Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Renewed revert warring

I have undone this problematic edit which has an edit summary stating:

(Reason was given at talk. Get concensus before making controversial, massive changes to the article. There are now 5 editors who oppose your different changes.)

Closer examination of this problematic edit revealed it is actually a clever rollback of the last 30+ edits by multiple editors to a version containing Etsybetsy's preferred content. That is a problematic version implemented without first establishing consensus, as requested by Administrator User:EdJohnston, who notes Etsybetsy's claim to consensus "looks to be full of synthesis". I agree with that polite understatement. In addition to introducing objectionable content without consensus, Etsybetsy's edit also inserted a misquotation, removed spelling corrections, reference formatting, new reliably sourced content additions, and additional reliable source citations for existing content.

The edit summary claims "5 edits oppose your different changes", which couldn't possibly be more vague and uninformative (and wrong). Looking at the Talk page above, I see concerns only from Etsybetsy and Stumink, and I believe I've addressed the issues raised by Stumink and resolved those. Who else am I missing that has raised concerns here "opposing" the recent changes? The edit summary also says "Get concensus [sic] before making controversial, massive changes to the article"; which may be a reasonable request in general - but I haven't made any "massive" or "controversial" edits. If you think something is "controversial", could you please indicate specifically what it is so we can discuss and resolve your concerns about it? The edits I, and the other editors, have made are normal article development and improvement edits, and as such don't require your prior approval. If you plan to undo someone's edit, you'll need to explain why so your concerns can be addressed here, which you have not done. You've not made a single comment about the edits you've undone, including those on the Canada schools, the Mandans, the correct spelling of Kyrgyz, Moses as a source, etc.

One final note: Would you, Etsybetsy, be willing to join me in a moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to resolve whatever remaining content concerns you may have? If you agree, I can fill out all the paperwork and get the process started for us. Please let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I did the same revert as Tobby72, reverting to the last stable edition. I told Ed I'll ask Rocky for clearer statement which he gave. What would you even suggest taking to the noticeboard? The fact that you remove sourced content part of the stable version? Etsybetsy (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly; You did the same revert as Tobby72. Tobby72 picked an arbitrary old version, called it a "stable version" (it's not, there were several edits in the 48 hours before and after that version), and reverted to it without explanation. That wiped away 30+ non-controversial article improvement edits. Exactly what you have done, and it is disruptive. You also appear to be weirdly claiming that Tobby72 "opposes" my edits, yet he has said no such thing. It looks to me like he opposes Stumink's and Wbm1058's edits. We won't know until he comes here and gives his reasoning for his proposed rollback.

What would you even suggest taking to the noticeboard? The fact that you remove sourced content part of the stable version?

I would take to the noticeboard any content issues with this article with which you still have concerns. I've moved, removed and reworded several items of "sourced content", each for different applicable reasons. Can you please be more specific as to exactly what content you have concerns with, and what that concern is? If not, I'll assume you are arguing to not have Amherst mentioned in the article because it is "fringe", and we'll start with that.

I told Ed I'll ask Rocky for clearer statement which he gave.

What you told Ed was: That's what there was, a talk thread with all of the people participating where the consensus was stated. Do you want it in even clearer terms from RockyMtnGuy? I can just ask him to state it more clearly... A clearer statement of consensus is what you wanted, but what RockyMtnGuy gave instead was his personal opinion about the subject matter. Here is the actual response given by RockyMtnGuy, which is still on this Talk page above:

My opinion is that if you mention the Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident at all, it should be nuanced because in the context of genocide it is something of an urban myth and an example of historical negationism. You should note that the incident cannot really be genocide by germ warfare because, 1) The germ theory was not developed by scientists until much later and at that time nobody knew what caused smallpox, 2) It wouldn't have worked anyway because smallpox cannot be spread by giving people infected blankets, 3) It wasn't British policy to kill the Indians, it was just an isolated incident by a rogue commander, and 4) His commander in Chief, George III, recalled Amherst to London and put a stop to the French and Indian wars that year by granting the Indians what they wanted. However, if you mention smallpox, in the interest of balance you should also mention syphilis, which apparently was transmitted in the reverse direction in the Columbian Exchange, and is a counterexample to the charge of genocide.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

When I pressed Rocky for his reliable sources for his assertions, including points 1 through 4, he decided he would rather can vegetables. No surprise there. It's all still on this page above. Rocky has tried and failed to convey that very same personal opinion of his in a related article, and was told his original research doesn't work here by yet another editor. Rocky also didn't say a word about the establishment of this "consensus" you keep claiming to have, perhaps because he knows that there can never be a consensus to introduce unsourced personal opinion into Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

So here's an offer for you. Let's ask Ed. You told Ed that you had consensus for the contested edits you reverted (against his warning) into the article: User_talk:Etsybetsy#Another_revert_at_Genocides_in_history.3F in this discussion. Ed disagreed, saying that your argument about achieving consensus "looked to be full of synthesis". You offered to have RockyMtnGuy more clearly state where consensus was achieved, but instead Rocky just presented his personal opinion on the content while declining to provide the requested reliable sources. If Ed says he is now satisfied that you have achieved consensus for the contested edits you keep reverting into the article (as recently as today), then I'll agree to stop removing them. If Ed says he is not satisfied that you have achieved consensus (or if Ed simply ignores this), then you agree to cease your revert warring. In either case, I'd like you to work with me through the dispute resolution channels to resolve whatever remaining content concerns you have. Fair enough? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:EdJohnston Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I got the message, and I am looking forward to hearing whether User:Etsybetsy will respond to Xenophrenic's suggestion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I became tired of his edit warring and took a break, and meanwhile he's been edit warring with Tobby as well over the same matter? Tobby made an edit warring noticeboard listing too.

How many editors have you edit warred here over the exact same matter now? The fact that you haven't gotten blocked has just encouraged you to edit war even more blatantly against concensus.

And I asked in clear whether the edit belongs or not and Rocky wrote in clear of course it does. Before that and after that he has stated multiple times that he opposes your edits. What else do you want? Rocky to make the edit himself? No one else but you is willing to participate in this constant edit warring.

You againt misrepresent by stating an editor didn't want Rocky's edit "here", but that's another article you linked to and another article you've been edit warring at. This is the kind of utterly vandal-like and bothersome talk edits you do there and here. Whenever someone points out your bad behavior at an article you remove it and add the rpa template. Your bad behavior at an article explained politely is pertinent to that article. You're deliberately misinterpreting Wikipedia rules.

I asked what do you want listed at dispute resolution noticeboard. The fact that you keep removing the testimonies against the Amherst case again? This kind of removal of content sourced by all the sources YOU USE is incredibly vandal-like too and I can't believe Ed is just letting it slide again and again.

What is your other suggestion now? Are we asking about concensus or edits? This is just some delay plan of yours to make it seem like you're not currently edit warring against multiple editors. I'll ask some other admin to take a closer look into this matter because this is incredible. Etsybetsy (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Responding to your only comment related to article improvement:

I asked what do you want listed at dispute resolution noticeboard. The fact that you keep removing the testimonies against the Amherst case again? --Etsybetsy

Okay, let us start with that. I am unaware of any "testimonies against the Amherst case", but if you can quote the exact content and reliable source here, I'll take that information to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and open a request for assistance. Let's see if some uninvolved volunteer input can help us with what you are trying to do here. Alright? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

The author's treatment of the Zulu Kingdom and the mfecane grossly exaggerates reality, actively perpetuates misinformation, and should be deleted. I would point to Norman Etherington's 'The Great Treks,' particularly his citation of Julian Cobbing, as well as the work of Paul Landau, all of whom have irrefutably disproved this colonial fiction.

Bonesaw7791 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits - original population estimates & disease

I've moved a couple paragraphs from this article, which consisted only of argumentation about what the pre-Columbian indigenous populations might have been before dying off due to disease, to the article on Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. While some later population background information is necessary and relevant to the subject of this article, the whole "how many were here before Columbus arrived" debate is beyond the scope of this article. An editor (Stumink) recently re-added some of this information, with an edit summary stating:

(The diseases in important since Stannard described the entire death toll as genocide even though most source describe it otherwise.)

and also:

(Population history is frequently and closely talked about with reference to the genocide question. It also relevent since we have sources on this page describing the disease induced population decline as part of the genocide.)

I've reviewed the Stannard sources (as well as the others), and I am not seeing where Stannard "described the entire death toll as genocide". Could the editor please indicate the specific sources here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to this "the destruction of the American aboriginals population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history". Stumink (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of disease there, and that isn't a specific source - that's a sentence from our article. I was asking for a specific source. You've added a lead sentence to the 'Americas' section which states:

From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas to the end of the 19th century, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined precipitously, mostly from diseases brought from Europe, from over 50 million to 1.8 million, a decline of 96%.

That says nothing about "genocide", and neither does the cited source for that sentence. (There are other problems with the sentence which can be addressed later, if it is to be used. I've removed it for now.) Please keep in mind that this article is about genocide. So that sentence is completely out of place (and a rather undue breach of our NPOV policies) as the lead to that section. I also find it curious that you would say in your edit summary that depopulation by disease is "important" only to Stannard "even though most source describe it otherwise", yet you would try to make a sentence about depopulation only by disease the lead for that section? Odd. If you'd like to expand on the disease role in depopulation in this article, we could certainly discuss that. Could you please explain why, and indicate your sources?

Stannard's position, as he explains in the prologue to his book which we cite: "It is true, in a plainly quantitative sense of body counting, that the barrage of disease unleashed by the Europeans among the so-called 'virgin soil' populations of the Americas caused more deaths than any other force of destruction." But he insists that should not be the focus of this discussion. "From almost the instant of first human contact between Europe and the Americas firestorms of microbial pestilence and purposeful genocide began laying waste the American natives. Although at times operating independently, for most of the long centuries of devastation that followed 1492, disease and genocide were interdependent forces acting dynamically--whipsawing their victims between plague and violence, each one feeding upon the other, and together driving countless numbers of entire ancient societies to the brink--and often over the brink--of total extermination. In the pages that lie ahead we will examine the causes and the consequences of both these grisly phenomena. But since the genocidal component has so often been neglected in recent scholarly analysis of the great American Indian holocaust, it is the central purpose of this book to..." Note that Stannard distinguishes between the catastrophic depopulation from disease (the topic of the afore-mentioned Population article), and the actual genocide perpetrated on natives (the topic in this article). If we're going to have content here about death from disease, it should be presented as it relates to the topic of this article. Don't you agree? Wikipedia policy does.

...we have sources on this page describing the disease induced population decline as part of the genocide.

Please specify those sources here, so we can take a closer look at them, Genocide isn't mentioned in any of the sources you added for the first sentence you placed in the lead of the section, nor in the three sentences you added near the conclusion of the section. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you (Stumink) have resumed editing rather than address the concerns and questions outlined above. Shall I assume that the sources you mentioned will not be made available? Please let me know if you'd like to resume discussion on the matter. I've made the following improvements to the article:

• removed the "human rights abuses" verbiage not conveyed by the cited source
• removed the paragraph about disease with no correlation to genocide, the subject of this article, in either the text or the sources
• moved the Fort Pitt out of USA section (USA didn't yet exist)
• moved text about "genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas" from USA-specific section into the section about peoples of the Americas
• Fixed a redundancy (2 sentences both saying there is a dispute among scholars on whether it should be described as genocide): "Some scholars characterize the experience of ... colonization ... as genocide... others dispute." & "Some historians disagree that genocide ... should be used to describe the colonization experience"
• Returned mysteriously deleted reliably sourced 1769 figures that natives only comprised one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million, and Balboa content

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just checking in here (again) to see if there has been any response or explanation for the recent edits and unexplained deletions of reliably sourced content. You have apparently opted out of discussion, and your deletions were re-implemented by another editor. I do see that you have left some brief comments in the edit summaries, so I'll do my best to respond to those below, but I think it would be more productive if we actually discussed those concerns here. Please consider it.

Edit summary: (My objection is that it is using a source arguing there was a genocide to lead the section. There is also no need to reiterate Stannard's position twice.)

I don't understand your objection. This is an article about genocide, and the section is about genocide in the Americas, so of course the sources used will convey that there was a genocide. In fact, it is required that they do. That's rather a no-brainer. You added the following sentence to the very beginning of the section: "Some scholars characterize the experience of Native Americans during the colonization of the Americas as genocide or genocidal whilst others dispute this characterization." There are at least two problems with that proposed addition. (1) The most obvious problem, it is unsourced. (2) It also appears to set up a false equivalency with no substantiation. Of course there are some people who may question or voice disagreement, and we can mention that, but we certainly don't create a section on genocide by first adding content that says it isn't genocide, followed by the content on genocide. I've re-ordered those paragraphs. Please let me know if you disagree. As for reiterating Stannard's position twice, you'll need to be more specific. Are you saying Stannard sources cannot be cited more than once?

Edit summary: (Re-added sentence describing debate and removed redundancies referring to some historian. I also removed some of the specific instance of referenced described atrocities since it is undue to mention any given atrocity that is vaguely related to genocide.)

Of course we shouldn't name every single genocidal atrocity; that would take many pages. That's why we don't, and we have only a small sample. If you feel that specific content may be undue, could you please specify here which content, and explain why you feel it is "undue"? When you refer to "some historian" or "some instance", I can't make heads or tails out of what exact content you have concerns with, or why. Likewise, if you feel something is redundant, please be specific as to what (see my example above where I quoted the redundant parts). I'm not seeing the redundancies you say are there.

Edit summary: (Retained some of the more specific examples. However there is no need to reference the Fort Pitt instance twice and the Mandan incident makes no refererence to genocide)

I agree that there is no need to reference Fort Pitt twice, which is why it is only referenced once. And I added a source by Dirk Moses which explicitly includes the Mandans in the reference to genocide. Let me know if that addresses your concern sufficiently.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The massive changes you're making have now been reverted by multiple editors. Please, suggest and discuss any hefty, controversial change here at the talk first. It's what you were warned about at the edit warring noticeboard. Please also don't change the Amherst bit without getting prior concensus here first.

As per your edit:

You changed from a section mentioning disease as the foremost cause of loss of life in the Americas but also heavily describing the crimes of the colonialists into just describing that Europeans and "white" Americans perpetrated crimes against the natives? I also don't know why in the worlds you had to specify white in such a editorializing way. Etsybetsy (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't made any "hefty, controversial changes" to the article. As for your request that I not "change the Amherst bit", which "bit" are you talking about, specifically? If you have concerns with any edit I make, I would be happy to discuss that with you, but you will have to express your concern here. I'm not a mind reader.

Regarding one of my edits, the sentence I added reads: Over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." There was no "editorializing", as the description "Europeans and white Americans" came directly from the reliable source. I've no objection, of course, to using alternate wording that still conveys the same meaning from the source. Do you have any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that you have resumed editing without suggesting alternate wording you would find suitable. Please let me know if that is still an outstanding concern of yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That one "sentence" you added you put as the lead of the section. It's from a blatantly sided source, not representing the center view of the matter.

The next paragraph begins with your fringe Amherst case. You removed the testimonies against that. You blatantly use it to push your view that in the American West they committed genocide with smallpox, wiping all of the natives at this time; even though pretty much all sources agree the native population decrease happened long before and from the smallpox spread by the conquistadors. Etsybetsy (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the paragraph which leads the section on Genocide in the Americas:

Over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." [-Stannard] The indigenous peoples of the Americas have experienced massacres, torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination. [-Ortiz]

The peer-reviewed work published by Oxford (Stannard), and the paper by the Native American history professor (Ortiz), do present the position that indigenous peoples of the Americas suffered genocide. I don't understand what you mean by "It's from a blatantly sided source". The subject of the article section is about genocide in the Americas, and that's what they write about. What sources "represent the center view of the matter", so I can read up on this center view?

The next paragraph begins with your fringe Amherst case.

No, it doesn't. It begins with Balboa's exclamations of genocidal intent in the 16th century. Then it mentions Ecuyer's genocidal act in the 1700s. Then it clarifies that we can't know if such acts were effective, but mentions the historian's view on the use of biological warfare by various parties "as an ignoble means to an end" against the Indians. Then it mentions Amherst's exclamations of genocidal intent. Then it mentions genocidal actions against the Mandans in the 1800s. So that paragraph appears to be a chronological sample of the events. What exactly is "fringe" about Amherst? And I don't recall him ever appearing before a court, but if someone testified against him I would be very interested in seeing the source. Could you produce it (or them), please?

You blatantly use it to push your view...

No, you misunderstand. "My" view is completely different, and doesn't appear in our article. The views you are reading in our article is that of Stannard, and Ortiz, and Thornton, and Moses, et al.

...they committed genocide with smallpox, wiping all of the natives at this time

Really? Our sources do not say that and neither does our article. Where are you getting that? Our sources don't say that the early decimation of native populations because of disease has anything to do with genocide (although it did make the later genocide easier because there were far fewer natives). Our article only mentions the few intentional acts to spread smallpox to illustrate the intent and mindset at the time, while making clear that we cannot know if they were effective or not. So I'll ask you again, where in our article does it convey that the 90% drop in populations due to disease during the first century has anything to do with genocide? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Stannard as a source has been discussed on this and related pages. His methodology, perspective and accuracy have all been called into serious question by historians and researchers. --Tobby72 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tobby72: His work has certainly been discussed several times, but I'm not sure that there's been consensus as to his being fringe. Can you point to any other related articles where there has been consensus on the matter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Every researcher worth his salt has had his or her work "called into question"; that's also an euphemism for peer-review. Now if you are suggesting that findings and conclusions published by a cited researcher (such as Stannard) have been effectively refuted, then we will need to review that. Can you be more specific than "on this and related pages", please? Oh -- and please stop reverting to what you claim is "the last stable version" when it is nothing of the sort. That's disruptive. If you have specific concerns with specific content, please convey them here so they may be addressed and resolved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just reviewed this whole Talk page and every archive page for this Talk page, and there is no challenge to Stannard as a source. He is called "controversial" numerous times, but that label automatically applies to any scholar working in the field of "genocide". (And I observed that Lewy was called "controversial" more than Stannard, and also unreliable and a professional "genocide denier", yet he is still cited in this article.) I must reiterate my request in stronger terms that you provide actual substantive objection to citing Stannard in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've also checked the RSN (where he has never been discussed), as well as related articles (where he's never been discussed). There's no consensus for excluding his work. Discussions are just that: discussions with different editors taking a personal position as to his credibility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

His work is already included in the text and I have no problem with that, but per Stumink there is also no need to reiterate Stannard's position twice, in violation of WP:UNDUE. I personally support Stumink's version of the article (see diff) -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When you say "there is also no need to reiterate Stannard's position twice", to what, specifically, are you referring? Can you please quote the position and the reiteration here for review, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Tobby72 is referring to the use of Stannard's work in the "Americas" and "United States" sections. Personally, I don't believe it to be undue as one is the broader overview, the other region-specific. I do, however, consider the recent restructuring slightly problematic. It was an improvement to some degree, but the sections aren't as intuitive as they should be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:

A) Stannard's work in the "Americas" and "United States" sections.

B) Stannard's work in the "Americas" section :

1st paragraph – "Over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." – Stannard 1993, pp. 146–7.

4th paragraph – "Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginals population ..." -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see those two sentences you have quoted, @Tobby72:, but you haven't explained an actual concern with that text. Like Kiernan, Rummel, and the other sources who deal extensively with the topic of genocide, Stannard is likely to be cited more than once. As noted above, those excerpts you partially quoted are not conveying the same thing. The sentence in the first paragraph is a general summary of the assertion/position advanced by the scholars who say the indigenous peoples of the Americas suffered genocide. The sentence in the fourth paragraph is a statement of scale attributable to Stannard (native population is down to a mere 1/3 of 1%, and "worst in history" holocaust). The content in the United States section is also different, being specifically Cherokee-related. Since there is no prohibition in this article against citing a reliable source more than once (see for example Kiernan, Rummel, et al., being cited a dozen times each), and the content items you've mentioned from Stannard are unique and not redundant, I'm having trouble identifying what your concern is. Please elaborate? Or perhaps propose a specific rewording you feel would address your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Iryna Harpy - I also have several concerns with the present structure. Not just with the Americas section (which I actually feel, along with several other sections, is somewhat bloated), but with the article as a whole. It appears to be oscillating between a "List Article" in some sections, and a complete topic article in other sections. Some headers have just a single sentence or two of content, while other headers have many lengthy paragraphs of content which could qualify as standalone articles themselves. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: There have been all sorts of changes to genocide related articles since this blocked editor - and who knows how many socks - engaged in serious OR content development, article moves, etc. from mid-year until September. Despite having reverted them at least once, I managed to overlook the suspicious activity here until checking the history now. I don't have the time or energy to go over this article with a fine-toothed comb immediately, but that person's obsessive behaviour has impacted on the integrity of the content here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I'll be looking at this article and related articles within the next 72 hours or so. There seems to be a lot of overlap and repetition, and as you pointed out, significant OR and insufficiently sourced material. I also recall rollbacks being discussed on related list articles. It looks like the scope is insufficiently defined for several related articles, but I'm wondering if maybe it would be better to first develop a meta-framework applicable to the whole set of articles. I'm not sure which approach to take just yet... Xenophrenic (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have said, I support Stumink's version of the article. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Toby72. Wikipedia editors don't "have versions of articles". The edit you just made deleted reliably sourced content without explanation, and it also undid numerous article improvement edits, formatting, grammar corrections, and other copy editing. Would you mind explaining in more detail what it is you are trying to accomplish with your edit? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"what it is you are trying to accomplish with your edit?" ... — WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

How about just a hint as to how you feel the reliably sourced content cited to Moses, which you just deleted, violates WP:NPOV? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Katyn massacre, two or three meanings

• Historically the Katyn massacre was known in 1943 and the victims were ofiicers.
• It has been known that two other camps were liquidated, with e.g. policemen.
• The Soviet order affected also prisoners, mostly civilians.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Genocides in history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbk.ac.uk/llc/subjects/span_lat_amer/span_lat_amer_staff/ja
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hro.org/war/2004/03/18.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559508/Holocaust.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rulings/cv/1996/685455.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hrdag.org/resources/timor_chapter_graphs/timor_chapter_page_02.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907003530/https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en to https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.potocarimc.ba/_ba/liste/nestali_a.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.honors.ucr.edu:80/Courses/hnpg036p.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/ICC-OTP-ST20080605-ENG.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)