Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:00, 25 March 2012

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Additional information: /  No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Formatting and linking

I have cleaned up this article again because it seems that a bunch of my edits were incorrectly reverted. Here are my edits:

• Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, for quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics.
• remove date links
• remove repeated links (e.g., "genocide") and links to plain English words per WP:REPEATLINK (e.g., nation, disease)
• remove boldface per WP:BOLDFACE
• spell out acronyms (like PKK) on first use per WP:MOS
• use a person's first and last name the first time he/she is mentioned (Tito, Obote, Mao)

Ground Zero (talk) 29 November 2010

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and US invasion of Vietnam

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and US invasion of Vietnam sections are just the POV of anti-communist editors and pro-communist editors respectively. You can't simply go and accuse every country that invades another of carrying out genocide, and any source that says so is biased, no matter what prestige wikipedia gives it. They should both be removed or both kept, as I understand that the US invasion of Vietnam section was written in response to the The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan section which was just silly anti-communist rants to begin with, so I think it's fair to either remove both or keep both. We can't let the word "Genocide" get thrown around like that and let it be used for making political points, neither the Soviet Union nor the US were attempting genocide in neither Afghanistan nor Vietnam, they were both just trying to install their own puppet regimes in the two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.92 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See definitions of genocide there is more than one definition and the section on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan specifically states that the author is using the academic definition of Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator". Few of the entries on this page bother to define what definition is being used, so this is a useful entry to show that the other entries although citing reliable sources may not be meet the requirements of the internationally law as described the Genocide charter, as those sources cited in those sections may not mean genocide as defined by international law. -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The definition of genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." In that case, the section regarding the Vietnam War should definately be removed, as the purpose was to prevent the spread of communism, not to destroy or eradicate the Vietnamese. While there was a high number of deaths, that does not make it a genocide, as there was no intention to wipe out a specific group of people based on ethnicity, religion, race, etc.

I don't know a great deal about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, however.

I am removing the section on Vietnam because it does not reach the definition of genocide which is given on this Misplaced Pages page and because much of the material is personal oppinion. --96.60.171.236 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See my comment before yours and also definitions of genocide -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Sarte reference, as the cited source had zero mention of genocide or of specific US involvement in Vietnam (only that Sarte was opposed to the war in Vietnam). -- Tgeairn (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the blog citation per WP:Sources. Additionally, the blog page did not mention genocide at all (it was about Agent Orange cleanup). This leaves us with a single reference for the section, which does not mention genocide at all. I am therefore removing the section as there are no references provvided (and there were none, even before I removed the dubious ones) of US actions in Vietnam being genocide. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

Genocide in somalia puntland 2010 August when punland attacked galgala more 700 civilian have killed by puntland forces and destroyed all house of Galgala and area where farmers lived also many water wells have been poisoned , this tragedy was responsible abdisamad Ali shire , Abdullahi ahmed jama Ilka jiir former colonel of siad Barre regime and who was responsible hargeysa massacre 1989 and abdurahman farole the president of puntland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.138.141 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add this below to the the Vietnam War section. It is well sourced and i do not no why it has been removed.

North Vietnam and Vietcong both committed deliberate mass murders during and after the Vietnam War. The political nature of some these incidents, for example the massacre at Hue, means these may be considered genocide. R J Rummel list communist Vietnam's democide at 1.6 million killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your sources do not call these actions "genocides." This is not an article on democide. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes fair enough but you include political mass murders by North Korea so why not North Vietnames and Vietcong mass political murders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.1 (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Kalinago Genocide of 1626

Not one of the larger genocides but it seem to qualify.©Geni 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Change title of "US Invasion of Vietnam". It was not an invasion since they were allied and requested by South Vietnam. Also when the sent many troops it was not Vietnam but South and North Vietnam, two separate countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.33 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with mentioning Sarte thinking Vietnam War was genocide since it is well known and sourced but know need to mention Napalm or even Agent Orange since this does no constitute the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Secondly the source about Dum-dum bullits doesn't even mention it or if this is genocide, so I don'y know why it is here.

Same about Agent Orange since the source does not mention that it is genocide, regardless of whether or not it on a genocide page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.33 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam war and Afghanistan War

Good that you changed the title about Afghanistan to Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan. Now can you please do the same to the "US Invasion of Vietnam" since it was by absolutely no definition an invasion of Vietnam. It was an intervention into South Vietnam in opposition to the separate sovereign nation of North Vietnam and its puppet geurillas, the Vietcong.

Can you also get rid of this, "even before he was aware of the horrifying effects of napalm and Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population". This is not mentioned in the source and doesn't even count as genocide anyway, since it does not count as the "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".

Also the the source about Dum-dum bullets and agent orange doesn't mention that these are genocide, secondly it doesn't even mention dum-dum bullets and thirdly agent orange or even dum-dum bullets doesn't counts as "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" anyway so why would it be counted as genocide. Most of this can't even be counted as the deliberate killing of civilians, they were usually used to counter Vietcong or the NVA, who count enemy combatants. I'm not saying it didn't inadvertently kill civilians, but they are not deliberate acts to kill civilians, so by definition can't be considered genocide. I am however alright with leaving the mention of Sarte, I do disagree completely with him but it is sourced (the part where he considers it genocide, not the part about Napalm or Agent Orange).

I also think the Soviet Intervention of Afghanistan doesn't count as genocide. Also there needs to be mention of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong politicide, which was completely deliberate and much higher than anything commited by the Americans, South Koreans and South Vietnames. The policide by Ethiopia, North Korea and the Soviet Union is mentiones so why not by Vietnamese communists. I suggest this: North Vietnam and Vietcong both committed deliberate mass murders during and after the Vietnam War. The political nature of some these incidents, for example the massacre at Hue, means these may be considered genocide. R J Rummel list communist Vietnam's democide at 1.6 million killed.

Also think the Religious genocide by Iraqi "resistance" or "jihadists" could be mentioned since the civilian death toll from resitance groups likely greater than 100,000.

Please change the title from "US Invasion of Vietnam" to "US Inteventionof Vietnam". It absolutely was not an invasion as has been said before. To be fair most of that section shouldn't be here. I think you should something about Vietnamese land reform since it actually was genocide. I have a source which call it genocide: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam_landreform-20060608.html> http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.184 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think its a bit of a joke that you have the Soviet Intervention into Afghanistan and the US Invasion of Vietnam (not even an invasion). Neither participants committed the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group (especially the US, the VC and the NVA did however commit political genocide). Sure they killed civilans but virtually all of it was collateral damage. I thing trivialize the word genocide to include these cases, especially when the US part doesn't include anything which can remotely be considered genocide. Agent Orange and napalm does not suffice. Even the links don't call it genocide. I suggest some of the changes above this paragraph. Please do this to make this page more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: The lead focuses entirely on the definition of genocides, but does not attempt to make an historical outline. Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide. (October 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Moved from the top of the article -- Discussions about content should take place on the talk page not in articles space. --PBS (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Incoherent-topic

This article may lack focus or may be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting the article and/or by introducing a disambiguation page, or discuss this issue on the talk page. (February 2012)

Moved from the top of the article -- Discussions about content should take place on the talk page not in articles space. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Section about the Soviet Union

There is the inclusion of events during the USSR and attempts to portray them as genocide, but there are not any reliable sources to support this. In particular,

Katyn - it is not described as a genocide in the scholarly literature. It does not belong in the article

Decossackisation - scholars reject the idea that a genocide took place. See this book written by the world's leading expert about the subject.

Holodomor - there is no such term in Russian or Anglo-American historiography about Russian history. This is rather a neologism coined by state-sponsored writers in Ukraine, and its use would amount to an NPOV violation. Debates about the famine among historians focus on things like the effects of weather and government mismanagement, but reject the idea that the government deliberately imposed a famine. Even among politicians in Ukraine, there is no consensus about the genocide narrative. See this article from politician Leonid Grach's web page. There are a lot of statements in this section that are contradicted by the work of scholars. For example, Tauger attributes the famine to a heavy crop failure that was caused by drought, plant diseases, and heavy rainfall during planting and harvesting, rejecting the idea that the government deliberately imposed a famine to punish people. The section also states that food aid was withheld, but scholars show that the government itself provided relief to hungry areas. See this paper by Tauger and this by Kondrashin, both of which do not take a genocide approach toward this topic.

Great Purge - nothing is provided to support the suggestion that this constituted genocide. Scholars who have studied this topic make no suggestion that genocide occurred, but instead emphasize political conflicts and the state's concern about security. This section does not belong and should be removed.

Post-World War II deportations of North Caucasian peoples - nothing is provided to support suggestions of a genocide. This is in contrast to how authors like I. Pykhalov reject what they see as falsifications of history concerning this topic, and analyze how there was widespread banditry and rebellion in the region during the war. This section does not belong and should be removed.

The Mass Deportations in the Baltic States of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians - all this section does is describe some things, but there are not any sources provided to say that they constituted genocide. Why is this? And if sources have not been provided, then this section should be removed.

SadSwanSong (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have this bad habit of dismissing authors you don't like as "not experts" while promoting authors who parroted the positions of the former Soviet government as "leading experts". Misplaced Pages isn't a vessel for the Kremlin's propaganda. It's based on verifiability. You don't just get to delete giant blocks of information because the references provided are insufficiently chest-thumpingly Stalinist for your tastes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@SadSwanSong - The reason 'Holodomor' in Russian isn't seen is because it's a Ukrainian word, and the genoicide was swept under the rug. You are aware that the word "Holocaust" did not appear in the Russian language until the USSR collapsed, right? I agree that the great purge and katyn massacre are not genocide. The deportations of North Caucasion peoples, and Baltic deportations constitutes ethnic cleansing, but not genocide. Holodomor was genocide and supported well enough. The article on the Holodomor has enough citations and refs.--Львівське (говорити) 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudzu1, please stop with these vicious personal attacks, particularly with these accusations of my pushing "Kremlin propaganda" and my favoring of "Stalinist" materials. You have no history of editing stuff related to this part of the world, whereas I am native to it and have done large amounts of research about it. I specifically said above that no references are provided suggesting any kind of debate about a genocide. You do not provide any informed input about the matter, but instead seem to be engaged in this battle of trying to obstruct all of my changes.SadSwanSong (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

львовский, "Holodomor" is the not the favored term used in the dominant historiography about the famine. The leading English-speaking and Russian authors prefer the term "Soviet famine of 1933" rather than the neologism "Holodomor", which is the term of certain state-sponsored, nationalistically-inclined Ukrainian authors. The overwhelming majority of scholars reject the narrative of a genocide as pushed by Ukrainian authors, such as Tauger and Kondrashin cited above.SadSwanSong (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, 'Holodomor' is the dominant phrasing by western scholars when referring to the event; and especially Ukrainian scholars. The opinion of Russian authors is irrelevant; and I suggest you take this dispute to the Holodomor article itself if you seriously want to dispute the common use name.--Львівське (говорити) 22:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Mark Tauger does not represent the majority of scholars. He actually represents a fringe view among academics, and he is rejected and criticized by some big names. Tauger is a joke. And I don't even know who Kondrashin is, he must not be relevant.--Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Holodomor" is not the dominant term used for the events among English-speaking and Russian scholars, despite what you claim. On worldcat.org, almost all of the 50 or so results for the term "Holodomor" in the English language are translated works published in Ukraine. Searches on JSTOR.org similarly bring up less than 40 results for "Holodomor", compared to more than 1500 for the detailed search "Soviet famine 1933 Stalin grain". Major works about the famine are not titled Holodomor, but consist of: "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of. 1931-1933" and "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933"

The fact that you've never heard of V. Kondrashin, one of the world's leading scholars about the famine, demonstrates that you're not familiar with a major part of the scholarly literature about the famine. Viktor Kondrashin is "Doctor of Sciences, head of the department of Fatherland History at Penza State Pedagogical University" and the author of prominent works about the famine: голод 1932-1933 годов: трагедия российской деревни, Голод в СССР: 1929-июль 1932, and Современная российско-украинская историография голода 1932-1933 гг. в СССР SadSwanSong (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a search including broad terms such as 'Stalin' 'grain' and 'famine' and 'Soviet' is going to yeild more results than just 'Holodmor', not to mention the broader Soviet famine of the time has it's own works dedicated to it whereas the Holodmor was a specific event. This is like saying "There are more works found for "Nazi world war II 1941 Hitler" than "Shoah". Use your head, pal. And Kondrashin still doesn't seem to be that relevant to the historiography or scholarship here. That you're citing RT says a lot.--Львівське (говорити) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The search "Soviet Famine 1932 1933 Grain Stalin" is as specific as it gets for the topic, and it yields more than 700 results on JSTOR, compared to less than 40 for the neologism Holodomor. Yet, you're the one who claims that "Holodomor" is the dominant term used in English-speaking works about the events. Your comparison to the Shoah makes no sense and is also ahistorical. JSTOR shows 3203 results for "Shoah" and only 38 for "Holodomor". Yet, you insist on keeping this neologism in the article instead of the term that is dominant in academia.

You said that "Tauger doesn't represent a majority of scholars". But what you fail to consider is that this topic has been part of extensive debates in which scholars hold different viewpoints, meaning that is difficult to find a single scholar who represents the vast majority of writing about the topic... We have this from Cormac O Grada's work, who identifies the different views of scholars. Contrary to what you state, Tauger is not a "joke" who represents a "fringe view". As a professor, Tauger cannot possibly write fringe stuff, but only mainstream academic stuff. O Grada writes on p.237 of his Famine: A Short History, "The grain harvests of both 1931 and 1932 were genuinely poor, though. Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft balme this mainly on collectivization and excessive procurements, while Mark Tauger places more stress on adverse weather conditions..." O Grada doesn't identify Tauger as "fringe" and a "joke" the way you do.

Kondrashin is one of the world's leading experts of the famine and part of the article should be based on his works. I described his credentials as a professor at a Russian university in Penza and as an author of academic works on the subject. How can you possibly say that he's not relevant to the historiography on the topic? And what's wrong with citing RT as a source for Kondrashin's credentials??

And who are you to say "The opinion of Russian authors is irrelevant"???? NPOV requires that all sides be fairly presented.SadSwanSong (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have no patience for garbage-speak like this. Take your gripes to the Holodomor article and get shot down there. I'm done.--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hell, I learned about the Holodomor in high school. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that it's somehow not a term that scholars use. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Salami slices

SadSwanSong I think that your current approach is not helpful as several editors will object to your large edit but may agree to changes or deletion of subsections. For example I suggest that all editors who are interested in the Soviet Union section start by reading *Michael Ellman, Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932–33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Routledge. Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663–693. Which is currently used to support the "Katyn Massacres".

While I do not think it supports the "Katyn Massacres" I do think that Michael Ellman has a lot to say that is pertinent to whether several Soviet crimes against humanity were or were not a genocide, and using Ellman as a source to base discussions on this talk page may help build a consensus in a more constructive way than accusations like "You seem to have this bad habit of dismissing authors you don't like as 'not experts' while promoting authors who parroted the positions of the former Soviet government as 'leading experts'."

So I suggest that we split this section on the talk page into the same sections as are used in the article and examine each one in turn. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly is Michael Ellman and what makes his views noteworthy and representative of a consensus? He's an economist who's area of expertise lies in economic issues about Russia rather than the country's history. His doctoral thesis was Planning problems in the USSR. The contribution of mathematical methods to their solution. and is the author of "numerous books and articles on transition economics, the Soviet and Russian economies, and comparative economic systems"SadSwanSong (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that, while well-meaning, this section may not be fruitful for reaching a consensus that involves User:SadSwanSong, as it turns out he was a sock of User:Jacob Peters and has since been blocked indefinitely from editing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Who exactly is Michael Ellman" He is one of the sources in this the Soviet Union section (Katyn Massacres subsection), and his views are as noteworthy as many of the others in the Soviet Union section. But the point is, that basing a discussion on that article with counterpoints from other sources would have been more constructive than the conversation higher up this section.

Whether or not examination of this section was clumsily initiated by a sock. I think that the conversation is worth pursuing as the Soviet Union section seems to be a list of crimes against humanity rather than a list of genocides. This section used to be a couple of paragraphs long, and as this is a summary page, I think we need to go back to summaries of only those events that are considered to be genocides by notable sources with links to more specific articles. -- PBS (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Katyn Massacres

I do not think that the sources provided (Michael Ellman) support this entry. Killing of a political group or class was specifically excluded from the Genocide Convention so, anyone claiming that this was a genocide would have to use one of the alternative genocide definitions and that would have to be explicitly mentioned in the source (as it is for the "Soviet intervention in Afghanistan"), as just saying it was a genocide will not show the sort of scholarly detail we need for this article. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Decossackisation

I have never heard of "Decossackisation" is it an English word? I think that as the cited sources are not online we need quotes from the sources to see if they support the accusation of genocide and what definition is being used and who claims it was a genocide. Deportation is not genocide, although ethnic cleansing can bleed into genocide and as such the sources that claim genocide need to be of high quality and probably post the Bosnian Genocide Case judgement of 2007.-- PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mikhail Heller & Aleksandr Nekrich. Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present. Summit Books, 1988. ISBN 0-671-64535-8 p. 87. -- No mention of genocide on page 87.
• Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0-674-07608-7 pp. 8-9 -- page 8 is not available to me via Google books, but page 9 is and it does not support the claim that the deportations were genocide.
• Orlando Figes. A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891–1924. Penguin Books, 1998. ISBN 0-14-024364-X p. 660. -- "to what can only be called a war of genocide against the Cossacks"
• Donald Rayfield. Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him. Random House, 2004. ISBN 0-375-50632-2. p. 83. -- This does not seem to support the sentence. Instead the book talks about a genocide in the 1920s
• R. J. Rummel. Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers, 1990. ISBN 1-56000-887-3 p. 2. -- Rummel states it was a genocide.

So from the sources provided, do support the term genocide, the trouble is that non of them can be described as particularity authoritative, particularly when one of them states 148 states that the Don Cossacks were the victims of genocide but the "Red Cossacks" were perpetrators of the same against other ethnic groups. -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Holodomor

I think that this is a reasonably balanced section (it could do with work) but it does show that it is a political hot potato. The two specific sentences I think could do with work are "a big board listed ten other countries that recognised the Holodomor as a genocide" should be changed to say "a big board listed ten other countries that the organisers said recognised the Holodomor as a genocide". This is because there is no independent comment on this and the organisers had a specific POV to present. The second one is the label should be removed as the BBC article says "Russia admits this was an awful tragedy but is angry at claims that it was an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation. It says that other parts of the former USSR were affected." -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Purge

Nothing in this section suggests that it was a genocide or that anyone claims that it was. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Post-World War II deportations of North Caucasian peoples

This source http://www.unpo.org/article/438 should be used in place of the current source because are in English. Almost all the text can be deleted and replaced with:

On February 26 2004 the plenary assembly of the European Parliament recognized the deportation of Chechen people during Operation Lentil (23 February 1944), as an act of genocide, on the basis of the IV Convention of The Hague of 1907 and the Convention on the prevention and repression of the crime of genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948.

All the rest is detail that should appear if anywhere in the Operation Lentil article, but more details of the European Parliament's recognition is needed and perhaps a sentence or two as a lead in to that sentence.

BTW this political finding is almost certainly out of date, because of ICTY and ICJ judgements over Bosnia which found that ethnic cleansing is not necessarily genocide -- it depends on intent of the perpetrators and the proportion of the targeted group killed. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mass Deportations in the Baltic States of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians

I don't see any source in the text that supports the label genocide. If there is who is saying it and what specifically are they claiming is a genocide--PBS (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia/Galicia

Does this qualify as genocide? We have one scholar saying flat out no, and a Polish governmental committee and their parliament saying it was 'genocide'ish' (that is, "with marks of genocide" or "character of genocide"). To me there is a huge difference between genocide and something being similar to genocide, which is what the 2 Polish groups are saying. Does this meet the criteria?--Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what your concern is. Do you feel that this section should not be in the article? -- LWG 00:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, so I'm asking, do these 2 vague statements qualify it to make the list? No state actually recognizes it as such, would be the argument against --Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Genocides in Azerbaijan

Different reliable sources describe these massacres as genocide:

• 1920 Shusha pogrom
• 1988 Sumgait pogrom (Sumgait was the first genocide in modern Azerbaijan, and it is described so even by Soviet high-level official Roy Medvedev)
• 1990 Pogrom of Armenians in Baku
• 1992 Maraghar Massacre

To push only Khojaly is not ok. Gazifikator (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm that is interesting you try to include allaged massacres and pogroms but no mention about massacres of azeris

• March Days (1918)
• Guba mass grave (1918)
• Black January (19-20/2/1990)
• Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre (10-12/2/1992)
• Garadaghly Massacre (17/2/1992)

like those ones. So stop your nationalist one-sided propaganda.Abbatai 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

1. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
2. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.1.GIF
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Vietnam_war#Lyndon_B._Johnson_escalates_the_war.2C_1963.E2.80.931969
4. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.1.GIF
5. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
6. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.1.GIF
7. http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html#killed.by.jihad
8. Armenia, Armenia: about the country and the people from the Biblical times to our days", a reference-book, by V. Krivopuskov, V. Osipov, V. Alyoshkin and others, ed. V.V. Krivopuskov, Third ed., revised and expanded. Moscow, Golos-Press, 2007. 136 p., p. 30-31, ISBN-978-5-7117-0179-8
9. Massacre of Armenians in Shushi in 1920 is nothing but a genocide: Chairman of the parliamentary Commission for Foreign Relations of Karabakh, Vahram Atanesyan, at a press-conference, Arminfo, March 23, 2002
10. 'The massacre of Armenians in Sumgait, the heinous murders in Tbilisi—these killings are examples of genocide directed by the Soviet regime against its own people.', Glasnost: : Том 2,Выпуск 1, Center for Democracy (New York, N.Y.) - 1990, p. 62
11. "the nightmares of the Armenian genocide in Sumgait (1988), the Ingushian genocide in Vladikavkas (1992), and the tragedies in Abkhazia (1992-1993), in Osh, in Fergana valley (1989) and many other events of the last decades". Consumption and the post-industrial city. by Frank Eckardt, Dieter Hassenpflug. 2003. p. 209
12. Perestroika in the Soviet Republics. by Charles F. Furtado, Andrea M. Chandler - 1992 - p. 441 - "to struggle for the full revelation and punishment of the organizers and participants of the genocide of Armenians in Sumgait."
13. (Ukr.) Катастрофа європейського єврейства під час другої світової війни. Х. Аронов, Инстытут юдаïкы (Киев, Украине). Institute of Judaics, Kiev, 2000 - p. 19
14. Национализм: словарь-справочник. Масхуд Джунусов - 1998 - "К разряду преступлений геноцида относятся национальные погромы в Сумгаите в 1988 г., в Фергане в 1989 г., осетино-ингушская трагедия в 1992—1993 гг.". p. 54
15. Этнический национализм и государственное строительство: Юрий Георгиевич Александров - 2001. p. 295
16. Migration, displacement, and identity in post-Soviet Russia - Страница 93, Hilary Pilkington - 1998
17. Armenian tragedy, by Yuri Rost - 1990 - "Although the events in Sumgait come under the category of genocide according to the international convention of 1948 signed by the USSR, under Soviet law there is no such crime; nor is there a word for it in the criminal code".)
18. Time of change: an insider's view of Russia's transformation, Roy Medvedev, Giulietto Chiesa - 1991 - p. 209
19. Migration, displacement, and identity in post-Soviet Russia - Страница 93, by Hilary Pilkington - 1998 - p. 93. cit. "However, there were significant new flows of Mskhetians after the Fergana pogroms in 1989, of Armenians following the earthquake in Armenia in 1988, the genocides in Sumgait and Baku".

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Death articles
• High-importance Death articles
• Unassessed Human rights articles
• Unknown-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Military history articles needing attention to task force coverage