Talk:Genocide/Archive 4

message: Hi folks,
We previously had the entire article content (out of date) cut-and-pasted at the top of this Talk page, for no real reason I could determine, and it made this page very hard to use.  I removed it.  I skimmed through looking for embedded actual comments in the article content and it didn't seem to me like anybody had entered any that way, but it's possible I might have missed something.  If I have deleted anybody's comments, it was not intentional.
I also added headings and fixed heading levels so that the table of contents for the Talk page now works and is even somewhat useful.  I did the best I could to think up neutral headings where there weren't any before.  Hope it all helps. Bsktcase 20:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up this Talk page 

message: I removed 
::English Genocide in Scotland
:Genocide in the Highland Clearances:
:The Highland Clearances occurred when the Jacobite rebellion failed in the 18th Century, and the traditional Clan system in Scotland subsequently broke up.
:English landlords, in partnership  with ex-clan chiefs, 'encouraged', sometimes forcibly, the population to move off the land, which was then given over to sheep farming. The people were accommodated in poor crofts or small farms in coastal areas where the farming or fishing could not sustain the communities, or directly put on emigration ships.  Together with a failure of the potato crop in the early 19th Century, this policy resulted in starvation, deaths, and a secondary clearance, when Scots either migrated voluntarily or were forcibly evicted, many to emigrate, to join the British army, or to join the growing urban cities in Lowland Scotland. In many areas there were small and large scale massacres and violence towards the indigenous people.
:In modern times this would be known as Ethnic Cleansing, or genocide.
I do not think this is NPOV and submit if this is genocide then every "restructuring" or revolution  for economic reasons is genocide.  There is no doubt that the Clearances were inhuman and despicable. From my understanding the crofters were cleared off the land to make room for sheep, as they were more profitable.  It was not an English conspiracy against Scots, but an example of greed winning over compassion.  The landlords were not all English and the so-called "clan chiefs" and Scottish landlords were as venal as their English counterparts.  As for it being "ethnic cleansing" - that is also unsupported. Tiles 01:02, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more NPOV.  I've been re-reading Prebble, Highland Clearances and have amended your note to reflect the gap between the Battle of Culloden and the introduction of the Cheviot sheep to the glens.  I'm more inclined to your idea that ethnic cleansing was at work. Tiles 04:55, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide vs. ethnic cleansing (Highland Clearances) 

message: Why is there a page entitled Genocide and another entitled Genocides?
Rickyrab 22:33, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant pages 

message: There is an article on Persecution of Christians, Anti-Semitism and on Homophobia, but what about the killing of Muslims? Worldwide, millions of Muslims have been murdered in the past few decades, by people such as Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, etc? RK 00:39, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
:The National Islamic Front in Sudan has killed largely Christians and animists, but also hundreds of thousands of Muslims, especially among the Beja, Fur, Massaleit, Tama, and Nuba peoples. Its militias have also taken Muslim slaves.
:The Armed Islamic Group in Algeria has murdered more than 100,000 Muslims in the last decade. In Chechnya, another 100,000 people, one-10th of the population, has been killed and almost half the population is displaced. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies killed thousands of Shia. In Mauritania, tens of thousand of Muslims are held as slaves. Tens of thousands more died in the Kashmir conflict and in the civil wars in Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone. Thousands more have died in Nigeria and Indonesia. The Burmese junta drove out more than a quarter million of its Rohingya Muslims in the early 1990s. In India last year some 2,000 Muslims were slaughtered in Gujarat, some disemboweled or burned alive while police stood by or joined in.
:Yet these events are passed over in silence, even within much of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of many of these atrocities sit in the UN condemning events in the West Bank.
:World silence over slain Muslims - from Boston.Com
I have copied the above to: Persecution of Muslims. Modify it please. wshun 05:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no article on the mass murder of Muslims? 

message: Danny,
I am sorry about the incomplete information. I intended to use it as a stub and post the information about the genocide of Jedwabne's jews by the Polish, but you seem to have updated it before I could fish out suitable links.
On Gujarat, it was not a genocide, it was rioting in the same sense as the riots in Los Angeles and Cincinnatti. 
Please follow the contributions of use Boud and you will find that he has been posting stuff which is nothing but Communist propaganda all over the place. I feel frustrated because my aim is to focus on dissemination of information. For some strange reason he seems to hate India and has gone around Wikipedia posting inflammatory stuff. Even when it is pointed out, he won't behave and he comes up with "X alleges... Y alleges..." which is nothing but POV.
I do have data from my Jewish friends from Belarus and Ukraine who told me about the perception of Poles being the #1 anti-semites, but hey, if you feel it is a POV, just point it out to me. I am fair-minded. I'd like to see a high quality encyclopedia.
:It is definitely POV. As for Jedwabne--and I don't mean to diss Eliach--it is also somewhat controversial as to what exactly happened. Kielce would be a better example, but I would classify that more as a pogrom than as genocide. Similarly, would Kishinev (1903) be considered "genocide"? One has to be very careful here and use a specific, universally accepted definition, lest this entire page deteriorate into an account of hyperbolic charges by rival ethnicities, no matter how brutal the end results may have been. As for Gujarat, I know absolutely nothing about it, so I can't really give an opinion one way or the other. Danny 10:44, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Danny 

message: Once again, I am tempted to just revert, but want to hear what others say.  This does not seem to reach the level of a genocide, and the writing is ridiculous: "by the Polish people" (!).  And as Danny mentions, what even happened is controversial.  I really feel this is out of place here. -- VV 05:48, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say just remove it, too small to be a genocide by most definitions. Maybe there is a more relevant page where both sides of this event or a NPOV version of this (if it exists) can be written. Maximus Rex 06:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the scale of both Kielce and Jedwabne seems to small when compare to other examples. Both could be included as pogroms (which they were) or political assassinations (as both were apparently inspired due to political reasons), but genocide they were not. Moreover, the common belief that the Poles=anti-semites should not be included in the wikipedia as it's not a fact but a stereotype (I'm a Polish Jew myself). NPOV is the key here.
Halibutt 15:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of Poland entry 

message: Some people use genocide to include government suppression of political opposition: like Stalin starving to death the Ukrainian kulaks, or Mao killing between 20 million and 60 million Chineses.
Others say that politics has nothing to do with "genocide" and keep reverting the article to suppress any mention of the connection. Some of these contributors insist that "the dictionary proves we are right". Ironically, the last time this argument was inserted into the article, the dictionary cited specifically mentioned "political groups" in the definition. So what's up?
Are contributors engaging in censorship, or did they just read the definition hastily?
Let's not fight over words. Some people use genocide in a political context; others scrupulously avoid using it that way. Wikipedia should report the FACT that both usages exist. It should even report that certain groups or countries oppose the Political Usage of the term; and even try to say WHY they oppose it, if possible. --Uncle Ed 16:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that this battle with Ed over definition has been going on for a year and half. Perhaps Ed you could summarize your previous comments since some of them seem to contradict each other. Rmhermen 22:10, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
The only contradiction I'm aware of is the assertion that leaving out political killings is closer to the Merriam-Webster definition, which specifically includes political killings. I wonder if the text of the article should point out this contradiction.
I'm not asserting anything. I'm only reporting that college professors who have published books are saying things. This is the same as the global warming thing. 
One of us, perhaps, has a fundamental disagreement with NPOV. (It's just barely possible that it's an honest misunderstanding, but that doesn't seem likely does it?) --Uncle Ed 16:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Ed, you will note that the last time I edited anything in regard to the definition of genocide or comment on that subject on the talk page was October 22 of 2002. Certainly not an edit war. Your comment from Aug of that year begins: "Okay, the popular usage is mistaken," and you will note that you added the international definition to the article (although I restored it when you briefly started a separate page about the definition of genocide). So you can see how I confused your position. Perhaps as when you worked through global warming, you could add some sources which use it in your fashion. By the way, I have only one problem with the current version (15:57, Feb 12, 2004). I would like something more authoritative than Merriam-Webster. Rmhermen 17:07, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your conciliatory and decidedly non-inflammatory note. I was only kidding when I said You want a fight? You got one. Sorry for making such a fuss, RM.
Stipulating that the popular usage of genocide is wrong, i.e., that people shouldn't use it to describe political killings -- then I suggest we move most of the political mass murders from genocide to mass murder or just lump them all under the neolgism democide. You pick.
Or, if we don't need to resolve the quibble over the usage of genocide, let's revise the genocide article so that each episode is properly classified. The non-political ones should keep the "genocide" label, but the political ones as in Stalinist USSR or Maoist China should have a blurb or disclaimer that says something like:
Scholars are divided over whether to call this episode "genocide", since the motive was not to exterminate a group based on its ethnic or religious characteristics but to suppress political or economic rebellion.
I'm not proposing this specific wording -- just saying that if we don't resolve the definition thing at the top of the article, we'll have to deal with it on an episode by episode basis.
Best regards,<BR>
Uncle Ed 17:45, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight over the definition 

message: formatttttt question:  we have a list on the page of genocides.  I cant tell why we have chosen some of the names.  Some seem to indicate the location of the genocide (France, North America), some indicate the target group (Armenia this could be location), others seem to indicate the perpetrators (German, Japanese)....shouldnt each section be named in the same manner?  All  location based or all target based or all prep based? OneVoice 18:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of list of genocides 

message: :Palestinians are dying, unjustly, that is all that need to be said to act on this issue and change the situation. They live in poverty, unable to govern themselves and build themselves up as a nation due to the extremely strong restrictions that bind them. The anger of such groups as Hamas is understandable, but their use of terrorism hides the integrity of their cause. It is also understandable that Israel takes certain measures to protect their people from terrorism, but they are now destroying a race – they are committing genocide. It is only when these humanitarian injustices of Palestinians are solved and this unrecognized Holocaust is put to an end that the true path to peace in the Middle East can begin.
: Palestineans are not a race, they are semites (just like the Israelis), which makes the situation there all the more strange. --82.156.49.1 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Holocaust and Genocide by Israel---1948-Present 

message: Wouldn't it be more obvious to derive the word from Latin genus?  Burschik
: Although that might seem logical, Raphael Lemkin, a linguist, coined the word himself, and the description of the etymology in the article matches precisely how he says he derived it. Bsktcase 23:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology 

message: "Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clearcut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of alleged genocides should be understood in this context and not regarded as the final word on these subjects."
They are clearly established cases of genocide the Holocaust, Armenian genocide (despite Turkish denial) and Rwanda. I don't think NPOV should go as far as leaving a loophole for Holocaust deniers.
 
Ericd 20:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree 

message: "One of the greatest alleged genocides in terms of raw numbers is the killings that occurred during the formation of the empire of Genghis Khan and his sons. It is estimated that millions of civilians were ruthlessly and systematically killed throughout many parts of Eurasia in the 13th Century."
This doesn't qualify as genocide IMO. It's difficult to argue that  Gengjis Kahn aimed a total extermination of the Chinese.
Ericd 20:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genghis Khan and his sons 

message: There's a bunch of overlap between ethnocide and the explanation here of ethnocide vs. genocide under Related Concepts.  I know this because I wrote both of them (from someone else's stubs).  I Googled ethnocide and although the term is widely used and abused, the only serious, scholarly discussions of its meaning and usage did not agree with what had been stubbed.  The stubbed definition didn't seem any different from either genocide or ethnic cleansing, and didn't really make sense as it was entered.  So I changed it to agree with what I found online.  I am pretty confident of the quality of the definition I have provided, so if anyone disagrees and wants to change it, I hope they will do so with a very coherent definition of the new meaning and solid sources cited.  (I cited one.)
The whole purpose of the Related Concepts section seems to be to discuss different terms that people try to either use interchangeably with, or equate to, genocide, and to describe what each term has in common with genocide and how it differs.  Hard to do that without also giving at least basic definitions, so at the moment there's some redundancy between this section and the articles for each term.  I don't know whether the section should be farmed out to each related term and then reduced here to a list of wikified links, or if this section is fine as-is. Bsktcase 05:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide vs. Ethnocide vs. ethnic cleansing vs. etc., part 2 

message: If someone can do a better job describing the stages and prevention of genocide, that'd be great. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts to prevent genocide 

message: I have removed this from the article:
:Opponents of government massacres often insist that the word's usage should include such massacres, even if international law has a narrower scope. These advocates complain that a narrower definition may be seen as exculpating the totalitarian governments that, they claim, killed over 100 million of their own citizens during the 20th century. 
:Others insist that the word should be used only in the accepted sense in international law, which limits the scope to "national, ethnical, racial or religious" groups, even if this excludes some massacres. These advocates claim that their preferred usage is closer to the word's literal meaning and to the primary meanings found in dictionaries. However, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary  definition reads as follows: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".
The way it is written, it looks like "original research."  It is also terribly vague (who are these opponents and what massacres are they talking about?  Who are these others?)  If someone can provide veriviable sources, with citations, and specify what the research actually shows, it can be rewritten and put back in the article. Slrubenstein 02:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  no original research 

message: Removed:
:[1] Figures from controversial book by R. J. Rummel, "Death by Government".
:[2] Figure from Encyclopædia Britannica
It looks like the notes refer to deleted or moved text. mikka (t) 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notes" 

message: I'm not so sure that the famine that occured under Mao can be called a genocide.  It was a result of poor economic planning, not a desire by Mao to rid the world of Chinese people. Descendall 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao's Genocide 

message: :This limitation was, however, explicitly rejected by the first formal definition of genocide under the Geneva Convention.
Which GC which article? -- PBS 23:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GC 

message: In my recent reorganisation I left in the following:
:Some historians and sociologists when discussing genocide include actions against such groups. Most generally, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a social identity.
But the first sentence is a weasel worded sentence there needs to be a source and the name of some well known historians and sociologists who include political and social groups.
The second sentence is a defintion and needs to be sourced. If it is not sourced soon then it ought to be removed.
--PBS 17:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  historians and sociologists 

message: I removed the the list of "deliberate large-scale killings of entire groups of people" which Andrew Alexander reintroduced into the article because any list is going to be either too inclusive or exclusive for some people. The large-scale killings which have been found to be Genocide under international law are in the article and any others are open to "Points of View" accusations. Just see the archived talk pages for examples of this. To make a point or two: why the "past century" does that mean 100 years or the 20th century why just the last 100 years? Why include Rwanda but exclude Germany and Poland and there was deliberate mass killing in the trenches of the First Word War which is not listed. I could go, on but as the genocides recognised under international law are already listed and discussed in the article, I do not think that an arbitary list of mass killings should appear in this section, just the link to the article Genocide in history. --PBS 09:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is easy to solve. I suggest changing "deliberate large-scale killings of entire groups of people" into "deliberate large-scale killings of entire groups of civilians during peace time". Would this resolve the issue with WWI? Please note, the section is talking about mass killings of civilians in human history. Mentioning specific examples of such killings is appropriate, don't you think?--Andrew Alexander 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Where did "a list of Genocides" come from? Isn't that already a very strong point of view? A list of mass homicides is actually less biased since it's based on nothing but well known facts. The article then goes to say "Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter." Yet, you are making it "clear-cut" in this article, thus enforcing a POV.--Andrew Alexander 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You haven't answered the question. Is the goal of this article to provide NPOV or just your personal view on what genocide and what's not? Why can't the reader decide for himself? All we need to do is to provide relevant historical facts.--Andrew Alexander 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You haven't answered the question "Where did "a list of Genocides" come from?". If I open Genocides in history, there are more genocides listed there than in this article. Again, despite your personal assertion, genocide is not a clear-cut term. So which definition of genocide and whose judgement of specific mass killings do you wish to apply in this article?--Andrew Alexander 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So your answer is, only those mass killings that are acknowleged to be genocides by "international courts" are "true" genocides. This way the Holocaust is not a genocide since the definition of genocide was brought forward only after the Nuremburg Trials. I am not aware of any international court convicting any Nazi criminals after that. Meanwhile the word "genocide" was coined to reflect the crime of the Holocaust. Also, I am not opposing or supporting your views, just trying to learn them better.--Andrew Alexander 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you just weasel your way out of the question. If it's "yes and no" then don't interfere with the edits. It isn't your prerogative to decide on these matters. And many of those "mass killings" were internationally accepted as genocides. So again your POV is a pure speculation, a way to discriminate one mass killing from another based on personal preferences. Since when Stalin mass murders aren't internationally accepted as crimes against humanity? Every democratic country in the world thinks so. Yet we weasel and don't accept it?--Andrew Alexander 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide in history 

message: It was really the first intentional large-scale genocide of the modern times, as well as the model case of the consequent tradition of ethnic cleansing. It was also the largest single genocide of the 19th century. 
The Circassian genocide ended at about same time with the launching of the Jewish deportations in 1880s, when more than three million Circassians had been expelled from the territories occupied by Russia. The numbers of those who were killed, are not known. Anyway, it meant 90 per cent of the whole Circassian population.  
Anssi Kullberg, The Eurasian Politician - October 2003
* Circassian Genocide By Antero Leitzinger
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.214.46.54 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2006.
* Genocide Watch, Circassian Genocide
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glenn G (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 January 2006  (UTC)
:If this was a genocide, and "one swallow does not make a summer", IMHO it belongs on the Genocides in history page --PBS 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circassian genocide 

message: Sept. 27: I just noticed this: "The worst genocide in history is deemed to have been committed during the Islamic invasion of India from the 11th century onwards. More than 80 Million Hindus and Buddhists were killed during those 700 years of invasion. Also millions were forcibly converted to Islam, thousands were enslaved and taken back to Central Asia and Arabia. "
The source for this highly dubious claim? Another Wikipedia article! There is not a single reputable historian of genocide who would agree with that statement. And this happens to be a classic case of using the passive voice to confuse people: "is deemed to have been"... by whom??!! This is truly outlandish, and, placed so prominently in the article, only serves to fan the flames of anti-Muslim prejudice.
----
I just removed the claim that the slaughter of the indigenous people of North America was the worst genocide in history. It may have been a very large genocide, certainly millions of people died and many populations were wiped out, many deliberately, but there is a big question over whether it was the largest.
To address this issue I think that we should have a chart with the largest genocides - low and high credible/established estimates, and a list of major genocides in the twentieth century (and present...) 
What do others think? Mostlyharmless
:We have that under Genocides in history. Rather than duplicate that battleground here it is better to delete the line telling us about the current best known genocide. We don't need an encyclopedia for that. - done. Meggar 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of the Bosnia geonocide, all the others you mention are open to claims and counter claims (as no-one was found guilty of the crime of genocide), as such it is better that they go in genocides in history. --PBS 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: people overlook the indian genocide in America, but it was really ruthless, and probably, if not, id say it was pretty much the worst for the times that we live. Not only they were eliminated systematicly (with the decimation of the buffalo, for example, as the buffalo was the equivalent of seals to skimos) but they were stolen from their lands, religion, culture and language. Laws did not aplied equallly to indians either, a crime that a white man could get away with imprisonment, sometimes meant death for an indian. Across the american continent, there are hundreds of native languages that have been lost, as most indians died of disease or deliberately by the colonists. In Argentina, landowners used to pay for indian penises/ears (trophies that certified the killing of an indian), today theres almost no indian population in Argentina, same thing can be sayd of the US, today there is a reduced native population, without any land that they could call their own, now most of their lands belong to those who were once immigrants. For its own good, wikipedia should not use adjetives, any adjetive is an enemy to NPOV, but that doesnt mean that there was in fact a genocide, if not, then were are the indians who used to roam this land?.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.55 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 February 2006  (UTC)
In response to suggestion of chart, there is response "We have that under Genocides in history."  There's no chart there.  A chart is ALWAYS more helpful to absorb and comprehend copious amounts of info.  Since there are so many different and distinct genocides, a chart would, IMHO, be very, very useful.
Depending on your perspective, there's always going to be disagreement as to which was the worst genocide. Jtpaladin 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Genocides 

message: Preface:
I’m a new user to the comment/edit side of Wikipedia and am NOT an expert on Genocide.  Because of these two factors, I am uncomfortable doing an edit change to this article so I opted to start a discussion in the hope that someone more qualified than I might make the suggested edits; if they have merit.  
Background:
When doing some research on Genocide I found myself uncomfortable with the limited definition given in Wikipedia.  That said, I understand and support the use of a standard internationally recognized definition for Genocide, and unfortunately, the CPPCG is all we appear to have.
As stated in the Wikipedia article, "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" governments that approved the international definition were/are actively engaged in the "... killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group, and that of cultural killings."  To avoid accountability for their crimes, these governments deliberately excluded these atrocities from the official international definition of genocide.
To me, this is the equivalent of having criminals write the legal definition of what constitutes a crime – but the CPPCG definition is better than nothing.  Hopefully it will someday be expanded to include all government-sponsored atrocities against humanity.
Suggested Addition(s):
In the “Criticisms of the CPPCG” section, I would like to see the term "Politicide" added, with a link to the Wikipedia Politicide page.  Possibly other relevant “-cide’s” I am not aware of should be added too.  This would help people doing research on government sponsored atrocities to easily understand why the deliberate murder of tens of millions of Russians, Chinese, and others are not “Genocide” and are allowed under international law.
Terry Jacobs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.28.61.16 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2006  (UTC)
:Glad to see that there is another person dipping their toes into the wiki water :-)  Have you created an account yet. If so you can sign you posts to the talk page with ~~~~ which will expand into name and date. 
:What you can not see on the page because I hid them as HTML comments is
::Much debate about genocide revolves around the proper definition of the word "genocide". The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in this legal definition has been criticized.  By whom?  This needs a source  Some  historians and sociologists when discussing genocide include actions against such groups. Most generally, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a social identity.  All this section needs a source! 
:What you are suggesting should be added to this paragraph. But this paragraph does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability test "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." This paragrah needs a rewrite with source to justify the statments. Perhapse you could make it you first project and include Politicide. :-)
:BTW The deliberate murder of tens of millions have since 1945 comes under crimes against humanity (but who would enforce it is another thing) and are coverd by the term (but not treaty law) autogenocide.
:--PBS 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Genocide's exclusion of Politicide 

message: user:Armenars you have added this text to the page:
:The term was coined in reference to the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks at the turn of the 20th century, making it the first genocide of the century.
You have not cited sources for this addition. Please see the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability:
:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by  reliable and reputable sources</U>. Articles should  cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Please include the source you are using for this addition before you re-submit it to this page.--PBS 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the German genocide of the Herero tribe is most often cited as the first genocide of the 20th century, and whether a specific word is used to describe an event is not conclusive as to whether it is genocide or not (notwithstanding that I would like to broaden the very legal scope of this article, I might do it when I have more time on my hands). --Cybbe 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "the Herero tribe is most often cited as the first genocide of the 20th century."  I just did a Google search for "first genocide of the 20th century" Herero, and compared it to the search, "first genocide of the 20th century" Armenian.  The results were not even close; the Armenian search had 200 times the number of hits as the Herero search. It's ironic that this section is about citing sources; a poignant example that making claims without backing them up certainly has its pitfalls. Leon7 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing sources 

message: for an act to be called a genocide,is there exact number? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.95.4 (talk • contribs)  08:53, 14 May 2006   (UTC)
:Legally speaking, no, but I do believe the  United States attached a understanding when they ratified the convention to that extent, i.e. that they "understood" article 2 to mean the destruction of a "substantial part of the group". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cybbe (talk • contribs)  12:59, 14 May 2006   (UTC)
::The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)  found that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004): 
::*8  It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisic, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”[10] The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.”[11] As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group.[12]
::*9 The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.[13] These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion. In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”[14] This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.[15]
::*10  This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term "in part" contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term "genocide" and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that "the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety."[16] He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that "the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale."[17] Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group.[18] In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that "the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group," this formulation being the aim of the Convention.
::*11  Recent commentators have adhered to this view. The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that "the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group."[20] The same interpretation was adopted earlier by the 1985 report of Benjamin Whitaker, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[21]
::*12  The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group.  In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.
:The last sentence is significant and in my opinion potentially controversial, because it is a way of including things like social-economic groups which the USSR had excluded from the original drafting of the convention. It was used in this case to say that men were more important to the group identity than women and children. Also the argument used to find this massacre a genocide is probably storing up trouble for future cases:
::*13  The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders.[23] The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.
:Because first it is not accurate, the Germans treated Jews in Tunisia (Africa) as they treated Jews in every area they occupied (see Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation). Second because it was used, with the last sentence of paragraph 12, to find the killing of around 8,000 men as Genocide, even though as the judgement says in paragraph 15 "The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time". This ruling has the potential of moving the defintion of Genocide from the group that has been killed to the perpotrator. What I mean by this is that Radislav Krstic was found guilty of genocide because he kill all those men he had access to in Srebrenica which was most of the total Muslim male population he had access too. Theoretically even if Slobodan Milosevic had been found guilty of complicity in the massacre he might not have been found guilty of genocide if he could prove that he had access to more of the victim population, turning his access at Srebrenica from a substancial part of the victim population to an unsubstancial part. It turns the crime of Genocide from one of absolute, ie anyone who took part is guilty of complicity in a genocide, to one of degree based on the size of the population the purpatraor has access too. --PBS 14:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  genocide 

message: I was surprised that this article does not list or even mentions examples of genocides throughout history.  At the very least, I think there should be mention of any and all specific genocides that have existing WP articles so they can be linked to from here--certainly the major ones (unless one already exists elsewhere in WP). Leon7 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Genocides in history - you must have missed that link in the article. Rmhermen 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List genocides? 

message: I'd just like to remind everyone here that America was formed by genocide. So few people realize these days that Europeans killed thousands of Native American populations when they came to America, both through the rapid spread of disease and through slavery and just plain killing them off.
:See colonialism. Lapaz 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide in America 

message: Some comments on Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide are welcome, as one user has been repeatedly trying to insert a negationist POV in it. Thanks, Lapaz 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Herero and Namaqua Genocide]] 

message: It's full of vandalism and unsourced nonsense -- could we semi-protect it for a while to get it back to an acceptable state? Twinxor t 21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be more specific please? --PBS 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: I have deleted this new section, because it is wide open to endless POV. It includes many alledged Genocides which have not been found by any international court and are better covered in either the articles historical revisionism (negationism) or genocides in history --PBS 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide denial 

message: Am I missing this?  Why isn't it included?  Please leave note on my Discussion page, thanks.Kiyosaki 10:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it happened before the Genocide Convention and is an alleged genocide. See the section (and the main article) Genocide in history where many other alledged genocides and genocides are listed--PBS 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There was no international tribunal to try the perpetrators. Those who were tried were tried under domestic laws and as there was no such offence as genocide at that time so if they were found guilty they were found guilty of other crimes. There should not be any listing of the genocide  here because it is covered in the Genocide in history and it is only an alleged genocide given that there was no guilty verdict handed down by an international tribunal. The perpetrators of the Holocaust were not found guilty of Genocide but of crimes against humanity, but they were found guilty by an international tribunal of those crimes. I think it better that only incidents where people are found guilty of Genocide are listed in this article. Those incidents before the Convention, or incidents where there was not a trial, are listed in the article Genocide in history as it stops this article being the focus of POV wars.  --PBS 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talat, Enver and Cemal all fled turkey before they could be tried under any court (though a Turkish military tribunal did try them in abstentia and find them guilty of war crimes) and all were killed ( Enver in Russia, Talat in Germany, and Cemal in Georgia) within 7 years. Just because the guilty parties fled justice (and because the Turkish tribunal is not international) does not mean these events did not occur. If the League of Nations, which had only been established only a year before Tallat’s death, had managed to apprehend these war criminals, then it surely would have found them guilty. The fact that a national court – the very nation they had controlled - found them guilty should be worth something.The Myotis 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although the information given in the article is the academic and judicial meaning of genocide, some critics are ultimately political. Cemal Pasha found guilty by the Ottoman Empire not because of he interfered any mass killing but beause he provoked the ethnic Arabs for a rebellion movement. The other misleading point is their murders. Cemal Pasha was murdered by Armenian paralimilitary groups in Tbilisi on 22nd July 1922, Talat Pasha was killed by an Armenian named Sogomon Tehliryan in Germany in 1921 and Enver Pasha was killed in Tajikistan on the 4th of August 1922 in battlefield. (Gürer - 17.08.07)  
===VATG's Edits===
I have posted the following message on VATG's User Page:
I can appreciate it that you have a personal point of view about using the term Armenian genocide.  However, outside of Turkey and some smally dennier communities, the Armenian genocide is widely accepted as a term referring to events in Turkey during WWI.  Your single minded attempt to remove any reference to Armenia and the Armenians from the Genocide page and Genocide denial page is not helpful and should be stopped.  It not, I will proceed with the next steps for stopping such practice. Joel Mc 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not free web space for promoting unfounded theories, VAGT, and if you want to be heard you will have to make a valid point on the talk page (if you can). Or perhaps you would prefer to add to the List of conspiracy theories article? Joel, if VAGT continues to POV-attack articles, I would recommend finding an administrator to give him/her a official warning temporary block. The Myotis 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide 

message: I have posted the following message on VATG's User Page:
I can appreciate it that you have a personal point of view about using the term Armenian genocide.  However, outside of Turkey and some smally dennier communities, the Armenian genocide is widely accepted as a term referring to events in Turkey during WWI.  Your single minded attempt to remove any reference to Armenia and the Armenians from the Genocide page and Genocide denial page is not helpful and should be stopped.  It not, I will proceed with the next steps for stopping such practice. Joel Mc 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not free web space for promoting unfounded theories, VAGT, and if you want to be heard you will have to make a valid point on the talk page (if you can). Or perhaps you would prefer to add to the List of conspiracy theories article? Joel, if VAGT continues to POV-attack articles, I would recommend finding an administrator to give him/her a official warning temporary block. The Myotis 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VATG's Edits

message: i was thinking about adding on a secetion about genocides in text and maybe a links to articals consering anti-genocide organizations but i'm a new user and have no idea what i'm doing.comeback2009 10:04, 15  November 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps your best bet, in that case, would be to post your suggested additions here on the talk page first. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  genocide in novels 

message: Would large scale miscegenation qualify as a form of genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.231.108 (talk • contribs) 
:Genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." So no, not unless 'miscegenation' was imposed in order 'to prevent births within the group'. Yours, Sam Clark 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale miscegenation