Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 3

message: I have reverted the changes made to the Turkey entry today because one does not change the words insides quotes and remove the references to those quotes . Further a lot of information was deleted which was referenced and different text was substituted which is not clearly cited. The additional wording:It is now understood that these massacres were committed not only by Ottoman muslims against Armenian Christians, but also vice versa, making this an inter-communal war, which in no way can be regarded as genocide or ethnic cleansing. is not sourced. Just because  prisoners who were held in Malta were not guilty of the alleged Armenian Genocide is not relevant to the accusation of genocide committed by others in the Sublime Porte. --PBS 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire (Turkey) 

message: :Human Rights Watch believe the genocide was an indirect result of Belgiums racist institutionalization of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. [http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-09.htm Leave None to Tell the Story; Genocide in Rwanda, Human Rights Watch, March
I do not read the article the same way that you do it is mentioned as a contributing factor, but it does not say that "genocide was an indirect result of Belgiums racist institutionalization of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups". The Belgians ran the country for only 4 decades, ending more than 3 decades before the genocide. If the genocide had happened soon after independence there would be some justification for this argument, but to over emphasise European influences is demeaning to the locals, in just the same way as claiming any achievement by a post colonial country has only happened because of the influence of the colonial power. So I am removing the addition. --PBS 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rwanda 

message: Text removed from the article:
:Turkey also prohibits any public reference and denies the genocide of Greeks in Pontus, but also Asia Minor (#1 The Blight of Asia, by G. Horton full E-text available), Constantinople (now Istanbul), Eastern Thrace, Imbros, Tenedos and Cappadocia. Most of the victims were killed between 1895 and 1955. The estimate brings victims to some 2.000.000 Greek children, men and women of all ages.(#2 The Hellenic Genocide Quotes from historical documents)  <(#3 Home page of Pontus and Asia Minor Genocide The Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies)
:In Pontus alone, 353.000 Greeks died and more than 500.000 fled to Greece or Soviet Union.(#4)
:The Greek parliament has established 19th May, as an official memory date. (#5)
reference:
# does not say that Turkey "prohibits any public reference and denies". To include this statement a citation to source which makes this should be included.
# Says quotes but they do not cover the statments like " Most of the victims were killed between 1895 and 1955" or "some 2,000,000 Greek".
# is a source not a citation. To be a citation the link should at least point to a web page which contains the facts quoted in the article. The way it has been done is similar to me saying "and God said let there be light" (See the Bible)" instead of quoting book of the bible and passage number. I did a search on "Asia Minor Holocaust Research Unit" and it did throw up sites which confirm that this is more than a blog site. see: , and 
# No citation given.
# No citation given.
--PBS 10:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hellenic Genocide

message: If this alleged genocide is to remain on this page then it should be stated who and for what organisation are making the allegations that a genocide has taken place. It should include at least one citation from a verifiable and reputable source. To balance the piece it should also include the alleged perpetrators POV as well. A quick Google on [Laos genocide] returns lots of pages, so this should not be too difficult. --PBS 07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged Laos genocide 

message: I think that this should be brought up as a BELIEF of there being a genocide. Many civilians were killed not because they were specifically targetted but because of lack of discpline with Conscripts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.74.85 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 May 2006  (UTC)
:Please see the source provided, the author argues that it was a genocide if one defines genocide to include political groups. I think that the piece would be better if the author of the source was named in the article and his reasoning added to the piece. --PBS 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian "Genocide" in Afghanistan 

message: If Palestinians are going to be included as a genocide, then there equally well should be a section about Palestinian terrorists targeting Israeli civilians.  It should also be mentioned that the treatment of Palestinians in as second class citizens, which is not a genocide, is not unique to Israel, but also is the case for Palesinian polulations in other Arab countries, including Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Lebanon.
:I concur, Wikipedia was not meant to be a soap box for every claim of victimhood in the world.  I went to Genocide watch's web page and shockingly enough they listed both sides as peretrators of violence.  Here is the link.  I'm going to edit this section to reflect a more balanced view in the next few days unless someone beats me to it. 68.203.127.188 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as "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." It does not mean extermination as you seem to think. Fourtildas 04:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinians 

message: The entry on Australia is largely correct, but the detail seems to leave a bit to be desired. Can anyone provide refs for the information contained there? MojoTas 04:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Aboriginies 

message: After 5 years in existence, Wikipedia still has no article highlighted the deaths caused by the biggenst Communist regimes, USSR and China. Each killed tens of millions of people. 
How long are we going to squabble over whether these deaths should be classified as genocide or massacres? Please read the Museum of Communism FAQ.  --Uncle Ed 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the Holodomor article?  This artificial famine is courtesy of the USSR.  I am not sure about China related articles on this subject.--Riurik (discuss) 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths due to man-made famine 

message: From the history of the article:
* this is an article about Genocide, not the discussion of cases non-agreed universally, keep those to their narrow articles. Pls no POV forks -- user:Irpen 18:34, 15 September 2006 
*Rv: USSR and genocide definiton is relevent -- user:PBS 23:24, 15 September 2006  
From the header of the article:
:Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clearcut matter. 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.
Ripen if we were to use your definition there would only be 3 entries on this page all post 1990 as only 3 genocides have been found to be such by an international tribunal. Even if those by domestic courts were to be included, there would only be half a dozen more. This is precisely what appears on the Genocide page, in which case this page would be redundant and you might as well put it up as an "Article For Deletion". Is that your position? --PBS 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR 

message: Hello,
I'm puzzled to see (and I searched several articles) that the terrible policies applied by the British rule in Ireland are not stated here, whereas they seem to be include some of the most horrid crimes ever.
Also, don't the first concentration camps qualify British war practices during the Boer wars as genocide?
Somehow, the British are not mentioned in this article, while they were among the first to practice modern "crimes against humanity".
128.93.62.30 10:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actions against the populations of both nations are not usually considered to be genocides. If they are to be included here then a WP:V source is needed with the person's making the claims as it is for example with the entry Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan --PBS 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course you have a genocide when you kill people because they are native of an area and/or for religious reasons. Genocide is just the higher degree of ethnic/religious cleansing. The fact that your teachers presented it otherwise does not change the facts. Dpotop 13:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland,  Boer genocides by the English 

message: This article is lamer than Timur, there are way too many claims that lack serious academic sources.. It looks like everyone threw in their lot with their claims.. I think a fact and a source tag (either for the article or sections) are in order.. Baristarim 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame article 

message: I agree, a controvresial topic like this though is just asking for people with a bone to pick to start ranting. I'm working on the Ireland section right now- there was no genocide but I suppose it warrants mentioning that there wasn't so as to fight the rather horrible folk-history many people sadly still believe.
Not touching the rest with a ten foot barge pole though--Josquius 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That there was no genocide is your position. And wikipedia is not about truth, but NPOV, which means representing all existing views with due weight. Given that many people consider it was a genocide, it must be said so. Simply conveying the British POV is not NPOV. Dpotop 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should take out the explanations and just list the Genocides. People can get the facts from the main articles, there is not need for summarization here. Just have the countries and then list the genocide/s commited by them, linking them to the main articles.Khosrow II 17:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. But I presume User:Josquius would like the Irish genocide not to be called a genocide. So, there's the problem of what is put in this list. So, to remain NPOV, we need at least say which POVs are presented here. For Ireland, there's a net distinction between the Irish and the British. Dpotop 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry for your feelings, but there are enough references (books, articles, web pages) available to make the genocide oppinion a significative point of view. Just read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is the official guidelines for wikipedia. You may not know, but wikipedia is not bound by scientific/absolute truth, but by this notion of significative point of view. Of course, there is criticism because of this, but it's still (and for a long time) official policy. Please, revise your position accordingly. Dpotop 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Now, getting to the point. I am not villifying the British. I am just reporting that there is a significative community that may be mislead, but whose POV must be reported. Mind you, due to the recent movie The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film), the community will certainly grow. Also, you say IRA, but I've seen this movie in a mainstream cinema next to me (in France). And it's pretty shocking, even if only 20% of it is true. Dpotop 10:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
See for example in this article the entry Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 
Ireland was no more (or less) part of the British Empire than the other home countries. It makes a much sense to place the Australian section under British Empire as it does to place the USA under the same, as parts of the Australian article relate to post Empire events -- PBS 11:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Ireland 

message: Is it suitable to place this paragraph in the article? No more evidence to verify the existence of this socalled de 'genocide',and we put this disputable 'genocide' as a fact.This paragraph need special attention,because there is no evidence to support this point of view,and all of this accusation is subjective and cann't be treated as truth. Ksyrie 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a suitable place for this paragraph. There is a case in Spain about it which AFAIK has not yet reached a conclusion. The paragraph does not say it was a genocide it says "that the Spanish High Court will investigate whether seven former Chinese officials, including the former President of China Jiang Zemin and former Prime Minister Li Peng participated in a genocide in Tibet" which is far from saying that a genocide has taken place, just that there is a judicial investigation. It also mentions the Chinese POV that the allegations are a "sheer fabrication" --PBS 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just what i want to say,'genocide in tibet' differ with other genocide,because there is no evidence,no figure,no photo,no witness,just accusation. An accusation is not a fact, if we put all the accusations  as the 'fact', the 'fact' cann't be true. So in my opinion, this 'genocide' should be spererated in another paragraph,or just emphasize its uncertainty.Ksyrie 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: With the exception of the post 1990 genocides which were found to be such by international tribunals all the other alledged genocides mentioned on this page are just that alledged genocides. At least the alledged Tibet genocide is subject to a judicial review which should at some stage reach a conclusion. Even those found guilty of participating in the Holocust were not found guilty of "genocide" but of "crimes against humanity" as the CPPCG did not exist when those trials took place. --PBS 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but just some things which can be said as the 'evidence',if there is no 'evidence' or just a photo, this cann't be classified as a 'fact',This aricle is called Genocides in history,which implies all are facts, all had happendedt in history. Even today,someone denied some of them to be false or artificial,but there is evidence.So most people can distinguish it.While this 'Tibet Genocide' is merely a accusation without any proof.Ksyrie 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet 

message: I have put an unreferencedsect template at the top of this section. Unless some Verifiable
reliable sources are added I will remove the section. Also there is a lot in the section which although nasty are not directly related to the alledged genocide, eg " Additionally, British troops were involved in an unknown number of rapes and lootings of food supplies, among other things."
--PBS 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India - Bangladesh ( Bengal ) 

message: Shouldn't East Timor be included here? There was a real attempt by the Indonesians to reduce the ethnic Timorese and replace them with Indonesians between 1975 and 1990. Around a third of the population was killed. Isn't that Genocide? I may add it myself, though I'm new here and not sure how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.161.232 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 October 2006
:Do you know of a verifiable reliable source  that claims that the occupation was a Genocide? If so then add a section to the page presentation a summary of the article. To present a neutral point of view you should then try to find a verifiable reliable source one which says that it was not one and present a summary of that article as well. --PBS 15:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Timor 

message: I removed the section on the Noakhali Massacre of which the relevant paragraph on the genocide accusation is:
:This was followed by true genocide in form of the Noakhali Massacre. The death toll from this massacre is estimated to be in the thousands, with 50-75 thousand Hindus ethnically cleansed from the region (S.L Ghosh, Ananda Bazar Patrika 1946). Some academics have termed this as genocide ("Bloodbath in Bangladesh" by Prabodh Chandra (Adarsh Publications New Delhi 1971))
If Prabodh Chandra claims it was a genocide what definition of genocide is he using? It can not be the CPPCG definition as explained in the Genocide article because it would not meet the intent to destroy, in whole or in part. Pogroms do not meet the intent, it has to be a preplanned or ongoing conspiracy, and "50-75 thousand Hindus" would not come anywhere near in whole or in part. Further WP:CITE needs page numbers for the citation from "Bloodbath in Bangladesh"
If you (Nobleeagle) want to include this incident then please write it in a similar way to other alledged genocides eg:
:Prabodh Chandra (Professor of XYZ at ABC univeristy or whatever) has claimed that the Noakhali Massacre was a genocide because ... (reference:Prabodh Chandra, "Bloodbath in Bangladesh" page 999).
Hopefully you will also be able to find another person who confirms the massacre but stops short of claiming it is a massacre and include it to create a WP:NPOV --PBS 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noakhali Massacre

message: I restored a modified version of a piece about genocide in Russain Empire sumbitted previously by user HanzoHattori.  This is based on well established facts. See Circassian ethnic cleansing and Caucasian War. Biophys 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide in Russian Empire 

message: I have placed an  template in the subsections of this section because they do not cite sources. If after a few days they do not have cited sources I intend to remove them. What I mean by this is like the Ireland and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan sections they should include citations using verifiable reliable sources which include who is making the claim that the event was a genocide, preferablely with other sources which refute the claim for a balanced WP:NPOV.  If a wikipedia inline link is provided to a main article which contains the sources, then there is no need to include them here, but as far as I can tell none of these sections contain such links to articles which have adequate citations that claim a genocide was committed.
Subsections included are:
*Biblical genocides
*Scythian slaughter of Cimmerias
*Roman Empire
*France
*Genghis Khan and his sons
--PBS 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs further sources like all sections but no reason to delete that source, it's a good one about obvious massacres of Assyrians. Amoruso 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Massacre" is not same as genocide. Many genocides can be called a "massacre", but not vice-versa. Consider the "Montreal massacre" in which 14 women were killed. It is obviously not a genocide. Please find a scholarly source that says "genocide".Bless sins 05:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A genocide is a systematic massacre of a people, which is exactly what's described in length in that article. In fact, it's one of the most detailed descriptions of genocides. It even compares it to the holocaust etc. Amoruso 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Right, but not every massacre is a genocide. The article does not use the term "genocide". The author probably considered using it, but decided against it for some very good reasons. As for the holocaust, it is a common practice of people to draw parallel between minor injustices and Hitler's hienous crimes.  Bless sins 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no question the Arab empire engaged in genocides against local populations. What do you think happened to the Samaritans? There are 600 of them left. Amoruso 05:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself have opinions about various political entities that (wrongfully) exist in the Middle East today. However, Wikipedia is not my opinion, or your opinion. Its the opinions of respected scholars at prestigious institutions. I don't make the rules - I only follow them.Bless sins 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient/medieval genocides 

message: Hi, I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but victimhood is all the rage in modern politics and international politics is not different. Everyone wants their suffering labelled as "Genocide". I'm not denying that there is such a thing as genocide or the suffering which has happened. However, I think this article could be a little bit more careful about how the term is applied to various events.
Take the Bosnian genocide section as an example. 
*While it is true that the ICTY has labelled the Srebrenica massacre as an "Act of Genocide" it has not applied this term to the entire war. Applying the term "Bosnian genocide" to the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks during the Bosnian war is NOT a widely accepted term. It would be more correct to say that the term is used by "some human rights groups and Bosniak politicans". Bosnia is interesting from a genocide point of view in that the Srebrenica massacre was the case labelled as genocide in an international court.
*It would be better to write that in addition to the Srebrenica massacre being ruled an "Act of Genocide" by the icty, some have argued that the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks by Bosnian Serbs and Croats as well as the ethcnic cleansing of Serbs in Croatia and of Albanians and, subsequently, Serbs and Roma by Albanians in Kosovo, also constitute genocide.
*Mentioning the Mujahedeen and the "impartiality of the ICTY" in this context is silly
*the section has no sources or references despite making quite a few claims (eg 1 million displaced by Serbian ethnic cleansing).
Over all there seems to be a 'problem' with a lot of cases wanting to be labelled as genocide. To avoid having to pick and choose between them, I suggest outlining some of the most well acknowledged cases (armenians, jews under the nazis, ustasha, srebrenica massacre, rwanda and darfur) and the including the rest under a separate "other possible/claimed cases of genocide" section. What do ya think?
Roncevaux 12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian Genocide & suggestion for improved organization of article 

message: in the article democide, there was a table of those events considered to be democides on the right hand side on top of the page.
on there, Indonesia was listed to be having 2 democides between the years 1955-2001.
i was sondering if anybody knows about this.
please message me.
thanks!
chika 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia 

message: Is there a domain expert who can repair or replace the section Genocides_in_history#China?  As it stands at the moment, it is absolutely incomprehensible. --Donperk 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China (1500-1914) 

message: Ok. I think this is explained by this guy  in the mentionned book. I looked at in google books looking for Sabra and Shatila and I think he is rather clear about how "Sabra and Shatila" genocide resolution has to be seen (pp.234-235). I will add this in the wp:fr. If I were better in English, I would do it here too but if I understand the nuances I can hardly transcript them properly in English. Alithien 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: Shouldn't this be included on the page as thousands of Jews, Moors, and Protestants were killed.  Casey14 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Inquistion 

message: IMO the article became almost useless list of modern political disputes and attempts to serve historical justice and fails to give the overview of the phenomenon. In few cases it is (IMHO) misleading or trivializing.
Some examples:
* Epidemies are indirectly labeled as genocidal tools. People weren't that technologically advanced in the past.
* Genocide (in broad sense and on smaller or larger scale) was frequently used as a political tool by tribes and states since ancient times until quite recently. The current text suggests it is something very exceptional and able to fit into a manageable list.
* Second half of 19th century in China was bit more complicated than the current text suggests, with death toll in tens of millions. Whole ethnic groups joined this or that side as suffered heavily for the decision - e.g. Hakkas.
* Persecution of Christians by Tokugawa era should not be here as it was a minor event. The much larger sect of Budhist monks has been exterminated as well, not to mention that (by the standards of the article) the second invasion to Korea is even more gruesome example.
The article could be restructured into three parts:
* 1. Definitions, including general overview of recent political/media attempts to extend the definition. History of the term.
* 2. Overview of the role of genocides in the history. Details of just very few well researched and undisputed genocides as embedded examples. Plus plea not to expand this part.
* 3. The list with of all the modern disputes and claims and political attempts to redefine and extend the term. This part would contain the larger part of current text.
This way a reader would initially see stable and usable parts 1 and 2 and only then he will get into the (expected) war-zone. Possibly the part 3 may be offloaded into sub-article of its own. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone inserted his favourite here... 

message: This section is very obscure and contains a lot of marginally relevant information. It mentions many questionable cases, majority of which have never been recognised as genocide. In addition, it simply misinterpret some sources by taking the quotes out of context. For instance, it states:
::"Dr. Michael Ellman claims that the 'national operations' of the NKVD, particularly the 'Polish operation', may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention. The terror against the church may also qualify.Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663–693. PDF file"
whereas the expanded quote demonstrates that the author's idea has been distorted:
::"It should be noted that there are other actions of Team-Stalin in the 1930s that might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38 (but not the victims of the operation against the ‘Harbintsy’ since these were former railway workers rather than an ethnic group). Of these, the ‘Polish operation’, which led to 111,000 death sentences, seems to have been the biggest (Petrov & Roginskii 2003). There are three objections to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide. The first is that NKVD order no. 00485 of 11 August 1937 (the order for the ‘Polish operation’) does not explicitly target Poles as such, but only members of a (former and in 1937 already for many years non-existent) Polish organisation, POV [POV is an abbreviation for Pol’skaya Organizatsiya Voiskovaya or in Polish Polska Organizacja Wojskowa] and certain specific groups of Poles.38 However, in implementing order 00485, NKVD officers interpreted it as an order to arrest Poles (since they could not arrest members of POV because nonexistent members of non-existent organisations cannot be arrested). In its implementation it was predominantly an example of killing people (and sending them to the Gulag) based on their ethnicity.39 The second objection to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide is that only a minority of Soviet Poles were victims of it. According to the 1937 census there were 636,000 Poles in the USSR in January 1937, but the number of persons sentenced in the ‘Polish operation’ was ‘only’ about 140,000 or 22%. Whether this is enough to meet the UN Convention criterion of ‘in whole or in part’ depends on the interpretation of ‘in part’ (see above).40 The third objection that many of those sentenced (about a third) in the ‘Polish operation’ were not in fact ‘Poles’ (Petrov & Roginsky 2003, pp. 166 – 171). Since no legal tribunal to try the crimes of Stalinism has been established, there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38"
In addition, in actuality the Ellman's article (as well as his conclusions) are much more general. According to him, at least two different definitions of genocide exist, strict (UNO convention) and loose, and one can come to different conclusions depending of which one is used. He concluded that whereas Stalin's action fit a loose definition of genocide,
:".... such a broad definition would mean that genocide was no longer a rare and uniquely horrible offence. A large number of historical events would become genocides (Jones 2006), ranging from the expansion of the Zulu kingdom in early nineteenth century South Africa, to the Atlantic slave trade, the European colonisation of the Caribbean islands and American continent, the atom bomb on Nagasaki (and possibly also the one on Hiroshima), and the economic sanctions of the 1990s against Iraq. This also means that countries such as Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, UK and USA, which participated in or were responsible for one or more of the events in the above list, would become guilty of genocide."
IMO, the section should be rewritten and all irrelevant or tangentially relevant materials and links should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Soviet Union section