Talk:Genocides in history (before World War I)

Removal of Hamidian massacres

Many scholars, such as the Mkrtich G. Nersisyan, Ruben Sahakyan, John Kirakosyan, Yehuda Bauer, Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi in their book The Thirty-Year Genocide, subscribe to the view that the mass killings of 1894–1896 were the first phase of the Armenian Genocide. As such they should not be removed from the article. Khirurg (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mid-importance or High-importance?

Several projects associated with this article (notably, WikiProject Human rights) so far tag this article as being of "Mid-importance". Should this article be rated as High importance, at least within the WikiProject Human rights? Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Should the Albigensian Crusade section be moved?

The section on the Albigensian Crusade is listed under 1492 to 1914. Since it happened in the 13th century, shouldn't it be moved to before 1492? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maximajorian Viridio: Good catch! Yeah that should be moved to the correct section, I'm not sure how that was not noticed before. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Corn in Gallia?

How can Caesar and his men destroy all the corn in Gallia centuries before corn was introduced to Europe? --2001:14BA:16E9:B600:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is in British English, so presumably uses corn in the sense of what Americans would call grain. --2001:8003:1D0D:301:BCB2:1CBB:4089:E9C2 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Only Americans use the term "corn" to refer to maize. Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Neanderthals

This information was removed, with the following edit summary: "Removed more undue weight given to a fringe theory. These are not reliable authors." Your thoughts?

Hypotheses which suggest that genocidal violence may have caused the extinction of the Neanderthals have been offered by several authors, including Jared Diamond and Ronald Wright. However, several scholars have formed alternative theories as to why the Neanderthals died out, which means there is no clear consensus as to what caused their extinction within the scientific community.

References

Neolithic period

This information was removed, with the following edit summary: "Isolated mass graves of ~30 people are quite obviously not "proof of genocide" in prehistory." Your thoughts?

The mass grave near Schletz, part of Asparn an der Zaya, was located about 33 kilometres to the north of Vienna, Austria, and dates back about 7,500 years. Schletz, just like the Talheim Death Pit, is one of the earliest known sites in the archaeological record that shows proof of genocide in Early Neolithic Europe, among various LBK tribes.

References

Indo-European migrations

This information was removed, with the following edit summary: "Rm. synthesis of primary archaeogenetic studies. We only have one scholar (Kristiansen) mentioning the word genocide, and even that is only an interview, so highly undue to base an entire section on it." Your thoughts?

The Neolithic farmers, called the Early European Farmers (EEF), migrated from Anatolia to the Balkans in large numbers during the 7th millennium BC. Around 3,000 BC, people of the pastoralist Yamnaya culture from the Pontic–Caspian steppe, who had high levels of WSH ancestry, embarked on a massive expansion throughout Eurasia, which is considered to be associated with the dispersal of the Indo-European languages by most contemporary linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists. The expansion of WSHs resulted in the virtual disappearance of the Y-DNA of Early European Farmers (EEFs) from the European gene pool, significantly altering the cultural and genetic landscape of Europe. EEF mtDNA however remained frequent, suggesting admixture between WSH males and EEF females. More than 90% of Britain's Neolithic gene pool was replaced with the coming of the Beaker people, who were around 50% WSH ancestry. Danish archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen said he is "increasingly convinced there must have been a kind of genocide." According to geneticist David Reich, "The collision of these two populations was not a friendly one, not an equal one, but one where the males from outside were displacing local males and did so almost completely."

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking at your addition too as it looked unsound to me. Most of the info is about the tribe and not about the events. It seems to be based upon an opinion of one person: Kristian Kristiansen. David Reich does not back up the claim of genocide. The addition also lacks peer reviewed scientific sources.

Conclusion: the removal was correct. The Banner talk 10:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't much to say beyond what I put in the edit summary. Eminent as Professor Kristiansen is, a single offhand comment from him in a sensationalist pop science article doesn't constitute a significant viewpoint in reliable sources. And in general we need to bear in mind that Indo-European studies is a rapidly evolving field right now, with different primary sources coming to radically different conclusions; and that news media and pop science coverage of these topics tends to be extremely unreliable. Secondary, scholarly sources are always preferable and I don't think you'll find any significant support for the notion of an Indo-European 'genocide' in those. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Irish Famine?

It's time to review the literature to assess whether or not the framing of the Great Famine in Ireland as a "genocide" is fringe (spoiler alert: it undoubtedly is). This has become an issue on the main article for this subject, where there are frequent attempts to insert fringe and often non-scholarly povs into the relevant section. But at least that article is the right place for that sort of discussion -on a general article on pre-20th Century genocides, only those events which have generated mainstream scholarly consensus as genocides should be included. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1 did you not read what the entry actually says? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I read what it says. "A small number of historians believe that the Great Famine of Ireland (1845–1852) was a genocide." It's more like: "Virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews the genocide position"[1]. The section says as much when it cites Liam Kennedy and Donald Akenson in the next paragraph.

So, fringe, and, undue. The place to hash out the debate about pseudo-historical genocide theories is on the main Irish Famine article, not to list it on a main article about genocides only to say "most historians don't believe this was a genocide." Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree, having an event in this list that's not considered a genocide by most relevant historians is decidedly odd. Gawaon (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So you've read that it states what you argue is the case, and yet you disagree with it still somehow? Thanks for your contributions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I am currently working through updating entries with some of the recent literature published on the matter by relevant scholars in reputable publications, and among these are more individuals who discuss the Great Famine. The Great Famine has been a case of interest in genocide studies since the field's early development, and there is a lot of literature around it, but some would rather disregard all literature from genocide studies outright in this case. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that you have a fake genocide listed in the article. It doesn't matter what the section says; it shouldn't be listed at all.

Please stop adding to the article -two editors have called for the section's removal and you do not have consensus to add anything new as this section is now contested. Look at the sources you just added -two law professors who have no academic background in history, and a short article in a conference proceedings book by Neysa King. Who is Neysa King? While this person may have obtained a Master's degree (in something), they are not a professional academic. Note the opening line in King's chapter:

""Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."[2]

So, King admits right out the gate that this view is incredibly fringe. Please do not add to this section untl this is resolved. This may have to go to dispute resolution, although this would be a waste of everyone's time. The academic consensus against this position is quite clear here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Another day and another obscure scholar you've added to expand the section that's been in dispute since August. Who the hell is Robbie McVeigh?

As far as "genocide studies" goes -I suppose to some Wiki editors one scholar is much like another, but the people in this field tend to lack any specialization in British or Irish history (never mind the specific period we're dealing with), and their opinions, to the extent they are consistent on this point, would be at odds with the historians working in this area, as indicated in several sources cited here.

Stop trawling the web for scholars who say what you want the article to say. Cite an RS in talk indicating that there's some unanimous agreement in genocide studies on the question of the Irish Famine, and if you can't do that then you've got a weak case against removal. Wikipedia isn't a political soapbox. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You have some harsh comments here, Jonathan f1. You should know that the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. The Banner talk 22:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's factor in what's happening here: sources were produced showing clear academic consensus that the Irish Famine was not genocidal. Two editors, myself and Gawaon, are of the opinion that it should not be listed here on the grounds of WP:Fringe theories as indicated by RSes. So what does this other editor do? He starts adding more content backed by an assortment of scholars with no relevant historical background, random 'genocide studies' scholars challenging the consensus, and one individual who isn't a professional academic of any kind (and who admits to bucking a consensus). And now you've jumped in here, as you often do in Irish spaces, to defend this editor and tone police me.

This is the type of behavior that discourages people from contributing to the encyclopedia. This could go to dispute resolution, but I feel like that'd be a waste of everyone's time. The burden's on you to demonstrate that the consensus in this field has shifted. If you claim these genocide theories are political pov, then the place to cover that controversy is on the Irish Famine article, not a general article on historical genocides. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is your behaviour that is discouraging other editors. Please re-read why you have a partial block for article space. The Banner talk 23:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with my "behavior" on talk pages, was actually an unusually harsh ruling that I could contest at any time, and isn't something that could be used to shut me down on talk, as you attempt to do by bringing this up every single time I raise an issue and ask you for sourcing. You know very well that a partial article space block hasn't anything to do with talk page behavior. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)