Template talk:Genocide sidebar

The genocide that created the word Genocide

I find it very ironic that the killing that inspired the creation of the word genocide is not even listed - Simele Massacre— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldean (talk • contribs) 07:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A massacre is not genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As an addendum, the Simele Massacre did not 'inspire' the creation of the term 'genocide'. The issue of Lemkin's coining of the term has been discussed at length on the talk pages of a number of articles, and such presumptions have been understood as WP:SYNTH. Also note that this is a template talk page, not a forum for personal advocacy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2017

In the template, there are (by my count) seven hyphens in date ranges, which should be changed to en dashes. Would you please be so kind as to make these corrections? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) DocWatson42 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Would you mind making the changes to Template:Genocide/sandbox and I will copy them over? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I just saw this, and have performed the edits. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: sorry but in the meantime there have been numerous changes to the live template so I can't copy that over or other changes would be lost. However the live template is only semi-protected so you can make the changes yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Done—thanks. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 November 2017

Please add Darfur genocide, and why on earth is this template protected? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I template-protected it because editors (including extended confirmed) were constantly making POV edits. I have just reduced the protection to semi, we will see how it develops. I am not very hopeful though.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add the new article, I noticed a lot of stuff in there that ain't genocide, I will also start a discussion about those. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Various articles have no place here

Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38) Katyn massacre, 1940 Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, 1944 Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush, 1944–48

These are not gencodes, why were they added? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lebensraum and Nazi genocide of Slavs, 1939-45 Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, 1939–45 Nazi crimes against Soviet Civilians, 1941–45 Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, 1941–45

None of these are genocides either. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the ongoing Rohingya genocide in Myanmar not mentioned?

It is an organized effort to extinguish a people and so deserves to be mentioned on the template. 67.80.164.161 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not a genocide Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The persecution of the Rohingya is not an "intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part"? I find that hard to believe. Uglemat (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

Please, remove the contents related Manifest Destiny, Indian Removal, 1830s, California Genocide, 1848–1873, Tierra del Fuego indians massacre, 1890s–1900s and the European colonization of the Americas of the |content2 = because Wikipedia is ideological neutral and its content must be ideologically neutral, in addition to the fact that the massacres of American Indians occurred in the 19th century are not recognized as genocides in a neutral and official sphere but only in an ideological sphere, if it has to recognize the decimation of Indians as genocide, why they do not recognize the decimation of Great Andamaneses as genocide, in 2010 there were only 52 Great Andamaneses left, while there were still many Native Americans left in the American continent in 2010 and regarding the removal of the title of the content of the part concerning the Genocide of the indigenous peoples is not only for the reason of a neutral encyclopedia and also because the reported genocides happened in Europe and Asia between 1750 and 1923 and has no relation with the slaughter of Indians of the Americas and did not take place between 1492 and 1700.

186.204.9.214 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

Please change "Final Solution" to "Final Solution regarding European Jews" because that will make it consistent with the other entries in this subset; and please change "Porajmos" to "Porajmos against Romani" because this will make it consistent with the other entries in this subset. If articles within Wikipedia, itself, are considered reliable sources, then I cite the text in the body of the main entry in the "Genocide" entry. If this is not acceptable, I don't know where to begin because there are so many relevant sources -- so I would appreciate your editor pick one, please. Note: this side bar appears on other pages (pages other than "Genocide") in Wikipedia, so I am requesting that the master be changed. Thank you. AlpFund (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Links do not have to be consistent within subsections of templates. The links are the actual titles of the articles to which they refer and those article titles are governed by WP:NAME. To change the presentation of the links on this sidebar without changing the article titles is not sensible. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

so large

Why is it so large? - Devlet Geray (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hazara Genocide?

should the persecution of Hazaras from 1888-1893 be included in this list?

Inclusion of Soviet repressions

In regards to the contents in diff, most scholars do not see Soviet repressions as meeting the UN definition of Genocide (many of them do meet the definition of ethnic cleansing or mass killing). Some items on the subsection have no acceptance and others very little acceptance. The sole exception on the list is Holodomor which has wider but still quite contested - but we already link to Holodomor genocide question at the top. By placing these items in the template, we are suggesting they are genocide while most scholarship does not see it as such. Icewhiz (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Provide support for your assertion. The sources for the opposite view are already in the respective articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

To the contrary, the respective articles do not support genocide - they support (for some of them) a minority view (often national-political bodies) of genocide, while stating that stating that the majority view is otherwise. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Chetnik crimes against Bosniaks and Croats

Crimes are not genocide. Genocidal crimes are not genocide either. I see no sense in this sort of POV pushing. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You made a claim on the talk page and no one responded. And now almost two months later you want to say it was inconclusive therefore you can delete what you see fit? I haven’t edited the genocide list box since a moderator undid my edit. She reverted to Nolanfranyeri’s edit. You claim several sources refute genocide. But provide none. You claim this is POV pushing. But it seems you are POV pushing here. And I see no sense in putting much effort in removing it. Only one historian claims no genocide occurred but he also claimed that the crimes Ustashe carried out were not genocide either. So rethink that a bit. Multiple historians labeled the Chetnik crimes as genocide . Another editor here agreed with it remaining on the list. As well as another. That’s three editors vs you. I am surprised to see you at least acknowledge crimes as genocidal if not genocide. But you boldly made the decision yourself anyway to delete it. Had I come here and made changes with no academic sourcing, I would understand your frustration.74.101.190.2 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Tomasevich reference should be the 2001 book, not the 1975 one. The Hoare page is in the index, and I couldn't find a reference to genocide on that page. The Redžić one is correct. Could you go back and check which page of Hoare you are referring to? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have the physical book by Tomasevich and you are right, 2001 is the publish date. As for Hoare, it is a separate book. here is a snapshot https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623521003633487?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=cjgr20 . 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no wider academic consensus over this. A bigger part of massacres and war crimes commited by the Yugoslav army were revenge attacks/killings. No bigger books or summaries of WW2 call war crimes committed by the Yugoslav Army in the Homeland - genocide. There was no discussion for this move, just some edit-warring. As you can see, Hoare writes - arguably ( it's not widely accepted yet, which is not irrelevant for such templates). The fact that the last edit was 2 months ago does not make it better. Another thing, quoted sources are talking about "Serb Chetniks", but in the first half of the war the YA had a solid number of Muslims, Slovenes and some Jews. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hoare makes mention that “one side commits genocide and the other side responds in kind” confirming what Tomislav Dulic a historian had stated in an article of which Hoare is referencing. And just because it was in part done as revenge doesn’t mean it was genocide. Nor was revenge the only reason or the “bigger” reason as sources don’t say it was the only or biggest reason. As a state free of non-Serbs was a goal part of the 1941 directive of the Chetniks. And large parts of populations were killed in the massacres. As for the claim that Muslims, Slovenes and some Jews being supportive (oddly no mention of Croats), Slovenes weren’t a main target. There was antisemitism present but again not their main target. I don’t recall seeing Muslim or Jewish citizens being eager to volunteer. I don’t know what “solid number” means as I never read that Chetniks had huge support from any of those groups except for a small Slovene group. That seems more pov than anything. Why would they help in the massacres of their people in Eastern Bosnian starting in 1941? Your claim clashes with the widely confirmed by scholars directive by the Chetniks to establish a Serb only state cleansed of non-Serbs. How would the non-Serbs support this? The Ustashe even kept some Serbs and Jews in government as the Ustashe supportive officials were too lacking of skill to take their place. (Tomasevich 2001). Unless you refer to the Royal Yugoslav Army in which yes every ethnic group was in before Yugoslavia was broken up. The Partisans were not targeting ethic groups as the Chetniks did hence why they actually had great numbers join. In fact one of the authors explains how Chetnik later in the war do to struggles in the war tried to appeal to Muslims and Croats but failed do to the terror campaigns. But I digress. The three (four if including Dulic) point to it being a genocide which is why it seems to me that it fits to have it on the template. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The source you refer to as Hoare is actually a review of Hoare by Levene in the Journal of Genocide Research. Nevertheless, there are three academic-quality sources from outside the former Yugoslavia describing these massacres as genocidal or genocide. Of course there is also the book Genocid nad Muslimanima by Vladimir Dedijer, which focuses on the genocide carried out by the Chetniks on Bosnian Muslims in eastern Bosnia in particular, and who was a Serb and also wrote on the Ustasha crimes, so he is hardly biased. There are more than enough reliable sources for the inclusion of Chetnik crimes in this template. Bald assertions about what is or isn't a "wider academic consensus" are neither here nor there without citations to reliable sources to back them up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be acceptance that the academic sources talk about genocide of the Bosnian Muslims by the Chetniks and for its inclusion in the template, but there appears to be some continuing to-ing and fro-ing about the genocide of Croats by the Chetniks. Hoare says, "There are no figures for the numbers of Bosnian Muslims and Croats killed in the Chetnik genocide." p. 147. This clearly implies a Chetnik genocide of both groups. Tomasevich too mentions the Chetnik killings of Croats as genocide, "A fourth reason for the high human and material toll in Yugoslavia was the widespread practice of genocide - the systematic extermination of large numbers of people for political, ideological, religious, or racial reasons - which was then used in revenge by members of the wronged group or nationality. The most numerous victims were Serbs who perished at the hands of Ustashas and Croats and Muslims who perished at the hands of the Chetniks." p. 747. Both of these sources are clearly defining the Chetnik killing of Croats as genocide. There is also Zdravko Dizdar's "Chetnik Genocidal Crimes Against Croatians and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Against Croatians in Croatia During World War II (1941-1945)" in Aleksander Ravlić (ed.) 1998 book Southeastern Europe 1918–1995. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for actually providing quotes. I realize Tomasevich is well-published and a RS but I think it's also important to note that he was a Croat. Dizdar is also a Croatian historian. Hoare, a half-Croat, is very pro-Muslim and holds a staunch view of Balkan history, one that could be viewed as heavily biased against Serbs [see his blog and twitter] and he attacks anyone who views things differently. I'm fine with the inclusion of Chetniks in this template, at the very least concerning Bosnian Muslims, given the preponderance of sources describing their massacres as genocidal or genocide. The potential biases of the few sources regarding Croats is what is concerning. The bigger issue is with the IP editor's instance on labeling it as genocide of Bosniaks and Croats, changing what was a less controversial but simultaneously inclusive wording. We have other examples on this template of Nazi crimes against Poles and Soviet POWs with labeling that corresponds to the article's title. I don't see why this case should get preferential treatment and bypass conventions. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I take objection to this implied bias/racial profiling of sources. Tomasevich is widely respected as a balanced and highly reliable source on the former Yugoslavia, particularly on the WWII period. He is published by a highly respected western university press, Stanford. Hoare is also highly reliable, and published by the British Academy. Frankly, the only ones complaining about either of them are Serbs, because they don't like their evidence and conclusions. And whenever someone doesn't like the conclusions of a particular writer on the former Yugoslavia, they almost always bring up their race. I've seen no evidence of academic criticism of either of them for bias in mainstream academic publications outside of Serbia. People not liking the conclusions isn't a basis for making decisions about what goes in a template. They need to have substantive objections to the content and bring their own evidence/sources to back up their opinions. Both Tomasevich and Hoare say it was genocide, so as far as I am concerned, in the absence of any reliable sources saying it wasn't, it stays in the template. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. The only reason I brought up ethnicity to any of them is because, it is only natural for people of any ethnic or racial group to have some proclivities and baggage when it comes to conflicts and issues regarding their own groups, which can skewer their writings. I certainly don't dispute Tomasevich or Hoare's academic credibility. I suppose ideally, it would be nice to have more published material from completely uninvolved western academics. Thoughts on appropriate labeling? Titling it as the article is titled seems most appropriate but I'm not sure if there's specifications regarding wikilinks on templates. --Nolanfranyeri (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)