Wikipedia: Major cases of genocide and democide/Talk

Reasoning under merging:

These lists overlapped a lot
Every genocide is democide anyway, so having second (genocide) list just for a subset of democides doesn't seem useful
It seems more useful to have this information in one place
Desync between these two lists would make a lot of mess, and many potential editors were unaware that there was a second list Taw

It is not true that every instance of a genocide is a democide! Mass sterilizations or removal of children can constitute genocide, but these are not democide because they don't involve any killings. Sure, the lists will overlap a fair bit, but they are quite distinct concepts. I think that having a list with both will only add to the common misunderstanding that genocides only involve killing, or that all killings are genocides.

I agree that distinct notions should be treated on separate pages. "Democide" refers to killing by government (the nature of the perpetrator is the basis for deciding whether or not something is a democide). "Genocide" refers to killing based on ethnicity (the nature of the victims is the basis here). I suspect that some genocides were perpetrated by groups without being ordered by governmental bodies, so wouldn't qualify as democides. Events should be classified carefully.

As an old fellow and very strong supporter of the Wikipedia project, I would condemn any actions that would harm the project. Anybody who would find this discussion too harsh to be demonstrated among Wikipedia pages or who believes that these sentences were written for reasons other than scientific concerns will be very much welcome to delete this message. However, as a responsible wikipedian, I find myself commissioned to discuss this topic. It is very easy to write on disputable facts based on falsified documents, faked pictures and exaggerated figures that would only distort history and the definition of genocide. Wikipedians should be very careful about not including the questionable subjects as sheer and undiscussible facts and should also not forget that this is not an area of discussion and debate. This is the very reason that I do not simply change or delete these statements (about Young Turks) and instead try discussing them. This kind of authorship can give harm to the essence of Wikipedia project. I have difficulty in understanding why these two following statements were added to genocide articles and I want to believe that they were not very unfortunately included for simple purposes of propaganda and partisanship. It is difficult to find any relation between the prohibition of the use of the Kurdish language and the concept of genocide. This statement has already been repeated in numerous articles that seem to be more closely related with this issue. As to the Armenian genocide question, it should not be forgotten that this is still a historical hypothesis that is dominantly advertised by the Armenian diaspora and is still pending for reliable proofs. There are scholars working on this issue all over the world and some accept the existence of a possible genocide, while some do not. Both sides have reliable and emotional proofs for their own beliefs. The supporters of the Armenian genocide are showing the pictures of the burried remnants of Armenian people killed by Ottoman soldiers, whereas the supporters of the other side is showing the pictures of Turkish people, who were killed by Armenian soldiers. It is not fair to base such a disputable issue by just showing one single reference. I can find lots of debateful articles in Britannica about Turkey or Turkish people and I can also give other references which do not support the existence of a genocide.

http://azerbaycan.hypermart.net/tragedy.htm

http://azerbaycan.hypermart.net/testimony.htm

I will not copy and paste these references because of the copyright restrictions. What I understand from the discussions about this issue is shortly as follows: The ethnic struggles between Turkish and Armenian communities began about two centuries ago. As the Ottoman Empire weakened, Russia and Great Britain provoked one of the main ethnic groups of the Ottoman State, the Armenians to uprise in the eastern parts of the Empire. First sporadic clashes were seen between the Turkish and Armenian settlements. When the Russian army began to invade Eastern Anatolia in World War I, the Armenian gangs with the helps of Russian army, started systematic attacks against Ottoman troops and their civilian Turkish citizens. The same gangs are also accused of cutting the supply lines of the Ottoman army, which was fighting with the invading Russian forces. Under these circumstances, the Ottoman Government decided to relocate the Armenians to the other provinces in the Empire. The reason for that was to prevent the fights between Turkish and Armenian communities and cut the support extended by the Armenian towns to the Russians. During the period of this enforced delocation, hostilities between two communities and famine heavily affected the Armenian people. The policy of enforced delocation was a routine application for Ottoman Empire and it had been applied to a variety of communities including Turkish people. Young Turks were guilty for not protecting their citizens duely and also by applying this primitive and ancient policy. However, not only Armenians but many other Ottoman citizens suffered from these treatments throughout centuries and they never seem to carry any intention of giving end to an entire ethnicity. By contrast, it is possible to see many Armenian people in the highest ranks of the Ottoman hierarchy (ministers, architects etc). Any researchers working on Young Turks can easily agree that these people never carried ideologies related with the termination of any community. Indeed, the fact that the same events did not affect tens of thousands of Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, living in Istanbul (then the capital of Ottoman Empire) is the strongest evidence why this incident can not be labeled as ‘genocide’. It is also worth mentioning that in the time frame subject to those claims, an Armenian, Noradounghian Efendi, served as the Ottoman Foreign Minister. Moreover, it has been stated in some official records (see references) that when the British forces (who had complete control over all Ottoman official records) occupied Istanbul after World War I, they admitted that they could not find any evidence of an organized genocide against Armenians. I do not say that I know what the truth is but I just want to draw attention to the other side of this discussion and to remind that we must be very careful when we are writing such sensitive and debateful articles that could easily be abused for political reasons. I do not find myself authorized to change this article, since I am not an expert of this subject. However, I would like to delete the statement about the ban of Kurdish language, since it has already been stated in more relevant articles and request the writer of these statements to make more careful inspections on this issue. We must be very careful about these statements for some mentally sick people could more easily find reasons for their aggressive actions and it should not be forgotten that many innocent people were already killed by such people in this context. [ErdemTuzun]

Well, the evidence has been sufficent enough to convince the French National Assembly, the European Parliament, the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the U.S. Congress, the Belgian Senate, the Parliaments of Sweden, Greece, Lebanon, Canada, Cyprus, Uruguay and Argentina, and the Pope. To the best of my knowledge the only country which denies it happened is Turkey. I'd much rather trust international opinion than the Turkey. -- SJK

And, who will decide about historical facts, the parliaments or scientists? This message of yours is a very good example of how this issue has been made a toy of politics. It is so unbeliavable to give the decisions of parliaments as a source for an encyclopedia article. Isn't it funny enough to see that parliaments are voting for a historical event? An encyclopedia should not include the beliefs and suggestions of institutions or persons or rumors about a fact. Parliaments work for the wellfare of their people not for increasing scientific accuracy. Their decisions may be highly biased for political reasons. The decisions of parliaments can not therefore be accepted as reliable sources when the issue is writing an article for an encyclopedia. I would also like you to think over why the same parliaments are not voting for other genocides listed in this article (i.e. Indian massacre). Moreover, as far as I can remember the US congress recently denied to officially accept Armenian genocide. I am very disappointed that you took this issue as a political debate. I would expect you to bring more scientific clues to enrich the discussion. It is obvious that there are efforts aimed at portraying the Armenians as the sole victims of the events that took place in the First World War. It is also clear that there is a desire to convert these pains into a political source of hatred aimed at a national identity. I just wanted to draw the attentions of all Wikipedians on that issue. [ErdemTuzun]

Well, parliaments frequently base their decisions on expert testimony, such as from historians. And I can't see what politicial purpose all these bodies expressing these views might have. Okay, Greece, Cyprus and Lebanon don't like Turkey, so I suppose we can exclude them. And maybe the Pope is trying to get the Armenian Orthodox Church on side. But what do France, Belgium, Sweden, the U.S., Italy, Belgium, Uruguay, the European Union and the Council of Europe have against Turkey?

On another issue, I deleted this article. It duplicates the content already at genocide and democide. And the whole idea of merging them was mistaken. They are separate concepts. They sometimes overlap, but at other times they don't. Putting examples of two separate concepts together in the one list just leads to confusion. -- SJK

Although I find our discussion satisfying, I am writing this message to answer your question. The problem is that you are always bringing proofs that will support your article and ignore the others that are against it. Please have a look at the following site:

[| US Congress withdraws Armenian genocide resolution]

As you may see, there does not seem to be a real agreement between different senates. So, why did the US congress refrain from even discussing this issue? Were they less eligible than other parliaments? Or were they satisfied by expert reports that these events did not really occur? Probably not. They just did not want to lose an important ally as Turkey (or perhaps not). This is my point. You can never be sure about what kind of political issues they are involved in. Knowledge and understanding are entirely different things. Many of the parliaments that you listed above may have voted for the genocide for the sake of not losing the votes of many Armenian citizens that are living in high amounts in these countries. Among these countries, USA is the only country that there are also high amounts of Turkish people. Assume that you are supposed to give a decision about the reliability of open heart surgery. Would you find yourself eligible enough to give decision about that even after listening to tens of expert reports about the advantages and disadvantages of this procedure? This is not a different situation. That is the reason why I do not find the decisions of parliaments reliable for an encyclopedia article.

It is true that Turkey is the only country that disagrees with the genocide but it does agree that some bad events have occurred on this region. The question is whether this should be called as a genocide or not. Turkey is not in disagreement because it assumes that it is the continuum of Ottoman Empire. In my own belief, the relationship between Turkey and Ottoman Empire is not more than the relationship between USA and British Empire. The point is that many of those admirable parliament members are voting for the genocide after listening to the witness reports and pictures about mass murders. I am really doubtful that the pictures and reports of the Turkish people that have died in this region are ever presented to them. Turkish government is in contradiction with that hypothesis because they feel themselves compelled to listen to the voices of several Turkish citizens whose grandrelatives have been killed or died in very similar situations in the very same region and therefore are sensitive about this issue.

I would like to carry my discussion to Democide and Genocide pages, if you don't mind.[ErdemTuzun]