the United States,[1] out of 309-380 million native speakers worldwide.[2][3] One consequence of this is that most people who speak English as a first language refer to Association football as "soccer".[4]" because that has a source. What you are doing here is saying I know it is true because I have read lots of articles on the subject. But that is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it is not up to me to refute the statement it is up to you to produce a source to support the statements or we need to re-write the sentences so that they do not fall foul of WP:SYN which for those who do not want to follow a link says "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." In this case you are saying "EVERY authority that has published on Secher's claims has rejected them [(I know because I have read all of them)]" so I can write "prevailing view in the relevant academic community" but that is original research. --PBS 18:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read all of my post? "it is doubtful that this attempt to re-write the history of the revolution will have any lasting impact" (p. 987) "attempt to re-write history" is, obviously, another way of saying attempting to challenge/undermine the "prevailing view". Needless to say, you haven't responded to any of my points of WP policy which state that "we don't report the views of tiny minorities" or material that has not been "thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."- Ledenierhomme 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I read you post. You make a fair point in this last paragraph, but as I said before we need to rephrase the sentences if they are not to fall foul of WP:SYN (and for that matter when looking at WP:RS guideline see the section Claims of consensus: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.". The difference is that one person claiming a fact is not the same as extrapolating a general truth (as is implied using the passive narrative voice). Also I think you are hanging too heavier coat on the peg of scholarship as in this case the author is quoted by other sources and as such is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness. --PBS 12:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is supported by Gough's statement - also a correct prediction - "it is doubtful that this attempt to re-write the history of the revolution will have any lasting impact". How much clearer could he possibly be? How about you give me an a phrase you approve of, that denotes the fact that Secher is expressing a minority opinion, and I'll see if I can find one amongst the many sources I have given? Ledenierhomme 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes I have made to the France section are to integrate three paragraphs into two -- one for and one against. I have altered some of the references which were are English language sources from French into English. I have removed the nationality of the scholars mentioned in the paragraphs as in MHO they are not needed, and the nationality of the scholars were not taken from sources, (To paraphrase Wellington "Just because one works in a stable, it doesn't make one a horse").. I have also removed the Claims of consensus by doing as the advise in that guideline section suggests: "opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources".

Given the information about Gough's statement above I think "Hugh Gough (a professor at University College Dublin) considers that Secher book is an attempt at historical revisionism but that it is unlikely to have any lasting impact," conveys the same meaning as "Nevertheless, the great majority of authorities on modern French history have have rejected the characterization of genocide", but does so in a way that does not violate WP:SYN and Claims of consensus. Similarly I think breaking out the McPhee analysis and mentioning him by name is a better match to Wikipedia policies and guidelines than the text that was based on his article and was in the article until this edit. Neither change in my opinion is a fundamental change to the wording that was in the article before this edit. (Infact I think my interpretation of McPhee is clumsy and could do with some fettling. --PBS 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So, essentially, you've managed to remove any reference to the fact that Secher's is a fringe view, and succeeded in making it appear as though there is a valid historical debate surrounging the issue - despite the fact that there is only one published source by a historian making the claim of genocide (and two secondary "genocide specialists"), but countless against, including all the known leaders in the field of modern French history. The section, as it stands, is disinformation. It requires a clear statement that Secher's position is a fringe one that has either been ignored, or refuted, by the establishment. - Ledenierhomme 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to put in such a clear statement then you have to have a source you can cite that says it is a fringe view please read Claims of consensus. BTW what is historical revisionism if not a fringe view? --PBS 08:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you admit now that it is a fringe view? "The claim of consensus is supported by Gough's statement - also a correct prediction - "it is doubtful that this attempt to re-write the history of the revolution will have any lasting impact". How much clearer could he possibly be? How about you give me an a phrase you approve of, that denotes the fact that Secher is expressing a minority opinion, and I'll see if I can find one amongst the many sources I have given?" - Ledenierhomme 08:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case I personally would not use the term "fringe view" as fringe view has a non neutral point of view connotation. I would describe a fringe view as one were a single author has published views that are not supported by any other reliable sources. I would describe Secher's theory as a minority view as he has been cited by other academics and other academics have also stated that it is a genocide. But I would not add that statement to the page unless I could find a source that supports the statement as described in "Claims of consensus". In the past I might well have added such a statement but that was before the Wikipedia policies and guidelines were so fully developed in this area. Now that they are, I think that adding such a statement is in breach of the WP:SYN POLICY unless there is a cited source as described in the guideline Claims of consensus. --PBS 11:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the 20 years since Secher's publication, not a single academic has, to my knowledge, managed to get an article published in a peer-review journal to support him. Secher has the support of three names (two of which I added in myself: Stéphane Courtois and Jean Tulard) - all of whom belong to the same politico-religious niche, Far Right, Royalist, and Catholic or Traditionalist Catholic. And Chanu is the only name that commands any respect - but even his greatest supporters admit to his bias (speaking/appearing at Royalist and Front National La Pen functions, etc). Surely that is the very definition of a fringe view - it has no acceptance outside that particular fringe.

Again, would you like to suggest a phrase that you approve of that speaks of Secher's thesis as a fringe view, that you would not delete? How about Langlois saying "Cependant, cette minorité regardent..." ("However, this minority view...") Is that acceptable? Ledenierhomme 14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "Hugh Gough considers Secher's book an attempt at historical revisionism that is unlikely to have any lasting impact," as that is complies with policy as indicated by the guideline Claims of consensus --PBS 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Langlois? The highest authority there is on the French Revolution? Or am I to take it that you personally have the final say on who is and who is not quoted, and what their position is to be described as? Is that Wikipedean consensus? Ledenierhomme 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ledenierhomme, it seems to me that you appear to take a disagreement over content as an attack on you personally. I am not attacking you personally and I wish you would stop making what seem to me to be personal attacks as it makes it very difficult to work constructively with you. For example why did you not leave you last comment as "What about Langlois? The highest authority there is on the French Revolution?"? because if I did care about having the final say, and I was involved in a personal dual of the sort you seem to think I am engaged in, you would have boxed me into a corner where I would have to respond negatively because your wording does not allow for someone to respond positively. --PBS 15:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are you trying to fool? Not me, that's for sure. Not personal? Why are you edit warring for a lost cause then? Why did you push to have me blocked? And you're right, I have boxed you into a corner, and you would lose what tiny credibility you have left if you were to continue removing my sourced material any further. I graciously accept your surrender. Ledenierhomme 15:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme I suggest you read some of the entries in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive as you will see if in the future you are unlucky enough to be involved in a "requests for comment on user conduct" conduct from previous disputes can be used as a pattern indicator. I have no axe to grind with you. The reason for asking for a block was that you were in clear violation of the 3R rule (I did not block you myself because that could have been seen as a conflict of interest so I left it to a third party admin) During this dispute I have been trying to understand your concerns, and reach a compromise (as I do not hold a strong position over this issue one way or another this is easier for me to do than for some of the others who have edited this section), but the compromise has to be within Wikipedia policy. Your last adjustment to the sentence meets those policy requirements so I have no objections to the adjustment. --PBS 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and occupied Europe

I would like to know why PBS censored any mention of the genocide of Slav population along with the references in this chapter and made it a lite version of a Holocaust article. This radical change was made on October 29 without any discussion and with clear bias. Edit: I can see someone corrected this vandalism done by PBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.7 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I made this edit. If something is a genocide then it needs sources that state that it was a genocide and not a democide, the source provided did not make the difference. Also the claim that was in the article "Other targets of the Holocaust ..." was contradicted by the Holocaust article itself. Hence the change. --PBS 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

United States and Cromwell campaign

I've removed both these sections because the sources do not clearly and unambiguously charge the respective parties with genocide. Cesarani talks about "genocide" of "Native Americans" but it isn't clear that he's talking specifically about the natives of North America. The other source is of unknown reliability and doesn't specifically refer to genocide either.

I was originally only going to reduce the size of the Cromwell section on the basis of WP:UNDUE but when I looked further into the matter it was clear that the descriptions of massacres therein have not been described as genocide, nor do the two sources provided unambiguously state that Cromwell committed genocide. One says he engaged in "a conscious attempt to reduce an ethnic population" but it isn't clear whether the source is referring to a genocidal campaign or to Cromwell's policy of forcibly transferring part of the Catholic population to other parts of Ireland. The other source says Cromwell gave the population "a choice" between genocide or transfer, so again it isn't clear whether he's accusing Cromwell of actually committing genocide.

In any case the entire section clearly violated NPOV as Cromwell's campaign occurred in the middle of an extremely brutal ethnic conflict in which massacres occurred on both sides. Indeed Cromwell's campaign was seen as revenge for earlier atrocities committed by Catholics against Protestants, who were accused by the English Parliament of trying to exterminate the Protestants in Ireland. Gatoclass 13:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-inserted United States section - Cesarani agrees with Stannard in directly accusing the United States of America of Genocide. In future you'd be well advised to read the sources before you comment on what they do or do not say! ;-)

I agree that the Cromwell section ought to be reduced, but I'll leave that up to someone else - I merely copied content from the main articles.

With regards to whether the source accuses Cromwell's army of genocide, again, I advise you to read the source. The title of the book is Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. On page 56 Levene states: "The fact that it did not include 'total genocide' in its remit... says less about the lethal determination of its makers and more about the political, structural, and financial weakness of the early modern English state." He calls the 1652 Act for the Settlement of Ireland "the nearest thing on paper" to a "state-sanctioned and systematic ethnic cleansing of another people". He also says England's first Navigation Act of 1651, "in Lemkins original 1944 prescription of the meaning of the term, count as an aspect of genocide" (all on page 56).

Your claim as to the fact that this occurred within the context of a civil war unfortunately works against precedent here, as several of the accepted entries on Genocide (Guatemala, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995) occurred in such contexts. What counts - according to the way this article has been structured - is whether the "mass killing" was "one-sided" and sufficiently systematic. I don't make these rules. Take it up with whoever is in charge of the parameters set out in the article's introduction. Ledenierhomme 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to either of these sections provided they are properly sourced and meet the requirements of NPOV. When someone queries a source, it's up to the editor who adds the new material to provide the appropriate quotations.

It appears you have appropriate references for the Cromwell section, but it's still a one-sided account and a clear example of undue weight. Since I've already made three reverts today however, I have put a POV template on the section for the time being.

As for your comment that "you don't make the rules" - Wiki is a cooperative enterprise and we are supposed to work together to establish consensus where disputes exist. I'm quite prepared to discuss sourcing issues, or to discuss what may or may not be appropriate content for this page, but it doesn't sit well with other editors when someone continues to insert material that he knows very well is under dispute. When there is disagreement, you should be trying to establish consensus on this talk page first, rather than attempting to impose your will in the mainspace over the objections of other editors. Regards, Gatoclass 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki is a cooperative enterprise and we are supposed to work together to establish consensus where disputes exist." - Is that you have continuously blanked all the sourced material I've enteered WITHOUT discussing it on this talk page up until now? On this talk page, you will see that I have the last comment on most of the topics I've been editing on. On the France topic, I gained consenus from at least two neutrals - you and PBS gained no consensus, and succeeded in removing my material simply by weight of numbers, a.k.a. "mob rule". It seems my peer-reviewed sources are not good enough for anything except direct quotations, whereas you and PBS are able to synthesize vast numbers of non peer-reviewed sources to make grand narratives. This article is in desperate need of quality control. Until then, I can only do my best to try and keep even the tiniest modicum of balance and perspective. I expect that next time I add in sourced material, you won't revert/delete it instantaneously. - Ledenierhomme 14:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that you have continuously blanked all the sourced material I've enteered WITHOUT discussing it on this talk page up until now - Ledenierhomme

Yes, because the onus is on the editor adding new material to provide adequate sourcing for it. I invited you to discuss the matter on the talk page first, you didn't bother. I am not the one who had a meltdown the other day and engaged in mass reversion of others' edits, so you are scarcely in a position to accuse other editors of bad behaviour.

I gained consenus from at least two neutrals - you and PBS gained no consensus, and succeeded in removing my material simply by weight of numbers, a.k.a. "mob rule" - Ledenierhomme.

First of all - no you didn't gain any consensus from "two neutrals". I only saw one other editor participate in that discussion, but he was advancing views of his own rather than giving support to yours. And it's clear that no consensus was reached in that discussion.

Secondly, I didn't engage in "mob rule" by "weight of numbers" with anyone. I reverted one edit of yours in the Tibet section. I then reverted two more edits of yours, one on Cromwell and one on the US, that were apparently made in the spirit of WP:POINT and which in my view failed WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. So there was no "mob rule", just one intemperate user carrying on several different edit wars at the same time. And BTW if several editors are reverting you, perhaps it's time for you to stop and consider that you are the one violating consensus.

Finally I find it unfortunate that you decided to return to the page and immediately resume "business as usual" by restoring sections without prior discussion that you knew were disputed by other editors. This is hardly an act calculated to foster goodwill, and it doesn't speak well of your readiness to engage constructively. So maybe it's time you stepped back and took an objective look at your own behaviour at this page, rather than throwing around assorted accusations at everyone else. Regards, Gatoclass 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of Ireland as an example is highly questionable given the findings of the ICJ on a wider Bosnian Genocide and the more recent ECHR Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 ruling quoting the ICJ. "It [i.e. ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area “ethnically homogeneous”, nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide:" --PBS 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme you wrote above:

If we are going to leave this section in, then we must, as I say, add in dozens, perhaps hundreds, other conflicts. Are we really willing to let this article to expand to such an extent that it becomes meaningless? To the extent that it will include virtually every major and conflict, colonization, and civil war whereby marginal authors and academics have simply made a CLAIM of genocide? Off the top of my head, this will have to include the westward expansion of the United States of America, every colonial power's conquests in Africa and Asia (dozens), the current American invasion of Iraq, the Allied bombing of Dresden and the dropping of Atomic bombs on Japan, British concentration camps during the Boer War, the Reconquest of Spain, several Central Asian ethnicity-driven conflicts, and I am sure there are many more besides. Such an article would possess entries of such undue weight, that it would devalue the occasions of those conventionally considered genocide to the point of farce.

Is it your intention to turn this article into a farce, or have you changed you mind over these entries? --PBS 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to prevent this article from becoming farcical as much as I possibly can - considering that there are so few contributers and so many agendas. If the article is to allow such a liberal application of the term "genocide", and include "alleged genocides", then by including further examples I am merely trying to balance out the article, adding in claims from many more cultures and from many more national, religious, and political perspectives. I intend to add many more examples, when I get the time. Ledenierhomme 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly why the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland would not fit within "the meaning of the Convention" of the ICJ. Really, I'd be interested to know. Ledenierhomme 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why could not be placed on the article page, because it would be WP:SYN. But having said that I will place a synthesis here on the talk page. It seems that the people accusing Cromwell, (how people like to accuse one man because it is so much more simple than proportioning blame among the cabal that were then ruling England), of genocide are primarily accusing him of ethnic cleansing. Which after the ICTY judged that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was genocide and before the ICJ ruling in the Bosnian Genocide Case in February 2007, was the way that things seemed to be moving. And it is very noticeable that all the citations for Cromwell's ethnic cleansing in the article fall between those dates. However if one reads the ICJ ruling (Here is "lite" version -- the ICJ press release on the case) and the summary of it given by the ECHR (a fuller quote is available in the Bosnian Genocide Case) the ICJ has moved to a stricter definition of genocide which must include intent to destroy and the physical destruction (not 'just' removal) of a protected group. --PBS 17:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the arguement correctly, the whole debate about the quality of the "American Genocide" Article is that some people classify it as a genocide, and some do not. I do not believe that it was a genocide, as the intent of elimination of the Native Americans was not present. However, the moral wrongs about the killings were and are still present, and thus the crimes deserve to be classified as something. As there seems to be no term that accurately describes the actions taken, I have created a new term that I think describes the situation rather well: "castellocide". It is a combination of the Americanized form of the Greek word "katastello", which means "suppress", and the suffix "-cide", which is formed from the Latin word "occido", which means "to massacre". The general definition of the word is "the act of killing, slaughtering, or otherwise eliminating a group of people linked by a common trait, either political, economic, social, religious, physical, mental, or genetic in nature, for the purpose of suppressing, subjugating, or otherwise controlling said group of people". Tell me what you all think of this term, as I hope it may bring some sort of compromise to this heated debate. -InuBlade360 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.210.29 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR/Protection

Folks,

This article is hurtling towards protection if the edit wars continue. Please remember to keep within the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV War of the Three Kingdoms

user:Gatoclass in Revision as of 14:34, 9 November 2007 you wrote "War of the Three Kingdoms - Still POV as it fails to adequately contextualize the violence" what context would you like added to the section? --PBS 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of the Irish Catholic massacres of Protestants which preceded Cromwell's campaign. The whole war was very dirty, the English Parliament effectively accused the Irish Catholics of trying to commit a genocide against the Protestants (although of course the word wasn't in use back then, I think the word they used at the time was "exterminate"). So this is the context in which Cromwell exacted his retribution. Gatoclass 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Exacted his retribution"???? Do you have any idea what you are talking about???? In the Rebellion of 1641, at most 2,000 PLANTERS were killed, not ordinary civilians, voluntary colonists/invaders. And they were killed by in an uprising, not by a professional army. By contrast, Cromwell was the leader of a nation, who ordered his professional troops to massacre civilians of cities who resisted, civilians who he regarded as inferior because of their race and religion. Read a book FFS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.173.30 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

United States section

As I said before, I have no objection whatever in principle to a separate section on the United States. I have deleted this section not because I'm a "nationalist troll" as some uncivil editor speculated in his edit summary, but because apart from the peripheral reference from Stannard, there is nothing there which specifically pertains to genocide by the United States. Instead, the content is focussed on a lurid quote from some long out-of-print author of dubious reliability describing brutality toward the Cherokee. There are no such quotes in any other section, except where they are strictly necessary for contextualization, and nowhere in this particular quote is there a mention of genocide.

Furthermore, Stannard, the only author who mentions the US in the section, is a controversial scholar whose work has been heavily criticized by other academics, and yet there is no balancing quote from his detractors in the section. So I'm afraid this section has no redeeming qualities at all. And neither was it meant to have. It was added by user Ledenierhomme purely to make a WP:POINT as his edit summary indicated.

So for those editors who think a section on the United States should be there, I say, fine, but please find some valid, relevant content from worthwhile sources and not this POV garbage please. Gatoclass 10:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded --PBS 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add to the section when I get the chance, I'm extraordinarily busy right now. Recognize that as with most of the article, it is of course a work in progress. - Ledenierhomme 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but until you do so, please stop restoring the section as it currently exists, as it not only violates WP:NPOV but is also inadequately supported by reliable sources and padded out with irrelevancies. Gatoclass 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you haven't explicated exactly why you believe it is not sufficiently NPOV, and exactly which parts you believe are irrelevant. I'm interested to know. (And by the way, you rv more times than me) - Ledenierhomme 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reference to genocide in the "Trail of Tears" article, so until you find a source that specifically refers to this event as genocidal, I'm afraid it's not relevant.

The Cesarani quote addresses "native Americans" but that refers to natives of all the Americas, not just North America or the US. In which case its appropriate location is in the "Americas" section.

That just leaves the Stannard quote, which only references the United States in passing, without providing any detail about what genocidal campaigns specifically the US is supposed to have committed. So it's a very vague statement which scarcely justifies a separate section to itself. Apart from which, as I said above Stannard is a controversial scholar whose opinions should be balanced by those who reject his POV.

So again let me reiterate - I'm not in any way opposed in principle to a separate section on the US, it just needs to have solid sourcing and to conform with NPOV, that's all. I'm afraid the current version just doesn't meet those requirements. Gatoclass 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When the term "Native American" is used in English with capitalization, it is typically used as a synonym for "American Indian". The quote comes from a section where Cesarani is specifically talking about the United States. Again, you've made assumptions about a source you haven't read. According to the standards set out in this article, Stannard is a perfectly quotable source. When I get the time, I will expand the section significantly (and add other sections). - Ledenierhomme 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote comes from a section where Cesarani is specifically talking about the United States

Fine, quote that bit and then maybe there'll be enough to justify the section. Gatoclass 08:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Japanese killings of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and other Asians

I am not a historian but it is common fact that during WW2 the Japanese army killed, tortured, raped and scientifically used many Asians. I do not know why it is not noted on Wikipedia and why no one has raised any comments about this. Almost all Asian history books – except for Japanese history books – record this genocide and many organizations are petitioning the Japanese government. Interestingly, I went to the genocide museum in Rwanda and found there was no record of the treacheries the Japanese military committed and was baffled, but then saw that the genocide museum was funded by the Japanese government. Anyway, I would appreciate if a historian who knows more about this would write about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.61.100.2 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Meteorologist?

Irish meteorologist Austin Bourke, in The use of the potato crop in pre-famine Ireland disputes some of Woodham-Smith's calculations, and notes that during December 1846 imports almost doubled. He opines that

“ it is beyond question that the deficiency arising from the loss of the potato crop in 1846 could not have been met by the simple expedient of prohibiting the export of grain from Ireland. ”

Two things on this: 1) A meteorologist, is noted for their work on famines? No I don't think so. 2) "during December 1846 imports almost doubled" what about the rest of the time? In addition, this refers to imports, and the quote refers to the export of grain. Totally different thing is it not? --Domer48 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Austin Bourke was a meteorologist. He was involved in agricultural meteorology and was director of Met Eireann from 1965-1978, check their our history page if you want clarification. His thesis was entitled 'The Potato Blight, Weather and the Irish Famine' and he published several books concerning the subject,The visitation of god'? : the potato and the great Irish famine being one of the more famous.It seems a bit weird all right but when you consider Phytophthora infestans or potato blight is a water mold meteorology doesnt seem too far off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.194 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Genocide of Jewish Population 63BCE-135CE

I realise that this article is an ongoing work, but it would definitely not be complete without mentioning the "alleged" genocide of Jews by the Roman Empire in the section titled "Timeline of genocides and alleged genocides" One only has to look at the works of Titus Flavius Josephus and Lucius Claudius Cassius Dio to realise that not only was the Roman Empire at war with Jews for the most part but also that the Roman Generals were quite indiscriminate in terms of targeting military units and civilians. I only have one online source that puts this "allegation" forward but since the word "alleged genocides" is in the title of the section concerned I think it would fit right in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For it to be included on this page verifiable reliable sources need to be cited confirming it was a genocide--PBS 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable reliable source:

HIR Historical and Investigative Research The Crux of WORLD HISTORY by Francisco Gil-White http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cruxcontents.htm

Volume 1: The Book of Genesis The Birth of the Jewish People

Part 1: Chapter 1: The Roman ‘Final Solution’ in the first and second centuries; why it happened, and why you never heard about it. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux01.pdf

A quote from the first paragraph of the first chapter.

"This first chapter does not deal with Jewish origins, and neither does it deal with the prelude to Jewish origins, but rather with a discussion of the Roman genocide of the Jews in the first and second centuries, and why it happened."

I would assume that this source is reliable enough to be cited as a reference or quoted from in a section called "Timeline of genocides and alleged genocides". —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia article on the author of http://www.hirhome.com (Francisco Gil-White) I think that several other independent sources would be needed to back up his research so that the section did not give undue weight to one persons point of view. Also www.hirhome.com appears to be a self published site and is a such not a very reliable source. --PBS (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just skimmed over the verifiability policy so I must have missed the section on self published sources. I think the author does have the relative credentials though for this kind of work(historiography) but I´ll look around for some other sources anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are my other sources, each of these sources explicitly state that genocide occurred. 1.The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology,History and Ideology By Andrea M.Berlin, J.Andrew Overman - ISBN 0415257069 Page 237 2.The Cambridge Ancient History By Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards - ISBN 0521263352 Page 379 3.Teaching About Genocide: Issues,Approaches and Resources by Samuel Totten - ISBN 159311074X Page 24 GreyMech (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the "Old Testament" as a historical reference of alleged genocides

Might as well add the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and other instances for the sake of completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.244.15 (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. As the word genocide was not defined until long after the Bible was written the word can not appear in the Bible so quoting the Bible is not sufficient for inclusion on this page. For incidents such as Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc. to be included on this page verifiable reliable secondary sources need to be cited confirming that in the opinion of the reliable source such and such an incident in the Bible was a genocide --PBS 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:) So, if the Great Flood is a Genocide, who's the culprit? :) Dpotop 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is all ready a source that has been referenced in this article.

Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, Chapter 1: Genocide in prehistory, antiquity, and early modernity

A quote from the fourth or fifth paragraph of the first chapter

"The trend starts early on, in the Book of Genesis (6: 17–19), where God decides “to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven,” with the exception of Noah and a nucleus of human and animal life."

I guess one would have to read the whole paragraph to put the above quote in some kind of context, but Adam Jones does indeed allude to the Great Flood / Noah´s Flood.

Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited . . . encompasses the call for genocide in its canon."

I´m not sure of the context in which Yehuda Bauer was writing or saying this, but I´m pretty sure he is referring to the whole of the Hebrew Bible (Tanach). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I was actually trying to make a point here also with regard to the alleged genocide of Midianites and Amalekites, no matter what Yehuda Bauer or Adam Jones say there is absolutely no historical evidence(Torah does´nt count, since there is no corroborating evidence) that a genocide actually occurred there is also absolutely no archaeological evidence that Midianites and Amalekites actually existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" (Armenian quote), Just because there is no specific "archaeological evidence that Midianites and Amalekites actually existed", does not mean that they did not. To try to keep the page under some sort of neutral point of view, it is not up to the editors of the page to judge whether a genocide took place it us up to us to judge if the sources used in the citations that state an event was a genocide meet Wikipeida's policies. And BTW I do not think that a source that alludes to a genocide is sufficient, the author of the source needs to state that the event was a genocide. --PBS (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your point about the wiki policy. About that quote you cited, I suppose you mentioned it because of the uncertainty surrounding it´s origin, to emphasize your point. Right? One more thing, I don´t see the the sense in using the term "Old Testament" in a sentence and then citing the quote from Yehuda Bauer in the next sentence, the civilization he inherited does not call their canon(nor is it identical to) the Old Testament.GreyMech (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congo Free State

see also Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 4#Congo

What about the Congo Free State? It may not be considered genocide to some, but it was state sponsored murder against a race of people. Chewrockan (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a section on that in the article. But it was decided that it was WP:OR to include it here because not one source was provided that claimed it was a genocide.[5] --PBS (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the info. Chewrockan (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Reilly

Why delete the description of Tom Reilly when most other authors are described on the page? Does someone not like the facts? Hughsheehy (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

His work is only representative of the majority view on this issue ie that Cromwell may have been a nasty piece of work by the accepted standards of warfare at the time he was acting with the norms (This was after all an event that took place at the tail end of the Thirty Years War). Now we can stack up references on both sides, but the majority view is that the NMA was brutal in ending the Royalist cause in Ireland but most do not suggest it was a genocide. Attacking the Tom Reilly on this page does not help present a neutral point of view for this brief overview. Is it your wish to present a neutral point of view or would you like it to present a specific point of view as the only point of view? --PBS (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some support that his view represents the majority view. His book has been described in very negative terms by leading specialists of the era. As for me "attacking" Tom Reilly, please tell me how I am doing that? He describes himself as an amateur historian. HIS description, not mine. Should we list (with names and descriptions) all the authors and professional historians that DO describe the Cromwellian era in Ireland as genocidal or near genocidal? It would be a long list and wouldn't include many self-described amateur historians. Presenting Tom Reilly as an authoritative reference is misleading. Describing him accurately is beyond criticism. Hughsheehy (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now PBS has deleted all reference to Tom Reilly. Why would someone delete a reference just because the reference gets characterized accurately? Hughsheehy (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said we could replace it with another -- For example using a book I have to hand Royle does not think that the NMA was exceptionally brutal (compared to the Scottish war) or went beyond the laws of war as they were in their day -- but in my judgement there is no need to give balance to the POV of the section -- the word "some" does that. I am not aware of any historian (in the books I have read -- although it may well have been addressed in specific journals) who has addressed the issue of whether it was not a genocide directly. Instead they tend to discuss the facts (and from the references added -- if they think it was a genocide then make the point). However I do not think that it is a coincidence that the suggestion that the Cromwellian clearances may have been a genocide were published after ethnic cleansing occurred in Bosnia, and since the ICJ made its judgement on the Bosnian Genocide Case earlier this year and concluded that ethnic cleansing is not in its self genocide, I suspect that we will hear less of historical incidents like this being called a genocide. --PBS (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> The Royal ref (page 550) that you mentioned only talks about the outcome of the sieges at Drogheda and Wexford. These incidents are not particularly relevant when discussing whether there was a "genocide" or not. Further, the Bosnia case judgement only said that ethnic cleansing doesn't automatically equate to genocide not that it can't, and in any case a legalistic definition and the common meaning of the term don't necessarily always agree. As for entering into these arguments, that's not my place or yours. All we can do is accurately reference published material. Hughsheehy (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Islamic invasions of India

I wanted to ask you if someone knows why there is no mention of the Islamic invasions of India in the Genocides in history page? Will Durant said in the famous quote that it was probably the bloodiest story in history. Is the problem that nobody has made the effort yet, or because it was removed? Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

China

User:Editingman I have copied your entry for Chima from the article page for further discussion:

During the mid-nineteenth century, the Muslims and the Miao people of China revolted against the Qing Dynasty, most notably in the Dungan revolt (1862-1877) and the Panthay rebellion 1856-1873) in Yunnan. These little known revolts were suppressed by the Manchu government in a manner that accounts to genocide,(Levene, Mark. Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State. I.B.Tauris, 2005. ISBN 1845110579)(Giersch, Charles Patterson. Asian Borderlands: The Transformation of Qing China's Yunnan Frontier. Harvard University Press, 2006. ISBN 1845110579)(Muslim History in China)(Ridwan Khan The challenges and opportunities of Chinese Islam cites Dillon, Michael. China’s Muslim Hui Community. Curzon, 1999. ISBN 0700710264) killing a million people in the Panthay rebellion(Damsan Harper, Steve Fallon, Katja Gaskell, Julie Grundvig, Carolyn Heller, Thomas Huhti, Bradley Maynew, Christopher Pitts. Lonely Planet China. 9. 2005. ISBN 1740596870)(ref name=chineseciv: Gernet, Jacques. A History of Chinese Civilization. 2. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.ISBN 0521497124), several million in the Dungan revolt(name=chineseciv) and five million in the suppression of Miao people in Guizhou.( name=chineseciv) A "washing off the Muslims"(洗回 (xi Hui)) policy had been long advocated by officials in the Manchu government.(Jonathan N. Lipman, "Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China (Studies on Ethnic Groups in China)", University of Washington Press (February 1998), ISBN 0295976446.)

Please see WP:CITE#Full references: "Full references for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional." The reference given do not include page numbers so are not adequate. Please can you supply page numbers for the books cited.

Please see WP:PROVEIT Looking east: The challenges and opportunities of Chinese Islam by Ridwan Khan is an essay and therefore not a reliable source. This is probably also true for the other web page cited Muslim History in China can you explain why you consider it a reliable source. --PBS (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the books, I gave page numbers. I don't have the other books available. Is there anything else I can do about it?Editingman (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

France and Rummel

In his book Death by Government, Professor R.J. Rummel argues that "a full scale genocide was carried out in the Vendée in which possibly 117,000 inhabitants were systematically murdered." [dubious – discuss]

Ledenierhomme What is dubious about the statement? It is not a statement of fact or are you saying that the Rummel is dubious source? --PBS (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could your political/ethnic/cultural/nationalist agenda be any more transparent? the 117,000 figure comes from Secher, whereas reliable sources such as Martin estimate 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans. See Hugh Gough for an analysis of Secher's flawed methodology. For the millionth time, you need to learn to evaluate the quality of your sources. Professor R.J. Rummel is no specialist on the French Revolution or the war in the Vendée. And "Transaction Publishers" (which I assume you got online from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM where Rummel admits it is "often reported as a civil war" and states that "possibly" 117,000 people were indiscriminately murdered) doesn't quite measure up to peer-reviewed journals. That's why it is dubious, as stated in the edit summary, in contradicts the conventional wisdom of the established authorities on the issue. There's no wriggling out of this one I'm afraid. Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are not disputing that the statement is verifiable and an accurate reflection of the text from which the the Wikipedia sentence is derived, you are disputing that R.J. Rummel is a reliable source. The text was added by C.J. Griffin lets ask that editor's opinion. --PBS (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the notes section of Rummel's book his source on this is Laurent Ladouce. But anyways, Rummel is not some hack but a reputable historian and a specialist on Democide so just because some historians disagree with his assertions doesn't mean he's is not a reliable source. And looking over the article it seems others concur with his views.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, I encourage you to read all the sources cited in the section of this article, before drawing any conclusions as to which sources and statements are plausible or dubious. If your main resource is the internet, well, that's a shame, but at least read Gough's article (which is available online) and look into who some of the authorities mentioned are, before you quote a rather irrelevant book by Rummel, who is not an expert on this subject and who admits his information is second-hand. FYI, Ladouce (another Catholic Christian) is not the source of the 117,000 figure, Secher is - in which case the quote from Rummel is third-hand, and only demonstrates that he is not a reliable source for this subject (the War in the Vendee). Rummel may well be a respected academic, but his credentials are irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Would you refer to Stephen Hawking in an article on the Yellow Turban Rebellion?

The article as it stands is already too long, and does a gross disservice to the subject matter as it in essence, places the words of polemicists (in most cases self-published in all but name) on an equal footing with established authorities who are specialists/experts on the subjects and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of anti-French racists and bigots looking to point score over something as serious as genocide, and mob rule has ensured that Secher's polemics remain intact. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rwanda and Sudan

Both of these countries' alleged genocides are under the heading of International Prosecution of Genocide rather than in the main list of alleged genocides. This seems wrong, but as a reader who came here to just to read the article, I would rather leave this edit up to someone more involved in this page. The heading "International Criminal Court" seems to have no text under it that relates to the heading. Has something gone missing? --CloudSurfer (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Genocides in history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Questionable reference

" Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed in such a way between 1870 and the end of World War II), it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War." All purportedly being reference by The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus by Charles King. This edit needs a page number for verifiability.

Page 158, does not call what occurred to Muslims a genocide(in fact it states the Ottoman Empire, imposed suffering on Muslims, ie.Kurds). Nor is there anything mentioned of a "Turkish claim", or this statement, "...it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War". This is Wikipedia:Synthesis. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another common claim made by not only Turks, but also other peoples of the region, is that the actions of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece during the First Balkan War (against Albanians and Turks, as well as other peoples of the region)and of the same list minus Bulgaria during the Second (against Bulgarians) constituted genocide, especially those by the Serbs against Albanians and Turks in Kosovo and Macedonia. --Glenny, Misha. "The Balkans", needs a page number as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten them both now, and added more references. I would appreciate to not be yelled at, as I don't have any anti-Armenian feelings myself anyways, its just the truth that everyone ignores what happened to Ottomon Muslims in those three wars (First Balkan War, WWI, Turkish-Greek war).--Yalens (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in Glenny's book on page 238-239, says, "contributing vastly to the 1 million killed from 1912-1918.". More synthesis.

I'd like to see quotes that directly relate to this "information". --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That quote was in the wrong place I believe... (let me check?)... editing issues, the quote was supposed to go next to the text block.--Yalens (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Yalens has not provided sources that corroborate what has been tagged with "verify by quotation", I am tagging that section as original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have provided 3 quotes (or was it 4 by now?) which you refuse to even look at, one of which gives the over 1 million Turks killed in WWI figure which you claim doesn't exist on the page. I have bolded it in case you still haven't noticed it somehow. --Yalens (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1. "Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I." Which you have provided this source..."Throughout the empire and its borderlands Muslims, too, suffered at the hands of both the Ottomon State and its wartime enemies. Kurds, formerly employed by the Ottomon authorities as irregular troops, were also deported from sensitive borderlands or simply slaugthered. Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus. In round figures, the regions were emptied of more than a million Muslims during the First World War alone, not to mention the previous century of removals and atrocities by the Balkan states and the Russian empire."

Nowhere within your "source" does it say "Turks claim.....", "genocide", or "well over 1 million Turks were killed".

2."It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state)", has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, undoubtedly more rationalization.

3."Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs", more irrelevant nonsense in an attempt to mitigate the genocide of a people under the direct control of the Ottoman Empire.

4. "it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", unsourced merde, used as some pathetic attempt to rationalize genocide.

As such, if no sources are posted within a week, I will be posting on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and these questionable edits will be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have noted on your talk page (a convo which I may copy here eventually), first of all, you seem to imply that I am trying to "mitigate" and to "rationalize the genocide". I personally acknowledge that the Armenian Genocide occurred, and for that, last week, I was called an Armenian propagandist. Anyhow, I will deal with these one-by-one.

1. Yes, the source says "over a million killed" I believe, so we can take "well" out of there. I don't see the big difference though, "well" is like "very" and "quite", they have lost most of their meaning by now and are just something someone says at reflex to add to an adjective. Otherwise, while we all know that this is the point of view of many individual Turks, you are right, I have not invested the work into finding a quote that is cite-able, so if I don't by next week, yes, I suppose you are fine deleting the Turkish opinion.

2. This does have to do with the Armenian Genocide, as the dispute is not only between Turks and Armenians, but also Kurds and Armenians- as you should know. It is also cited.

3. This also has to do with the Genocide, because it is important in the events that led up to the Genocide. It is very important for understanding the genocide, as well as understanding why the Turks cannot admit they did it. It is not in the least a cause for the paranoid and cynical view in the Ottomon government as well as in much of its citizenry developed in the years leading up to the genocide, that they could get away with such operations and also that they were "normal" in the context of war, as they occurred much throughout the Balkan Wars, committed by both sides.

4. This is also an opinion (and should be in quotations) occasionally one hears being voiced by a Turk. You may delete it if we cannot find a source (I am sure the reader could be able to figure out that that's what the Turks think anyways if they thought about it). --Yalens (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now restored the material. You acted completely on your own, despite my overtures to discuss this (and I have waited over a month for a response, which gives me the impression you simply want me to shut up and have it your way without discussing editing, as unnecessarily bringing in the mod also proved...) and as I noted above, and on your talk page, much of your logic is simply wrong. I will be editing myself perhaps this somewhat to balance. You seem to have no interest in discussing. Rather. your interest in accusing me of "genocide rationalization", when I have reiterated many times that I both recognize and condemn the Armenian Genocide (as well as the Assyrian). You even seemed so desperate to shut me up that you called a mod on me simply for saying that since you aren't are Armenian and I'm not a Turk, there's no reason why you should be so opposed to discussing with me rather than deleting huge amounts of sourced (and may I add, with quotations) text. But you haven't. So I have restored the entry, and I will balance it on my own if necessary. --Yalens (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have now deleted the material, not because I don't think its not worth talking about, but that I suppose you are right it is off-topic, and indeed, it is elsewhere on wikipedia, so someone has the links necessary to find it. --Yalens (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)