Jump to content

Talk:Genocides in history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Munchkin2013 (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 21 October 2013 (→Edit request on 21 October 2013: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Conspiracy theory masqurading as skepticism

Theres a section on the article about "doubts" on the Aboriginal stolen genocide. Why is this given equal weight to the actual claim? The idea that it didn't happened rates alongside holocaust denialism or "9/11 didnt happen" type theories and has no credibility in academia (Its almost the sole domain of a single cranky failed academic) and its patently offensive to the many numerous survivors of the stolen generation who witnessed the events first hands and are still well and truly alive and with us now to recount the events. I'm not a wikipedia guru, but don't we have a rule to filter out the tin-foil hate denialist garbage? 203.59.221.6 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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

Shaka Zulu & Tamerlane

The page does not yet include the Mfecane ('the crushing of people') by Shaka and Tamerlane's mass murders.

William Rubinstein, Genocide: a history, p. 22:

"One element in Shaka's destruction was to create a vast artificial desert around his domain ... 'to make the destruction complete, organized bands of Zulu murderers regularly patrolled the waste, hunting for any stray men and running them down like wild pig.' ... An area 200 miles to the north of the center of the state, 300 miles to the west, and 500 miles to the south was ravaged and depopulated ... When asked by a European traveller why he had exterminated the whole tribe, including women and children, Shaka 's reply was that 'they can propagate and bring children, who may become my enemies'. Himmler gave a similar reason (among others) for exterminating all the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe."

Similarly, the Turko-Mongol conqueror Tamerlane was known for his extreme brutality. Rubinstein wrote:

"At Isfahan (Persia) in 1387, Tamerlane's army massacred the entire population and built a pyramid of 70,000 severed heads. ... Near Delhi, India in 1398-9, Tamerlane slaughtered 100,000 captive Indian soldiers. In Assyria (1393-4) - Tamerlane got around - he killed all the Christians he could find, including everyone in the Kurdish Christian city of Tikrit, thus virtually destroying Christianity in Mesopotamia. Impartially, however, Tamerlane also slaughtered Shi'ite Muslims, Jews and heathens."
Tobby72 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a usable source saying that what they did was specifically genocide or genocidal, then we can include it.--Yalens (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"According to Yale historian Michael Mahoney, Zulu armies often aimed not only at defeating enemies but at “their total destruction. Those exterminated included not only whole armies, but also prisoners of war, women, children, and even dogs.” ... Mahoney characterizes these policies as genocidal. “If genocide is defined as a statemandated effort to annihilate whole peoples, then Shaka's actions in this regard must certainly qualify.”
"Timur's conquests were accompanied by genocidal massacres in the towns and cities he occupied."
Tobby72 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka could not have even dreamed of killing the huge amount that King Leopold of Belgium and his cronies killed in Congo. The fact Shaka's very DOUBTFUL "democide" finds its place on such an article while Leopold's INDUSTRIAL genocide gets deleted is a sign of White Supremacism creeping its way back into "academic mainstreamn". King Leopold's Congolese Genocide WAS in fact the first systematic and industrialized genocide in History, along with that against Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals which, by the way, had also been carried out in the name of White Supremacism. RaduFlorian (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Free Congo State was not genocidal, it was a brutal slave labor system. It was designed not to kill people of whatever racial, ethnic, religious or even just political reasons, but to extract as much profit as possible from a colony in an extremely ruthless manner. Yes, there's a difference. --Niemti (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you think those people carrying out this slave system were not AWARE of its consequences? Do you think King Leopold and his henchmen were not aware of the CONSEQUENCES of their policies? Are you taking us for 10 years-old kids, with this 10-years old logic of yours?RaduFlorian (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a section on Colonial Genocides, source here for the Congo. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything about "an intent to destroy" any ethnic group by Leopold proven in the article, I see an intent to make money through slavery enforced by terror. It's like to say this more recent crime was genocidal (it wasn't). --Niemti (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is right at the end "There is some debate over whether the Congo catastrophe qualifies as genocide, because the Congo state did not act with the intent of eliminating one or more ethnic groups.[2] However, the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide includes deliberate killings, for whatever motive, of members of an ethnic group with the intent to destroy them as such, “in whole or in part.” This suggests that the Congo Free State, in deciding to wipe out particular ethnic groups that resisted its inhuman practices, did indeed practice genocide." Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And in this the article totally contradicts itself and makes zero sense, writing: because the Congo state did not act with the intent of eliminating one or more ethnic groups immediately followed by This suggests that the Congo Free State, in deciding to wipe out particular ethnic groups. (I'm deeply sorry for my "10-years old logic of mine".) --Niemti (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people who ran the Congo Free State were FULLY AWARE of the consequence of their policies, they were fully aware that mass enslavement and starvation would lead to massive deaths, which makes them perfectly guilty of genocide in my opinionRaduFlorian (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does exactly what we are supposed to do, gives both views. At least that is how it seems to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would if it named these "particular ethnic groups" that were "decided to be wiped out". Instead, it talks about a general system of exploitation and terror (also noting that the officers were white, but foot soldiers were African, mostly from other countries). The whole thing was similar to a criminal enterprise (literally) of Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone (including profit from resources as a motive and a widespread practice of hacking off limbs as a vehicle of inflicting terror upon the population), and note how he was never accused of genocide ("just" a host of war crimes and crimes against humanity). --Niemti (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really just comes down to how secondary sources treat the subject. From what I've read some call it genocide, some don't, some say "sort of", some discuss it in depth. The article should reflect that.Volunteer Marek 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misunderstanding of what is and what is not constituting genocide. Actually no one even has even to die in a genocide as defined in the UN lgal definition (and I'm serious, it's actually things like "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" or "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" which is something like that), while every sort of mass deaths don't necesserily constitute genocide without precisely "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" (Lemkin actually intended to include political and social groups, but this was rejected by the UN because of the USSR). Slavery isn't genocide (it's slavery), terror isn't genocide too (it's terror). Different crimes. Apples and oranges. Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University: "Slavery, for example, is called genocide when - whatever it was, and it was an infamy - it was a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate the living." (Analysis: Defining genocide) --Niemti (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again trying to reduce the conversation to Niemti's 10 years-old-logic: the slave masters and slave merchants ie the people who are running the slave system are fully AWARE that enslaved people are likely to die in massive numbers so you simply CANNOT separate the system from its OUTCOME ie mass-dying ie mass-murder. According to your simple logic, a slave master whose actions lead to 100 slaves dying of overwork is less guilty than a Nazi who kills one Jew deliberately. According to your SCREWED logic, Leopold the Second who kills 10 million Blacks through starving and overworking them while being FULLY AWARE of the CONSEQUENCES is less guilty that Hitler who kills 6 million Jews in a deliberate way and the Hitler who kills 20 million Slavs through starving and overworking them is also a lot less guilty than the other Hitler, the one who kills 6 million Jews in a deliberate way, so you see what I'm getting at? I think it's plain to see White Supremacists have forged an alliance in the latest period with supporters of Jewish exclusivism and it's difficult to ascertain which of the two has more hands than the other in the whitewashing of the horrendous genocides committed by White imperialists in both Africa and the New World.RaduFlorian (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my GOSH, my "10-years-old logic". TOO long DIDN'T read, LOL. --Niemti (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that people are going to die from your policies does mean that it is genocide. I'm sure the leaders in the Congo free state knew what was going to happen or had some idea. Mass murder does not necessarily equal genocide. No one here is denying the truly awful nature of the Congo free state. What do you mean by I think it's plain to see White Supremacists have forged an alliance in the latest period with supporters of Jewish exclusivism.Stumink (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The intent" is everything, and King Lepold's intent was just to make money from rubber through a ruthless exploitation of his private colony, and nothing else. Just like Liberia's Charles Taylor sponsored the RUF "rebels" in Sierre Leone (and was recently convicted for this) only to make money from diamonds extracted by slaves, and not because he was concerned that in Sierra Leone are too many people with too many limbs (because yes, they were also chopping off limbs en masse). --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we even having this conversation? We have RS which call it a genocide, that is all that matters here, not what editors think. The content goes in per policy, and that really ought to be the end of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me see? "Controversially, Hochschild compared the death toll in the Belgian-administered Congo to the Holocaust and Stalin's purges." (This ref, the rest are books that I can't check.) Well, according to Wikipedia (the article King Leopold's Ghost), "Hochschild does not use the word genocide, but describes how the mass deaths happened as a result of the forced labor system instituted at Leopold's direction." Furthermore the ref article says (in the sub headline no less): "Historians will investigate charges of Congo genocide" - it was in 2002, so are they still investigating over a decade later, or did they just find nothing? ("We will look at these claims, we will investigate them, and by 2004 we will attempt to provide an answer to Hochschild's book," Guido Gryseels, the director of the museum, said." - 2004 was also long ago, no?) Aaaand the Wikipedia article (this article) cites Paul Kagame, who was himself accused by the UN of genocide in Congo which I guess makes him a great authority on the subject of genocide in Congo indeed. So I'd agree with "Why are we even having this conversation?" too, but for a completely different reason. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you still content of the claims that are apparently about a decade outdated following an investigation by historians that didn't confirm it (and originating in misunderstanding of a book, with the author actually not claiming this at all), and with a claim of a regional leader who was himself accused of committing genocide in Congo? (I thought you guys would at least have some decency to not quote the individuals accused of organising genocide by UN investigators about their opinions on "genocides in history", but apparently you think it's "RS". Ah, Wikipedia.) --Niemti (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in the meantime, you don't even mention this: [1][2] at all, and only mentions Kagame as a supposed expert on history or something. --Niemti (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your fixation with African vs African genocides is simply amazing, Niemti. Everywhere you show up you seem obsessed with either wholly negating European Genocides against Africans or equating European genocides against Africans with African genocides against Africans. The favourite line of White Supremacists all over the web: "Yep our ancestors enslaved and killed some Blacks but Blacks themselves were killing Blacks long before that and are doing this right now". So why single out White Supremacism when Blacks themselves are "just as bad"? Never mind that fact there is but A SINGLE African vs African genocide that is fully documented, ie the Rwandan Genocide and never mind the fact it never came close to King Leopold's genocide in terms of the sheer number of people killed. Never mind the Rwandan Genocide was fully INSTIGATED by White colonialists, first by the Germans and then by Belgians who chose to systematically favour Tutsis over Hutus thus undermining the harmonious relations that had prevailed in both Rwanda and Burundi for centuries. Instead of addressing the question of EUROPEAN GUILT for the Rwandan Genocides, you seem busy with constantly adding African genocides in South Africa or in DR Congo. The Mfecane parapgraph as well as the paragraph on Tutsis killing Hutus in DR Congo in 1996 are both your creation, admit it, just to "even things out" when things DO NOT need to be evened out in this question of White genocides vs Black genocides. There was a lot of tribe vs tribe violence in DR Congo during the 1990s and early 2000s yet "intent" for genocide was far less visible than anywhere during the Congo Free State, as most of those 5 million Congolese died of starvation, and European INVOLVEMENT in the Second Congo War, mainly through Western arm dealers fueling the conflict between tribes but also through Western CONTROL OF THE MINING INDUSTRY, which caused Black tribal leaders to vie with other Black tribal leaders for the title of "highest bidder". Your White Supremacism and bias against Black Africans and in favour of Western GENOCIDAL "civilizations" shows wherever you pop up, Niemti.RaduFlorian (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your fixation with imaginary genocides is simply amazing, RaduFlorian. To quote Hochschild himself (who unintentionally started the whole misundestanding): "This is a red herring, for no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different." --Niemti (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse Niemti of being biased against Black Africans and of being a white supremacist. Based on what? His claim that the Congo free state was not genocide or for wanting to add UN allegations of genocide against Kagame during the Congo wars. Judging by this discussion, if anyone is being biased, it is you Radu considering you blamed 1990's ethnic killing by Hutus's and Tutsi's in the Congo and Rwanda on westerners and colonial belgians. You are clearly being baised against Europeans and Westerners here. Stumink (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stumink on this point. Westerners (or Northerners) may at times have had more advanced technology and government, which allowed large-scale killing to be more efficient, but they certainly didn't have a monopoly on genoicidal intent. When locally-run media tells everybody in ethnic group A to exterminate all the cockroaches in ethnic group B (or "Get them before they get us")... that's not something you can blame on an external bogeyman, whether the media are based in Kigali or Belgrade. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact Tutsis and Hutus in both Rwanda and Burundy lived in harmony with each other prior to Europeans popping up and starting to systematically privilege Tutsis over Hutus, is undisputable. Sure, the Tutsis did form an aristocracy prior to European arrival yet there was nothing like chattel slavery and serfdom or systematic discrimination in pre-colonial Rwanda and Burundi. The systematical disenfranchisement of Hutus and priviliging of Tutsis were EUROPEAN inventions, they began in Rwanda and Burundi only AFTER Germans and Belgians started popping up like poisonous mushrooms (yes, "poionous mushrooms" is the word)!RaduFlorian (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to to stop abusing Caps Lock, and we need to rid Wikipedia of the fringe tehories you added to this and maybe other articles. --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)--Niemti (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything to this article for if I had added anything, make sure it would have been more harsh than it already is. I just objected to you and your people deleting the Free Congo State section and also to adding a supposed Hutu Genocide in DR Congo section, just to "even things out" in an instance when things should NOT be evened out.RaduFlorian (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My people." OK, my people, are we deleting this stupid red-herring confusion altogether, or just explain how it was one big misunderstanding it was? --Niemti (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear my voice, my people. Respond to me, my people. --Niemti (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romans

What about actions of the Romans against Carthage (http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/485/), or even Dacia (present-day Romania) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqxiMUhxoLI)? I feel these incidents should be looked into as examples of genocide in antiquity as the intent of the aggressor was to eradicate the opposing cultures completely. WiebeTokkel (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already in Genocide of indigenous peoples Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads up, the article used to be horrible, now is less but still would use of copy edit. Anyway, it's a different article. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying my work is horrible, real nice of you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the term "genocide" to a time when it wasn't understood

It's very modern to define a term, apply it to the present and future. Then try to apply it to a time when it wasn't understood. We may believe that Manifest destiny is a bad idea now, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Like widespread abortion today. How will future generations perceive that? Pointing fingers at some past people and labeling them seems preposterous. Great to document them in a single article, but to label them "genocide" is just moral posturing. Most of the deaths prior to (say) 1900 should not be in any article with "genocide" at the top of it. It just isn't credible. I'm sure this has been brought up before. Editors are sometimes just too media-oriented (pov) to be editing an encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to rely on vague handwaving about the future and the past. We rely on reliable sources, which makes it really easy: If reliable sources say that something is genoicide, so should we.
Hey, why not try editing Christopher Columbus to get rid of hundreds of neologisms - for instance that page uses the word "America" seventy-four times but Columbus never did, since the name was coined after his death. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Connie Willis has been quoted as calling this mindset "chronocentrism," the notion that the mores of our time and place are the supreme pinnacle of thought and ethics, and that benighted dwellers in the outer darkness of earlier times can be righteously judged, ex post facto, on our terms. (paraphrased by Michael F. Flynn). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs)
I'm surprised that you don't see the irony; complaining about "moral arrogance" whilst suggesting that selective quotes from a couple of contemporary American scifi writers should change how we cover almost all of human history. bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits not in source?

An editor rm new material saying that he couldn't see them justified in the source. The material was:

"The Allies condemned the deaths (called a "massacre" at the time) of the Armenians in 1915. The Ottoman Empire officially agreed, in the Treaty of Sevres that the reason for moving the Armenians, had been illegal. The Allies stated their belief that this had been a crime prior to this time.(ref) http://alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/armlegopi.shtml (endref)"

See " It is worth remembering that U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., had called the massacres “race murder” and that on 10 July 1915"

and

See "Pursuant to article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres:

“The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1 st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal….”(4)" (footnote theirs)

and

" on 28 May 1915, the Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia had issued a joint declaration denouncing the Ottoman Government's massacre of the Armenians as constituting “crimes against humanity and civilization." In fact, the new Turkish government convicted Enver and others, using the term 'crims against humanity and civilization."

and

"“The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.

“The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found…. The Turkish Government agrees that arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by summary procedure.”(5)" [footnote theirs]


(continuation of paragraph) "It became important to establish this as an existing internationally-recognized crime preliminary to the Nuremberg Trials in 1948 so those responsible for the Holocaust could be legally tried.(ref) http://groong.usc.edu/dezayas-memorandum.html (endref)"

See "the provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sèvres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ... offences which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian... race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles 6 c) and 5 c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of 'crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments."17"

The term genocide itself was officially used in the indictment of 18 October 1945," For the first time the word "genocide" was formally used in a legal document.

See prior ref "74. In his opening Statement at the International Military Tribunal, the British Chief Prosecutor Lord Hartley Shawcross stated: “There is thus no substantial retroactivity in the provisions of the Charter. It merely fixes the responsibility for a crime already clearly established as such by positive law upon its actual perpetrators. It fills a gap in international criminal procedure. There is all the difference between saying to a man, ‘You will now be punished for what was not a crime at all at the time you committed it,', and in saying to him ‘You will now pay the penalty for conduct which was contrary to law and a crime when you executed it, although, owing to the imperfection of the international machinery, there was at that time no court competent to pronounce judgement against you.'”

"There was probably no general understanding of the act of genocide prior to the early 19th century.(ref) http://hnn.us/article/7302 (endref)

See (after detailed analysis of the accusations) "in the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."

There are a number of these historical analyses on the web. It is apparent that, judged by the standards of their own time, which is the only real standard to which they can be held, they weren't doing anything particularly wrong. Student7 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresent a source like that again and I will report you. The source says "Smallpox probably was first used as a biological weapon during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767) by British forces in North America. Soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox patients with the intent of initiating outbreaks among American Indians. Epidemics occurred, killing more than 50% of many affected tribes." What you wrote This involved the possible intentional use of disease as a biological weapon. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Wikipedia:WikiBullying is quite unnecessary.
It was impossible at the time to understand whether Amherst's attempt was truly successful on it's own merits or whether the American Natives got smallpox from normal source, as indeed, the British were. One source from the second quote (the first requires a subscription) is " C. Adrienne Mayor, "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend," Journal of American Folklore 108(427):54-77 (1995):
  • "One name is repeatedly linked to the story of the smallpox blanket: Jeffrey Amherst. In 1851, Francis Parkman was the first historian to document Lord Amherst's "shameful plan" to exterminate Indians by giving them smallpox-infected blankets taken from the corpses of British soldiers at Fort Pitt in 1763 (Parkman 1991:646-651). The feasibility of the documented plan, whether or not it was successfully carried out, has given credibility and moral impact to the fears expressed in all poison-garment tales. The Amherst incident itself has taken on legendary overtones as believers and nonbelievers continue to argue over the facts and their interpretation. [p. 57]" (emphasis mine) I don't think this is terrifically germane to the topic anyway - one person attempting early "germ warfare" against an enemy. The Muslims did the same to start the Black Plague in 1346, apparently successfully. Their attempt, most likely, was to win the battle, not to kill all Christians or Europeans. But a later writer might try to read genocide into it.
I agree that, according to the second citation, Amherst's intent was intentional. It is unclear whether it was really effective or not. Viruses, unlike bacteria, may not survive well at low temperature. Viruses survive and are distributed "best" by respiratory means (at or near body temperature). Which is why we are urged to muffle coughs. Taking the blankets into cold weather most likely killed the virus.
Is "intent" the only means of entry as a notable event? I don't believe there has been a group on earth in my time that hasn't been threatened by someone and "attempts" made to do them in, no matter how futile.
While the Natives did indeed, catch smallpox, (as did the defending British), and did not take the fort, the connection to the blankets seem weak. But certainly pervasive. Student7 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am done discussing with you, you say "It is unclear whether it was really effective or not" The source say "Epidemics occurred, killing more than 50% of many affected tribes." I do not debate genocide deniers nor people who willfully ignore what the source say. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Student7, we are done here. The consensus is against you. Do not attempt to insert your fringe theories into this article. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor

Could the IP editor please explain why he is currently going through a great many articles on genocides and blanking content from them? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert WP:FRINGE or otherwise revisionist material into these articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is Guenter Lewy fringe. Stannard and Churchill both controversial sources to. This source is used on Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. The section needs a differing opinion just like every other controversial genocide. There should be counter opinions instead of just quotes supporting the genocide label. Tjis is the case with most of other genocides. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewy is a well-known genocide denier, see Tony Barta, With intent to deny: on colonial intentions and genocide denial, 10 J. of Genocide Research 111 (2008); Norbert Finzsch, If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, 10 J. of Genocide Research 119 (2008); David Stannard, De ́ja` vu all over again, 10 J. of Genocide Research 127 (2008). We need to pull his material from both articles. GregJackP Boomer! 20:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep him. He is still a notable scholar and there needs to be a counter claim. I don't think the objection of these scholars is enough to not make him RS. Stannard, Churchill and Casarini's claims are also controversial.88.104.219.76 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Lewy is hardly a genocide denier in the traditional sense of the word merely on the aplicabilty to certain cases.88.104.219.76 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's look at these comments on Lewy:

  1. Gypsies (Roma) were not subjected to genocide in World War II, David B. MacDonald, Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide: The Holocaust and Historical Representation 33 (reprint 2007).
  2. Actively "peddles" denial of Armenian genocide. MacDonald, at 128.
  3. "Very much in a class by himself", he denies Armenian genocide, American Indian genocide, and Roma genocide. MacDonald, at 139.
  4. "Controversial revisionist account", Donald W. Beachler, The Genocide Debate: Politicians, Academics, and Victims 142-43 (2011).
  5. "Rejecting its classification as genocide", Bartolomé Clavero, Genocide Or Ethnocide, 1933-2007: How to Make, Unmake, and Remake Law with Words 179, n.200 (2008).
  6. "[T]he denialist position is associated with Lewy. Adam Jones, 137 m.74 (2010).
  7. "Armenian Genocide denier Guenter Lewy (2005) earlier rejected accusations of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, such as the use of ‘‘free-fire zones,’’", Henry C. Theriault, Genocidal Mutation and the Challenge of Definition 41 Metaphilosophy 481 (2010).

It is fairly clear cut that he is a denier and fringe. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GregJackP, drop the WP:STICK, 88, or you will be blocked again. You are trolling and edit warring, your arguments are tendentious and fringe. Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war currently. Why would I drop the stick considering Darkness Shines agreed to have a counter argument. I am also clearly not trolling or being tendentious considering it is pretty reasonable and common to have counter claims on controversial topics. I'm pretty sure Stannard and Ward Churchill are far more fringe than Lewy, but if Gunter Lewy is not used then someone else can be used as a counter point. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Lewy statement, along with the Churchill quote. Stannard is not fringe, but is mainstream. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could look for another quote from someone everyone will accept. You say Stannard is mainstream, but Gunter Lewy is as well. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewy is anything but mainstream. Everyone but you has agreed that he is fringe and a genocide denier. GregJackP Boomer! 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guenter Lewy may not be "mainstream," but he's hardly a denier that people were killed at the hands of other people. He's a professor emeritus of political science at Amherst He is clearly WP:RS. Read the criticism on his bio. Further, IMO, ...76 is hardly a troll. And calling him such appears much too eager to be rid of him. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And separately from Lewy: I just assumed that the Turks probably killed the Armenians on purpose because they were Christians. After reviewing some of the material, it seems clear that the authorities did indeed want to transport the Armenians from one place to another (which would be defined as genocide by itself nowdays, but wasn't really contrary to any international law at the time). It was too massive a project with too little preparation. The Turks at the lowest level probably did not personally trust or like the Armenians. When they started to die, many of these soldiers did not treat their captives in a humane manner in sufficient numbers to stop the disaster. The Turks at the highest level appear to be credibly shocked at the result and admitted responsibility. Not quite like the Nazis at all IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Turk genocide of the Armenians is fairly well documented and is mainstream. Lewy clearly denies that, which is a fringe viewpoint. One doesn't have to be like a stereotypical Nazi to commit genocide, either. GregJackP Boomer! 20:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Student7, we are done here. The consensus is against you. Do not attempt to insert your fringe theories into this article. The end. Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use reliable sources?

A statement reads, "American writer David Quammen has likened the colonial American policies and practices toward Native Americans with those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling them "brutal, hypocritical, opportunistic, and even genocidal in the fullest sense of the word."

The problem here, IMO, is that Quammen is described in his article as a American science, nature and travel writer. IMO, this is not the type of scholarly author that we would want here. There has to be hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarly books and articles on this topic, many of which are fair game.

Chavez is a separate topic. 1) He wasn't WP:NPOV about anything at all that I know of. 2) Try and place material that he said on his article. There is (or was, prior to his death) a significant claque that edited out Chavez' favorable comments and correspondence with Carlos the Jackal; also his statements that were known to be false, that his dismayed his supporters, but he reiterated anyway. If editors have to resort to Chavez as WP:RS, said editors have a serious problem presenting an npov case. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quammen is an expert on subjects related to the American west. Student7, are you the former user anon IP beginning with 88? Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No to IP usage (feel free to check if you doubt me). But 88's edits did call my attention to Quammen.
Observations by a science, nature and travel writer might be allowed when we don't have anything else. This sometimes happens for current events, particularly in a remote area. But for these events, there has been plenty of time for scholarly research by historians. For example, you have David Stannard. Stannard would be the quality I would expect at this stage in time. Quoting lesser lights that weren't contemporary, appears to damage your arguments. As though there weren't many scholarly supporters of Native American genocide. Which may be the case, for all I know. Okay, maybe Mark Twain, since he was contemporaneous, thought not strictly a historian. (I don't know what he has written, if anything BTW).
The Chavez material probably wasn't entered by you. I will remove it, if there is no npov objection. Student7 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I rm Chavez material. I honestly think that your pov would be better served by a more WP:RS in place of Quammen, but whatever. Student7 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of fringe material

Student7, every time you reinsert fringe / undue material, you will be reverted. Lewy is clearly fringe and a genocide denier. The other material is from an individuals own website and is not necessarily reliable. If your position is on solid ground, it should be easy to find real academic sources for it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewy is entirely correct on many matters. The US government did not, for example, deliberately spread smallpox to the Native Americans with infected blankets. Regarding the Gypsies, I'm afraid Lewy is right again. After a discussion with Hitler in 1942, Himmler wrote in his diary: "Keine Vernichtung der Zigeuner," or "No extermination of the Gypsies" (Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, Yale University Press, 2002, page 66). Louis Wiesner's comprehensive account of Vietnam war casualties states that Lewy's "estimates are as accurate as can be derived from the incomplete raw data" (Louis A. Wiesner, Victims and Survivors: Displaced Persons and Other War Victims in Viet-Nam, Greenwood Press, 1988, page 347). Lewy's research on Vietnam is cited in and supported by Vietnamese Casualties During the American War, the most detailed demographic study of the topic (by Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi in Population and Development Review). Many critics of Lewy are demonstrably wrong, such as Churchill and Chomsky (note that Chomsky is an actual genocide denier, not merely someone who questions whether all instances of mass death qualify as "genocide"). The 100 million estimate used by Stannard in American Holocaust was popularized by anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who David Henige has accused of "upwards manipulation" of statistics, making assumptions with "no basis in fact", relying on unrepresentative data, committing "extraordinary" scholarly lapses, and treating evidence "as a species of silly putty, to be shaped to conform with his own predispositions" (David Henige, Numbers From Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998, pages 82-85). (In his notorious essay, "Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship," Stannard falsely maintained that "fully half the Jewish victims of the Holocaust....died from disease and destitution," and not from gassing or shooting. Churchill, meanwhile, has asserted that the murder of Europe's Jews was never a "fixed policy objective" for the Nazis--suppposedly, the Nazis implemented "a rather erratic and contradictory hodgepodge of anti-Jewish policies.") In sum, Lewy is a widely cited expert on the Vietnam war and a professor emeritus of political science at Amherst; he is, unquestionably, a reliable source. Now, I understand that Lewy's views on the Armenian disaster are hardly mainstream, and may even be undue in an article providing a broad overview of a topic like this one; but this article cites many fringe sources, like Political Affairs ("Marxist Thought Online"), for allegations of genocide (in that case, the Philippines). Is it really so inappropriate to note that, while the mass deaths of Armenians are a historical fact, a small minority of scholars have challenged the use of the "genocide" label to describe them? Lewy is hardly alone in this position; Middle East expert Bernard Lewis, for example, agrees: "There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely....[and] the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government....there is no evidence for such a decision."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not deliberately reinsert Lewy into History. I had not properly constructed a cite web which revealed him to be the author. I rm him but left Alfred de Zayas citations who has not yet been voted into WP:FRINGE oblivion.
As I mentioned earlier, I came to Wikipedia convinced of the Armenian genocide (damned Muslims, anyway!). I was forced to rethink this after due analysis of the material. Unlike the Holocaust, there is simply not the support for the killing at the very top, where international representatives would like it to be. Many poor people (most of the average Turks) were probably undismayed at the deaths along the march. The leaders (well-educated and middle-upper class) running the show were convincingly horrified when they heard of it. They did order the resettlement though. Little doubt of that. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you "rethink" is irrelevant and WP:SYNTH. What governs here is WP:RS. Also your definition of "genocide" fails here. Genocide can occur regardless of what the "very top" thinks; much of your arguments here have to do with whether a genocide was wholly premeditated and other hair-splitting that is outside mainstream thinking on the matter. I have no interest in engaging with you because I am very busy and have other things to do, but I want to stop by to again concur with GregJack and Darkness Shines that your views are outside of mainstream consensus on this matter. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss "fringe" for a minute?

WP:FRINGE does not necessarily label a historian who is outvoted by his peers. It would mean Velikovsky, Jack Chick, that sort of thing.

A person with recognized credentials who has published in peer-reviewed articles may be in the minority, but that does not, by itself, make him "fringe."

I edit a number of religious articles. Most historians do not credit the Jewish-Christian scripture with much relevance to actual history. However, there are some international scholars who see some relevance, if not 100%. Their remarks are credited alongside the others though in proportion to their numbers and contributions. Some steles, for example, seems to support some biblical references. Or not. Both sides are listed. The article states that the preponderance of historians don't base history on.., but some do. They aren't automatically thrown into the trash in favor of a coherent single story that Wikipedia editors have "voted" on.

Any more than we would vote that Bush is a monster/hero or Obama is a monster/hero. Alternate views are permitted if they are made by qualified, published scholars.

Nor do we constantly threaten editors who try to use these authors. Nor do we remove all material, because one of the authors has been voted off the island. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really quite simple, the Association of Genocide Scholars has passed a resolution, back in 97 in fact which says "That this assembly of the Association of Genocide Scholars in its conference held in Montreal, June 11-13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of over a million Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters."[3] As for the sources you have been using, again from the Association of Genocide Scholars, "Scholars who dispute that what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly ignore the overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence. Most recently, this is the case with the works of Mr. Justin McCarthy and Mr. Guenter Lewy, whose books engage in severely selective scholarship that grossly distorts history."[4] Stop pushing fringe genocide denial stuff. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Lewis, Lewy, and de Zayas are fringe, then why don't you take them to RSN? They may be in a small enough minority that their views on Armenia don't warrant coverage in an article providing a broad historical overview of genocide, however that does not mean they are not RS in other contexts or on other subjects. Lewy is an excellent scholar whose work on Vietnam is widely cited. Lewis is considered something of an authority on the Middle East. My understanding is that Genocides in history aims to list all "genocides and alleged genocides". Thus, it covers fringe views such as the claim that the US committed genocide in the Philippines and truly absurd allegations of genocide such as the "Dirty War" in Argentina. Moreover, the article mentions that "In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event," and in many cases (such as Sri Lanka) notes when some party has disputed the label. No-one is suggesting that the minority opinion on Armenia should be given equal weight; however, it is not at all clear that the very existence of an alternative POV should be hidden from Wikipedia readers. By what standard can the government of Sri Lanka be cited, while respected professors like Lewy cannot?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read any of what I wrote? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did. None of it changes the fact that "minority view" doesn't equal "fringe, unreliable source".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bartolomé Clavero notes that Lewy "Reject[s] its [the Armenian catastrophe's] classification as genocide," while Donald W. Beachler calls Lewy "controversial"--but that hardly equals fringe. David B. MacDonald (cited three times by GregJacksonP) says that, according to Lewy, "Gypsies (Roma) were not subjected to genocide in World War II"--apparently, we are supposed to be so shocked by this thought crime that we dismiss Lewy out of hand. However, a 1942 entry in Himmler's diary--"Keine Vernichtung der Zigeuner," or "No extermination of the Gypsies"--suggests that Lewy is right! It's an entirely arguable point that the politically correct line about the Nazis committing genocide against "6 million Jews and another 6 million 'non-Aryans' (i.e. homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, ect.)" is sheer nonsense based on an arbitrary classification of some of the Nazis' non-Jewish war victims (who numbered far more than 6 million)--and supported by ever-increasing exaggerations and distortions (i.e., the 200,000 dead Gypsies inflated to 500,000 and then 1 million or more). It's unarguably true that even if the Gypsies were singled out for genocide, or partial destruction, only the Jews were singled out for Holocaust, or total annihilation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to re-read WP:FRINGE, which states: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea...." If you disagree, feel free to make the argument at the fringe noticeboard. Otherwise it stays out. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would a sentence acknowledging this "small minority" really be "undue weight"? If so, there is plenty of content in the article right now that is equally undue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Student7's edit using Alfred de Zayas as a source was instantly struck down, and his attempts to discuss it were completely ignored. Now, I know nothing about de Zayas--but where is the evidence that he, too, is fringe?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his Wikipedia article I just skimmed, de Zayas sounds eminently reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was sourced to a self-published blog/website. If you had read my comment, you would have seen that I stated that if he was that well-regarded, there should be no problem finding that position in a reliable source. Preferably an academic, peer-reviewed journal, but other reliable sources would work. GregJackP Boomer! 06:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read your edit summary on October 8 because I was inactive on Wikipedia for several months, and returned on October 11. Fair point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've read the diary of Hoss (Auschwitz commandant). The gypsies were indeed first to be just interned, and they were held at Auschwitz in the "family camp" (internally separated, whole families thogether, a very different regime than regular prisoners) for a long time, dying from diseases, but eventually a decision to kill most of them was made by Himmler and they were killed on 2 August 1944. About the extermination: http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=8 --Niemti (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also there actually was an extermination of most Soviet POWs (deliberately most of all through hunger but also by a variety direct means, it was an abortive policy that was largely discontinued in 1942 but at that point already killed some 3 million or a majority of them), but there was no extermination of gays of JWs whatsoever. --Niemti (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as my views appear to be misrepresented, I concur with the positions of GregJackP and Darkness Shines on this matter. The material sought to be inserted if fringe and fringe material has no place on wikipedia, other than in articles on fringe theories themselves. (See Flat earth) Tendentious debate does not need to go to any more drama boards than it already has gone to. Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one week

Since it's obvious that without protection this dispute is going to carry on in the article. If it can't be settled within the week I'll probably extend the protection. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to unlock the article. I was accused of edit warring and blacklisted by a non-admin, with no real hope of appeal. I am no longer editing the article.
The problem apparently arose when I lazily used a raw page cite for an entry. Unknown to me, the material turned out to be by an notable author the editors had just banned. They thought I was doing it to thumb my nose at their decision and and angrily reverted my edit. But it was was never an intentional edit war on my part. I avoid edit wars. Student7 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not "blacklisted", you were notified that the content you were edit warring over was covered under discretionary sanctions. The problem arose due to you refusing to listen, slow mo edit warring (5 reverts between 19:56, 10 October 2013‎ & 21:02, 15 October 2013‎), despite being told repeatedly that the sources were known genocide deniers. Please stick to the facts. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan Genocide!

Strangely, in the list of more recent genocides, this article mentions the genocides in Burundi and DRC, but not the largest one in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide is mentioned in the discussion of courts to prosecute perpetrators, and is represented in the article's images. I can only guess the discussion on this topic got removed at some point and needs to be added back in soon. I'm planning on getting the article on the Rwandan Genocide up to FA soon so it can be featured on the main page on April 7 2014, its 20th anniversary. This article will receive plenty of hits and it will seem very strange if the Rwandan Genocide is omitted. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minority dissent is allowed in other articles. For example, there is a statement by a WP:NN (who rates an article, nevertheless, but is probably not a historian) member of the Israel parliament who says (quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia), "I find it is deeply offensive, and even blasphemous to compare the Holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War with the mass extermination of the Armenian people during the First World War. Jews were killed because they were Jews, but Armenians provoked Turkey and should blame themselves."(ref) While I am not trying to place anything like that here (I prefer reliable material from notable sources), I think that a minority opinion could be tolerated. It is in many places in Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to drop this, it is getting tendentious at this stage. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, "A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994."[5] Let that be an end to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 October 2013

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm should be changed to http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm Munchkin2013 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocides_in_history&oldid=578132534"