Well if anyone thinks the Pogrom in Gujarat was just mass killing, they need to rethink after seeing the ground realities in the place. The HRW, Amnesty International and almost all Non Government organizations in the place said it was a systematic approach of killing minorities by members of the ruling party and a police force dictated by them. The thing that helped stop this was the free press and a mass revulsion by the rest of the country which spoke out against it. If not a Bosnia would have occured. The victims are still recovering from what happened almost 3 years back. Please do not be blind to the realities when a deletion of an entry is done.

This article is full of nonsense. The things that are being called genocides are, at best, mass killings. A genocide is an attempted or successful wiping out of an entire ethnic group. I'm doing massive pruning of things from here that are not genocides. This article is a mess. RickK 02:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

• From ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of people who identify with one another, or are so identified by others, on the basis of either presumed cultural or biological similarities, or both". A mass killing can pretty much be called a genocide if it is an attempt to wipe out an entire cultural group, even if that group happens to be a town or a neighborhood. Rickyrab 20:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lots of not-so-subtle anti-US bias was removed, as well. Though there IS a place for a list of Native American tribes wiped out under US and pre-US governments. RickK 02:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

See Israel/Palestine reverts section on this page. It's been a two-person bickerfest for a little while now; my whole point has been that I'd like this page to be useful and not a POV war zone, but I don't think one-on-one revert wars make the page useful, nor would piling on a laundry list of claims made against Israelis for the sake of "balance". I hope others will contribute to a larger consensus, any consensus, on how to handle the Israel/Palestine issue here in a way that is topical to genocide and as close to NPOV as the subject can get, anyway. —Bsktcase 21:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The mentioning of Germany's refusal to apologize for the Herero Holocaust should be removed because it is outdated. An official apology has been issued in 8/2004. (see here), Ar36 23:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've added the new link and retained the old link and indicated the dates for both stories. —Bsktcase 17:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Love the pruned article. Agree with RickK's decisions so far. I do think some of the deletes could merit reinstatement to the list, but rewritten to explain why they belong here.

Personally, I'd like to see the UN Convention definition used to qualify alleged genocides for this list. Yes, it will be disputed whether the alleged events actually occurred, but oftentimes even the things that are claimed wouldn't qualify under the Convention anyway, and I think those should be excluded... or they could be listed on the page for whatever type of thing it was that is actually alleged to have occurred.

There are the overlaps among related concepts. Bosnia is literally the defining case of ethnic cleansing but I think is also generally agreed to be genocide. In any case that distinction and the case for why it might be genocide can be explained. The stories of Native Americans and other indigenous peoples are apparently the precise reason ethnocide was coined, and could very helpfully be listed over there as examples, but I think the case can be argued that many of those are genocide as well. Again, just my personal opinion, I prefer to identify how these episodes are genocide and how they (technically, per Convention, or whatever) aren't, rather than muddy up the historical list with a huge undifferentiated catalog of every time a government has done something bad to a large group of people.

Of course the interpretation of the Convention is disputed, too, and it's narrower than many dictionary definitions. If we were to agree that "Convention plus politically motivated killings like Stalin and the Khmer Rouge" should be our standard, that'd work too. The part of the Convention I think can be helpful is its focus on intent. Intent to destroy, in whole or in part, is useful when there are disputes about "how many" and whether a particular massacre was "enough" to be considered genocide. The discussion of the Irish Potato Famine (now deleted, it's in the history) made this point excellently: if the English did not set out with the specific intent to destroy the Irish people, but instead implemented ill-conceived economic policies which indirectly caused a famine which resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Irish, the (alleged) lack of intent suggests that this would not be genocide under the Convention. (It's probably debatable whether neglect and callous disregard for Irish life would qualify; fine, but explain it.) However, other famines, like Ukraine under Stalin, are alleged to have been deliberately caused, which more clearly supports a charge of genocide.

Sorry to overthink, but genocide has been a contentious mess because of what's on and what's off this list, and it'd be really nice to pre-empt that here by settling on and explaining a really clear guideline we can follow. Anyone else have ideas? Bsktcase 05:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but could the removal of Natives from Canada/US be included? I mean, they were intentionaly kicked off their lands, and were given disease filled blankets and such. I'm not going to add it, but does anyone else have an opinion? I think it's a sad moment in Canadian history that needs to be remembered.--Habsfannova 00:25, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Both RickK (up above) and I have mentioned in our posts that we would support re-adding the U.S. Native American/Canadian First Peoples/etc. stories as genocide. Not that our sanction is needed, I'm just saying we both advocated the "cleaning-up" of this article but neither of us intends for those accounts to be omitted permanently.

My personal opinion, and of course wikipedians' mileage may vary, is that I would prefer to see specific accounts of specific campaigns against specific tribes/regions, well-written to support a charge of genocide. A broad and vague "what happened to indigenous peoples in North America was bad", while true, I don't think would be useful here. It is also my personal opinion that some campaigns against some tribes would meet the legal definition of genocide (the Amherst-smallpox-blankets incident you refer to is one of the best examples) and others would not (falling, instead, under ethnic cleansing or the less-well-defined ethnocide).

So now it's just a matter of whether and when someone will want to actually do the writing. I'm happy to help develop good stubs if they're added, although I would hate to see this article turn into a long list of never-developed stubs (which was one of several problems with the pre-cleaned-up version). —Bsktcase 03:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Amherst smallpox blanket incident is actually not a particularly clear-cut case of genocide, despite conventional wisdom. To be sure, the intention of genocide was there, but it is impossible to verify how many, if any, died as a result of the single documented incident of smallpox-infected blankets being handed to Indians. Again, conventional wisdom holds otherwise, due to the proliferation of irresponsible, exaggerated, non-scholarly versions of the story. (See Gregory Dowd's "War Under Heaven" or Fred Anderson's "Crucible of War" for sober accounts of the incident.)

Plus, does genocide apply to combatants in war? The smallpox-infected blankets were given to Indians who were besieging Fort Pitt during Pontiac's Rebellion. It may be a war crime by modern standards, but is it (attempted) genocide?

And this begs another, even murkier issue: one could potentially make the case that the Amherst incident (genocide or not) was a response to Indian-perpetrated genocide. Hundreds of non-combatant Anglo-Americans, including many women and children, were killed by Indians during the uprising. Genocide? --Kevin Myers 13:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you raise several excellent questions which may or may not have answers.  :)

• Does it count as genocide if the number of victims is very small? Is there a minimum? As far as I know, international law hasn't settled this question at all. Raphael Lemkin wanted to make sure it was understood that genocide didn't have to be as big as the Holocaust (or Rwanda) in order to "qualify"... but there is a lot of room in between. I don't know the answer, but you've already made the important observation that the intent was there in the Amherst case.
• Does it count as genocide if it fails? Is there such a thing as "attempted genocide"?
• Does genocide apply to combatants in war? I think legally it is generally agreed that it doesn't, but historically war has been used countless times as a "cover" for genocide. Genocide can certainly be carried out against non-combatants using an existing war as a distraction or justification. If war is started or joined with genocidal intent in the first place, then are "combatants" really excluded from claims of genocide? Are such victims "combatants" or are they just trying to defend themselves, and how do we differentiate?
• Is there such a thing as mutually assured genocide? Is it genocide when both sides have intent to destroy each other? Genocidal aggressors in history have definitely claimed they were equally threatened or even equally victimized by their victims; often the claims are absurd, but not always. Does genocide mean we always side with the "underdog"?

I don't think we're going to resolve those here, but maybe the questions should guide how we write about what we include? —Bsktcase 21:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolver of Borg, your addition about the Palestinian "intifada" was not NPOV, and saying so in your comments doesn't make it so. You say Palestinians attack Israelis because they are Jews. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would say Palestinians attack Israelis because they are occupiers of territory the Palestinians believe to be rightfully theirs. Intent is necessary to prove genocide, and you simply asserting that the intent is ethnic/religious because you think it is, isn't an adequate proof of intent. Both sides' arguments are defensible and both should be included if you are truly interested in NPOV.

The other side, which you omitted, is that Palestinians claim ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israelis because Palestinians have been forcibly relocated and allege mistreatment because they are Palestinian, while Israelis would claim they relocate, restrict movement and deny other freedoms because the Palestinians attack them. Then the Palestinians counterclaim collective punishment. I think the full set of claims-counterclaims by both sides should be fully fleshed out in order to have a proper NPOV listing of the entire conflict here. However, if you are willing to include a truly NPOV version of your claims of genocide committed by Palestinians upon Israelis, I'm willing to work on adding what the Palestinians claim the Israelis are committing against them (meaning, I won't object if you only NPOV the one side, as long as you really NPOV it).

On the subject of Iraq, the Anfal campaign was sustained and occurred over a long period of time over a large geographic area. I think it is simply inaccurate to classify it as a genocidal massacre, which is why I took it out. Genocidal massacre doesn't just mean "a genocide with a smaller number of victims", because the definition of genocide does not quantify. There's no agreement internationally about whether something is "too small" to be a "real" genocide. And a "massacre" is a discrete event. I think the definition of genocidal massacre makes more sense if you think about it as a single event (or a very closely grouped series of events over a very short time) (see also pogrom), which may or may not occur in the context of a larger genocidal campaign. I also think the description of Anfal is already adequate and accurate: an ethnic cleansing campaign which bordered on genocide. No modifiers needed. —Bsktcase 18:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your arrogance makes me feel pity for you Bsktcase. While you may be correct in saying I did not include the Palestinian claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing against them, when the leaders of the Palestinian militant groups, such as Sheik Achmed Yassin (not to mention some of the things Yasser Arafat and other PA members say on PA State Television), specifically cite that they want the Jews all killed, that is not POV. This is an official statement, this is the evidence of the intent, this what is being judged under Article II. Include your information on the Palestinian claims, but first show me the evidence and how it breaches the Articles. Evolver of Borg 20: 20 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't genocide; I said you wrote it POV. I also didn't attack you personally, but whatever.

I notice that you deleted everything I added to the article relating to Israel/Palestine, and didn't mention that in your edit summary; I assume this was a careless revert rather than you intentionally removing balanced information and trying to cover up that you did so.

Somehow my additional comment on this page regarding the NPOV section I developed, has gone missing. I had posted here that, in the proper spirit of wikipedia, I would try to write something I think is more NPOV regarding this topic rather than griping at you to write it to my specifications, which wasn't fair of me to do in the first place, and I owe you an apology for it. I believe Israel/Palestine should be in this article, and I'm willing to do my share of the work to make sure both sides are covered fairly, including yours.

In the section I wrote, I tried to be balanced and to include the substance of the information you posted, along with extensive wikilinks to additional information. I have restored my section where it was originally, chronologically from the date 1948, and I added more information from your section as further support of the intifada-as-genocide. In all my ramblings above, I didn't mean you need to quote chapter and verse of the Convention; if PA spokespersons have stated that their actions are targeting Jews as such, that's more than enough as far as I'm concerned. So I'm taking out all the stuff about the Convention, not because I disagree with it, but because I think it's unnecessary and the facts you included speak for themselves.

If you feel a need to develop, modify or add to what I've added, fine. Just remember that the purpose of this article (and of wikipedia) is to inform people of all sides of a debate, not to convince people to agree with you. A wise user on another article reminded me that if there really is one "right" view, then including all the facts will make this view obvious without us having to push it. —Bsktcase 21:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just to make a point I'll be removing the word "allegedly" from the PA spokesman point, as I have heard these in the movie "Relentless" by HonestReporting.com, so its not really alledged. Evolver of Borg 17:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool. No objection from me. I didn't feel like I could personally affirm it because I hadn't seen it myself. Since you have, nothing wrong with you saying so. —Bsktcase 17:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the addition of the "brainwashing" bullet point, and I don't think it's a rewrite candidate because I don't think it should be here at all. I'm not disputing whether or not brainwashing is occurring, but it is not relevant to this article because brainwashing is certainly not genocide; the relationship to genocide is not proven and, even if proven, is going to be several degrees removed from actual acts. Perhaps the issue of brainwashing would be at home in one of the many other articles relating to the history of the region, or an article on anti-Semitism.

Once again I fear you are pushing the limits of POV... the purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince wikipedia that Palestinians are anti-Semitic. The fact that you feel you can substantiate your opinion doesn't mean this is the place to do it. —Bsktcase 16:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The brainwashing part is perfectly fine in this article. As with PA Statements, it incites genocide. Before you reply Bsktcase, know what it feels like to be an Australian Jew and hear young children say they want to kill you when you have nothing to do with them. Evolver of Borg 20:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The title of this article is not "Events in history that made ethnic groups feel bad". This article is about genocide, and you cheapen the meaning of genocide by loading it up with your lesser partisan causes. I'm not going to bicker with you about this. It's pretty obvious that for each issue we resolve, you'll come up with another one. If the wikipedia community likes your additions and wants this article to become what you are making it ("Genocide in history plus unrelated reasons why EoB thinks Palestinians are bad"), so be it. —Bsktcase 19:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bskcase is right in this...I don't particularily agree with either the Palestinians/Isrealis, but we do need to show what GENOCIDE is. If it doesn't fit the definition, it shouldn't be here. End of story.Habsfannova

• Oh, BTW, just an example of the difference. Many in the American South, a long time ago, said they wanted to get rid of blacks, blacks were inferior, etc. Blacks were lynched, acts of what would be called "terrorism" occured. BUT, the governments the American south did not make it their goal to eliminate every black person in the south. THAT is where the difference between genocide and others lie. If we had a page for every "insane people that want all people of a nationality/ethnicity to die" page, your contribution would be a good one(It would, however, be a very long page). But, genocide is not in INTENT, it's in the government/ethinicity trying to kill a population.Habsfannova 23:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• On the main Genocide page, there is a link to the International Association of Genocide Scholars. These people, including scholars RJ Rummel and my own teacher Paul Bartrop, are the authority on genocide and do most of the modern research into issues such as the failure of Cambodia to meet the definition. Your statement Hab, "But, genocide is not in INTENT", if a contradiction of the convention and of their work and findings. Something can not be considered to be a breach of the convention if their is shown to be no intent. By your logic, an incident where a grenade accidently goes off in an army training area, killing ten men occurs, if considered genocide. The intent of young Palestinians to blow themselves up among Israeli civilians is a show of this intent, which is why it it is genocide. Evolver of Borg 12:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're both right and you're both wrong. Habsfannova, Lemkin's works and subsequent interpretations of the Convention are very explicit that in order to qualify as genocide, there does not need to be intent to kill every single member of a population. One of the U.S. caveats in ratifying the Convention was to specify that genocide must target a "substantial part" of a population, and there's still some disagreement about what this means and whether it was appropriate for the U.S. to add or not, but note that even this very conservative ratification does not require that all members of the group be targeted or even intended to be targeted.

Having said that, Evolver of Borg, it is absurd to suggest that intent alone (e.g., alleged "brainwashing") could possibly be construed as genocide in itself, and it's abusive of the Convention to suggest that its focus on intent means any such thing. Oh, I know, you're going to point out that suicide bombers exist. Suicide bombers and anti-Semitic intent are already listed in the article. Your brainwashing claim is excessive and completely subjective (POV), and your insistence on it strongly suggests a motive to propagandize, not to give objective information.

The problem here is that Lemkin intentionally coined "genocide" with the goal of making it so clear, and so awful, and so universally condemnable, that the word itself would never fail to capture the attention of those who hear or read it. This worked, so now everybody with a dull axe to grind wants to be able to use it any time they want to generate the same level of sympathy. I think anti-Semitism and all forms of racism (such as, I don't know, sweeping generalizations about and universal condemnations of an entire ethnic or religious group) are truly horrible things and are plenty condemnable in their own right. If the words "anti-Semitism" and "racism" don't feel powerful enough to express how awful the situation makes you feel, I'm real sorry about that, but the fact that you feel incredibly strongly about it does not mean you get to use the stronger word "genocide" about every occurrence that makes you feel bad. This article is a summary of facts (on both sides, and your side's claims are already included), not a therapy session or a soapbox or even a place for detailed hashing out of the entire nature of the Israel/Palestine conflict. If you think your claims have such merit that you can hold your own against a whole room full of Israel/Palestine scholars, then go try your luck on those articles. —Bsktcase 16:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noticing I didn't make myself clear enough for Bsktcase to understand, but will have to continue arguing nonetheless, I'll clear up what I said regarding intent. A show of intent is required for something to be classified as genocide. The last paragraph of your note really shows how stubborn and immature you are acting regarding this topic. It shows how you try and have more of an idea of how the Convention can be applied to both POVs than you actually do.

Furthermore, you haven't even read the full article. It escapes me as to why you don't read to paragraph above the points before deleting the brainwashing point, "Other actions by Palestinian organizations and neighboring Arab nations are subject to accusations of anti-Semitism and therefore genocide:". Brainwashing of youths by Hamas, supported by the PA, is a show of intent, therefore genocide. Evolver of Borg 9:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll watch this page for a while too and get familiar with the article. My name is Tom and you can visit my user page if you would like. Tom - Talk 19:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The length of the section about Israel/Palestine in the article project, and of this section of the Talk page, is simply gross indecency while the million of Rwandan victims are covered by only one sentence.

The only decent thing to do is to shorten the section to one sentence, strictly shorter than its first paragraph, something like : "Claims and counterclaims of genocide by both sites in the (...find a NPOV formulation...) are common, and by no way universally acknowledged. For detailed information about this region, see Arab-Israeli conflict." --French Tourist 21:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree something like that should suffice and would be an improvement. And I'm sure you meant to say "both sides of the". Tom - Talk 02:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On your Rwanda point Tourist, there is a seperate, detailed article under history of Rwanda for that. Israel-Palestine is ongoing and the information coming out differs, whereas older genocides have a finished history and facts. So until it (Interfada) finishes, no point in shortening. Good to see more users on this article. Evolver of Borg 16:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolver, sorry, but you're just being rediculous here. This is just getting inane...French Tourist has it down 100%: it deserves the same amount of space as the others, if ANY space. The claims are already in the Arab-Isreali conflict page.Habsfannova 18:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Evolver, sorry, but you're just being rediculous here. This is just getting inane". Spelling Hab, spelling. Now onto my point...

From that introduction, it is obvious you have not studied this area in depth. To understand the Rwandan Genocide and its factors takes quite a while, and to do that you need to study its whole history. I can say I have done this in the context of the genocide and my Comparitive Genocide Studies Teacher, who is an IAGS member (see links in Genocide). Genocide is Genocide, there is no difference in brutality between things like being hacked to death with a machette or being blown up as you sit on a bus on your way to work, but you can't just condense the facts, there are too many. Figures only, yes, but facts no. And no, a search for the word genocide in the Arab-Israeli conflict does not yield anything.

Another point, make yourself a profile page and fix up your language useage. The statement "French Tourist has it down 100%" is poorly thought and lowers my opinion of you when I read something like that. Not to be offensive, but please, think of what you want to say and sound mature.

Evolver of Borg 19:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inane is a word....look it up.

But, hey, whatever. You're obviously not going to address the point here. Keep picking at my spelling and usage errors. Have fun. I'm not here for a fight, just to try and extend my knowledge a bit. I'll just stick to trying to improve my little hockey articles, and try not to deal with people like you. See ya. Habsfannova 13:22, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolver, it isn't cool, and will eventually get you in trouble, to carry on Wikipedia discussions in the manner you did this one. Habs was very reasonable, patient, and accommodating. Remember we are all here to build a great encyclopedia. We need you, and we need Habs. A liberal application of compliments and apologies never hurt anybody. Tom - Talk 20:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inane? Insane? Are they even different words?

Apologies if I come across as aggressive, but when people like Bsktcase get stubborn and insist on their POV being NPOV as opposed to straight facts you put down, you tend to get a bit frustrated. If you are going to stay on this page however, you have to remember the sensitive issues you are dealing with. Evolver of Borg 10:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just added the link to the film, Relentless, in which I saw the clips. For those interested the shots of PA State-TV are available to watch in the trailers section. Evolver of Borg 18:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just reinstated previously removed material that needs to be included & expanded. There was no mention of the US (but of course someone didn't mind leaving Australia in there), which is ridiculous - much more on the systematic killing of Native Americans could be included. And there is no mention at all of Spain in Latin America! Also ridiculous. Hopefully we can find something to include on the same soon - beside Japan in China, and so on. I also removed a link to a propaganda site; the article should not promote one POV by offering evidence for it and remaining silent on the other. -- Simonides 15:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then, how is 'Japan in China'. Which should be called genocide, and which should not? -Poo-T 16 Nov 2004

While I support the US info being here, the crime doesn't neccasarily come under Genocide because of the holes in the convention. The Indian Removal Act was more of a case of Ethnocide, as Jackson didn't sign in the act with the intent of killing the natives, that would be more of a Indian Genocide Act, rather wanted to move them out of the way, something he knew would cost lives. For the meantime, keep it under Ethnocide with a link in the genocides page. Evolver of Borg 19:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not see why Genghis Khan "and his sons" should be accused of genocide. Certainly many were killed in their wars, including whole towns at the first sign of resistance being wiped out to the last man, but the violence was in no way motivated by ethnic differences. On the contrary, the Mongols had a remarkably culturally tolerant system. However, the Genghis Khan did at one point consider actually wiping out the entire Chinese population and razing all of the towns to turn the whole territory into more economically productive (for nomads and noone else) steppe. Thankfully he was dissuaded by some of his more 'civilized' advisors, and stuck to a more profitable policy of taxation. That said, Genghis Khan early in his career did systematically wipe out the Mongol tribe that had killed his father and exiled his mother, brothers and himself to the wilderness, killing the men and absorbing the women into his tribe. But it would be very wrong to characterize the Mongol expansion as a sweep of genocide.--Pharos 07:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just removed a few things due to NPOV and removed that stupid statement from an anon user on this page. Mao's China isn't genocide because the Soviet Union blocked political killings being in the convention. Iraq paragraph cleaned up and unneccasary lines removed.

On another point it's good to see the India stuff added. However when the verses are as poorly written and POV as they are they can't remain there. If there is no evidence you can't just come making claims on the page. If you have a source of evidence though come and rewrite the paragraph. Evolver of Borg 16:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)