Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 6: Difference between revisions

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.

Archives

Archive 1 (12 Oct 04 to 1 Jul 05) Archive 2 (15 Nov 05 to 13 Mar 06) Archive 3 (17 Mar 06 to 10 Feb 07) Archive 4 (23 Feb 07 to 10 Aug 07) Archive 5 (5 Sept 07 to 17 Feb 08)

In his book Death by Government, Professor R.J. Rummel argues that "a full scale genocide was carried out in the Vendée in which possibly 117,000 inhabitants were systematically murdered." [dubious – discuss]

Ledenierhomme What is dubious about the statement? It is not a statement of fact or are you saying that the Rummel is dubious source? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could your political/ethnic/cultural/nationalist agenda be any more transparent? the 117,000 figure comes from Secher, whereas reliable sources such as Martin estimate 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans. See Hugh Gough for an analysis of Secher's flawed methodology. For the millionth time, you need to learn to evaluate the quality of your sources. Professor R.J. Rummel is no specialist on the French Revolution or the war in the Vendée. And "Transaction Publishers" (which I assume you got online from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM where Rummel admits it is "often reported as a civil war" and states that "possibly" 117,000 people were indiscriminately murdered) doesn't quite measure up to peer-reviewed journals. That's why it is dubious, as stated in the edit summary, in contradicts the conventional wisdom of the established authorities on the issue. There's no wriggling out of this one I'm afraid. Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are not disputing that the statement is verifiable and an accurate reflection of the text from which the the Wikipedia sentence is derived, you are disputing that R.J. Rummel is a reliable source. The text was added by C.J. Griffin lets ask that editor's opinion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the notes section of Rummel's book his source on this is Laurent Ladouce. But anyways, Rummel is not some hack but a reputable historian and a specialist on Democide so just because some historians disagree with his assertions doesn't mean he's is not a reliable source. And looking over the article it seems others concur with his views.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, I encourage you to read all the sources cited in the section of this article, before drawing any conclusions as to which sources and statements are plausible or dubious. If your main resource is the internet, well, that's a shame, but at least read Gough's article (which is available online) and look into who some of the authorities mentioned are, before you quote a rather irrelevant book by Rummel, who is not an expert on this subject and who admits his information is second-hand. FYI, Ladouce (another Catholic Christian) is not the source of the 117,000 figure, Secher is - in which case the quote from Rummel is third-hand, and only demonstrates that he is not a reliable source for this subject (the War in the Vendee). Rummel may well be a respected academic, but his credentials are irrelevant as far as this article is concerned. Would you refer to Stephen Hawking in an article on the Yellow Turban Rebellion?

The article as it stands is already too long, and does a gross disservice to the subject matter as it in essence, places the words of polemicists (in most cases self-published in all but name) on an equal footing with established authorities who are specialists/experts on the subjects and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of anti-French racists and bigots looking to point score over something as serious as genocide, and mob rule has ensured that Secher's polemics remain intact. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of these countries' alleged genocides are under the heading of International Prosecution of Genocide rather than in the main list of alleged genocides. This seems wrong, but as a reader who came here to just to read the article, I would rather leave this edit up to someone more involved in this page. The heading "International Criminal Court" seems to have no text under it that relates to the heading. Has something gone missing? --CloudSurfer (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The reasons are given in the talk archives. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been a considerable extension to this section and I think it raises some issues.

• Who says "Contrary to popular conception the Armenians were by..."? Who has measured "popular conception" and made such a statement?
• Does Frederick A. Aprim Assyrians in the "The Continuous Saga" on Page 40 state that the events in Assyria were a genocide? If so what is the definition of genocide he used?
• Pontic Greek Genocide: Are the missing citations due to a cut and past error? None of the neutral online citations given state unequivocally that this was a genocide. Is there a neutral source that states unequivocally that it was a genocide and gives a definition for genocide? To give an example Rummel states "This wholly genocidal killing is difficult to unravel. During this period Turkey fought five wars, forcefully changed governments several times, endured major revolutionary changes, and was occupied by foreign powers. Suffering deportations, famine, exposure, war, genocide, and massacres, millions of Turkish Moslems, Armenians, Greeks, and other Christians died." It is not clear from this that Rummel is asserting that the deaths of Pontic Greeks was a genocide. "Pioneers of Genocide Studies (Clt)" Mention the Pontic Greeks on pages 207 and 210 (I could not read 213) but the author does not describe the events as a genocide just that it is being studied as a genocide.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1 Schaller, Dominik J. and Zimmerer, Jürgen (2008) 'Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies - introduction', Journal of Genocide Research, 10:1, 7 - 14

p.10

The one-sided association of the Armenian genocide with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire is a relatively new phenomenon.

Adam Jones, IAGS member, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia http://www.genocidescholars.org/blog/?cat=16

Over the past decade, many in our community have become more aware that the Ottomans’ genocidal campaign between 1914 and 1923 — that is, between the outbreak of the First World War and the establishment of the Turkish Republic — targeted more than Armenians only.

• 2 Not sure on that one. Just copied from AG page. If you want to remove it that's fine and I would suggest replacing with one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Some_more_quotes_on_the_Assyrian_Genocide

3. Error corrected, thanks for pointing it out. Wrt to use of the term genocide this is also being debated in the article's talk page and there is a list of sources here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_quotes_on_the_Pontic_Greek_Genocide

If you are inclined I would appreciate your taking the time to comment as there is currently a lack of concensus and a third party taking a look could only help. There is also an open RfC. Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

During the Second Boer War, the internment of women and children in concentration camps led to massive loss of life - approximately 25% of the interned died, including 50% of the children. Past what threshold can incompetence and willful neglect be considered a policy of active genocide? Fazalmajid (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work that way, we report research by others (See WP:OR). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Second Boer War page have enough research to be mentioned? And what about Iraq? (Casualties of the Iraq War) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.187.22 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Irish famine is mentioned but there is nothing about the identical famine in the Highlands at the same time. There's also nothing about the "pacification of the Highlands" in the second half of the 18th century, where British troops undertook ethnic cleansing in the Highlands of Scotland. Lianachan (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the genocide article for what is defined as a genocide, not all mass deaths are genocide. For this page for something to be listed there has to be a reliable source claiming it was a genocide and probably more than one source (see Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and WP:UNDUE). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding the pacficiation - it's not an exceptional claim, it's an historical fact. It is, however, not that widely known having been glossed over and mucked in with the "Highland Clearances" (which were in fact later, and different) and the (closer) Act of Proscription. Given wikipedia's ironic love of online sources, it could be tricky to have it meet those requirements. I expect the famine is probably dealt with elsewhere in wikipedia, but to be honest I've not looked. Lianachan (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. It does not matter if you and I think that the events (which may be historical facts and easy to cite) were genocides, what matters is that there are WP:SOURCES that state that these historical events were genocides, otherwise the conclusion that the events were genocides is WP:SYN (or simply WP:OR). See for example the entry for Genocides in history#France to show how we can handle a minority POV on such an episode. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point. That's what I meant when I said Given wikipedia's ironic love of online sources, it could be tricky to have it meet those requirements above. However, I've got a better idea - I'm just going to forget about it. I can't be bothered banging my head against the wikiwall, and the info's already out there in the real world for people with sufficient interest to dig it out. Lianachan (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of the estimated 15 million native Americans killed in America? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Genocides in history#Americas --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In 2008, The U.S. state of Texas seized all the children belonging to one religious group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints (FLDS). This fits the international definition of genocide, but is clearly not the equivalent of many other historic genocides. Is there a place for genocide "light"? 75.36.143.2 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We should also include the Iriquois genocide of the Huron and Erie.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

in the part about Rwanda it says "The rate at which people were killed far exceeded any other genocide in history" i disagree the holocaust was far worse....Lotharsrevenge

See Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_5#China --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"These little known revolts were suppressed by the Manchu government in a manner that amounts to genocide," with four sources. What do the authors in the cited books actually say. as "amounts to genocide" does not mean genocide (which must have intent to commit a genocide of protected groups and the and actual destruction of the group). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The link to Krstic links to the Serbian profession basketball player, it should link to Radislav Krstić. That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.131.122 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From the history of the page:

• 21:19, 1 July 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (→Democratic Republic of Congo: removed because there are no reliable sources provided stating that this is a genocide.)
• 22:24, 1 July 2008 Editingman (I cited the BBC which stated the claim of Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of pygmies to the UN Security Council, who alleges genocide.)

What Makelo said was "In living memory, we have seen cruelty, massacres, and genocide, but we have never seen human beings hunted down as though they were game animals," (DR Congo pygmies appeal to UN BBC 23 May 2003) It is not clear from that statement that he means local conditions (and not for example genocides in other parts of the world) and even if he did mean locally he was talking about genocide in the past not at the time he was quoted. To base a whole section on such a quote is to create a section giving undue weight weight to one indirect quote.

Even if he had been less circumspect and stated that a genocide was happening in 2003 to the pygmies, he is not a disinterested party and he has a valid political reason for suggesting genocide as it is one of the few reasons that the UN can use to involve its self in the internal affairs of a state (see Genocide#Security Council responsibility to protect). Do you have a source from a genocide scholar or a member of the security council or some other reliable source, who agrees with Sinafasi Makelo's analysis? If not then again this falls under WP:UNDUE --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"To base a whole section on such a quote is to create a section giving undue weight weight to one indirect quote."

Maybe, you missed it in the rest of the article, where Makelo calls for the UN Security Council to recognize the cannibalism that his people are suffering as a genocide, it was not just that one quote. Could it now be considered due weight? Editingman (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the article "Mr Makelo called on the forum to ask the UN Security Council to recognise cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide." That does not say that he considers the current acts are a crime against humanity and an act of genocide, but that Mr Makelo asked the council to consider recognising cannibalism as a crime against humanity and an act of genocide. Presumably if the forum had asked the security council to consider his proposal and said yes then he would argue that the situation in 2003 was a genocide. Were his requests put forward by the forum to the U.N. Security Council? Were they considered by the U.N. Security Council? If the answer is no in both cases then this would defiantly fall under WP:UNDUE. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article called "genocides in history" when it lists both genocides and alleged genocides? Seems to me a name change would be appropriate to more accurately reflect the content. Gatoclass (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only genocides that are universally accepted as such are described in Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime:

Article 6 – Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.[10] (my emphasis)

Not many states have signed up to this additional protocol but one can assume that during the negotiations it was the maximum that states would agree to. If one takes the case of the Armenian genocide which is perhaps the event most widely agreed to be a genocide by the scholars before the Holocaust, the British Government made its position clear in a statement by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale made in 1999 (Lords Hansard text for 14 Apr 1999 (190414-09)

The position of Her Majesty's Government, which the noble Baroness has asked us to review, is, I believe, well known and understood, but it certainly bears repeating here tonight. The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions. The British Government of today, like their predecessors, in no way dissent in any form from that view. Nor do we seek to deny or to play down the extent of that tragedy. It was a gruesome, horrifying tragedy, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords have echoed tonight. I assure them that we are in no way dissenting from that analysis of what happened, but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide".

Many other governments--and here I have to say to your Lordships, in spite of some of the statements that have been made tonight, the vast majority of other governments--are in a similar position. ...

I am not against renaming this article but with the exception of the Holocaust and those found to be genocides in an international court, along with some others found to be genocides in domestic courts (such as those in Brazil) other genocides are open to debate. This is bound to be so because although there can be agreement about the events, there can still be debate over whether the events represented a genocide because of the different definitions of what is a genocide, and if using the CPPCG definition if the "intent to destroy" and the "in part" requirements have been met. So Gatoclass how does one distinguish in a NPOV way between genocides and alleged genocides? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best not to divide the article itself up into "genocides" and "alleged genocides" I think. The content can probably speak for itself in each particular case. My concern is that someone who comes to this article and skips the intro will go away with the mistaken impression that every event he reads about on this page is generally accepted to be a genocide, because of the page title. That could be fixed just with a name change. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some names in mind ? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's this? A terrorist group (EOKA-B) was made the genocide to Turkish Cypriot in 1963 - 1974... And write to "Kanlı Noel" (Bloody Christmas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.203.82 (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite suprised that Leopold II's rule of the Congo as a Belgian colony is not on here. I am sadly not knowledgeable enough to add a section on it straightaway, but shall try to find some resources to make a start. Is there any reason why it has not been included thus far? Epa101 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See the archived talk pages:

• Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 4#Congo
• Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 5#Congo Free State

Last version to have a Congo section in the article was 2 August 2007. The last paragraph my help you find a reliable source

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is what Rudolph Rummel had to say on the subject.

1. http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/12/reevaluating-colonial-democide.html
2. http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/12/leopolds-congo-docudrama.html

It seems that the genocide has largely been overlooked by academics, so Wikipedia is the unfortunate position of not being able to cover it fully. King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa is mentioned by Rummel as the work that made him recognise the genocide. Perhaps, if someone [yes, I'll try myself too] can find a copy of that work, a paragraph or two could be added to this article with references from that book. Epa101 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just added this:

The Guardian reported in July 2002 that, after initial outrage by Belgian historians over King Leopold's Ghost, the state-funded Museum of the Belgian Congo would finance an investigation into Hochschild's allegations. The investigatory panel, likely to be headed by Professor Jean-Luc Vellut, was scheduled to report its findings in 2004 (Andrew Osborn Belgium exhumes its colonial demons The Guardian July 13, 2002). An exhibition by the Museum of the Belgian Congo, called "The Memory of Congo" (February 4, 2005 - October 9, 2005), claimed to tell the "truth" of what happened in Belgium's colony. Critics of the museum include Adam Hochschild, who wrote an article for the New York Review of Books extensively documenting what he found to be distortions and evasions in the special 2005 exhibition (Adam Hochschild In the Heart of Darkness, New York Review of Books, 26 October 2005).

to the article King Leopold's Ghost. But the Adam Hochschild includes in his article a paragraph that starts:

The exhibit deals with this question in a wall panel misleadingly headed “Genocide in the Congo?” 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.

So it seems this is not a section for this article just yet. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument here. Yes, there is a difference between working someone to death and killing them outright, although the line between these two does get blurred in some widely-accepted genocides, notably in Cambodia. At any rate, if the view that genocide occurred in the Congo is only a minority one, I concede that it should not be in the article just yet. Epa101 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Has any-one any good sources on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II as a Genocide in history? This source for example states that both de Zayas and Pohl argue that it was Genocide under the 1951 Genocide convention while Bell-Fialkoss seems to disagree. Anyone know of any other scholars/sources which take a position or mention the debate?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One point where caution has to be exercised is that any point of view about ethnic cleansing being genocide based on an interpretation of CPPCG before the Feb. 2007 International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgement on the Bosnian Genocide Case is out of date, (see European Court of Human Rights interpretation of the ICJ judgement). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is about Genocides in history, legal definitions change back and forth over time. How well do the other examples in this article comply with legal definitions, and are they cited to a scholar stating that based on this or that legal text/definition they are genocide? If so, have changes in modern law rendered those conclusions obsolete?

As far as I'm concerned the important part is to know which scholars have argued that it is genocide, on what grounds, and which scholars have argued that it is not genocide, and on what grounds. Wikipedia editors validating or invalidating the scholars arguments because law has been modified since they wrote their books is OR.

If by your comment above you mean that you wish to set strict definitions for what should be included or excluded from this or any other article I suggest you start with achieving consensus throughout affected articles on what should be included in a template such as this:

I wonder how much text will remain in the article. Meanwhile my question still stands, does anyone have any information?

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No I don't want a CPPCG only article, (after all I wrote most of the article genocide definitions). But at the start of this section you mentioned "for example states that both de Zayas and Pohl argue that it was Genocide under the 1951 Genocide convention while Bell-Fialkoss seems to disagree." I am merely pointing out that in recent years the interpretation of the CPPCG definition has been clarified by international court judgements and as such older scholarly works based on it are now out of date and to emphasise them probably falls foul of WP:UNDUE (as it is to use any old scientific theory that is now generally considered to be obsolete). Given these developments in international law how can you be sure that de Zayas and Pohl still argue the same way? In the words of Keynes "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?", in this case the facts of what constitutes a genocide under CPPCG have changed. Perhaps they think that the IJC was wrong, or perhaps they use one of the many other definitions to support their original assertions. Without a recent publication (post the ICJ case) by these scholars you can not be sure if they still hold the same point of view.

There are plenty of other definitions available that have been used and can be included without such legal interpretations. One I think is quite elegant is Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn's "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" (The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies, Yale University Press, 1990). If a scholarly article is written using that definition then the mass murder of many other groups other than those define in CPPCG can be described as genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply create a box where you state the rules you want everybody else here to follow here regarding what should not be included in the article, it can't be that hard. Or do you wish to reserve the option to judge for yourself each case according to ad-hoc criteria that best suit you at any given moment?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "cmptENen" :
  • [http://www.indictsharon.net/12feb2003dectrans.pdf English translation of Belgian Supreme Court Decision (unauthorised)], [[12 February]] [[2003]]
  • [http://www.indictsharon.net/cmptENen.pdf The complaint against Ariel Sharon] Lodged in Belgium on [[18 June]] [[2001]]
• "Rummel" :
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM |title= Statistics of Democide | work=Chapter 5, Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources |author=[[R. J. Rummel]] | accessdate = 2006-10-04}}
  • Rummel, Rudolph J., [http://www.Hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP8.HTM "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900"], ISBN 3-8258-4010-7, Chapter 8, table 8.1

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This deserves a mention in a new section, just like the Nazi Genocide in WWII, death toll about 8 - 30+ million. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the outlawing en masse of the Clan Gregor in Scotland in 1603 count as genocide? See the act of the Scottish Parliament of 1617 quoted in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the genocide of people of Chinese descent in vietnam and indonesia? 81.155.102.122 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080320205224.htm

Is very interesting because it shows how the populations under the Spanish empire have survived to this day in the majority, mixed or otherwise. Of course the populations of Latin America suffered their share, like all popualtions that were stripped of their lands and civilizations, but the Angl Saxon model has been sadly much more horrible. The question is simple. Where are these native populations in North America and what per centage of the present population do they represent? Because they happen to be the majority in Latin America.

Population genetics is showing that the genocide committted in North America, the US and Canada, must have been of horrif dimentions. Populations genetics is showinf that virtually everiwhere in the world the native popualtions contin ue to represent the majority of the population, in Latin America or elsewherek, with different degrees of admixture, with the notable exception of some countries, namely the US, Cana or Australia.

The US and Canada extend over a territory of more than 20 million square kilometeres, twice the size of China, and today, it can be assured, the population that comes from the Native American peoples has virtually died out. The scale aand degree of this of this genocide North of the Border of Mexico has been systematically ignored or downplayed, without doubt due to the American and Anglo Saxon control of recednt history and the information channnels, another step in the humiliation of the people that were obliterated. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.158.30 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Someone may want to check this in more detail, but I used to have a secretary who was native (north) American. She claimed there were more native americans alive today than when Columbus landed. Hunter gatherer societies just don't feed many people per square mile.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Goingoveredge you are following my contributions on wikipedia and reverting them from a long time like this, which you did on this article as well. What is your contention with this information that you deleted? --RoadAhead ^Discuss 14:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See here this is the issue. The anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984 can be legitimately called a pogrom, since Sikhs were targeted by Congress (I) mobs, but the term genocide has a precise scholarly meaning that was laid out and, for a massacre to qualify as a genocide, it has to involve the military, or an equivalent militia, and the death tolls has to be in the 4 figures at least (such as the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, for instance). Plus, a clear unambiguous intent has to exist to exterminate a particular ethnic group. the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom does not qualify as a genocide because neither of those happened. The attacks on the Sikhs typically involved civilian party members armed with knives, sticks etc. It would have been a genocide if a large well-organised militia went to Punjab (where most Sikhs live), and went from house-to-house, picking off Sikhs and killing them. That did not happen. The Congress (I) were a bunch of cheap goondas, to be sure. But they weren't stupid goondas. If they really wanted to wipe out the entire Sikh community of the world then they would have done a better job of it.

In the case of South Asia, we have to be very specific on this. If we follow the politically motivated loose definitions of genocide, then just about every targeted riot in the last 60 years, including the anti-Ahmadiyya riots in Pakistan, the Marad massacre, the Wandhama massacre, the anti-Muhajir riots in Pakistan, the Kherlanji massacre, and others would qualify as genocides and the article would get peppered with cruft. Best to leave it in the pogrom article where it belongs.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)