Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 2

message: 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 ? --PBS 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is currently highly inaccurate and pov. The reason for this is that it is edited by  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)
replies: text: 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  or this one by human rights organizations . --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kashmir and Jammu

message: I removed this because:
# It is not sourced.
# "The Thirty Years War was a Holocaust of German and Czech Protestants between 1618 and 1648." The Prots gave as good as they got.
# "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.
# "By conservative estimates, at least seven million Protestants were martyred." POV because death by desease does not make one a martyr.
# "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?
--PBS 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple query: Should death by war-induced famine, with the consequent diseases, qualify? What are the criteria?--shtove 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirty Years War 

message: Source that it was a genocide? --PBS 09:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish soldiers genocided by Dutch rebels - froth-at-the-mouth right-winger calls it War: SHAME!--shtove 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish genocide of Dutch Protestants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hemophiliacs 

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

text: 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. --PBS 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintentional genocide 

message: 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. --PBS 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: 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.
--PBS 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 --PBS 22:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocides since 1991 

message: Many events in the History of anti-Semitism can be fully qualified to be called genocide. Just a couple examples: 
* Edict of Expulsion from England, 1290
* Alhambra decree from Spain, 1492
* Bohdan Chmielnicki's pogroms of 1650s
* etc. Any objection to creating a short section on that? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecutions of the Jews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A suggestion to be added to Biblical Genocides 

message: I suggest to add a section about Massacres of Poles in Volhynia committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It took from 20 000 to 60 000 of civilians ethnic Poles deaths (but some indicates even much more: 100 000 [Edward Prus, 2006], 500 000 [Norman Davies, 1996]). If you try to mention all bigger genocides in this article I think that case applies here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtProcess (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacres of Poles in Volhynia 

message: why nothing bout belgian kongo ???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See above #crimes against humanity and Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6#Belgium and the Congo --PBS (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian Congo 

message: If soviet war in Afghanistan is genocide then US war in Vietnam too most.95.52.113.129 (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that say so or this that your own opinion? -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He has a point. The section uses an "expanded definition" of genocide that weasels any war into the definition. It could apply to anyone trying to wipe out the Taliban or Ba'athists as well. 75.53.194.238 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan=Vietnam 

message: If the atrocities committed by United States and the others are included then so should Japan's. Japan is not metioned at all.   It's collaborations and similar  actions as Nazi Germany is well known. Japanese military regime murdered 3,000,000 to 10,000,000 people, most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos. Of these, 500,000 are not war deaths but intentional genocide. Like the Nazis, the genocide was described as experiments so with the Nazis Axis Japan should be in the article. From time to time, Government represenitives in Korea and China have both officially called Japan's actions genocide. There is just too much information about this to ignore in this Wiki article. The best I can think of is the book "A PLAGUE UPON HUMANITY: THE SECRET GENOCIDE OF AXIS JAPAN’S GERM WARFARE OPERATION" by Daniel Barenblatt, which has been mentioned in Wikipedia many times. The book sites other sources for definig this as genocide. For anyone interested, the author was interviewed by David Inge at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on January 21, 2004. ( audio archive at will.illinois.edu/focus580/ ) Also see the above comments about Japan.   172.129.252.149 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis Japan 

message: I just undid the following edit: , which removed the words "or economic" from the sentence "Because of the insistence of Joseph Stalin, this definition of genocide under international law does not include political or economic groups" (emphasis mine). However, the user who did the edit is right that the given reference is not good. Could someone who know the book at least give page numbers? The google books link given doesn't immediately turn up anything clear, at least not in my browser. (Ideally one should consider finding a more authoritative source than Klein, I'm sure there are lots of more scholarly books on this matter.) --Anderssl (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref to Klein in intro 

message: I propose to merge a POV titled and POV filled Communist genocide into this article. Some of the statements are already present here, most of the POV however is not. The recent AfD  of that article was predictably closed with no consensus, but the debate on the title and a proper place for the content is still open. (Igny (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the AfD again. That was not a failure but a predictable no consensus possibly in part due to the team tagging.  There is still debate over the title and place of this POV turd. I claim that this place is much better for more neutral coverage, less POV, and better context. (Igny (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would second that, but this article is already much too large. --PBS (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with you with a couple of "warnings" which I think we should think over in advance.  1)  If we start to have categories such as "capitalist", etc. we will get into a VERY ugly argument w the people working on the NAZI articl.  Between Hollywood and the MSM, most people think of the NAZIs as far right, when in reality they were far left and indistinguishable from the communists.  WWII and the holocaust now come up under the communist category.  2)  It is also commonly forgotten that communism and capitalism are NOT political opposites.  The opposite of communism is "free market".  No matter how the word capitalism is distorted, it is really a description of a natural law and is practiced by every society and every living creature as it prepares to reproduce or survive winter.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No need. 1) This article is too long already 2) There are lot of books and studies of the Communist Genocide, so it deserves own article. Peltimikko (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, the people over at the talk page of that article can't seem to find a single published study of "communist genocide", despite being repeatedly pressed to do so.  Perhaps you could enlighten folks there? csloat (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  409 books on books.google.com specifically discuss "communist genocide" as I have documented there. Let's not pretend the topic of "communist genocide" is not studied extensively. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how you and everyone else refuse to show how even a single one of those 409 books is actually a study of this as a concept.  Sure, you can find google hits for a specific term, but that doesn't make it an actual concept.  The article itself has gone back and forth for ages now and still nobody can even find a single source that actually defines the concept, much less studies it.  So let's not pretend that the concept has ever been studied at all, much less "extensively," until we can find something other than WP:SYN actually stating that. csloat (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come now, people were just arguing that "communist + genocide" together was a wild synthesis of a term that never existed before. One step at a time. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text:  Don't assume to speak for why editors opposed the AfD, in particular, because the best the opponents of this topic have come up with is that it is WP:SYNTH because sources don't exist, all the while ignoring the existence of voluminous sources which specifically discuss communist genocide. If you wish to make a better case, please do so. Don't make your case by denigrating other editors, insulting editors is usually a sign that someone doesn't have anything more concrete to offer. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not assuming anything; I'm going by the explicit comments written out on the pages by you and others.  You claim there are "voluminous sources" yet can't find a single one that even defines the concept?  Ludicrous.  I have made a case and you continue to ignore it, and then you berate me for things I haven't done at all.  Time to back up your claims or back off. csloat (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: My point was to respond to the concerns that a merge would lead to a much too lengthy article.  As a long-time merger, I know that content can be trimmed down and almost any merge can be made possible.  I did not know that this page is your proprietary turf and that text will struck if a contribution isn't "just so" to your standards.  You've chased me, an uninvolved editor, away.  Kudos.  How exactly do you plan to resolve a controversial merge without uninvolved editors?  Good luck.  NickDupree (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't leave.  I've unstruck the stuff that the user struck out.  PBS, please read WP:OWN and please do not modify other users' comments again; it is inappropriate to do so, no matter what your opinion.  Thanks. csloat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nothing to do with ownership and everything to do with building a consensus. To start another poll strait after a divisive AfD will just entrench views, it will not allow a consensus to emerge. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Contrary to what you've just said, no consensus to delete does not mean there are no problems with this article. However the AfD nomination itself and numerous delete votes on the AfD mean that in fact there are problems with the article, namely SYNTH and POV violations. I again repeat that the proper place for that article is here, moreover most of the information is already here, most of the new stuff is POV synth anyways and must go, and whatever is salvageable should be merged here for more neutral discussion and better context. (Igny (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a friendly remark on tactics, wouldn't it be better to work on the problems of the article first, and then see if the end result really doesn't offer much new like you say? If so, it would probably be much easier to get consensus for a merger... --Anderssl (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is not as much tactics as the next logical step. As the AfD was moving to its no-consensus closure, I was thinking about a proper place for this stuff. Naturally, the current title is so off-scale POV that it is almost funny. But before suggesting new names/titles I searched WP for already existing articles where "Communist genocide" would fit best, and I found this article. So before suggesting the new name I suggested the merger. The next logical step if the merger will fail would be looking for the new NPOV title. (Igny (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I have not been contributing to this article or discussion about it, and I had no intention to. But it may change depending on the fate of Communist genocide. If it does not get merged here, I suggest to split some of the information from this article (keeping the summary only) and move it to the Communist genocide which would probably have to change the name eventually to something more neutral. (Igny (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll be glad to unbold mine when everyone else unbolds theirs. Unfortunately, one side appears (my perception) to be engaged in shouting down Communist genocide while others maintain it is a subject of scholarly importance. While the shouting and denigration of editors goes on, I'm frankly not left with much choice. Whether you consider this a "vote" or not, it's what this boils down to. Communist genocide is far more than large enough a topic to have its article, this merge proposal is just another attempt (my perception based on the primary protagonists and their editorial position earlier on this topic and elsehwere) to quash an article dedicated to the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you are missing the whole honing by communist regimes of state terror as an instrument of control and elimination of opposing classes. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Big c, small C, either/both are relevant. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus not to merge, so the proposal is still up. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not strike out another editor's comment, as was done above.  That's very bad form.  It's time the merge tag be taken off, simply because it's clear that there will never be consensus on this.  Some folks want to deny that Communist genocide ever occurred, and others think that it is obvious that Communist genocides have occurred. Smallbones (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion.  To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks TFD. Are you saying you agree to have an admin decide whether to close the discussion? Since you were the one reverting the previous attempts at closing it, that makes a difference. It sure would be nice if we at least could agree to have an admin look at it and make a decision to close or keep it open. --Anderssl (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Communist genocide here 

message: After having this discussion open for a couple of weeks, it is apparent there is no clear consensus for a merge. --Martintg (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus not to merge, so the proposal is still up. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not strike out another editor's comment, as was done above.  That's very bad form.  It's time the merge tag be taken off, simply because it's clear that there will never be consensus on this.  Some folks want to deny that Communist genocide ever occurred, and others think that it is obvious that Communist genocides have occurred. Smallbones (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

text: To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion.  To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
The Four Deuces (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks TFD. Are you saying you agree to have an admin decide whether to close the discussion? Since you were the one reverting the previous attempts at closing it, that makes a difference. It sure would be nice if we at least could agree to have an admin look at it and make a decision to close or keep it open. --Anderssl (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus? 

message: Is there no mention of Roman genocides of the Spartans or Dacians?   The later is even celebrated on Trajans column in Rome..216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Genocide 

message: This article lacks many citations.  For instance, there is an unsupported claim that Teddy Roosevelt supported mass genocide of native americans.  This is a bold claim and also potentially misplaced in the context of this article anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.104.65 (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs citations 

message: Is there any reason why the genocide of the Ibos in Nigeria 1967-70 is not included here?  Epa101 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No response for a month.  I've added it in with a reference from the Encyclopeia of Genocide.  Epa101 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it there was no specific claim that it was a genocide. That many died is not an issue, that there was a policy of starving the Ibos's into submission is not an issue, what  is an issue is that the Nigerian government intended to destroy the Ibos if that was the intention then then when the secessionists threw in the towel the killing would have continued (same argument as the area bombing in World War II was not part of a genocide against the German people). To include it here you need a reliable source that specifically claims it was a genocide. The most likely genocide scholar to have made this claim it indeed if was a genocide is Leo Kuper who investigated and wrote about genocides in Africa. -- PBS (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibos genocide in Nigeria during the Biafran War 

message: Another view of the Irish Potato Famine is that its reputation as genocide was due to a political movement internal to the US. Franklin Foer argued in Slate in 1997 that New York Governor George Pataki wanted high school students to study the famine only in response to a 1994 act that mandated students study the Holocaust. He got the mandate broadened to cover "the mass starvation of the Irish between 1845 and 1850." Anecdotal evidence would suggest his attempt had some support initially but has since largely fallen from favour.  86.159.70.117 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be on here.  I don't see how it's different from the famines in India that the British Empire ignored.  Famine is a different issue from genocide, and there are articles for famines in history already.  Epa101 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is nothing to do with our own opinions. If some reliable source (but preferably sources) alleged a genocide then we include it. If not we do not. Personally as the term is used as a polemic in political discourse, we should consider only including genocides noted as such by official international bodies or committees under their auspices, domestic courts, or genocides recognised as such by a number of the better known genocide scholars. -- PBS (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Famine 

message: I believe this statement is quite far from neutrality because it a priori characterize proponents of genocide theories as mainstream scholars and their opponents as revisionists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event 

message: There is a dispute at the article War in the Vendee over the statement in the lede regarding the academic status of the claim that the war concluded in a genocide.  One editor there has been insisting upon language in the lede that "only one reputable scholar of the period" considers it genocide.  I believe this is both false and misleading as scores, if not hundreds, of notable scholars, many specialists in the study of genocide, have deemed it genocide.  The latest contribution has removed the term "only one", but I believe it is still false and misleading: "One notable scholar considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of "ideological genocide", or "populcide" - a charge rejected by every other reputable scholar on the period."  The sentence which I had proposed for the lead is: "Some scholars considers the killing of hundreds of thousands of Vendeans by the French state an example of genocide, a charge which many contest."  I noted to the disputing editor that Jonassohn, Chaunu, Secher, Mark Levene, Tulard, Adam Jones and Joes (all cited in the article), just to name a few, consider it genocide, but I can get no compromise from this editor. Any comments or participation to help resolve this dispute, from whatever perspective, would be appreciated. Mamalujo (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute at article [[War in the Vendee]] - comments, participation needed 

message: hmong people are exterminated by the communist laos and vietnam today since the end of vietnam war. the hmong fought ho chi minh with the french then the us thats why they are all killed. is there an article about that ? Cliché Online (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide reliable sources if you want material added to the article. Describing the situation of the Hmong in Laos and Viet Nam as a genocide is rather a fringe view. They aren't all being killed, far from it. Here's a source that may be of interest to you if you would like to add some material to a wiki article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmong genocide in laos 

message: Where are the Nanking massacres?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.11 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanking massacres 

message: I just stumbled upon this article and found it strange that Japan's colonial rule of Korea is listed as a genocide.  Everything else on this list involves mass killings, use of violence, etc to destroy ethnic groups.  Under Japanese colonial rule, there were policies aimed at integrating Korea into a colonial empire by having people learn Japanese and register their names in the Japanese style, but the claims that Japan was committing "cultural genocide" are pretty far out.  Has this article been hijacked by a Korean nationalist?
Scholarly studies like "Colonial Modernity in Korea" (ISBN-10: 0674005945) have pretty much revealed the claims of "cultural genocide" to be bunk.  The Japanese authorities actually promoted many forms of Korean cultural expression and funded a Korean-language radio network.  Most non-nationalistic scholars tend to agree that Tokyo's aim was to create a Japanese "Asian" empire in which many cultures existed under Japanese leadership.  Japan did not try to "erase" Korean culture.  It tried to use it for its advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.148.70.142 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese imperial rule of Korean was Genocide? 

message: This seriously needs a reference from a published source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it (WP:PROVEIT) It needs reliable sources stating that it was a genocide, not just a series of nasty events. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire 

message: "Although there is no legal continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation". I marked that as dubious, because I don't think this is correct. The USSR was the successor state to the Russian Empire, and the Russian Federation is the successor state to the USSR so it follows that there is a continuity between the Russian Empire and the modern Russian Federation. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the line for that very reason. It has not been put back in (yet). --Yalens (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Empire 

message: Wov! Is there any country, nation, religious group etc. left that is not on the list of genocide commiters on this article? It looks like either every country in the world commited genocide against each other, or accusing any nation or country you don't like with "genocide" is a very popular practice these days. I really think this concept is really overused. I'm looking at the article and any killing in history which involves more than three people is labeled as genocide. Come on guys! There are other words in language like massacre, mass murder, war etc. Genocide should only be used in rare situations with historically proven practices with a premeditated and planned intent and act of ethnical cleaning of an entire nation. I'm talking about concentration camps, gas chambers, officials discussing most effective ways of killing most people in minimum time etc., and (at least) couple of millions of dead bodies... But any revolt which was repressed with blood; any overly-violent battle with civilian causilties, any kind of massacre is counted as genocide here. It really cheapens the meaning.85.96.26.221 (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: RfD isn't worth it. A better name might be "List of Genocide Claims". See the problem is that in order to have a neutral point of view, you need to include all of them, because it should be up to the reader to decide which ones are and which ones aren't, not to us editors. Now, if they have no sources, then they are vulnerable. Otherwise, not. What actually is genocide is a matter of contention, that's the issue. --Yalens (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I may add: additionally, there are ones that I could see as genocide, like what the Teutonic Knights did to the Prussians, wiping out on the basis of pagan religion and culture, that could be on there. They aren't on because people like myself don't take the time to find sources and put them on. Genocide is not genocide only if Jews are the victims. It is a pattern in history. --Yalens (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting you should pick that example.  Also a perfect example of the problems this turkey of an article creates.  Since the Jews are still around in force, how can you claim genocide without a stricter definition than the one implied by the single word?Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously?! 

message: Why is their no mention of the elizabethan genocide in ireland when the english slaughtered over 1.5 million irish civilians  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.150.176 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources that it was a genocide? -- PBS (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was checking references #76 and #77.  I cannot find anything like what they're supposed to say in the Google book search version of the books, and no text is provided in the article.  I suspect the references are bogus.   In the Richard English book, Google book search does not find any reference to Cromwell on the pages listed in the reference.  The reference in the article claims that Cromwell's actions in Ireland not being described as a genocide should be in pages 17-38.  The Google Book Search of the text finds nothing before page 57.  Similarly, the reference in the article claims that the Paul Bew book mentions Cromwell on pages 5-61, yet the Google Book search of the page shows no mention before page 303, and certainly nothing visible about genocide.  If I'm not missing something, then these references are incorrect. Howsoonhathtime (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  Otherwise I'll start to delete the references and the text.  From what I can see at the moment these references are incorrect, or mis-described, or something.  Howsoonhathtime (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  This is the diff in case anyone wants to provide some support to the references.  As I say, they seem to me to be incorrect.  Howsoonhathtime (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish genocides