Talk:Herero and Nama genocide/Archive 1

Old discussion

Work on the new article is being done at Talk:Herero and Namaqua Wars/temp

The above temp article is no longer being worked on. Greenman 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Above comment is by Maria Stella. It is her draft, but not necessarily the future of this page. Please see below for details. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz in the sand?

There is a tendency of giving the most dramatic figures and expressions possible in order to gain public interest or compensation. But I don´t think that the term "concentration camp" should be used in this context because in the connection with Germany it inavoidably reminiscens to the nazi-style concentration camps in Poland. And to equate the camps of a German colonial army to camps like Auschwitz would be definitely misleading.

Britain and Imperial Germany were colonial competitors in Africa and Britain had an interest of accusing German governing as being brutal and incompetent. Finally the German colonies were handed to the allies after WW1.

The term "concentration camp" was invented by the British in southern Africa during the South African War (aka Anglo-Boer War) of 1899-1902, so it is not anachronistic or out of place regionally. It would be interesting to know if the Germans adopted a translation of the British term. The phenomenon generates multiple euphemisms, e.g. "protected hamlets" by the U.S. in Vietnam. NPOV would be best achieved by pointing out that concentration camps are not death camps, not by denying the existence of concentration camps. Ngwe 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

there were no concentration camps. There were POW camps where male fighters were placed and then were Labor camps where the majority of women went and some men that were not POWs. Ernham 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonmymous edits

In case the anonymous editor 84.12.173.135 comes back - your changes were reverted as you've removed valid parts of the article, and inserted POV copy. There are some valuable insights, but please don't just come in and change the article, removing mention of German deaths etc as you wish. NPOV means expressing all points of view. I agree the article comes across too much from a German perspective, and needs improvement, but your changes just reverse the problem. Greenman 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

expressing diffrent POV

I have added information regarding the conflict citing Deutsche Welle articles. I deleted "The German troops, however, were badly infected with Typhus and Cholera and were unable to pursue them", as I could not find any evidence of that. Changed "volunteers" to 'soldiers".

Merge Herero Wars here

Both articles deal with the same historic events, so they are duplicate. The difference is, of course, in the name. I don't want to elude the controversy, if there is one, but I believe that duplicates articles have no place in Wikipedia and, that if there is a controversy, it should be addressed on the same page. Lapaz 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done it since no one seems opposed to it. Lapaz 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV problems

The former version of this article was basically rant and trash, written from an extreme anti-German POV, and is really not worth commenting on (everyone can read it themselves, but the ridiculous links to "Lebensraum", "Concentration camp" and statements like "Shark Island was the precursor to the Nazi death camps that were to become an integral part of the Third Reich thirty years later" reveal the intention of the author). Everyone who wants to participate here must make themselves familiar with our Wikipedia:NPOV policy. I invite you to start working on an encyclopedic and NPOV article worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Most of the former article is unusable, but some material from the former POV version [1] may possibly be used if substantially reworded. Maria Stella 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please do not reinstate POV content until concensus to include it is achieved, or move it to the POV "Genocide" title. The widely accepted as well as neutral name is the Herero Uprising. See for example the German Wikipedia. Maria Stella 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you make a list of particular statements besides the title that you'd like to see addressed. It may be possible to remove some or reword them in a way that makes everyone happy.

(Also, with regard to your objection to "concentration camps": It appears that the Germans used concentration camps during the Herero Wars, so I don't see the problem. To the best of my knowledge, the term "concentration camp" in English actually derives from the British colonial wars in Africa in the early 20th century, so it's not like there's an unwarranted link to Nazi Germany, if that's the nature of your objection.) --Birdmessenger 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lapaz article is beyond what is possible to repair. Every section is blatantly POV and thus in violation of policy. It's better to start completely anew. Maria Stella 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no tolerance whatsoever for negationism. Please be careful, do not make false accusations, stop deleting vandalism template on your talk page, and be respectful of others contributors. This, of course, is adressed to Maria Stella. Your talk page is full of remarks warning you against this behaviour, I should advise you to be very careful if you want us to tolerate your presence some more time. Lapaz 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What we have no tolerance for is your POV pushing and historical revisionism. Maria Stella 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Armenian Genocide had to take the name given by the Turkish Wikipedia, then there would probably be no article at all. Concerning the existence of concentration camps during the Herero Genocide (&, of course, the Boer Wars), you would be so nice to stop denying historical reality. Do your trolling elsewhere instead of accusing me of trolling because I leave a message on your talk page. Lapaz 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your entire article is written to make a connection between this and Nazism, which is POV. I'd like to see a similar POV and anti-British article about British atrocities in their colonies, which were far more worse. It also seems necessary to remind you that the conflict was started by the Hereros, not the Germans, when the Hereros brutally slaughtered 123 German civilians. Why not call it the Herero Genocide on Germans, then? Maria Stella 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See Genocide for its definition and negationism for what you're doing. Lapaz 02:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the POV issues

I've reverted again to the longer "genocide version" so the text can be fixed. Here are the POV issues with the long version, as I see them:

• White settlers were encouraged and to settled on land appropriated from the natives which caused a great deal of discontent. German colonial rule in the area was far from egalitarian, the natives including the Herero were used as slave labourers, their lands were frequently seized and given to colonists, and resources, particularly diamond mines, were exploited by the Germans. There have been many proven allegations of sexual exploitation of Herero women by German troops.

Suggested edits of above, with further editing for grammar. This also needs to be sourced.

• The skulls of dead Herero people were collected and sent to Germany for use in research of evidence of racial superiority of Germans, which concluded that their race was superior to others.

I am assuming that Lapaz put this in. In my opinion, it should have a source.

No it wasn't me. But it wouldn't surprise me either, I guess we could find a source. But one thing is finding a source, another is deleting 3/4 of the article and denying genocide, admitted by the German state itself. Lapaz 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Historical revisionists prefer the terms "Herero Wars" while acknowledging massacres. They deem the evidence insufficient to call it a genocide and deride comparisons to Auschwitz as sensationalism.

This is blatantly POV and somewhat offtopic as currently written. Consider deleting this. At the very least it needs a source. The term "historical revisionist" should be avoided.

Why? Lapaz 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• The infamous Shark Island was the precursor to the Nazi death camps that were to become an integral part of the Third Reich thirty years later.

Again, this is not an article about the Nazis. Unless there is some direct and verifiable link between the Final Solution and the Herero Uprising, consider taking this out.

See Hannah Arendt's second tome on The Origins of Totalitarianism. Lapaz 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• This extermination thus qualifies as genocide.

Says who? We can't just declare it a genocide, but we can cite others who have.

Not if Stella Maria deletes them (this being her last attempt). Lapaz 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These are just my preliminary thoughts, but what do you all think?--Birdmessenger 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a comparison: This summer Arabs took 3 Israeli soldiers POW. In revenge, Israel has to this date killed appromimately 1,000 Lebanese civilians. What if the Arabs had murdered 123 Israeli civilians, what had Israel done? In any event, a number of people would protest calling the "Israel-Lebenese conflict" the "Israeli genocide on the Lebanese". The uprising in the German colony and the methods used to suppress it were in no way unique. There are dozens of examples of worse British, French or Belgian behaviour. But we don't have articles on all the British "genocides" around the world. The British editors would protest and call it POV. Just like the Israeli/Jewish editors always demand that Israeli actions are explained from the Israeli point of view and no "non-neutral" words are used. However, bashing Germans seems to be allowed. Some people want to make special rules for Germans. That is called racism and explained in the article Anti-German sentiment. We cannot allow that. As may be seen, other Wikipedias, including the German, use the accepted and neutral term "uprising", which is not the POV of either side, just factual. As long as the article is not moved to the POV title, I shall leave the text as it is while we work on it to remove all POV. I suggest instantly removing all "Nazi" and "Genocide" references and other Anti-German statements, although it is going to be a real mess with section titles like "1 Before the genocide", "2 The genocide" and "3 Recognition, denial and compensation". Maria Stella 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now tried to remove the worst POV while keeping the original problematic text. Please share your thoughts, and please discuss changes rather than reverting. Maria Stella 18:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison to the Israeli-Lebanon conflict is irrelevant: Something like 80% of the Herero people were driven by the German military into the desert to die of thirst.

I agree that genocide is one of those terms that gets used a lot when maybe it shouldn't. It's hard for anyone to agree on what constitutes genocide though. The UN defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Item c) seems to apply here. We should figure out whether historians and other notable commentators have argued that German actions during the Herero Wars meet this definition of genocide (or perhaps some other). If they have, then this should be mentioned and discussed in the article.--Birdmessenger 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison with Israel is highly relevant. One million Palestinians were driven out from their homes by the Israelis in the 1940s. Was it a genocide? I think Wikipedia is even careful to label it ethnic cleansing due to objections concerning neutrality. Wikipedia is to be neutral. If some notable person consider something to be something, it of course can be mentioned, but contrasting views must also be mentioned, and there must be some balance in the article (with two parts in a conflict, it should be about 50/50). Germany used harsh methods to suppress a uprising against them - as has the UK, USA, Israel, France (compare their post-WWII colonial wars where they killed one million in Algeria, much more than the killed in German South West Africa more than half a century earlier) - we can state the methods used are controversial and discuss the controversy. The basic framework of the article however must be neutral to the conflict between the German Empire and the Hereros, as is the case in all articles on conflicts involving Israel, France, the UK, USA or other states. For example, it shall not only discuss Herero, but also German casualties, and it shall not use section titles like "The Genocide" which is the POV of the Herero lobby who wants money from Germany. Using neutral titles like "The Uprising", the uprising can be discussed more broadly from both sides, and not only focusing on alleged wrongdoing against the side which started the uprising. Maria Stella 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Genocides are not measured in absolute numbers but in relative ones. The Germans intentionally killed 65,000 out of 80,000 to 100,000 Herero, and were attempting to eradicate them from southwest Africa. The loss of life from a single ethnic group was massive and calling it "harsh methods to suppress a uprising" is an inaccurate understatement. The term genocide here refers to an attempt to destroy an entire ethnic group. That seems to be what happened, unless there's something I'm missing. Since even the German government itself has described its actions as genocide, I don't think it's fair to say that the view that this was genocide is simply "the POV of the Herero lobby who wants money from Germany." If there is a consensus by various commentators that genocide occurred, the article should state that rather than reflect some false "50/50" balance of opinions. --Birdmessenger 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The German state itself has admitted it. It is in the article. If you don't look at one of Stella's whitewashing version. I refuse to discuss with a troll who deletes the first vandalism template someone put on her page, although she's engaging in clear negationist behaviour. Tolerance has one limit: what is not tolerable. Lapaz 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a troll and vandal, and you have hereby declared that you are incapable of contributing to Wikipedia. Goodbye. Your continued vandalism and racist POV pushing will lead to you being blocked from editing. Maria Stella 13:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

to Lapaz

I am assuming that Lapaz put [ref to skulls] in. In my opinion, it should have a source.

No it wasn't me. But it wouldn't surprise me either, I guess we could find a source. But one thing is finding a source, another is deleting 3/4 of the article and denying genocide, admitted by the German state itself. Lapaz 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I know you have an interest in the history of racist anatomical studies :) of that nature, so I just assumed it was you.

Cheers!:) Lapaz 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionists prefer the terms "Herero Wars" while acknowledging massacres. They deem the evidence insufficient to call it a genocide and deride comparisons to Auschwitz as sensationalism.

This is blateantly POV and somewhat offtopic as currently written. Consider deleting this. At the very least it needs a source. The term "historical revisionist" should be avoided.

Why? Lapaz 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Because one person's historical revisionist is another person's historian. It's an extremely loaded term in English, usually synonymous with "Holocaust denier". Not at all neutral, in other words.--Birdmessenger 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But when official authorities recognize that a genocide happened, it is revisionism to deny it. Maria perfectly knows what she's doing. Anyhow, if she's ready to edit the article in a consensual manner, respecting not only others contributors, but historical truth, she is entitled to this. But please no more massive deletions nor any move of the page before editorial consensus. The German can call it whatever they want, again, following this logic there would be no Armenian genocide (in the Turkish Wiki). Lapaz 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Whitaker Report 1985

Just to add something to the discussion here. The Whitaker report (1985) classifies the Herero-German war of 1904 as genocide. For me it is difficult to understand why Maria Stella changes this accepted point of view (by both the German government and the UN) with her own. --Bries 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The provided link above to section 5 of the Whitaker report no longer works, though the one below to the whole Whitaker Report does. Ngwe 04:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a recognized genocide by any country in the world. The Whitaker report is not "the voice of the UN"; it's actually an op-ed piece, which is plainly obvious by a mere reading. It also stats it was a genocide if you consider it only the one specific criteria it was addressing when it included that as a supposed genocide. The same report decrees "The effect of genocide can be achieved in different ways: today, insensitive economic exploitation can threaten the extinction of some surviving indigenous peoples." According to that ridiculous article, you can commit genocide by purchasing products. LOL. It's a complete OP-ed piece, that curiously does not mention at all the ukrainian famines and about a dozen other issues(yet it mentions pogroms in the Ukraine). OP-ed. Ernham 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on article title

Instead of an edit war, let's have a discussion. My suggestion is that we conduct a poll on the title of the article, solicit some input from others, maybe even come to some consensus and then move on to how the issue of genocide should be addressed in the article.

Add *Support or *Oppose below each possible title followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ Or add an alternative nomination.

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

• Support - According to the monument here in Windhoek (I'm referring to my picture of the Reiterdenkmal plaquette in the article), approx 1750 Germans have been killed by the Herero’s and Nama’s. The monuments that were erected after the battles (Das Reiterdenkmal and the plates in the Christus Kirche) only commemorated the Germans, no attention was paid to the Herero’s or Nama’s, no monuments were erected for them. Approx 80,000 Herero’s and Nama’s have been killed by the Germans (either in battle, by poisoning wells, or in concentration camps). Here in Namibia, the war is generally referred to as genocide. As mentioned in the text the UN Whitaker report describes this tragic event as genocide. The German government accepted this. I agree the German Wikipedia article on this subject seems well documented. But to change a title just because it's named different in another language isn't enough motivation. Thanks, --Bries 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment: a website by Namibian researcher Dr Klaus Dierks offers a lot of detailed information in chronological order: online version of Dr Klaus Dierks' Chronology of Namibia (updated until 2005).--Bries 14:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. We shouldn't even vote on this. The Whitaker report (1985; and [2]), as Bries pointed out, class it as a genocide. So does Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. And the German state recognized it as such. Lapaz 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the meanwhile, there is no reason to accept Maria's undiscussed edits. Hence reversal. Lapaz 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This isn't a vote but a poll. As I understand it, the results are nonbinding and the purpose is to give everyone a chance to make a case.

For me, the issue is not whether genocide occurred (it did), but whether "Herero Genocide" is the name by which the conflict is most commonly known in the English-speaking world. That's the one of the standards Wikipedia is bound by when editors name an article.--Birdmessenger 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Google gives double hits on "Herero genocide" than in "Herero massacre", and even less for "herero uprising". Lapaz 03:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Herero Genocide" (with quotation marks) gets 772 hits and less if you filter Wikipedia.

"Herero Wars" gets over 6000 hits and about 3000 if you filter out wikipedia.org and answers.com.

However, "Herero Uprising" only gets 866 hits.

I'm not sure Google searches are going to tell us specifically what to call this. Google searches and searches of JSTOR seem to indicate that names for the conflict that use "war", "uprising", or "revolt" outnumber those that just call it the "Herero Genocide."

Maybe "Herero and Nama Wars" would be better than "...Uprising". Wasn't that the name of a previous article before it was merged?--Birdmessenger 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a logical failure to assume the entire conflict is referred to as "genocide" just because there are many (little serious) references to an alleged genocide on the internet. In any event, such a genocide would not be synonymous with the conflict, but rather a part of it. I'm sure there were more references to Herero massacres of German civilians in German press than the opposite when the conflict took place, should the German Wikipedia call the conflict the Herero massacres of German civilians? Maria Stella 14:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Google is standardly used in these kinds of dispute to establish "popularity of title", which was what Birdmessenger was asking for. I don't think either it's a proof for anything, neither is this poll. I disagree completely with Maria Stella's unilaterally deleting all comments qualifying this genocide as a genocide, including on Lothar von Trotha's page. This is obvious trolling. Lapaz 02:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I saw this up at RfC, so I'm an outsider, but I can hardly believe there's a debate on this! Ignoring the term "genocide" is tantamount to holocaust denial - every source I've ever seen acknowledges that what happened was genocide, not just a "massacre" or "uprising." Perhaps it is better to split the article to separate the genocide from the other aspects of the war, however. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. For the title. However, I do not support the current protected edit for content. There is considerable misleading and POV material, which unfortunately has been opposed by even more tendentious misleading and POV material. Ngwe 05:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I also note that Jmabel below indicates that he can support this title. Ngwe 05:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, after a look at just the lead section. Peter O. (Talk) 21:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Uprising

• tentative Support: The article is about the entire conflict, not just the genocide. Also, in much of the literature the event tends to be referred to as a war, rebellion or uprising of which the gencide was a part. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should use the most common names for its subjects. (The fact that a gencide occurred does not seem to be in question, however.)--Birdmessenger 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Moved support below.
• Support. As per Birdmessenger, this article is about the entire conflict, not about German wrongdoing against Hereros. German wrongdoing against Hereros and Herero wrongdoing against Germans (including massacres of German civilians) is a part of this conflict. If you travel to Namibia, you will see that its capital has monuments commemorating the killed Germans as well. That a genocide allegedly took place is a more recent POV on a part of the conflict that is to be addressed in the article, but it cannot be the title of the article on the conflict, just like "Herero massacres on German civilians" cannot be the title, because it completely ommit the victims of the other side and also only focuses on one aspect of the conflict. There were hundreds of families who lost their mothers, sisters, brothers and fathers on the German side as well. I think it would be best to simply translate the German Wikipedia article de:Aufstand der Herero und Nama, because the German WP is the most serious and respected edition. It is neither pro- nor anti-German. Maria Stella 22:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Primarily for readers interested in military history, the German-Namaqua and German-Herero Wars, including those predating 1904 and the "uprising" and its genocidal suppression (briefly mentioned & linked), should have an article closely interlinked with another on German colonialism in South-West Africa. The genocide should have a separate article so labeled because of its retrospective importance in formulation of the concept of genocide (which did not exist in 1904) and related international law. Ngwe 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Herero Wars or Herero and Namaqua Wars

I could go with Herero Wars, probably the most common English-language name, or Herero and Namaqua Genocide (which seems to me to be the most accurate for what occurred). - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Herero Wars. --Birdmessenger 11:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The title Herero Wars raises different expectations. Are the Herero in war with themselves (for instance Herero fighting Mbanderu)? Is it referring to all the wars that the Herero have fought with other peoples (Namaqua, Germans, Ovambo)? For me the reason for this article is the genocide. It is important to give extensive background of all events that leaded to the genocide, but the main story is the genocide order. It resembles an episode in history where the colonizer decided to erase a whole people, less then twenty years after it unitarily declared the territory German.--Bries 08:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good point because it seems that there were internal wars among the Herero and other colonized peoples also termed "the Herero Wars".--Birdmessenger 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Herero and the Namaqua have fought many battles over grazing land. Both were after the best grazing opportunities for their cattle. Before the war with the Germans the Namaqua and the Herero battled for ten years.--Bries 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: in stead of discussing the title I see that some of us are still changing it, currently it's Herero and Namaqua Wars and believe me they have fought a lot. I want to suggest again that we should come up with an appropriate title through an informed discussion.--Bries 08:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I second this. Page moves like this usually end up breaking stuff, in my experience.--Birdmessenger 12:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a good description of this particular conflict - I think we should get a historians advice on naming this page.Greenman 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. See my comments under "uprising" option and below on names of wars. They constitute my advice as a historian with a Ph.D. in African history with southern Africa focus, though not a Namibia specialist. Ngwe 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Wars

• Oppose: confusing title, there have been many 'wars' between the Herero and the Nama, but those are not described in this article.--Bries 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bries is right. Also the 1904-07 conflicts were not the only wars involving these peoples and the Germans, and this formulation is German POV for all those conflicts. See comments under uprising option and in section below on names of wars. Ngwe 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Nama Resistance Struggle against German Rule Culminates in Genocide 1904

• Support: Long, but covers the content of the article. I would also like to suggest to use Nama instead of oldfashion Namaqua.--Bries 08:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate that this would be a solution that incorporates most of the suggestions made so far, but to be honest, that seems a bit too long and convoluted to function well as a title. I'm not sure it fits the naming conventions of Wikipedia articles, either. The title is important, but the intro paragraph communicates a lot of the important information, too. Basically, we should just try to figure out what historians tend to call this and whether they find the war or the genocide aspect more noteworthy. Personally, I could live with Herero and Nama Genocide at this point, though I'm still convinced that English-language sources refer to what this article covers as a "war". "Nama" seems to be far more prevalent than "Namaqua" in literature on the topic, so I agree with you on that.--Birdmessenger 12:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Greenman 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only cumbersome, but an article on Herero and Namaqua resistance should cover more than the genocide and its immediate antecedents, since resistance began in the 1880s. Ngwe 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Of course vandalism is in the eye of the beholder, but the only vandal I can see is Maria Stella who happily renamed the article to her version (the only option in the poll without any support) and rewrote the article with her whitewash. Sadly it looks like she doesn't want to reach consensus, or acknowledge any wrongdoings from her heroes, rather just push her POV. I'll help in reverting her vandalism, while hopefully everyone more involved can work on improving the article. It does come across with perhaps too little of the German perspective, but the way to improve it is not to deny the genocide.Greenman 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The persistent vandals are Lapaz and Greenman who should be blocked from Wikipedia before they make more damage. I will happily revert all vandalism they make while we work on improving the article. The only one who has stated (and showed) that he is not interested in discussing his edits and reach consensus, only push his racist POV, is Lapaz. Maria Stella 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Constructive changes to the article are welcome, but according to me you're contributions haven't been constructive for a while now. In stead of discussing the issue on this page you have changed the title again, and in your self-imposed mission to reverse everything that is saying that genocide has occurred in Namibia, you are destroying additions to the article. I suggest to cool down a bit.--Bries 15:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a good principle for dealing with persistent vandals - Don't feed the troll. Calling me a persistent vandal for reverting her garbage once is quite funny. Let's just keep reverting her unilateral changes until she goes away, or decides to be constructive. She may make some good, constructive points if she tried to cooperate, but with the chip on her shoulder about how nasty the 'vandals' are in pointing out atrocities committed by her favourite people, it's not going to go anywhere. There are actually some good additions in her changes, but by her sweeping away everything else that happened it's much easier just to revert and start again. Everyone else contributing to this article realises that it's not perfect, but that denying genocide is not the way to go, in spite of Maria's twisted views on the subject. She may like to rewrite history to make her feel better, the rest of us will try and work on getting towards an accurate article. She's been threatened with being blocked a few times, has anyone actually requested it? I see she keeps ramming her renaming of the article through, unfortunately, in spite of ongoing poll on this page. Greenman 10:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maria Stella may have to accept that her view does not reflect the apparent consensus here, which is this: Giving equal weight to the notion that genocide did not occur is unacceptable (feel free to correct me if that is not the view here as I'm not the community spokesperson or anything). Despite all that, I do think Maria Stella has some valid concerns about the balance and tone of the article, which is why I tried to open dialogue (obviously, this didn't work out well).

Blocking for 3RR is normally carried out after the 4th violation in 24 hours. As far as I can tell, everyone has been careful not to cross that line. My understanding is that one of the prerequisites for a block is that the offender/potential offender be warned once they've hit the third or fourth reversion.--Birdmessenger 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

The vandalism of User:Lapaz seems to persist. He has clearly showed that he ignores our NPOV and consensus policy, and is not interested in discussing his edits. I think time has come to ban him indefinitely. After months he continues to vandalize the article. His recent (September 12) garbage include "The infamous Shark Island was the precursor to the Nazi death camps that were to become an integral part of the Third Reich thirty years later" and adding "see also" links to "Lebensraum". We have to realize that this person is simply a troll and a vandal, and to revert his changes until he goes away or he is blocked. We cannot accept this racist POV pushing and attempt to rewrite history by certain nationalist activists at Wikipedia. Maria Stella 21:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz's edits are not vandalism, as clearly explained by "What vandalism is not" in Wikipedia's vandalism policy. It is instead a content dispute regarding POV. I never included those additions in my reversion, so stop characterizing my edits thus. Please read the talk page to see what consensus has been reached. Very clearly, the majority agree with the version I have reinstated and favor a return of the article to Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Please do not call the edits of users "vandalism" or the editors "vandals" for edits that you do not agree with; these are content disputes, and using such language violates Wikipedia's "No personal attacks" policy. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Maria, since your first edit to this page was moving it from its original title "Genocide" to "Uprising", and your second deleting 3/4 of the page, and that all of your ensuing edits, on this page as on Lothar von Trotha's page (deleting content again), I would be careful about accusing me of being a vandal. Especially when apart of carrying out historical revisionism on this page, you also are concerned about deleting contents about the Holocaust. Lapaz 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be fooled by Maria's childish response. It's her against the community, not just Lapaz, or Birdmessenger, or Brie, or myself, or whoever else reverts her POV changes. The rest of us would like to get on with disagreeing amongst each other and improving the article instead of constantly reverting Maria's edits, and responding to her one-woman campaign to tag us all as vandals :) Greenman 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Article title, framing, etc

First...I would like to say "Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck..." On Wikipedia, you may have to verify it and CITE it.

All Genocides occur during War conflicts. A genocide is a war attrocity/crime committed during a war. War is a combination of empire expansion, political and economic reasons. Unless genocide was the entire focus of this campaign,(which I doubt), then there needs to be an Article "Herero (and Namaqua) War" with a significant section on genocide. Perhaps the Genocide merits a seperate article, such as Genocide during Herero War or the like.

In current form, using sections like "before the genocide" and "after genocide" is POV pushing, borderline weasel word use. Let the reader decide, I think they can come to obvious conclusions. This section should be a significant part of Herero War.

Framework:

• Summary + Infobox (WHO+WHEN+WHERE)
• Causes of Herero War (sometimes this is worthy of a seperate article) (WHY)
• Chronology (of actions) (WHAT)
  • Major battles if notable, seperate articles if super-notable
• End of war/cease of hostilities (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY)
• Aftermath
  • Casualties (WHO, WHERE)
  • Civilian Impact (Careful of POV, WHO, WHERE, WHAT)
  • Atrocities (Careful of POV, WHO, WHERE, WHAT)
    • Genocide (big section as needed)
• References

Secondary Sources (WP:RS) by the ton please.

• External Links

Keep to one to three.

Atrocities should probably be touched briefly in chronology, but expanded in later sections.

In short, this should give a proper NPOV article without trivializing the genocide that occured. Language and Prose is important, especially in article titling. It is a fact a war occured. That a genocide occured is a factual opinion, probably even prevalent opinion. Lets just deal with absolute facts in the lead summary paragraph, include factual opinions in other places in the article.

Historians are allowed to changed their mind. Are they not human? "Historical Revisionists" is a POV, specfically termed with holocaust denial. Its use in the article is way out of context, and should be removed.

Conclusion: Genocide occurs during War. Expand this article using the above framework, stop edit warring. Good Luck. Electrawn 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of this effort but it does not quite work. The genocide was not an aftermath but a form of the warfare itself. It has to be addressed under Electrawn's "Chronology", perhaps "Major battles", certainly "End of war", & within what he calls "Aftermath" under all of the headings listed. ("Aftermath" is a chronological misnomer; the phenomena in the subcategories occurred mostly during the war). As noted elsewhere, I think this kind of military history article should include all of the colonial warfare caused by German occupation beginning in the 1880s, be closely interlinked with another article on German colonialism in the territory, and that the genocide should have its own article because it has distinctive significance for the history of genocide and ideas about it. Ngwe 06:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, "revisionist" is not a specific reference to Holocaust revisionism/denial; rather the latter is a special case of a more general historiographical phenomenon which does not necessarily carry perjorative connotations. In U.S. history, for instance, "Cold War revisionism" was a school of thought critical of one-sided demonization of the Soviet Union in the narratives developed in the 1950s on Cold War origins, which arose in the 1960s in the context of the American-Vietnamese War; by the late 1970s a partial counter-revisionism developed which was not however simply a return to the original narrative, but a new synthesis. It is possible that the association of revisionism with Holocaust denial connects subtly to the names of the pseudo-scholarly Journal of Historical Review, a major denialist vehicle, and of its sponsoring organization, the Institute for Historical Review. Ngwe 06:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Electrawn. The article is far from ideal as it is right now, and your framework is helpful. Unfortunately the energy here is being sucked into reverting Maria's constant POV edits! Greenman 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Preparing the new article

My version is largely based upon the ideas described by Electrawn above, and the draft may be seen at [3] (not completely up to date). I've always stated my willingness to discuss every aspect of the article to reach a consensus version which is neutral and factual, and does not use POV language, in short: a version everyone who edit in accordance with the NPOV principles can agree on. Maria Stella 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Having a separate article as well to broadly discuss the controversy around the alleged genocide is a good idea. I'm planning to write a separate article on Herero massacres on German civilians as well. If everyone cooperates, this may in time become a good article. Maria Stella 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the new article, the work will be done here: Talk:Herero and Namaqua Wars/temp. Maria Stella 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not make such articles in the main article space, Maria. Temp pages should go under talk pages. I have moved the article to the talk page, so it is a subset of this page. The main page was speedy deleted after I tagged it. You seem to have just recreated the version you like there, which is not the way to go. I say we use that temp page to discuss the war specifically, rename this page, and remove some of the war content not necessary for background. What do you think? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the new version is just Maria's POV again. From the opening paragraph. The Hereros revolted against German rule in the colony, and started the uprising by killing German civilians. The colonial army of only 766 men was unable to resist the uprising, and the government in Berlin sent a marine expedition corps of 15,000 men under Lieutenant General Lothar von Trotha to re-establish order in the colony. Greenman 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that POV? That's why the soldiers were sent there. They didn't go there to enjoy the mosquitos. The Herero revolted and began killing civilian farmers in rural regions. This lead to Trotha being sent in. There isn't anything POV about that. Trotha was sent to quell the revolt, not because he ahd nothing better to do. Ernham 08:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected, Sept. 12

I've protected this article due to an ongoing content dispute. I see there are already attempts to resolve the issues on this talk page, so please do it here, not via an edit war. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the NPOV tag from a disputed article. Maria Stella 09:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the tag. I thought the {{Protected}} tag might have covered this but NPOV is indeed more specific. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it totally unappropriate to protect the page because of User:Maria Stella's offensive behaviour. Have a look at her edits (a few examples: first edit here:moving it from its original title "Genocide" to "Uprising", second edit here, some other on Lothar von Trotha's page ... And apart of historical revisionism here, a bit of Holocaust denial seems for her a normal way to proceed. See also warnings on her talk page (before she remove comments). Lapaz 00:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there's basically one user, Maria, reverting all changes by the rest of the community, throwing around accusations of vandalism whenever removes her highly POV changes, etc. Perhaps giving her the benefit of the doubt she really can't see her bias, and thinks she is fighting a one-woman war for truth on behalf of the nice people who ran SWA so well, and the charming general who just wanted to restore order amongst those pesky natives, but blocking this page as a result of her efforts is not helpful! Greenman 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on Gyrofrog's page. This page has been blocked since 12 days now, all of this because of Maria Stella who, if I had taste for bureaucracy, would be the object of a RfA. This should be unblocked now. Thanks, Lapaz 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of Wars

This comment might or might not end up affecting the name of the article. However that matter is resolved, the wars should be called the German-Herero War and the German-Namaqua War and the combined form should be the German-Herero and -Namaqua Wars. The terms Herero and Namaqua Wars are German POV (earlier discussion of other wars involving Herero & Namaqua but not Germans reflect this fact). Compare e.g. to U.S. Vietnam War vs. Vietnamese American War.

I advocate putting German first because the initial aggression here, setting up the situation for all further forms of conflict of the African peoples with Germans, was German colonial occupation.

Possibly however putting the African peoples' names first (Herero-German War, Namaqua-German War etc.) would be better, because the result is closer to the POV name familiar to many people. Either option would be reasonable and acceptable to me.

This proposal fits general historical practice in southern African history in the last 35 or 40 years -- e.g. convention now is either Anglo-Boer War or South African War for "the war formerly known as Boer" ;-> , and likewise Anglo-Zulu War is conventional for the 1879 conflict, replacing Zulu War, precisely because the older names reflected British POV. I believe the placement of Anglo- first reflects British initiation of both conflicts, but it may have been an aesthetic choice based on perception of euphony. Ngwe 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide and comparative colonial atrocities

Maria Stella has repeatedly asserted that German atrocities committed against the Herero and Namaqua peoples did not rise to the level of genocide, and also that putatively worse atrocities by the French, Belgians and British are not called genocides, so that to place that label on German atrocities in Südwestafrika amounts to anti-German "racism"; since Germans aren't a race, let me say ethnocentric anti-German prejudice. She has not provided any more detail or evidence. I believe she is mistaken on the whole on both counts.

"...anti-German "racism"; since Germans aren't a race,..." Depends on your definition of race... If for instance, race is socially defined (i.e. not a biological category such as ancestral origin), then indeed Germans could be considered a "race" and by this definition of "race" you are revising the definition in a sneaky attempt to deny racism.

The question of which European colonial actions constituted genocides needs to be separated from which ones, if genocides, are adequately recognized as such. If German actions in Südwestafrika were genocide, and actions by others were worse but not called genocide, the proper course of action would be to call those genocides by their proper name, not deny German genocide.

Absolutely agree with you. I do not oppose referring to the events in Deutsche Southwest Africa as genocide so long as the mass homicide committed by British, French, and Belgian colonists are identified in articles as genocides, but unless that happens, it is unfair to call atrocious actions in Namibia genocides but not recognizing similar atrocities as such. Even so, just because it is established that certain German colonists under the command of General von Trotha commit a genocide, comparisons with the Holocaust DO NOT BELONG! To do so is racist (or anti-German or w/e) because it anachronistically equates Germans with Nazis.

As to the application of the term genocide, it has been growing in application to a number of European and Euro-diaspora situations. For instance, far and away the best-known and widest-read book on early Belgian colonialism in the Congo, Adam Hochschild's King Leopold's Ghost clearly labels Belgian actions in the first decade of the 20th century & maybe a bit earlier as genocide. Likewise there is wide recognition of specific U.S. actions against specific Native American peoples as having a genocidal character, and of 19th century U.S.-American culture as having a broadly genocidal view of American Indians and their future. Those interpretations are contested by some scholars, debated by others, but recognized as scholarly and intellectually serious. Also a number of post-colonial inter-African conflicts have clearly been called genocides, including Burundi in the 1970s, Rwanda in 1994 and Darfur (more contestedly) at present; Sudanese government actions in the south in the long civil war have also been characterized as genocidal. So the idea that Germans are being singled out is not persuasive. Rather, the German government's recognition of its predecessors' actions in Südwestafrika as genocide actually fits a pattern of reflection and reinterpretation within post-colonialist societies of historical acts and their contemporaneous justifications.

As to whether other powers' actions were "worse" than those of Germany in Südwestafrika, it would be helpful to know Maria Stella's referents. Deaths in the Congo Free State were certainly many times more numerous, but as noted that situation also has been called a genocide. Michael Watts in Silent Violence documented massive devastation and death in colonial northern Nigeria in famines caused by British economic policy and ecological practices; on the other hand Hans Kjekshus has done something similar for German Ostafrika. Probably in both cases the element of destructive intention aimed at a specific people or religious group needed for genocide was missing. For sheer numbers of deaths, the consequences of German reactions to the Maji-Maji rebellion in Ostafrika in 1903 were larger than those in Südwestafrika -- 200,000 deaths, mostly due to displacement & consequent famine & disease is a common estimate, but they are not usually treated as genocidal. Certainly of British and French atrocities there is no shortage. In the 1906-07 African rebellion in Natal, South Africa ("Bhambhatha's Rebellion"), Africans suffered about 3000 deaths and no injured i.e. the British & settler forces took no prisoners and killed the wounded. Zulu communities certainly also suffered excess deaths in those years and a few after as a result of scorched earth policies in some areas. Timothy Weiskel in his history of the Baulé people of Cote d'Ivoire has a frontispiece of French officers in white uniforms and pith helmets holding up a severed African man's head; Bhambhatha's head was made a trophy in Natal as the Xhosa king Hintsa's head had been in the Cape Colony in the 1830s. European colonialism everywhere in Africa was ugly and violent, and in the period between about 1895 and the early 1920s (esp. French West Africa for the later dates) often involved mass resistance and mass violent repression. It is possible that numbers of those actions should be reinterpreted as genocidal under the "in whole or in part" section of the definition of genocide.

Yet Südwestafrika in 1904-07 stands out as distinctive. I would be very interested to have Maria Stella cite another case involving a comparably high degree of ethnic specificity and extremely high proportion of population mortality involved in the genocide against the Herero.

Ngwe 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Von Trotha's genocidal proclamation

Kevin Shillington's History of Africa is a standard, widely used and respected English-language survey textbook published by Macmillan/Palgrave Macmillan, a highly reputable publisher. The 2005 second revised edition at page 341 quotes H. Bley, South-West Africa under German Rule, Heinemann, 1971, pp. 163-4 with the following translation of what Shillington calls the "notorious 'extermination' proclamation" of 1904 by General von Trotha, as follows:

The Herero are no longer German subjects. They have murdered and plundered. . . . The Herero nation must leave the country. If it will not do so I shall compel it by force. . . . Inside German territory every Herero tribesman, armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. No women and children will be allowed in the territory; they will be driven back to their people or fired on. These are the last words to the Herero nation from me, the great General of the mighty German Emperor."

Heinemann until recently was a distinguished publisher of scholarly African history, with high editorial standards, and absent contrary evidence I accept that this is an accurate translation. General von Trotha appears to have taken pains to make his meaning and intentions graphically clear. Those expressed intentions very precisely fit many of the defining characteristics of genocide under the later Convention against it (indeed to the point that I wonder if the proclamation might have been a reference document in the formulation of the Convention, though I have no evidence or knowledge of that). As we further know, von Trotha executed those intentions with brutal and savage efficiency. The fact that other human beings are and have been brutal, savage and efficiently so does not make it POV to recognize these facts about the actions by von Trotha and those under his command. The Herero suffered a genocide at the hands of the German government and its army.

My only question is about nesting: should there three articles, one on German colonialism (and perhaps post World War I settlers under South African rule), one on the Herero- and Namaqua-German Wars (which actually date back to the 1880s), and one on the genocide; or should there be two, with the wars nested in the colonialism article and the genocide separate; or should there be two with the general colonialism article separate, and the genocide nested within the wars? Ngwe 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This scholarly quote is most interesting and should certainly be included. Furthermore, I believe it is a good idea to create an article about German colonialism, as there is one about French colonialism, etc. Now, for this actual page, User:Maria Stella has repeatedly vandalized the page, called me vandal when I was repairing her negationist vandalism, deleted 3/4 of the contents of the article (same goes on Lothar von Trotha's page), and moved this page from its original location, Herero and Namaqua Genocide to its current location of "Herero and Namaqua Wars". Because of her repeated moves, it is now impossible to reverse her move without requesting a move from an administrator. For all of these reasons, I refuse to discuss with Maria Stella. As historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet has pointed out, an astronomist does not discuss with an astrologist. There is no reason why an historian would discuss with a negationnist. Now, concerning your question about creating a separate article for Herero and Namaqua Wars (notice the plural), I believe someone earlier underlined that there have been several wars, before this war which we are discussing (actually, which Maria Stella is denying) the genocidal nature. Thus, this article clearly deals with the genocide, and should be given this name. To behave in another manner would simply be bending before Maria Stella's agressive behavior (which goes as far as repeatedly deleting warnings on her talk page) and, more generally, before negationists' intimidation. But if you, or somebody else, is up to creating an article about the various wars in this region concerning Hereros and Namaquas, this can only be helpful and of encyclopedical content. Of course, such an article would include a subsection about this genocide. Lapaz 15:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually German colonialism already exist: I will redirect it to German colonial empire, that settle it, doesn't it? If the "German colonial empire" name isn't correct, maybe we can move it to "German colonialism"? Lapaz 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On massacres and genocide

Maria Stella has repeatedly emphasized the murders of 123 German civilian settlers by Herero people rebelling against German rule in Südwestafrika in 1904. Insofar as there may be dispute over including that fact in an account of the genocide, she undoubtedly is right to say that it should be included as an important context for the German administration's and army's actions. To the bare fact should be included information about who was killed if possible and some indication of the size of the settler population (this must have been a relatively large proportion who were killed, I'd guess more than 1% and less than 10%).

By the same token, the Herero actions also should be put in context. The German civilians in question had taken Herero lands with the backing of German military force, and the Herero violence in 1904 was not the first violence in the processes of colonial conflict. Moreover the civilians were part of a colonial effort that was systematically depriving the Herero of their means of livelihood, in which the settlers stood to benefit and aimed to benefit from African impoverishment not only in gaining African land, water etc., but their labor on exploitative and coercive terms. Nothing particularly unusual about that in any of the European colonies of settlement of course -- similar things were happening across British & Afrikaner southern Africa, and white settlers were extremely nervous about the possibility of African rebellion right across the region.

In any case, the context of those killings and of the wider political rebellion does not make the German response any less genocide. It does not justify genocide, or violence on the scale and of the form perpetrated under any other name Maria Stella might wish to give it. It does not even really explain the extremity of the German adminstration's reaction -- certainly it was a contributing element, but it is not sufficient in itself.

To get at explanation one would need to understand first of all whether von Trotha saw his actions as necessary to maintain German rule, and then consider what that means about European colonialism in Africa and more specifically German colonialism in Südwestafrika, if it required genocide to be maintained. Or did von Trotha see the actions as the most desirable among several options (extreme violence combined with leaving most of the population in place and vulnerable to exploitation, such as occurred in Natal or Southern Rhodesia, would seem to have been a possibility, for example), in which case the reasons for his choice need explication. Was it personal psychopathology? Or, more likely, was it an extreme variant of widely shared European racial and social evolutionary ideologies? In this respect I think Maria Stella's comparative observations have more merit -- if the form and relatively encompassing scope of the anti-Herero genocide were distinctive (though not unique certainly if one includes Native Americans in the picture), many of the ideas enabling it were not, at the date in question.

But, to repeat, the murders of 123 settlers do not in themselves make even explicable the genocidal actions of von Trotha, the German army and settler militia in killing or driving to their deaths tens of thousands of equally civilian Herero people, much less justify those actions.

Ngwe 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Herero and Namaqua Genocide. —Khoikhoi 04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Wars → Herero and Namaqua Genocide – Was listed on WP:RQM with multiple choices, Herero and Namaqua Genocide got the most supports, now relisting it with only one option to see if it really has support Dijxtra 11:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support move. The United Nations 1985 Whitaker Report has recognized it as a genocide. The German government itself also later recognized it as a genocide, as is written in the article. Furthermore, may I pointed out that Maria Stella has done not only edit-warring here with an obvious revisionist POV (but also on Lothar von Trotha's page and elsewhere), but has even engaged in a war about this moving page. This explains why we now must ask an administrator to move the page. Contrary to Maria Stella, I hope we will follow procedures. Actually, a request against Maria Stella should be done, I'm just to busy and lackadaisical for such bureaucratic requests. Lucky Maria! But if anybody is up to it, please leave me a message. Lapaz 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as it already seems obvious on the page's lead section. Peter O. (Talk) 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all my arguments in the above discussion sections. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Greenman 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue is not whether or not it was a genocide. It was. The issue is whether the name of the article should be titled "Genocide." There have been/are many genocides like Darfur conflict, Indian Removal, Democratic Kampuchea, and The Holocaust but the articles are not entitled "Genocide." There has bee no evidence that this subject is actually called by aproper name of "Herero and Namaqua Genocide" to meet WP:OR thresholds. If evidence is presented, I will change my vote. -  AjaxSmack  06:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Holocaust is the archetype of all genocides, and has got a proper name. It is also called Shoah or "Genocide of the Jews" (although this last expression is incomplete - see Porrajmos). All of these different names are questionnable: Holocaust originally means "sacrifice" and is thus a religious term, which some historians have argued is unappropriate. Shoah is a Hebrew name which means a "disaster", and is preferred to the term "Holocaust" in French, because it has less of a religious connotation. Etc. etc. Darfur conflict is happening right now, involves many issues, and although clearly a genocide is happening, some argue that such is not the case. Maybe we will be honest in the future and call it what it is, but for the time being, to call it a "genocide" and let it happen would show to which extremity our societies have reached. Indian Removal is the name of a policy which came from the Indian Removal Act. Democratic Kampuchea is not a genocide, but a state. That Pol Pot directed a genocide is another story, but you can't identify a state with a genocide. The common name of the event we are dealing here - the genocide of the Herero and Namaqua in the early 20th century - is "Herero Genocide", as the Namaqua are often left over. They are plenty of sources on the subject, including in the article, and a quick search in your library will convince you if you are unfamiliar with the subject. Lapaz 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. See Armenian Genocide page. Note the contrasting attitude of the Turkish government in denying genocide to the view of the German government on the Herero and Namaqua genocide. Ngwe 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed unfamiliar with the subject. I don't dispute that it was a genocide. I dispute that it is called "Herero and Namaqua Genocide." There has still been no evidence that term is used anywhere that would justify encyclopedic usage. I seems to be original research. I am waiting to see if anyone can prove me wrong. -  AjaxSmack  02:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, the term is used in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity (J. B. Gewald, 2004). I've added this reference to the article, along with one or two others of a more general nature. I've left out German language sources. White Guard 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Change my above vote to support. -  AjaxSmack  07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I came here from the Aftermath of World War I page after reading some unbelievable nonsense about German conduct towards Africans. (see the Versailles section and my comment on the talk page). The Herero massacre was one of the worst cases of colonial genocide and deserves to be better known. White Guard 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support As per my comments above, and those of others. Ngwe 20:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Bries 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Germany admits Namibia genocide, BBC News. Lapaz 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Those colonial germans were the most uncivilised barbarians to walk the planet.There was no decency or civility or humaness in their actions - I can clearly see who the sub-humans were.I only find it interesting given that the various germanic tribes within the ancient world were considered barbarians by the greco-roman world and yet here they are having finally become literate and having lost their tribal affinities and ways over hundreds of years only to end up acting like barbarians as they did thousands of years ago.202.67.73.62 (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

The article could probably afford to be longer, as every article can. Also, I wonder about the neutrality of the language used here; it being a "genocide", and colonialism having left a rather bad feeling, I am sure it is difficult to be 100% neutral. Nevertheless, I am simply saying that my B ranking here is based on length, details, pictures, references, and not on my judgement for or against the degree of neutrality here. LordAmeth 09:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

stinks of POV, few sources

Almost all the sources for this POV-laced wiki come from BBC. Additonally, I'm not sure that this can be called genocide outright, though it could be "debtably" so. I plan to research further. Additionally, I don't see that the Boer wars are called "Boer genocide" or anything similar, yet here this article uses it. More anti-German/pto-British bias/bigotry on wikipedia. Gee, what a shock.Ernham 17:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so far, it's not a genocide. It was more of an expulsion/forced relocation/massacre. Additionally, only men were killed, women and children were not. The Namaqua was also not a genocide, though suffered similarly. Ernham 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How can 80% and 50% of a population be killed without killing women and children? That would in fact make it sure genocide since there would basically only be one gender left of each ethnic group. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the Talk page. Greenman 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Very easily. You don't get to make up what what genocide is at it suits you, mr/mrs Greenman, take your bigotry eslewhere. There needs to be an intent to exterminate a group of people purely for being that given group of people. This definitely does not meet that criteria. This falls in the realm of forced expulsions. They would fall under crimes against humanity, but such things were not codified in the early 1900s. Trotha's tactics were rather heavy handed but not different to the majority of conflicts stemming from colonialism. literally hundreds of tribes vanished in the united states, but each one is not listed as a genocide. The whoke framing this as a claim of "genocide" is a tried and true propaganda scheme by the British to "wag the dog" in regards to their crimes against humanity that "the sun never set upon".Ernham 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See the source I gave below. The Germans had won the war and the Herero were willing (and attempted to) surrender, but the Germans surrounded them militarily, secured every waterhole, and waited for them to die. General von Trotha had, 2 months before the event, even stated that it was his intention to shoot every Herero (incl. Women and children) on sight and should be driven into the Omaheke desert. If von Trotha hadn't run out of troops to complete the cordon around the Herero, even more would have died, so it's not like the high casualties are on accident. All of this is sourced. See the JSTOR link I provided below. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact you are now repeating lies shows you are not trustworthy. He never ordered the shooting of women/children. Of course he was guarding/destroying the resources. It's called scorched earth warfare, and is highly effective against guerrila tactics Ernham 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Yom for supplying the citation. Ernham, do you have some sources you'd like to provide to back up your views? Hopefully we can all ignore Ernhams's personal attacks and see something constructive in his views - the article has been a little biased, which is probably what initially raised Ernham's ire. Unfortunately, his attitude and personal attacks undermine his message, which actually has some validity. Greenman 12:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Valid sources for casualties

We need valid cites for actual casualties. The "whitaker report" is complete grabage. It's an op-ed piece and nothing more. The figures cited in it are from a guy that neither documents his sources nor his methodology in arriving at his figures. Worse yet, he does not appear to have any credibility to determine such matters. There are different numbers on this version of the wiki, which I'd also like to determine the validity of. Given hwo well the deaths were documented, it should be easy to find a governmental source for accurate casualties.

Here's a good one - 80-100,000 before the war, reduced to 16,000 after- so 64k-84k, or 75-84% (average 80%). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't access this site. What are their primary sources, which I probably do have access to.Ernham 08:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

lie-filled, libelous, bigotted wiki

The entire article needs to be rewritten, much as Stella's version has been done, except for her lead in, which needs changing and perhaps a few other things. This article is as far removed as NPOV as you can get. It is digusting to see the wiki editors in here continue to abuse this wiki with complete lies/bogus cites. I knew wikipedia was bad, but this is just downright disturbing.Ernham 09:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling the mention of atrocities carried out by the colonial German government lies, libellous and bigoted is mistaken. And it's good to be disturbed out of one's bubble, that's how one learns. Any constructive contribution to the article will be welcomed though. I welcome the tags that you've added to the article, as I agree the article does need improvement in all those areas. However, the truth will not be covered up because it disturbs you, or because you feel colonial German atrocities somehow slanders a nation today. Being a controversial topic, you need to realise your viewpoints are not shared by everyone, and the best way to improve the article is contribute constructively, and with patience :) Greenman 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is so completely flawed/biased there is little salvaging it. It has nothing to do with what I agree with, it has to fo with facts, not a bunch of lies tied together by a handful of dates.Ernham 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BBC is NOT a proxy for scholarly citation

Continually BBC is cited, while BBC has completely misrepresnted facts, omited important parts of cites, etc. For instance, a guy here keeps claiming that "germany called it genoce". Wrong. Germany had never officially recognized the actions there are genocide. One figure of the government cannot speak for the whole nation and an official recognition comes via the government proper(from berlin) NOT the words of one aid minister. Further, she never called it genocide, another thing the BBC gets wrong. She stated that her belief was that had those actons been carried out today it would be considered genocide." Similar issues are found throught this flawed article, mostly stemming from the use of essentially bogsus BBC cites and in some cases complete lies that are not cited/sourced.Ernham 09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

the BBC are a reputable source, thats why they're the most respected broadcaster in the world

The BBC is no more a "reputable source" than any other mass-media popularist TV broadcaster. Meowy 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Officially genocide?

Instead of going into a continual edit war and throwing around insults, let's try focus on improving the article. One of the points of contention is whether Germany officially recognises the events as genocide. It does not. According to the BBC article, after the speech, Herero Paramount Chief Kuaima Riruako said "I once again invite the German government to accept the genocide of my people and engage in a dialogue with the Herero to iron out issues of mutual interest". Germany does not officially recognise it as genocide, and refuses to pay reparations. The aid minister who gave the speech seems to understand the magnitude of the atrocities, saying "We Germans recognize our historical, political, moral and ethical responsibility and guilt," and "Blinded by colonial delusion [Germans brought] violence, discrimination, racism and destruction" to the country. She also pointed out that it would be genocide today, a carefully ambiguous phrase. So on the point of whether Germany officially recognises it as a genocide, I agree with Ernham.

Now official recognition by governments, and use of the term by historians are two different things. There's little doubt the scale of the atrocities warrant the term genocide. The controversy seems to come from governments being unwilling to use the term for fear of reparations and other legal complexities, and revisionists wanting to deny the scale of events.

Ernham, where does your rewritten version of the von Trotha speech come from? Certainly not the BBC article that is listed as the citation for the speech! Please supply the correct source. Greenman 10:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quit removing the mention that this is not recognized by any government in the world as a genocide. Genocides that are "generally accepted as such" are recognized by numerous countries, such as the Armenian or Ukrainian ones. No trying to ram your POV into this artcle. According to the UN definition of genocide, this can be argued as being such. However, using that definition the herero themselves were the first to initiate a genocide, as Samuel wrote a letter command all Herero to kill Germans, but not other ethnic groups in the area. And they did just that, including women. This will be detailed in the wiki, btw. Ernham 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The German government does not recognize the Herero Wars as a genocide because it was not one. Any comparision with e.g. the Holocaust is plain bullshit. The Herero started an uprising killing hundreds of German settlers and their families. The reaction was harsh and maybe brutal, but it was a reaction rather than a planned genocide like the Holocaust. At least I can not remember that the Holocaust was triggered by Jews slaughtering German women and children, was it? So you get the drifference. Ah yes, talking about POV: I am German. Best Regards, Hansi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.211.143 (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking again, I guess I have to (partially) revert my above comment. The term "reaction" may apply to the first military actions against armed Herero warriors, but the following actions in the desert are different stuff. Maybe one should try to better divide the article with view upon this different issues? If I hurt any feelings with above comment, please accept my apologize, it was not my intention to insult anybody. Best Regards, Hansi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.211.143 (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed this

The usage of the term "genocide" to describe the events in question is controversial. Nambia nor Germany, nor any other country in the world, currently recognize these events as genocide.

This is argumentative with the context of the article. This thype of comment, particularly as unsourced/ uncited, belongs on an article talk page or AfD, but not in the article itself. If you can cite a notable source as saying it, then that's a different matter. Jerry lavoie 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Jerry. You may want to keep an eye on the Lothar von Trotha article, which is also being similarly treated. The editor responsible keeps removing cited references there as well, and is equally unresponsive to any sort of rational discussion. Greenman 07:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

More neutral editors needed - help stop the edit war!

Sigh. This is a call for help to all interested editors to please help monitor the constant removal of cited references, in both this and the Lothar von Trotha articles, by a particular editor, and general attempts to force his own POV. The editor in question is abusive and not-responsive to constructive criticism, and has simply decided to opt out of discussions, and continually revert. Please see the relevant histories for the full discussions, and record of this users lack of constructive engagement. Greenman 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one POV pushing. I'm just interested in facts and truth as we know them, not your ridiculous communist websites and perverse interpretation of reality. How can one "spare noncombatants" when one just organized the ehtnic cleaning of over 100 noncombants? You cherry pick sources that are completely BOGUS and have no undertsanding of what you are editing. I don't have time to deal with you, but i won't let you continue to present a wiki that is 90% bogus as not being "disputed" and I won't let you claim something as a "genocide" when it is not recognized as such by any other country. You have chosen this route of edit warring instead of defending your postion. For instance, you could supply at least one country that officially recognizes it as a genocide. You have done nothing of the sort.Ernham 17:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You actually do make good points, that's the odd thing. But you undermine your efforts by removing cited references, resorting to personal attacks, and adding in such POV oddities as 'Some people claiming to be Herero'. If you were more constructive in your efforts, the article would reflect your ideas more, and actually be more balanced. However, when you add a good point, at the same time as removing citations and adding nonsense, and respond to debate with insults, it's easy to give up trying to reason with you and just revert the junk along with the good changes. When I have bothered to try incorporate your points you've just accused me of lying again with some other ridiculous point. Try be constructive and maybe your changes won't be reverted all the time. You seem to rub up most people up the wrong way, you're involved in an edit war in almost every article you contribute to. Take the friendly advice, learn to admit your mistakes, treat people with respect, and you may just have a better time at Wikipedia. And more influence :)

On the point of fact, I'm not disputing that no country recognises the events as genocide. But perhaps there's a context to that? But when you include that fact and at the same time remove sources you don't like, it's simply easier to revert. Greenman 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If I removed something "sourced" it's either a lie and easily disproven, or it does not substantiate what is claimed in the wiki. For instance, I would remove the source claiming that Germany admits this being a genocide when they clearly have not. Even the one official that keeps getting brought up did not go that far. It's taking a poorly written and factually incorrect BBC title and trying to present that as "facts". They are not facts. This same situation is found throughout this and the Trotha wiki. The BBC is a fine place to directly quote people, but not to interpret historical events. That's what historians are for, not editors/journalists that have no expertise in history. I won't have time to fix either of these lie-filled wikis until spring break. Ernham 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Say it aint so Ernham! Protected! Just when you had victory in your grasp, finally the truth was yours to create and some pesky sysop protects the article! But I know you. You'll be back in a week when it's unprotected, and the glorious general von Trotha's legacy shall be preserved. The malicious so-called Herero who started the war will know their place. And the world shall once and for all be purged of this Anglo-Saxon plot. Don't disappoint me now Ernham. I expect good things from you. I may be leaving this mess of an article to your devices, but I'll still be checking in to see just how low it can go. Perhaps 5-pages of tear-jerking testimony from a German soldier's widow? That'll balance things nicely! And reference-free! There're still one or two left for you to do your magic on. I'm surprised you've left the reference for 'Germany admits gen...' (I don't dare utter the word). Surely it should go as well? Someone might read it and be corrupted by the Anglo-Saxon news source! In fact the gen.... thing that never happened is mentioned 3 times in the references. Exterminate the brutes I say! Greenman 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Revolting Anti-German Trash (Not Necessarily this Article) & Tips for Improvement

While Maria Stella and Ernham have been accused of revisionism, and whether this accusation is warranted or not is another discussion, but they DO have a point. Namely, that there has been an awful lot of Germanophobia in connection with the tragic events which befell the Namaqua and Herero. Therefore, I strongly advise aproaching sources on the topic with cautious skepticism and a grain of salt; avoid using obviously outrageous, sensationalist, or slanderous sources. Specifically, by Anti-German trash I do not refer to the contributions of any particular user or to anything in the article as is per se. I am referring to a slanderous, libelious book titled Germany's Black Holocaust, 1890-1945: The Untold Truth by Firpo W. Carr. For those who do not know, Dr. Carr is a fundamentalist Jehovah's Witness scholar. He is also a bigot, being a known homophobe (consider his homophobic rag, Are Gays Really 'Gay'? A Sociological, Scientific, and Theological Analysis essentially a rehash of reactionary anti-gay propaganda), but also an anti-white racist, albeit a covert one. As with far right-wingers and reactionaries of all races, ethnicities, and nationalities, who typically have prejudices for foreign groups, in America at least, far right-wing blacks generally come in two varieties: self-hating black people such as Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes or rabidly anti-white such as Lois Farrakhan and many of his fellow Nation of Islam members. It may not be clear, but Firpo Carr fits in that latter category. I think it should be fairly obvious that Firpo W. Carr hates white people, but unlike Farrakhan and NoI who are honest enough to admit, Dr. Carr is too much of a coward to upset white Americans and whites in general so he plays the Uncle Tom role and directs all his hatred towards Germans (the easy scapegoat of the twentieth century) in this very Anglo-friendly anti-German rag. But why do I consider this work to be virulently anti-German? The answer lies in the title, "Germany's Black Holocaust, 1890-1945". From the period 1890-1945, Germany was under three different governments: the "Second Reich" under Kaiser Wilhelm II (until 1918), the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), and the Third Reich (Nazi Germany) under Adolf Hitler (1933-1945). Therefore, if as the sensationalistic title suggesting a continuous half century genocide of Black Africans by Germans took place and under no less than three different regimes, then the implication of blame rests, not with evil individuals or groups such as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party or with any particular government, but with the German people, because the one continuity over that time period is that Germany was populated by essentially the same people speaking the same language. Thus, the message is clear. Firpo Carr really hates white people, but being too cowardly to express said hate rides the tide of Anti-German sentiment instead.

To be fair, I have not actually read the book (except for selections), the slanderous content should be apparent in the review. "In the 1890s Blacks were tortured in German concentration camps in Southwest Africa (now called Namibia)..." A blatant lie. There were no such camps before 1904, and despite unsupported allegations, there is no evidence that torture was employed in the camps (though undoubtedly prisoners suffered). Right off the bat, the author alleges sadism so as to warrant comparisons of the tragedy in Namibia with the Holocaust. "...when Adolph Hitler was only a child." Seeing as the atrocities did not start until 1904, Hitler would have been 15 at the time. Calling him a child is a stretch. "Colonial German doctors conducted unspeakable medical experiments on these emaciated helpless Africans decades before such atrocities were ever visited upon the Jews." Note that even the article Imperialism and Genocide in Namibia from Socialist Action, which compares the Herero and Namaqua Genocide to the Holocaust never mentions unspeakable medical experiments. They even mention Eugen Fischer, a teacher of Josef Mengele: "How did Adolph Hitler acquire many of his racist ideas? Strangely enough they came out of Africa in the form of a book written by Eugen Fischer, a prominent German scientist, who went to Namibia (South West Africa) in 1904 and made a study of the mixed ethnic children of German men and Herero women. The resulting book, "The Principles of Human Heredity of Race Hygiene," attempted to show that these children were mentally and physically inferior to German children. Hitler, while writing "Mein Kampf" in prison years later, read the book. By the time Hitler came to power, Fischer was chancellor at the University of Berlin and taught select Nazi physicians in medical school. One of his pupils was the later notorious Josef Mengele, a doctor at the Auschwitz concentration camp. This "scientific" racist study concerned the first genocide of the 20th century, that of the Herero people." But notice, not one mention in the article about any medical experiments performed on prisoners is to be found! Even so, I did not read the book (just excerpts), so although there are outright lies and fabrications about the incident in the editorial review on Amazon.com, admittedly none of these lies may have been produced by the author. The book ironically titled, "Germany's Black Holocaust, 1890-1945: The Untold Truth" should be retitled with "The Untold Truth" read "Mostly A Blatant Lie I Fabricated with Some True But Little Known (though mostly not connected) Facts Throughout". Even so, it should be obvious by the author's title, the context (his inappropriate connection between the massacres in Namibia and the Holocaust), and his overall bias that the author has a hatred for Germans (and probably whites in general).

Essentially, the author wrote about the Holocaust and included rather uncontroversial FACTS about the Black African victims of the Holocaust, who were clearly victims of a genocide with known motives, together with an account of genocidal activity against Herero and Namaqua in Namibia, which is factually based, in that these tribes were massacred in the tens of thousands (estimates of 60,000 to 75,000 killed from 1904-1907), but the exact nature of the genocide (including debatability of whether it qualifies, motives, etc.) is uncertain, albeit the author presents this later account with less factual data. The author then attempts to connect the tragedy in 1904-1907 Namibia with the Holocaust! (Lying through manipulation.) And he additionally deliberately fabricates dates (why 1890? Obviously to pad the length of this alleged continuous holocaust to over 50 years!) and if the editorial review is correct, invents fictitious accounts of torture committed for its own sake and medical experiments in colonial Namibia. (Outright lies!) If one wishes to read about the black African victims of the Holocaust and their experiences living in Nazi-controlled Europe, then there are plenty of great books to read, including... Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany by Hans J. Massaquoi, Hitler's Black Victims: The Historical Experience of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans and African Americans in the Nazi Era by Clarence Lusane, The Other Victims: First-Person Stories of Non-Jews Persecuted by the Nazis by Ina R. Friedman, Other Germans: Black Germans and the Politics of Race, Gender, and Memory in the Third Reich (Social History, Popular Culture, and Politics in Germany) by Tina Marie Campt, Invisible Woman: Growing Up Black in Germany by Ika Hugel-Marshall, and Showing Our Colors: Afro-German Women Speak Out by Katharina Oguntoye. All of the aforementioned books are excellent in their own merits, certainly FAR better than Firpo Carr's BS! And they all have one thing in common, although many of the books detail the injustices and atrocities suffered by black Africans under the Nazis, not one mentions the 1904 massacres or the subsequent encampments. Why? Because the atrocious orders of General Lothar von Trotha and those commanded by Adolf Hitler have NOTHING IN COMMON! (Hint: There were no Nazis in 1904!)

One two-star reviewer said, "If one were to stick to the atrocities committed by colonial Germany in Namibia alone, it would have been enough to fill a book." Personally I disagree, because the massacre was but one 3-year event, not sure if it could fill a book. I suppose if somebody were to write a book that was well-researched, high in factual content, truthful, credible, and with a genuine sympathy for the victims (as opposed to mere finger-pointing), then maybe someone could write a book. Of course, such a book should not be quick to label the event a holocaust and connect it with Nazism. If an author agrees that the massacres and encampment qualifies as genocide, then s/he should provide reasons, including a definition of genocide. Also if one wished to write a book devoted to actions committed by the German general in colonial Namibia, s/he should attempt to understand the motives behind such atrocities. In either case, the tragedy of the Herero and Namaqua certainly deserves an entire chapter on its own, but that chapter should be in a book about the Scramble for Africa. It does not belong in a book about the Holocaust! The fate of the Herero and Nama peoples is but one sad event in the European colonization Africa. Were the author in question to devote a book entirely to the events here specified, then he would no doubt fill it with libel, slander, fabrication, and lies. No wonder why, as the reviewer complained, the author covered other topics in such a way that was "very difficult to follow and digest." Even the reviewer agreed that, "[The book] deserves a re-write with more facts, less emotion and a more organized approach. All of these stories must be told but not in one book." But I would not expect that from the author. Consider this example of Mr. Carr's agenda: "Germany controlled a large part of the African continent before World War I. This included territories in South West Africa, East Africa, and the territories of Togoland and Cameroon. The German Empire had expansionist plans in Africa during the beginning of the century. Documents discovered in 1918 showed plans for all African territories south of the equator as a greater German Empire. Germany lost its empire to Great Britain, France, and the Union of South Africa following the 1918 Peace Treaty." Notice how the author mentions the expansionism of the German Empire but neglects to mention the imperialism of ALL European powers. I agree that all forms of imperialism are bad, but how is German imperialism inherently worse than that of the British, French, Dutch, Belgians, Spanish, Portuguese, or Russians? The author never equates Anglo-French expansion in Africa with "lebensraum" nor does he mention the genocide committed by the Belgians in the Congo (equaling just over 100 Herero Namaqua Genocides) or the atrocities commited against African natives by the British in the Boer Wars or the fact that it were the Anglo-Dutch settlers of the Commonwealth of South Africa who were responsible for Apartheid?

Riding the bandwagon of Germanophobia, Firpo W. Carr produces a rag of Anglophillic Uncle Tom-ery and focuses his anti-white agenda on the Germans. (Due to the universal scapegoat role of Germany, when upset minorities point at whites, whites point ar Germans.) It should be pointed out that it were the Spanish and Portuguese (not blonde-haired, blue-eyed Germans) who were entirely responsible for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the British who were slow to condemn slavery (and the Anglophone US maintaining it until 1865, about 89 years since the Revolution). The French also maintained slavery and oppression in the Carribean. But the Germans were relative late comers to the scene, having no presense until the turn of the last century. It is understandable why many people of Black African descent would be angry at whites for injustices and atrocities commited against their ancestors. (And Firpo W. Carr strikes me as a particularly angry black man, albeit in a more discreet manner. If not for the fact that Firpo Carr is a Christian fundamentalist, and Farrakhan a Muslim one, and that fanatics of different creeds generally do not get along, they would otherwise make great allies.) Why then single out Germany? For a rebuttal to Mr. Carr's rediculous conclusion, I recommend the essay "The Germans and History" by the brilliant Thomas Sowell (who just so happens to be African-American). You can find it in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals. So what is the point of this rather long-winded rant? Basically, my point is (a) watch out for sensationalistic sources, often with an agenda, occasionally containing fabrications and downright lies, remaining skeptical and taking information with a grain of salt as required so as to ensure credibility of facts or that data is reliable and not exaggerated, (b) be careful not to spread unreliable information which could be used as a source for slander, like Firpo Carr's hateful book.

I agree that Ernham in particular made some good points, unfortunately his attitude and edit warring meant his contribution wasn't constructive. Happily for this article's progress, he's been banned. Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you think Ernham "made some good points." Granted you yourself made some rather counter-productive comments to Ernham in the past (as did he), but I appreciate all attempts to be civil! While I may not agree with much of what Ernham said, I am not sure if banning him is the best recourse, but the need to do so to protect the article is warranted apparently. I just think we need an alternate perspective on the events to ensure NPOV. (By the way, my reason for writing at length about the aforementioned book and author is twofold. Not only to warn against using highly biased sources (as well as creating an article which could contribute to further creating such sources), plus possible anti-German POV, but also to put things in perspective for Maria and Ernham to see what a really anti-German screed looks like. Just look up the book on Amazon to see what I mean.)

What, then are my suggestions for improvement?

• Compromise. I propose that instead of referring to the event as the "Herero and Namaqua Genocide" (which seems POV and is not unanimously agreed upon, possibly anti-German) on the one hand, or a sanitization such as "Herero and Namaqua Uprising" or "Herero and Namaqua War" (which is just as POV and possibly too pro-German), we title the article "Herero and Namaqua Massacre" instead. Massacre does not have the whitewashing gloss, sanitization, or revisionism of "war" or "uprising". Also, while it is debated whether or not this qualifies as a genocide, and considering that the label seems to imply unwarranted systematic wholesale slaughter for its own sake, such as that associated with the Holocaust, or the Romans in Carthage, or Sadaam Hussein, nobody here denies that a massacre and encampments took place. (Also, massacres are sometimes provoked, genocides are almost always considered unprovoked.) Thus, what should be done is retitle the article "Herero and Namaqua Massacre" but mention in the article why some (most?) consider it a genocide, by what criteria, and why some do not think it qualifies.

I'm not going to comment on the name besides saying it should use the term Nama, the more common modern term, instead of Namaqua. Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well, Nama > Namaqua

• Whoever keeps making parallels with the Holocaust, please stop it! Such comments do not belong, and you have lost all credibility! The terms "Holocaust," "lebensraum," and "Final Solution" do not belong in this article. The massacres/genocide/ethnic cleansing took place in 1904, well before there were Nazis, and it is clear that whatever atrocities German colonials commit were brutally cruel, they could not in any way be considered a final solution.

As I pointed out on the Lothar von Trotha talk page, of course there's a link. The article does not, and cannot, claim that the scale of the atrocities were the same. But it's a fact that the theory of eugenics and Hitler were strongly influenced by the events in Namibia. Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Be careful in stating what you consider facts. In this case, while it is doubtless the events in Deutsch SW Africa must have had some influence on the Nazis, it obviously was not a strong influence. It is clear that you are referring to the article in Socialist Action, specifically how Dr. Eugen Fischer's studies influenced Mengele and other Nazis. Even so, if you argue how the Namibian tragedy influenced aspects of Nazism, the burden is on you to provide more sources. (I.e. presumably Hitler mentioned DSWA in Mein Kampf or elsewhere.) Anyways, keeping things in perspective, Nazism was influenced just as much by non-German ideas (Brits Herbert Spencer and Thomas Henry Huxley and American proto-fascist William Graham Sumner responsible for social darwinism, Protocols of the Elders of Zion was authored in czarist Russia, the Frenchman Arthur de Gobinaeu and American William Z. Ripley developed "scientifically racist" theories, Mussolini and Ataturk developed Fascism, etc.) As such the racism inherent in both the Herero-Namaqua genocide and the Holocaust, were neither isolated incidents nor uniquely German attitudes, but rather symptomatic of European imperialism-racism of the time.

• Be careful in placing blame. Make sure to point out that the German citizens and the Kaiser were outraged upon hearing this and opposed von Trotha's actions. (Although Kaiser Willie incompetently handled the situation and might have prevented the massacre or minimized suffering in its aftermath.) Therefore if an evildoer is needed, General Lothar von Trotha is the one.

Agree that the article should not apportion blame to 'Germans', but I don't think it does. I'd also like to see a source for the Kaiser's outrage, as this was questioned in one of the other comments. Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the Chancellor at least was outraged. Not sure about the Kaiser, but in either case it is evident he did not condone von Trotha's handling of the situation.

• Mention the camps, but be sure to point out that concentration camps in this context were similar to the British ones used in the Boer Wars, that they were not death camps or extermination camps, more along the lines of labor and POW camps. The camps were a draconian means to quell the uprising and were closed when the colonists deemed the uprising over. Also, attempts to form parallels between the forced labor or prison labor employed durring the period of 1904-1907 with the slavery of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as practiced in the South is inappropriate in this context.

Agree Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, it would help to mention that the genocide or massacre was NOT unprovoked or unprecipitated. Unlike the Holocaust, which was an extermination of people deemed unfit for the Aryan Nation, the atrocities committed under the command of General von Trotha in German South-west Africa were acts of revenge, in retaliation for uprisings which resulted in the deaths of one hundred German civilians. Granted, the victims did not deserve any of this, such retaliation was overly brutal, unjust, and completely uncalled for and tens of thousands of innocents died, but the actions were not unprovoked either. If a genocide must be unprovoked then obviously this does not qualify, but there is no reason why genocide must be unprovoked, so these massacres and encampments may yet qualify as genocide. The key is knowing the intentions of the perpetrators, and the intentions are a deciding factor in whether an act qualifies as genocide. Unless we could determine the motives and intentions of the colonials in authority, and it is questionable whether or not Lothar von Trotha's motives and intentions were of a genocidal nature, this question could not be satisfactorily answered. One thing is for sure however. Revenge, not racism was the motive. Racism was probably a factor, but if anything like a Nazi mentality was a factor, considering that there were more than two native African tribal groups, why were only the Herero and Nama targeted? Why were the Ovambo spared? Probably because the Ovambo did not participate in the 1904 uprising.

It's not correct to claim a single motive only. Racism was also a motive, though obviously the circumstances differed, and the uprisings were of course the trigger. Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Racism was definitely a factor, but not a motive. The Herero and Nama were targeted, NOT because they were black (otherwise why were other aboriginals spared), but in retaliation for the uprising. No Herero and Namaqua wars, no subsequent massacres, gulag, and encampment. Therefore no genocide. Of course in stating racism to be a factor, it is obvious that German colonists probably believed their culture to be superior to that of the natives, as ethnocentricism/racism were symptomatic of the times throughout Europeans, so no doubt this helped facilitate the killings, but it is incorrect to call this attitude a motive.

• Also, Maria Stella and Ernham may be woefully wrong in believing the tragedies not to be genocidal in nature. Still, I think we should have a civil debate and be respectful of opposing opinions and the feelings of their proponents. Please do not consider them or equate them with Holocaust deniers! Nothing indicates they have any sympathies for the Nazis whatsoever or dispute the facts of the Holocaust. Understand however, that the sense of guilt the Germans have for the involvement of their ancestors in atrocities in the 1930's and 40's continues to this day, so it should be expected that some people of German descent to defend their nation's reputation prior to the Third Reich, even with what appears to be historical revisionism to outsiders. After all, if Anglo-Franco-American revisionists got their way, then the entire history of Germany up to 1933 would be percieved as a progression leading inevitably to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, World War Two, and the Holocaust. Prussia, Austria, Imperial Germany, even the Empire of Barbarossa, would be seen as a foreshadowing of Nazism.
• My PERSONAL Suggestion: We should attempt to figure out WHY such atrocities were committed. As an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility not to moralize, but one could still write what motivated certain events. As such, I believe that the atrocities had a very ignorant and careless mindset behind them. Specifically, we could mention how a cultural misunderstanding may have partly precipitated the massacre, pointing out that the European mentality behind warfare was very different to that of some nomadic African tribes. Namely the Herero and Nama entered the field of combat with their families, because combat was very different, often ceremonialized. European warfare was more of an arms race fought with massive destruction on both sides, and so obviously, civillians would be nowhere near the battlefield. Perhaps then, some Germans thought everyone to be a combatant in the heat of battle, and so, fought an unconventional war, countering guerilla tactics. Granted, this ignorance and misunderstanding does NOT excuse the brutality, cruelty, and atrocity ordered by the General, but from this perspective it might be understood why such extreme (and frankly barbaric) measures were taken.

Agree. Greenman 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hererocaust?

Me thinks that's another German myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.254 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks you have your head in the sand.Those colonial germans were the most uncivilised barbarians to walk the planet.There was no decency or civility or humaness in their actions - I can clearly see who the sub-humans were.I only find it interesting given that the various germanic tribes within the ancient world were considered barbarians by the greco-roman world and yet here they were having finally become literate and having lost their tribal affinities and ways over hundreds of years only to end up acting like barbarians as they did thousands of years ago.202.67.73.62 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Read up on "Shepherd Stuurman" for the resistance efforts made against the namaqua genocide which was instigated following the genocide and massacre of the Herero.I have Herero and Nama ancestry as well as anglo saxon,dutch,welsh,irish and unfortunately german ancestry.The "prophet" stuurman tried to liberate his entire country with the little power he had from the onslaught of invading armed germans and died in name of that cause he is one of my ancestors.58.178.18.221 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we shy away from "1st Genocide of 20th century" ...

Genocide appears to be an on-going tactic by many countries in the colonial era. In fact, the United States could be responsible for a genocide starting earlier than the 1904-1907 period … where the Philippine Pacification program was started in 1902 (it went from 1902-1913), the war itself (possibly along with civilian reduction) started in 1899 (based on evidence I see, it appears to what happened in the Philippines clearly constitutes genocide as defined clearly by the U.N.). Making calls one who is first or second, sounds more like finger pointing than actual stating of NPOV fact. Nonprof. Frinkus (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Genocide Allegation is Bullshit

The genocide allegation is bullshit, since there is no evidence for it. --41.15.7.218 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Karpaten1's discussion

A genocide requires government plans, and with the German government countermanding that order very quickly, it seems that "genocide" might be the wrong word, despite the Whitaker Report. UN Reports are not biblical injunctions (remember the old Zionism is Racism thingy, not withdrawn?). Anyway, I appreciate the hard work of editors in trying to maintain a scholarly angle, but feel that here, as in so many Wikipedia articles, the foam-at-the-mouth zealots have won, and wikipedia starts becoming increasingly like the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, with a lot of useful data, but since you never know where it is, and what's P.C. bullshit, it's best to avoid citing it in your college essays. There should be a rule that no matter what the issue, at least TWO interpretations should be presented, so readers can form their own opinion. Karpaten1 (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is really nothing in this to indicate that there was a plan from higher up to specifically exterminate or heavily decimate those ethnicities because of who they were (the deliberate, planned intention to destroy a people, an intention linked to ethnicity, is absolutely central to real genocide!) If this is genocide then the WW2 devastation of Oradour-sur-Glane and the 1914 battle of Tannenberg (tens of thousands of Russian soldiers killed and even more captured) were genocides too. This is a deplorable instance of the mixing up of genocide with "brutal warfare", terror, ruthlessness and massacres in general. Strausszek (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, so your opinions of what constitutes genocide, PC bullshit and deplorable mixups don't matter. What's important are reliable sources. The German government and the Whitaker report are just two of the sources describing this as a genocide. Greenman (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've just committed the prime fallacy of sloppy WP thinking: "don't *think*, don't make any sort of critical judgment or common sense", ,just parrot any 'reliable source' that can be found to give some credence to your picked view. Then proclaim that approach is a WP Law (no sir, rules here are not rock-hewn laws) and try to forbid all other wikipedians to use their common sense!

The present article specifically claims it was genocide and lumps it under that category but there's no real basis for it (per judicial definitions of genocide) apart from that some people - okay, they're influential but that has no weight: a German minister and a bunch of media folks make up no judicial authority - have labelled it genocide. So, the talk is about the article and not discussion simply about its subject. Maybe you've never studied history and don't know that to even make intelligible statements about human sciences takes critical handling of whatever sources and opinions one comes across. And that applies both to reviewing something, briefing and explaining it in a popular text (as here) and when the writing is more research oriented; without common sense and critical ability you don't get anything but an unreliable jumble. Strausszek (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Greenman's right here. "Common sense" in this situation, like many others, is a matter of opinion. What you two are doing is classic original research. It's not an encyclopedist job to "study" history - just to compile the studies that have already been done.radek (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so if ´we just stop thinking and start constructing our little articles exclusively out of "I've got this source and it says so-and-so, that trumps what it says in the article and in your sources" then everything will be fine? Must be why this encyclopaedia lists the FNL as Viet Cong too, one of many cute instances of what happens when you just parrot the prejudices current where some users come from. No historian~today calls them Viet Cong, the name became outdated already in the sixties. It's what the Pentagon and some U.S media called them during the war, but if you won't critically judge the sources then oh-oh-oh... Strausszek (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one needs to stop thinking - but it is important to understand what an encyclopedia is and what it isn't. It isn't a research paper or a newspaper editorial or a blog. And I have no idea how the Viet Cong/FNL analogy is supposed to be relevant here, though I'll note that that article in fact does include a source based discussion of the group's name. But like I said, that's neither here nor there. And yes, articles should be 'constructed' based on what the sources say and if there are reliable sources which say different things, then we present them all (as long as we're not talking about fringe ones here).radek (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is, that model ("just refer to what such-and-such source are overtly saying, push it into the article without any real discussion of the merit, origin or consistency of those sources and statements, of their sources and supporting facts or underpinnings") is simplistic bullshit. And no one actually writes tertiary overview books (encyclopaedias, articles and textbooks, especially on paper) that way. What's in an article of any value, whether it's in the Britannica or WP, is not simply a mosaic of statements culled straight off "reliable older sources" and put on the table without any reworking or integrative statements and explanations, without any critical treatment. Nope. Using reasoned judgment matters just as much if you're putting together an abstract of what we know - or what we know cannot be established - of something as if you're doing original academic writing. If you say "I don't want anyone to care what intrinsic grounds there are for these statements as long as I can point to somebody who babbled it was like that - and preferably somewhere that's easy to access - that makes it a Verifiable Truth", then it rapidly makes any kind of writing project a storehouse of derivative anything-goes opinions. Maybe you personally would be able to evade that in your own writing, but because everyone else has the right to edit anything here, if reliability is located only in sourcability from whatever one can get accepted as "reliable sources", then it sends the whole project down into the pit.

The VC parallel is one instance out of thousands of where this kind of blind faith in 'sources' (in whatever has been claimed by any John Blow and cited by some wikipedians: is everything that's been printed by, like, the NY Times or a "notable columnist or tv commentator", always on the same level of fact and notability?) gets you. It turns what should have been a reliable article into pseudo-science or completeley erratic stuff, and just as here it's really an echo of somebody's biased opinions. Strausszek (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep putting things in quotations that aren't actually quotations, since nobody's actually said them. Of course the merit of various sources needs to be examined critically and discussed. That's what determines the "reliable" in "reliable sources". And RS is how Wikipedia is written, regardless of what really happens with tertiary overview books. You're setting up this false dichotomy that somehow insisting on WP:RS, WP:V and no WP:OR implies lack of thought or common sense - that just isn't the case. Anyways. If this was just one source or two in isolation then maybe there'd be something to discuss here. But the term is very common in all sorts of academic and non-academic literature [4] - so we're not talking a single "NY Times or a "notable columnist or tv commentator"" here.radek (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" in the way you and greenman are using that term, implies that some news outlets, writers, scholars, tv channels etc are always trustworthy and the merit, consistency and accuracy of any statements they make, however flippant or overstated, even the precise meaning of those statements in their context, must not be discussed, except if it's through invoking another statement from some other 'reliable source'. that's the gist because you're classing all discussion of it on its own merits, all scrutiny and checking against facts that are not quoted in that corpus of sources, as "original research". Because "reliable source" applies in general, to everything said by a limited number of sources, said in paper X or by professor Y, it means a huge amount of stated facts are left outside.

Many of those facts and elements of analysis will be far more reliable than some of the stuff in those named RS. So we're left with word against word, or with whatever one can get some WP bureaucrats to accept and stamp as correct. That's a useless approach, it allows any trash statement to be entered into an article because "look, somebody said that and they got it printed in a reliable paper"; while on the other hand statements that would be needed to bring into the text of an article, expecially to counter vandalism, and which are not one bit controversial among people who are knowledgeable on the subject may be hard to get in because no one has needed to state them as a soundbite fact.. The method you're outlining has nothing to do with reliable writing and nobody who has a reputation to protect writes that way. .

And don't throw the book at me, please, by claiming: this is the WP law: sourcing is everything no matter what the value or reliability of the statement. What you're pulling in is simply a particular kind of WP orthodoxy and it's not uncontested nor established.

When it comes to quotation marks, yes I'm using them, sometimes, to capture the gist of an attitude or a train of thought that's obviously there but where extracting it from what someone said in a scholarly way would be much too long-winded. It's a perfectly accepted thing, and you might notice I am not claiming to quote what *you* said at every point: sometimes it's general attitudes that may turn up in these discussions on the topic, and are closely related to what you're arguing. Of course I would never use that way of quoting in an article, thank you very much.

As someone pointed out to greenman on the archived page: you don't get to define genocide from your own ad hoc ideas and prejudices, not even if they're shared by various politicians and pundits. The use of the term here can and should be challenged on the grounds that these events in Namibia, even if shocking, don't fit the definitions of genocide used by courts such as Nuremberg or The Hague. The premeditated intention of killing an entire nation is missing. Strausszek (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

<- (edit conflict) No, that's not the way me (and probably not Greenman) are using the term "reliable sources". Nobody said anything about tv or newspapers. The link I provided is to numerous academic works. You keep on putting words in people's mouths and constructing strawman after strawman.

And sure, to the extent "context" is discussed in sources, it may be included in the article - though I think you'll find that most of the sources are pretty unequivocal in calling what this article describes "genocide".

And WP:RS and WP:V ARE in fact fundamental Wikipedia policies (rather than simply guidelines) and as such DO constitute an established and uncontested "orthodoxy".

As far as your last paragraph goes - the whole point here is that I am NOT defining "genocide" according to my "own ad hoc ideas and prejudices". In fact, I haven't even defined it at all. I have merely pointed out that the term "genocide" is widely used in reliable sources (not just tv, newspaper etc.). If you have a reliable source that states explicitly that these events do not meet the Nuremberg or Hague definition of the term then that of course can be included - though I think the only thing you'll find is that the German government has been unwilling to recognize them as such. But so far it seems like the only person trying to define genocide according to their own ad hoc ideas and prejudices is you, in order to avoid including the term in the article - despite what reliable sources actually say.radek (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"As far as your last paragraph goes - the whole point here is that I am NOT defining "genocide" according to my "own ad hoc ideas and prejudices". In fact, I haven't even defined it at all. I have merely pointed out that the term "genocide" is widely used in reliable sources (not just tv, newspaper etc.)."

My main point is, by claiming to be referring all judgment, all scrutiny to some sources that's being used, sources that have been sanctioned, and denying any discussion of what they say, any critical weighing of these statements and wordings on their own merits (not on the generic merits of their given sources), people can get any statement into an article and that's ruinous to the integrity and reliability of an article like this, a site like this. It leaves the door wide open for masked circular proofs and agenda editing, as follows:

Wikipedian R says: "(P) is true because it says (P) in such and such papers and in this book whose author has got great reviews for his other books" - and (hidden part) sources X and Y said or implied (P) is true, much because they're repeating what other people have said before them, what's the standard thing to say in their environment, which happens to be the same environment as that of wikipedians R, S and T who are using those sources to push the statements they "knew" into the article. In the extreme cases, not uncommon though, people push tabloid allegations onto a page and say "it is true because "The Sun" wrote so today".

People are sometimes discussing how to get professional academics to contribute more to WP, but actuially few sane academics would accept that kind of framework of how to explain and discuss a subject. It's neither scientific nor intelligible.

And no, your claim to be declaring the established WP orthodoxy and book of laws that no one contests is simply fake.

My apologies if you felt I was inferring that "reliable sources" to you would include pretty much any large morning paper, university report series or tv channel, but in my experience, RS is a shifting beast here. A bunch of people working on an article or a range of articles can more or less push through their view of what makes "reliable sources" and that might include much more than you would count in. So, if any argument has to be conducted on the crutches of "reliable source Y says that (P) because (Q) but it doesn't mention (R)" and "that source might be reliable but i can't check it, so it doesn't count" then it's simply debilitating and leaves the doors wide open to distort an article. Strausszek (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Particularly with contentious articles, statements must be backed up with reliable sources. that source might be reliable but I can't check it - not all sources have to be online. but actually few sane academics would accept that kind of framework of how to explain and discuss a subject - indeed. It is not the same as writing an academic paper. You could write such a paper elsewhere, get it peer-reviewed or somehow tag it reliable, and then use it here. Wikipedia can be a frustrating environment, but this is the best we can come up with. Wizzy…☎ 08:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If "this is the best we can come up with", while gross mistakes, fake explanations and biased statements abound on the pages of WP, and are kept in by editing gangs who don't understand critical handling of sources, or who won't permit it because it might stop their pet ideas from being in the entry, then I think you should realize the guy at the top of this page was right in saying WP is starting to appear like the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: many useful facts but woven together with incorrect, murky and blatantly agenda-driven writing. Which makes it useless in the end: who wants to use a reference source if they have to check everything it says elsewhere? Not just check the facts, but check that they are presented in a decent fashion? Strausszek (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it unbelievable that there are still people, and apparently no small number of people, who think that the German colonial empire is worth defending. Lord knows that Britain is cursed with empire-apologists, even though its empire expired about 50 years ago. The Germans' empire collapsed over 90 years ago!

The excreble attempt to deny this genocide has no place on wikipedia. If you disagree with wikipedia's RS policy, go ahead and try to get it repealed. You won't be able to, of course, and that's why you're complaining about it here. But that won't work either, so you might as well give up. BillMasen (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not defending what went on and I have no interest in extolling the German army of a hundred years ago. But many people today seem to think genocide, brutal warfare, terror actions and large massacres are the same thing and can all be called "genocide" when you like. No way. Strausszek (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The solution to this is very simple. Find a source which says this isn't genocide. If you can't, then the article can't say that it might not have been genocide. Do you think you're the only person who has ever wanted to write something that can't be supported by WP:RS? I can think of a hundred occassions when it has stopped me contributing something I consider blindingly obvious. But WP:RS is the only way to keep Wikipedia halfway honest.

To address your criticism of the article, I point out that governments, for obvious reasons, are reluctant to issue a direct order to commit genocide even if genocide is their aim. Even Hitler didn't issue a direct order to gas all of the Jews in Europe. That doesn't mean that the Holocaust wasn't genocide. They will also always claim that the genocide was quid pro quo, or an unavoidable part of a war they are committing. The Kosovo war is an excellent example of this.

But many people today seem to think genocide, brutal warfare, terror actions and large massacres are the same thing and can all be called "genocide" when you like. No way. During the Rwanda war, Madeleine Albright famously said that genocide wasn't being committed, but that acts of genocide were. How many massacres make a genocide? You seem to think it is obvious that this episode of massacres did not add up to genocide. But the point at which many massacres become genocide is, tragically, subjective. BillMasen (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Politicians and statesmen are not authorities on what constitutes genocide, sometimes they even have to turn a blind eye or engage in double-talk. When the Katyn massacre first came to light - found by the German troops and claimed by them to be an act by the Soviets, which happened to be true for a change but was inopportunate at the time - Churchill told the press that it would be the Germans who had shot the Polish officers. What's more, he repeated this in his history of WW2 several years later. I guess most wikipedian would count Winnie as a reliable source!

In private letters to some of his friends, he admitted it was likely the Russians were the guilty party, but that was impossible to say in public in the 1940s and later. Albright's vacillation isn't very surprising, but your reaction shows you don't understand what genocide is; you simply equate it with major massacre or ruthless warfare where most of the victims and fallen are ethnically related. Which is not true at all. So the onus of showing there is any decent evidence these African fatalities were a genoocide is with you. The very definition of genocide as used by courts, not politicains and editorialists, defies it. That's my ground, thank you.

As for the German recognition, it's nothing but PC opportunism and has no value at all. Strausszek (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose that you have a monopoly on identifying "PC opportunism"?

Albright's vacillation isn't very surprising, but your reaction shows you don't understand what genocide is; you simply equate it with major massacre or ruthless warfare where most of the victims and fallen are ethnically related. What are you trying to say, that there was no genocide in rwanda either? Or that there is a qualitative difference between "lots of ethnic massacres directed at one group" and "genocide"?

Legal definitions of genocide did not exist when this genocide was committed. In any case, the UN convention requires that there was an intent to destroy an ethnic group, in whole or in part. It does not require that there be a formal written order to wipe out a people; no government is ever stupid enough to do something like that. And how many people have to be killed for it to be "the destruction of a race in part"? That is subjective. So, find someone who thinks that this particular series of massacres doesn't add up to genocide. BillMasen (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Look up the first post I made on this page, man. I'm saying at once that events like the Nazi destruction of Oradour-sur-Glane in 1944 are not genocide, although that entire village was destroyed and its inhabitants murdered. The act was not rooted in any intention to exterminate the French; it was a misguided reprisal for guerilla activities in the area. What went on at Buchenwald is no instance of genocide either and the image from there should of course not be on the genocide page, but after several rounds of discussion (ón the talk page there) it's still there, so some people must be very committed to have it kept in (no shortage of pics from Auschwitz is there?). My bet is those people don't realize that Buchenwald was a quite different kind of facility than Auschwitz and the like: it was not a killing factory although death rate was rather high, it was not first off aimed at rounding up ethnic groups and having them killed, and it was not the final station of major deportation trails. Not any less barbaric, but with different intention and different kinds of people.

Events like the Irish potato starvation or earlier English wars in Ireland weren't genocides either by any stretch of the word, although the army were involved and with enough muddled thinking they get lumped into the group. No, - pause for shocked faces - even if thousands of a people perish in wartime, in a small area, and the conditions are terrible that doesn't make it genocide. Genocide takes intentional targeting of a people, rounding them up and killing them and most often deliberate planning from high up - killing them precisely because they belong to that ethnic group. Not simply because you're at war with them: that's why Oradour, Namibia and Ireland don't qualify.

I might locate some investigative statement about this obscure pseudo-genocide, but I reckon even if it did make a scholarly reliable claim that it was nothing of the kind, it would get ruled out because it was "not notable enough" or "doesn't explicitly say it wasn't genocide" - the scientific discussion didn't start on that angle, so historians might not have felt compelled to say outright that it wasn't. Strausszek (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ¨¨¨¨

Believe me I sympathise, even though I do not agree with you. WP:Syn and WP:RS combined is a ballache when trying to write any kind of article on a general subject. But you seem to think you are the only person in the world who has to contend with WP:RS.

Like anyone else, nobody can possibly give you guarantees that your sources will be permissible before anyone has a chance to look at them. BillMasen (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)