Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

For an April 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genocides in history

Contents

Archives


Kashmir

This section seems to be at times incredibly inaccurate and pov. I'd especially like to see sources for the claim that "mostly Muslim and some Hindu civilians" have been killed and for the claim that most of the atrocities are blamed on Indian military (and not terrorists) by Human Rights groups and the UN. --Kefalonia 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The article still states the following: "Most of the atrocities including rape, torture and massacre are attributed to the Indian Army personnel in the region, mostly by human rights groups and the UN [1]." I don't want to judge the objectivity or neutrality of this article, but this particular article focuses heavily on the India military or similar, not on the terrorists or the Pakistani military. The HRW article says that the Indian military also commited atrocities, but not that it commited most of the atrocities, so this should be corrected in the article. --Kefalonia 13:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Notice how the section is about Jammu and Kashmir (Indian Administered), so it has to focus on the Indian side. Besides there is nothing that commonly classifies as genocide that was conducted on the Pakistani side. Also it is well documented that Indian military did have a greater hand in killings than separatists. The separatists (or "terrorists" in less NPOV version) do kill people but not as much as the army has. And selective killings were done by both the military and separatists. Also there is a Muslim majority in Kashmir and any good source will tell you that more Muslims have died than Hindu. The HRW article has several pages on Indian military actions and there is one page on separatist actions. Look at the linked sources. Not all the groups are Pakistan-based either, that is only allegation. Hope that helps. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The article still says: "Most of the atrocities including rape, torture and massacre are attributed to the Indian Army personnel in the region, mostly by human rights groups and the UN [9]. The Indian army claims these are isolated incidents by individual soldiers who are punished by military courts and says that militants in the territory are also responsible for grave abuses [10]. The conflict has resulted in the largest internal displacement of people in South Asia since the Partition of India and the conflict continues [11]." The reference given (the HRW article) does not say that most atrocities are commited by Indian army or similar, but that the India army also commits atrocities. It does also not say that most human rights groups or the UN claim this. So this sentence should be corrected. The same HRW also mentions the atrocities by terrorists [2] [3] and by the Pakistan army [4]. The particular HRW article that is linked in the article heavily focuses on the army (see the title, it is an aricle about army abuses) and is primarly about the army, there are also other articles and reports about terrorists. I also think that the Kashmir section has a pro-terrorist bias. The section barely mentions that the terrorists commit atrocities, and references to atrocities of terrorists are reverted or deleted. [5] [6] [7] [8] The section is about Kashmir, which also includes Pakistan administered Kashmir. "Besides there is nothing that commonly classifies as genocide that was conducted on the Pakistani side." I wouldn't say so, compare the percentage of non-Muslims in 1947 with the percentage of non-Muslims in 2005, and you'll see that in 2005 almost no non-muslims are left in Pakistan admin. Kashmir. You give no sources that say that the terrorists kill less than the army, or that more muslims died. Some terrorist groups are also Afghanistan or Kashmir based. --Kefalonia 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Did you see this link [9] because that is also sourced in the article and may make things clearer. Once again I point out that the section is about Jammu and Kashmir - Indian administered; not Pakistan. As for pro-terrorist bias, I don't know what you mean, but separatists is what the militancy can be called in the more NPOV version. Also this article is not about terrorism in Kashmir (so we don't need a large description of them), it is about genocide conducted in Kashmir and any good source including the link I gave about will tell Any good source will tell you that Kashmir is Muslim majority and that more Muslims have died in Kashmir. And the article still says Muslim and Hindu so I don't see the problem. The main reason why there are few non-Muslims remaining in Pakistani Kashmir is that they fleed the ethnic conflict and so did as many Muslims from Indian administered and Pakistani administered Kashmir, but there is still a Muslim majority in the region. A population decrease does not always mean genocide. For example millions left Afghanistan during the soviet war as refugees but that does not mean they had genocide there. --Anonymous editor 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The gendercide article is one of the most biased articles that I read lately, which is sad because some of their articles (like on the Holocaust) are not that bad. The Kashmir Conflict includes both Pakistan and Indian administered Kashmir. Terrorists is not a synonym for separatists, and it is very unfair for the separatists if all the terrorists are called separatists. Not all terrorists are separarists and not all separatists are terrorists, as you should know. It is also not correct to say that the Indian Army commits genocide. The Indian Army fights the terrorists, not an ethnicity or religion. Take for example Irak: The acts of the Americans in Irak may be terrible or not, but the Americans are fighting the terrorists, they are not commiting genocide on the Irakis. The terrorists are however systematically killing Hindus and other people on the basis of their religion or political opinion, and the acts of the terrorists qualify very much as genocide. See the definition for genocide. None of your sources say that "most" atrocities are commited by the army, so I'll change it to "many" atrocities. I still think that the section is very pov, but I don't care enough about this article to bother about the rest. --Kefalonia 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, it is one of the most biased articles I have ever read on wikipedia. I do not see why the Anonymous Editor above insists that the article is only about Indian-administered Kashmir. The Kashmir problem includes both Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir as well as the Indian administered side. The article goes into detail about specififc abuses alleged to be performed by the Indian army. Why does the article not go into similar detail regarding the alleged abuse by the militants? There is clearly bias in this article, and any intelligent, objective person can see that.

Unless someone can supply reliable unbiased sources that a genocide has/is taking place in Kashmir, as WP:V makes clear "Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I am going to remove the section. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is one originally from the Washington Post and read publicly in the United States Senate. (1 dalitstan). Here is another one (2 holocaustinkashmir). And from the human rights organizations: the Human rights organization Genocide watch (3 gendercide) and one from Human Rights Watch (4 hrw). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the sources you have provided:

  1. Mr. HELMS. In the U.S. Senate mentions the word Genocide the Washington Post articles does not. His exact words are "where the forces of India are engaged in what amounts to genocide" not "where the forces of India are engaged in genocide" which is what one would have expected him to say if Helms thought it were a genocide.
  2. holocaustinkashmir. This does not seem like an unbiased source to me, it seems to me like a propaganda site. Who are they and what are their credentials?
  3. gendercide: Says "The state terror in Kashmir, like the genocide in Bangladesh," It calls the situation a "state terror" not a genocide.
  4. hrw I could not find the word genocide on the page you have provided. Following the internal site link [IV. APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW] there is no mention of genocide.

Even if any of theses were suitable sources the section as stands does not include one source which states that a genocide is taking place. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The killing of large numbers of people is genocide even if the article doesn't say the word exactly. Estimates usually say that from 60 000 to 200 000 people have been killed in the last two decades and that it is a forgotten problem. Even a U.S representative said that Whether or not one agrees with President Clinton's policy in Kosovo, we went there to stop the `ethnic cleansing' of the Kosovars by the Serbian government. Yet we have averted our glance from a similar campaign throughout India , a situation the Indian Supreme Court described as `worse than a genocide.' This ethnic cleansing has taken the lives of over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and thousands upon thousands of Dalits, Assamese, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minority peoples. - Hon. Edolphus Towns in the US House of Representatives.
I think the sources I provided are fine, but here are more 5 kmsnews6 gharib 7 Human Rights Watch. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 5 www.kmsnews.org says "Kashmir Media service is a full-fledged news agency on Kashmir ensuring instant coverage of every day events in Indian held Kashmi" But it is obvious that it is not an impartial news service when it includes "Freedom Struggle" as the first item on its list of "Data Bank" subjects. Ayaz Daudzai is the author of the piece who is (s)he?
    The social science gateway (of which I know nothing but it is at least once removed) writes "The Kashmir Media Service is a Pakistan based news agency which specialises in providing up to date news and commentary on the conflict in Kashmir. Users should note that it tends to take a Pakistani perspective on the situation. The site provides access to daily news stories, with a limited amount of older material accessible. It also includes a large databank section which contains a timeline and history of the conflict and India-Pakistan relations, plus links to selected human rights reports, articles and analyses of it. These are largely critical of the Indian government."
  • 6 gharib.demon.co.uk seems to be a blog site. Who is Gharib Hanif? The specific page is a copy of one on the Kashmir Freedom Movement website (A Brief Catalogue of Indian Atrocities in Kashmir) This does not seem to be an organisation with a NPOV.
  • 7 Human Rights Watch page you supplied does not mention the word genocide.

Do you have one source from a respectable neutral third party who claims that the situation in Indian Kashmir is a genocide? Please see the entries I have put in to the Wikipedia article for Iraq, Tibet, and the Bangladesh War of 1971. For Bangladesh, I would have preferred to find a report by the UN or a neutral government, or a court case based on the CPPCG, (like that for the Iraq and Tibet entry), but for the moment Rummel is a far better source than the ones you have been put forward because although he has an axe to grind he does not have a specific interest in that conflict. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor perhapse we can explore what you wrote "the Indian Supreme Court described as `worse than a genocide.'". Do you have a source for this which places "worse than a genocide" in context? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah! A secondary source which makes clear that it is quote about case involving Sikhs in "Khalistan". Using that as a bootstrap here is another secondary source with more details --Philip Baird Shearer 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir and Jammu

Two sources rovided and alghought they both talk about horrible things I can not see the word genocide in either of them. Can anyone else find the word genocide in those two soureces. Can anyone supply an other wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is currently highly inaccurate and pov. The reason for this is that it is edited by Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) and some anonymous users, who try to deny and delete any atrocities committed by the terrorists, while at the same time alleging that the Indians commit genocide, while atrocities by terrorists or the Pakistan army are deleted. See also the Kashmir discussion on this talk page. This section direly needs somebody neutral to step in. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Kefalonia, this page is not about separatism in the Kashmir region, or militants allegedly encouraged by Pakistan as I told you before. The article is about Genocide and records show that in Indian administered Kashmir or "Jammu and Kashmir", the Indian army has committed atrocities in the region. If you really are against censorship then you shouldn't censor this. Thanks. Also Philip some of the sources are included there such as the site Genocide watch which talks about state terrorism and killings [10] or this one by human rights organizations [11]. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The two articles you have provided on this page do not include anything like a credible source for genocide occurring in Kashmir. For example the second source notes that there were "ninety-nine cases of disappearance between 1990 and 1992", which is devestating for those involved, but is a long way from Genocide. I think the section needs to be re-written so that it is not just a list of nasty things but includes statements of what the genocide is and who is making the accusations with credible reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this listed in genocides? There has been an armed conflict over there and offcial death toll is 60000 civilians killed. Most in crossfire between Indian army and militants. Seoncdly why isnt ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits mentioned?

Image:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thirty Years War

I removed this because:

  1. It is not sourced.
  2. "The Thirty Years War was a Holocaust of German and Czech Protestants between 1618 and 1648." The Prots gave as good as they got.
  3. "During the war, more than two thirds of Czech population may have lost their lives and death toll in Germany may have been even higher, but the losses are rather attributable to infectious diseases and famine resulting from ruthless war operations, rather than to systematic direct extermination of the population." Death by desease know no boundries.
  4. "By conservative estimates, at least seven million Protestants were martyred." POV because death by desease does not make one a martyr.
  5. "The Thirty Years War meant the definite end of Slavic people in northern Germany (the speakers of Polabian), since the areas inhabited by them suffered the most". source?

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Simple query: Should death by war-induced famine, with the consequent diseases, qualify? What are the criteria?--shtove 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

- I don't know much about this war, but I do know some of the rules set at the Geneva Convention. "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;" This is one act of genocide, but I'm not one to judge whether or not they were left in these conditions deliberatly to kill them or it was just general war time famine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish genocide of Dutch Protestants

Source that it was a genocide? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Spanish soldiers genocided by Dutch rebels - froth-at-the-mouth right-winger calls it War: SHAME!--shtove 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hemophiliacs

I am inclined to remove the following. It is hard to see how this qualifies as genocide, reprehensible as the greed and/or negligence of the parties may have been (and I'm sure there are factual accuracy disputes over some of this.) I know of no reputable source that claims that hemophiliacs were deliberately targeted for eradication. There are many other medical conditions left untreated, unsafe medical products marketed, etc, all for similar financial reasons. Are these also genocides?

In the 1980's, the federal government and several major American pharmaceutical companies participated in their own form of genocide when over 5,000 American hemophiliacs were killed by blood products containing the HIV and Hepatitis C viruses. Thousands more hemophiliacs were infected and killed worldwide. The federal government and the companies were aware that their blood was tainted and that it was possible to clean the blood products, yet did not take any direct action to rectify the situation until the mid 1980's. Hepatitis C infections were still reported in the United States as late as 1990. It prompted the federal government to reward thousands of hemophiliacs or their widows and children $100,000 via the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Act. [4]

CarbonCopy 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed after reading source and lack of comments here. Criminal corporate greed perhaps, but not genocide. CarbonCopy 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad Article

I hate to say it, but I think that this is a really bad article. Genocide means the deliberate, planned extermination of a people based on thier race, ethnc orgiin or relgious affiliation. The term itself means "killing of a people". Most, i would say almost all, the the instances listed here are massacres, where people, sometimes targeted for race/religion etc were killed in wars, by disease etc. However, they do not qualify as genocides unless:

(1) the whole people were intended to be wiped out.

(2) There was a systematic plan and effort made toward this end.

On this basis, I don't think that the assertion that "genocides are a regular occurance" stands up to scrutiny. Most of the information here should be transferred to an article on massacres/war crimes or something else.

Jdorney 12:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bad article, however the term Genocide as defined by the UN in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide more broadly than you have defined it because it says "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" (my emphasis).
Further because of the strength of the USSR at the time it was introduced Stalin had any reference to groups defined by political opinion or social status removed from the convention which many think should also be in the definition as that would cover the wholesale slaughter of people identified by class. And a case can be made that given the enthusiastic killing of people deemed to be mentally inferior or perceived to be sexually deviant by the Nazis that those groups should be included as well.
Having said that even if these groups are included in the definition, I think that each section of this article should be examined for a non Neutral Points Of View (NPOV) and credible sources. If there are no credible sources then the section should be removed and if the section does not have a NPOV unless sources can be added to give it balance then the section should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From the next section: Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I am open to other definitions if it passes the WP:NOR is a WP:NPOV and comes from verifiable reliable sources. If I understand you correctly I think that when earlier today I split the modern section (1500 forward) into three, my reasons was following the line of thought you have put forward in you comments about the UN definition:

  • 1500->1950: the coining of the term Genocide and pre the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). The further back in time one goes the less useful the UN definition is.
  • 1951-1990: CPPCG in place but no international enforcement. When there are no police around people will speed. Were the entries in the current list bought up in international forums like the UN? If not then were they genocides generally recognised by the international community?
  • 1951-1990: CPPCG and being enforced. So if they are in the Wikipedia list what diplomatic moves have been made to get the alleged genocide enforced?

I think this new division will help us sort out the genocides from mass killings which although nasty are not genocides. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

England

I see that someone has removed the England section twice, giving the only reason as 'change of ownership'. Not only do I disagree with the conclusion that it was not genocide, but I find the facetious remark offensive. I would not dare describe the genocide of the Herero in South West Africa merely as 'change of ownership'.

Anyway, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide passed by the UN in 1948 says, if I need to repeat it:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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.

I have tried in the England section to show how this relates to the invasion in 1066. They intentionally murdered and enslaved many thousands of English, they massacred over 100,000 English in Yorkshire by removing their homes and livelihoods (read the East Riding section of the Domesday Book for more details), and they attempted to destroy the cultural life of the English by destroying churches (and other items) and banning the use of English in the state.

You only think it isn't genocide because it doesn't say so in any books you've read, but then again, there was no genocide of Armenians, or so say the Turkish books. Oswax 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if this is the criteria, then English forces committed genocide in Ireland several times over. See the Desmond Rebellions. Nine Years War (Ireland) and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. In each case they systematically destroyed crops and killed people to end guerrilla wars. However, in my opinion, this is not genocide. It is brutal and, by modern standards, war crimes, but is it an attempt to destroy a whole people? No. This is why genocide is such a powerful word and why it is distinguished from other massacres. Phillip, the UN definition is understandable, but remembr that it is designed to prevent atctions that might lead to genocide. Assessing genocide in a historical context requires a different set of criteria in my opinion. (Incidentally I didn't remove the 1066 info anyway). Jdorney 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oswax, you are of course entitled to you point of view (POV), mine is that it was not a genocide. There was not intent to destroy the population. The new nobility needed a work force just as much as the old nobility. See the Diggers for arguments of what happens to nobility if there is no one to work for them. (This is also an argument put forward by some historians to explain the small restraint that the English and Scotts displayed during the creation of the plantations in Ireland).
In a Wikipedia article there are several policies and guidelines which should be followed when there is a dispute such as this. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:verifiability both of which are policies, and the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you can find Wikipedia:Reliable sources which claim that it was a genocide and phrase the entry in such a way that it does not invalidate the WP:NOR, then we can construct a valid section. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, you say: you are of course entitled to you point of view (POV). Shall I bother trying to convince you, as you seem already to have this down as non-NPOV? Don't quote policies at me, I find that insulting.
There does not need to be intent to destroy the whole population, only part. To take the best example, the Normans did intend to murder thousands of English in the East Riding, and it happened. This is no small deal, over 10% of English at the time were murdered, with intent, and they even admitted it:
Orderic says: 'He harried the land and burnt homes to ashes. Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind, should be brought together and burned to ashes with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance.
In consequence, so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless populace, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old, perished of hunger’
And has William say on his deathbed: 'I ... caused the death of thousands by starvation and war ... I descended on the English ... ordered that all their homes and crops, and all their equipment and furnishings, should be burnt at once; and their great flocks and herds of sheep and cattle slaughtered everywhere. So I ... with the lash of starvation ... was the cruel murderer of many thousands’ (Forgive the gaps, I'm trying to keep this short.)
What do you want? a signed confession? Oswax 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No I do not want a signed confession, but a Reliable source which states it was genocide is a must, if it is to be complient with the WP:NOR policy. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, Orderic is my reliable source, he didn't use the word genocide, but then again he couldn't have. He does do the next best thing, by having William say: 'I have persecuted the natives of England ... innumerable multitudes perished through me ... and so became the barbarous murderer of many thousands ... of that fine race of people.'
He is a good secondary source, with little bias. How about it? Oswax 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You know what, just forget it, it doesn't matter anyway. Oswax 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It does matter anyway - wasn't the Norman conquest a model for English and British colonialism? Or did they learn it all from the Spanish?--shtove 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unintentional genocide

The Canada section refers to an unintentional genocide - what is the point of Wikipedia if this remains undeleted by editors who make serious contributions to the article?--shtove 01:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You are as free as anyone else to fix anything you think is wrong with the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the article already has its serious editors - if one can edit a section, one ought to look at the entirety. This article has a section based on a contradiction of the introductory definition: I guess it's a circus for cranks and not worth contributing to.--shtove 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction was re-written by me not long ago! I am hoping to work through each section and get the article into a better format. If a section does not have Reliable sources it ought to be removed. But it takes time and any help in doing this would be appreciated because if one person tries to do it alone it often ends up in a revert war with someone who passionately believes an act to be a genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable and uncranky of you. Good luck!--shtove 19:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam

The Degar (Montagnard) page also mentions that the treatment of the Degar by the Vietnamese government "This has prompted several human rights organizations to argue that the Degar are subject to an ongoing and continual genocide by the current Vietnamese government."

I have asked on the Talk:Degar page for the sources for the allagation. If you can contribute information please do so on the Degar talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the Viernam section please see Talk:Degar --Philip Baird Shearer 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocides since 1991

As there are international trials for the Genocides of Bosnia and Rwanda. So I think these should be in the list.

  • East Timor - Who alledges that there was a genocide and where are the reliable sources?
  • Indonesia - Who alledges that there was a genocide and where are the reliable sources
  • Sudan. - There is one reference at the moment. Does anyone have any sources for the other paragraphs.

--Philip Baird Shearer 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sudan has been ruled genocide by a few different countries, although I don't think it has been decided by the UN yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.91.177 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

you should sign comments on a talk page with ~~~~ it will automagically turn it into a signature with time stamp

I have added references for Sudan, but I am not really happy with the structure of the section. A list of governments which have called the situation a genocide would help along with any UN General Assembly resolutions and African Union statments --Philip Baird Shearer 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"The United States calls it genocide." - CBS News I couldn't find a government site to verify, but Im positive that it is true, as Ive also seen it at various other news sites, such as the BBC.


Genocides from 1951 to 1990

  • Algeria

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured during the Algerian French war? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Australia

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured in Austrilia? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Bangladesh Liberation War

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide occured or may have occured shortly before or during the war? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The main article Bangladesh Liberation War talks in detail about the genocide with an ocean of sources. Should that be replicated in its entirety here too? Idleguy 04:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the BLW and it does not have any direct sources for a claim of genocide. There is one indirect one which was a minority US State Department view. But that is a long way from general agreement that genocide took place by neutral organisations and governments which were not a party to the conflict. This section needs Wikipedia:reliable sources (as does thea BLW article) --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the provious text and replaced it with numbers and a quote from Rummel. Idealy I would like a better source, but it is the one with the least Bangladesh bias I have seen to date. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Cambodia

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that the Killing fields were or may have been a genocide? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are surely better sources, but this may help: [12] [13] --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Legally, not sure. Analytically, it's been categorized as genocide and politicide. For sourcing the number of deaths, the consensus seems to be an estimate between 1 million and 2 million. The 1.7 million figure currently cited is Kiernan's calculation, broken down in his book chapter in Totten, Parsons, and Charny 2004 (currently listed under "Further Reading") and probably in his 1996 book (listed below).

Valentino, Benjamin A. 2004. Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Page 139, with footnote #240. All of the following are what Valentino cites; I haven't yet looked at them myself, so I can't say who is estimating what:
Heuveline, Patrick. 1998. "'Between One and Three Million': Towards the Demographic Reconstruction of a Decade of Cambodian History (1970-1979)". Population Studies 52(1): 58-61.
Kiernan, Ben. 1996. The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Margolin, Jean Louis. 1999. "Cambodia: The Country of Disconcerting Crimes". Pp. 577-635 in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Mydans, Seth. 1996. "Cambodian Killers' Careful Records Used Against Them". New York Times, June 7, p. A1.

Additionally, the State Failure Task Force at the University of Maryland estimates the Cambodian 1975-1979 death toll between 1,900,000 and 3,500,000.

Ramseyk 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And would you like to re-write the section to reflect these sources? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Guatemala

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No sources, so I am going to remove the entry. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Iraq

I have supplied 2 sources for a Dutch court which has ruled that the gas attacks on the Kurds was a genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • 'Tibet'

Currently no sources are supplied. Can anyone supply wikipedia:reliable sources which state that a genocide has occured in the area since 1950 ? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have re-instated this section with refereces to the Spanish high court. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar genocide

When english conquered Gibraltar (Spain), they killed all the spanish population.

Persecutions of the Jews

Many events in the History of anti-Semitism can be fully qualified to be called genocide. Just a couple examples:

I do not think that the first two do and I am not familiar with the third, but I would have no objections if you can find Wikipedia:reliable sources which state that they were, and word it in such a way that it is clear where the allegations come from. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to be added to Biblical Genocides

This may get laughed down but surely the story of Noahs Ark counts as a genocide committed by god? --Horses In The Sky 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

              Yes , as it is most likely that it didn't happen and was a metaphor .

Croatian Genocide

I removed edit about Ustasha being "catholic action" in local languages, etc. because it seemed likely vandalism/POV. If this is not the case please rewrite but restore info added by 129.234.4.76. Thanks! Mego'brien

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Genocides in history INSTEAD.