Talk:Herero and Nama genocide/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV

In an attempt to remove a duplicate tagging for POV I apparently removed both tags. Thinking about whether to revert myself on this I decided to let it stand without tags -- the person behind the IP did not express any rationale here on the talk page -- because such tags are pretty meaningless on topics as contested as this one. Feel free to reinsert the {{npov}} but please state here exactly what needs to be improved. --Pgallert (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

German War against the Herero and Namaqa in comparison with the putting down of other anti-colonial rebellions

What exactly is the difference between the German war against the Herero and Namaqa in 1904 compared with e.g. the war of the British against the Zulu (Anglo-Zulu War) in 1879, the putting down of the Kikuyu insurgency between 1952 and 1960 (Mau Mau Uprising), the war of the French against the Algerians between 1954 and 1962 (Algerian War) or the many other wars fought by colonial powers (including countries like Spain, Portugal) in order to put down anti-colonial rebellions (including those started by native Americans, Aboriginals in Australia etc.)--213.196.226.157 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The others were not genocide, i.e. "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."Greenman (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? What about e.g. the uprooting of the Native Americans? Would that not be genocide comparable to that of perpetrated on the Herero and Namaqa? --81.173.229.126 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a genocide requires an official, governmental, policy which was not the case here! When word about this reached the government and the parliament (yes, Germany had a parliament before the Republic of Weimar) those actions have been condemned, an halt was ordered, and a new military leader has been sent to Deutsch-Südwest! The social democrat (yes, there have been social democrats before the Republic of Weimar in Germany) August Bebel called Trotha (quote): "Metzgerknecht" (a butcher) and said this must stop! Furthermore the order to do all this was just signed by Trotha but not by the german government!

So those obviously British editors of this article should keep all this in mind! None of the various british malpractices during their colonial wars have been considered being war crimes or genocides! All this happens with the sole purpose to try to show germans are just people who want to root out other nations! So this article is highly biased and needs revision! The author(s) should do more and better research and you independent and verifiable sources not just british war propaganda! 89.50.28.26 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you can't plead precedent. If you want to call something the British did genocide, go to that article and do it, using reliable sources. Whether you succeed or fail, it cannot possibly have any bearing on this article.

Secondly, governments are almost never stupid enough to give a written order for genocide. Hitler didn't. Didn't he commit genocide?

The fundamental problem with all this nationalistic whinging is that this is simply the wrong place to plead your case. You have reliable sources or you don't. If you have a problem, go and convince the academic community which creates the reliable sources. You won't be able to, of course. Because you're wrong. BillMasen (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it "genocide" if a group defined as "class enemies" is targeted for extermination?

If a government or governing entity decides to kill all "class enemies" or all "kulaks" or all members of the "landlord class" or all "intellectuals" or all "rightists" or all aristocrats without exception and without regard to individual circumstances is this genocide or something else?

When Stalin decided to create and/or prolong a famine in the Ukraine, presumably targeting Ukranians as a national group, was this genocide or something else?

When the Allied forces in Burma decided to kill all the starving Japanese soldiers who were trying to cross the flooded Irrawady was this genocide or simply sound military doctrine?

Some of you people seem to be experts on this so please step away from "genocide" based on race and religion for a moment and sort it out. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

I don't know. If Stalin had cited the Herero genocide as a precedent, would that have made it all ok? If left-wing dictators kill people, is it ok for right-wing dictators to kill people?

Stupid questions? Exactly. So what's your point? BillMasen (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful with this stuff

Look it seems that you are interested in improving this article. I find the following sentence dubious: "According to Clarence Lusane, an asssistant professor from American University Fischer's experiments can be seen as testing ground for later medical procedures used during Nazi Holocaust."

The sentence is simply way too vague. Notice it says that Fisher's experiments "can be seen" and "later medical procedures used during [the] Nazi Holocaust".

If something 'CAN be seen' it can also 'NOT be seen' as such and there is no explanation of exactly which part of Fisher's experiments were later used (used, as in 'more or less copied') in the Holocaust. Was it the experiments with smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis? But AFAIK the Nazis didn't use any of them. So what does this sentence tell us? Less than nothing.

IHMO the "medical procedures" (inspired by Fisher's experiments) used in the Holocaust don't refer to infectious diseases at all. I'm more or less guessing here, but I think that "medical procedures" refers to these strange tools that the medics of the 3rd Reich used to classify and select people. Those strange papercards which showed the profile of someone's face and then the doctors said: "Sorry, you don't have a proper Aryan nose". The systematic measurement and classification of people's eyes, nose, eye-colour, etc. These were the things that probably were copied by the 3rd Reich. Notice this is what I'm guessing it to be.

The problem is that the sentence you provided doesn't give any precise details or explains this issue at all. To be blunt: that sentence is way too vague and therefore simply useless. I suggest you either provide the relevant details (background) or we remove the sentence. Flamarande (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Read the section on Wikipedia:No_original_research-that you disagree with the opinion of the professor, can't be taken as source in Wiki. Personal views are irrelevant.What is relevant, and can be sourced is that a notable scholar writes such a thing-thus if we write Professor X writes Y this can be inserted into the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please answer this: Which experiments can be seen as testing ground for later medical procedures used during Nazi Holocaust? The sentence you provided doesn't give any precise details or explains its reasoning at all. The sentence is too vague, and it has to be either improved or removed. Your choice. We are not going to improve this article with single sentences selectively picked at random. Flamarande (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do read the WP:OR policy-this is not a debate forum. If reliable sources exist they can be presented. There is nothing dubious in stating that professor X writes Y-are you disputing he wrote this sentence?.

Also your information about Nazi and their experiments is lacking:

Was it the experiments with smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis? But AFAIK the Nazis didn't use any of them.Of course they did, for example:[1]

• Dr. Ding (Schuler)

He tried to immunize patients that had typhus by giving them fresh blood at Buchenwald; this resulted in their deaths. He also gave patients typhus in order to perform other ineffective "curative" experiments on them.

• Dr. Arnold Dohmen

Dohmen worked with Kurt Gutzeit at Auschwitz and began experimenting primarily with animals. He was convinced by Gutzeit to do human experiments and infected eleven Jewish children with hepatitis and punctured their livers ( Annas & Grodin, 1992). This heinous act had no scientific benefit whatsoever.

• Dr. Horst Schumann

Schumann conducted sterilization and castration experiments at Auschwitz. Schumann also performed typhus experiments by injecting people with blood from typhus patients and then attempting to cure the newly infected subjects. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not disputing that Clarence Lusane wrote the sentence and I never disputed that he wrote it. I was and I'm arguing that the sentence of Clarence Lusane is in its present form too vague to be useful. I explained this above so there is not need on your part to pretend that I somehow challenged that Clarence Lusane wrote the sentence. I also already knew that several doctors made experiments upon prisoners of the concentration camps. What I'm not sure and frankly dispute is the suggestion [which the vague sentence induces] that the Nazis somehow used smallpox, typhus, tuberculosis to murder the people of the extermination camps. Diseases certainly killed lots of ppl but the Nazis used bullets, and made the main effort with Zyclon gas. Mortal diseases were AFAIK "just another" (terrible) side-effect.

The altogether vague sentence of Clarence Lusane suggests that the Nazis used smallpox, typhus and tuberculosis. Clarence Lusane doesn't explain what he means (the sentence on its own doesn't explain itself). The sentence itself doesn't give any details whatsoever. That's why you have to give more information about the context (preferably by providing data about the surrounding paragraph/context). Either you improve this issue or we have to remove the sentence altogether because its meaning and reasoning is too vague to be useful. Flamarande (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Look, or we try to talk here to improve the article or we deliver glorious speeches. I'm willing to listen to detailed evidence and not sentences picked at random.

Molobo is right. Taking it away because it is vague constitutes OR.

I'm not in a position to answer your concerns. Why don't you write to Mr Lusane himself and ask? BillMasen (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You and Molobo are wrong. The sentence is too vague to be useful (and you even seem to agree upon that) and including it is OR and potentially misleading. I don't have to write to Mr Lusane himself and ask anything. Molobo has to provide the necessary details of the sentence if he wishes to include it. Verifiability not Truth. A vague sentence (which can refer to anything) is useless no matter the academics credentials of its author. I'm not attacking the academic credentials of the author, I'm requesting a explanation/background of the sentence. Flamarande (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you. I see it simply as an example of the qualifcation-ridden academic writing style. Including a quote from a scholarly secondary source cannot possibly be "OR". BillMasen (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bah, you are certainly free to disagree with me. I'm still not sold (the sentence is simply too vague). One can only wonder exactly which "later medical procedures [were later] used during Nazi Holocaust". IMHO it can't be the gas or the diseases. AFAIK gas wasn't used with the Hereros and the diseases were not used in the Holocaust. There were certainly lots of victims of disease in the concentration camps but AFAIK the diseases were not used on purpose (besides certain horrible experiments). I'm willing to leave the sentence but only as long as it is not a integral part of any paragraph. The sentence should stay alone inside the section "medical experiments". Flamarande (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed

I removed this:

• http://www.nordbruch.org/artikel/sacramento.pdf Atrocities committed on the Herero people during the suppression of their uprising in German South West Africa 1904-1907

This file is actually named as :

There was NO GENOCIDE committed on the Herero in German South West Africa Speech delivered at the International Revisionist Conference in Sacramento (USA) on 25 April 2004

I don't know how this got here-but certainly this isn't reliable to me. Also looking at the other publications there[2], the site isn't reliable at all,for example:The acceptance of the doctrine of German collective guilt - “Auschwitz Lie” and “Sole Responsibility for World War II”,« South Africa ›better under apartheid‹ «, and so on.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to find the title/name 'There was NO GENOCIDE committed on the Herero in German South West Africa'. It would be wise on your part to provide a proper link for that title. As for the quality of the text itself: I certainly agree that its whole tone is apologetic and its accuracy and honesty are doubtful. Despite these obvious flaws it is a interesting text. I don't defend that it should be use as a credible source for this article but if someone is really interested in studying the subject one also should read about the argument of the "other side" (if only to trash their argumentation with proper evidence).Flamarande (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any merit in discussing people writing about "Auschwitz Lie" or "South Africa under apartheid was better". The english portion of the revisionist website has the name you didn't found. Let us end this discussion now as it of no value to discuss such propaganda. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (I created a section below with the translation issue). Flamarande (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor translation

I have to point out that part of the author's translation of the addition of the Vernichtings-Befehl seems to be a tiny bit more accurate (the relevant parts are in bold).

original German text (copied from the German wiki)

Dieser Erlaß ist bei den Appells den Truppen mitzuteilen mit dem Hinzufügen, daß auch der Truppe, die einen der Kapitäne fängt, die entsprechende Belohnung zu teil wird und daß das Schießen auf Weiber und Kinder so zu verstehen ist, daß über sie hinweggeschossen wird, um sie zum Laufen zu zwingen. Ich nehme mit Bestimmtheit an, daß dieser Erlaß dazu führen wird, keine männlichen Gefangenen mehr zu machen, aber nicht zu Grausamkeiten gegen Weiber und Kinder ausartet. Diese werden schon fortlaufen, wenn zweimal über sie hinweggeschossen wird. Die Truppe wird sich des guten Rufes der deutschen Soldaten bewußt bleiben.

The given translation from the "removed source" (found above)

This edict is to be passed to the troops during line-ups with the addition that any troop that catches a captain will receive the reward, and that the shooting at women and children is to be understood as shooting over their heads so as to force them to flee. I am quite certain that this edict will result in no more male prisoners being taken, but also that there be no cruelty towards women and children. They will run, if two shots are fired above them. The troop-company will remain conscious of the good name of the German soldiers.

English translation in this article (I added it and I wish to comment that the text of the addition was not so easy to find)

This proclamation is to read to the troops at roll-call, with the addition that the unite that catches a captain will also receive the appropriate reward, and that the shooting at women and children is to be understood as shooting above their heads, so as to force them to run [away]. I assume absolutely that this proclamation will result in taking no more male prisoners, but will not degenerate into atrocities against women and children. The latter will run away if one shoots at them a couple of times. The troops will remain conscious of the good reputation of the German soldier.

At first glance there are but a couple of tiny difference. However these tiny differences are IMHO important.

To translate 'Grausamkeiten' into 'cruelty' or 'atrocities' is largely the same for me. Interesting is the term 'nicht ausarten', which was interestingly ignored by the 1st translation, and translated into 'not degenerate' by the second translation. AFAIK the second translation (from the "serious source") is closer to the original text and meaning than the first translation (from the "removed source").

However on the other hand, shooting at someone is very different from shooting above someone [ie: to shoot over the head of someone to scare him into flight], and IMHO "hinwegschiesen" means the 2nd (I might be honestly mistaken). In this particular case the 1st translation (from the "removed source") wins over the 2nd translation (from the "serious source").

The more accurate solution would be to improve the serious translation. I'm not even sure if that's allowed. If you or anyone knows of a credible source whose translation of the amendment is more accurate than the present one, please add to the article asap.

What I find so puzzling is that the majority of serious sources do not even mention the whole amendment of the Vernichtungs-Befehl at all. To only mention a couple of selected passages like BBC News did: "I, the great general of the German troops, send this letter to the Herero people... All Hereros must leave this land... Any Herero found within the German borders with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall no longer receive any women or children; I will drive them back to their people. I will shoot them. This is my decision for the Herero people.) is unwise. It doesn't provide the whole facts and evidences. Flamarande (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to find a good source for the full text of the I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood... Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.-quote, I found another translation mistake.

Lothar's original statement seems to have been (obtained from "his article" in the German wiki):

Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme in Strömen von Blut und Strömen von Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen.

"aufständischen" became "African", and "Aussat" became "cleansing". Oh brother, it should be "rebellious" and "Seed". Flamarande (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

Does anybody have pictures showing the murdered Herero and those who died out of hunger or famine? I would like to include them in the article --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question concerning the role of Eugen Fischer

The section "medical experiments" says that these experiments were carried out by the german eugenicist Eugen Fischer. Though he was in German South-west Africa at the time, there are no facts stating that he took part in these experiments - he was "researching" the rehoboth people for their "mixed heritage". Though he was clearly racist and later became a member of the nazi pary, the inhumane experimenting seems to have been carried out by another doctor, dr Bofinger. (See for example Ousuga & Erichsen, The Kaiser's Holocaust, pp 225-26) If there is any evidence that Fischer took part in these experiments, it would be extremely intresting to know the sources. It would be an important historical fact to add to the sad story of eugenics. As for now I do not alter anything in the article - I am waiting for more views on this matter!

OL, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.227.83 (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mahmood Mamdani uses a poor translation

Quoting the article:'Mahmood Mamdani writes that the links between the Holocaust and the Herero Genocide are beyond the execution of an annihilation policy and the establishment of concentration camps. Focusing on a statement written by General Trotha:

“ I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood... Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain. ”

Mamdani takes note of the similarity between the aims and desires of the General and the Nazis. In both cases there was a Social Darwinist notion of "cleansing" after which "something new" would "emerge".'

First of all Trotha didn't wrote that. He wrote in German and the English translation (used by Mahmood Mamdani) is rather poor and very dubious. I even asked for some help: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 20. I'm quite inclined to remove the whole section from the article. So unless someone wishes to oppose the removal and provides a better sourced translation I will proceed accordingly in a couple of weeks. Flamarande (talk)

Wikipedia is not based on Original Research, Mahmood Mamdani is a notable and reliable source, and a scholar. There is absolutely no reason to remove this based on personal theories of Wikipedia editor. Not only should this section stay, but it must be expanded, not only Mamdani demonstrates the links between genocide of Herero by the Germans but later German made genocide.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the text, so it now shows that this is Mamdani translation and quote. If you know of any reliable and notable source criticising Mamdani's translation feel free to add it. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mahmood Mamdani is certainly a reliable source and a scholar but his knowledge of the German language seems to be lacking. I also doubt that he translated the sentence in question. He certainly seems to have based some of his work upon that particular translation. Flamarande (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

He probably got it from Jan-Bart Gewald, 1999, who uses that wording and says in the footnote he translated it from the German.[3]. The original seems to be:

"Ich kenne genug Stämme in Afrika. Sie gleichen sich alle in dem Gedankengang, dass sie nur der Gewalt weichen.Diese Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat",[4] literally:

"I know enough of African tribes that they give way only to violence. To exercise this violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and money. Only from this seed something new will emerge, which will remain" (translation by Gewald, 2011[5]), apparently said in a letter to Theodor Leutwein, Trotha, diary, 1 July 1904, Trotha Papers, Nr. 315, p. 15. 221. Appens, Charleville, 27. Fences&Windows 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Mamdani is not the only one to draw a connection between the Herrero genocide, Trotha's statements, and the Holocaust, e.g. [6] and a search:[7] A quibble over translation cannot justify removing that section. Fences&Windows 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not requesting that we remove the whole section (yes, I know that I wrote precisely that - believe it or not it was a poor choice of words). I'm talking mainly about replacing the translation itself with a more accurate one (I'm not even sure if this is allowed - notice that the original material - the German sentence - remains unchanged, it's the poor translation that gets improved). And yes, I certainly find it somewhat funny that Mamdani uses and focuses his argument upon the term "cleansing" which doesn't appear in the German original at all. I'm not even going to comment upon the translation of "aufständischen Stämme" as "African tribes" while the precise meaning is in fact "rebel tribes" or "rebellious tribes". I would be more happy with the removal of Mamdani's material that I quoted above but I find that we should at least seriously consider an improvement of the translation as the given one is simply dubious. I also wish to salute your effort to find the whole original German paragraph.

• Ich kenne genug Stämme in Afrika. Sie gleichen sich alle in dem Gedankengang, dass sie nur der Gewalt weichen. Diese Gewalt mit krassem Terrorismus und selbst mit Grausamkeit auszuüben, war und ist meine Politik. Ich vernichte die aufständischen Stämme mit Strömen von Blut und Geld. Nur auf dieser Aussaat kann etwas Neues entstehen, was Bestand hat.

The second translation of JBG is IMHO better:

• I know enough of African tribes that they give way only to violence. To exercise this violence with crass terrorism and even with gruesomeness was and is my policy. I destroy the rebellious tribes with streams of blood and money. Only from this seed something new will emerge, which will remain.

Mahmood Mamdani seems to use a wholly different translation and he didn't quote the whole text (Just don't ask who translated 'aufständischen Stämme' into 'African' instead of 'rebel/rebellious tribes' and 'Aussaat' into 'cleansing' instead of 'Seed/scattering of seed'):

• I destroy the African tribes with streams of blood... Only following this cleansing can something new emerge, which will remain.

I would translate Trotha's text into (notice that I'm not a proper historian but just an amateur - but my knowledge of German seems to be a bit better than Mahmood Mamdani's):

• I know enough tribes in Africa. They all follow the same reasoning, in which they only yield to force. To exercise this force with the stark application of terror and even cruelty was and is my policy. I annihilate the rebel tribes with torrents of blood and torrents of money. Only from this scattering of seed can something new emerge, which will endure.

At the very least we should use JBG's 2nd translation solely in the interest of accuracy. While certainly imperfect it's simply way more accurate and more complete than the dubious version used by Mahmood Mamdani's. And I don't think (and hope) that Mahmood Mamdani used Jan-Bert's translation at all (he seems to have used another source). Jan-Bert uses the terms 'African' and 'rebellious' at the right places and he doesn't translate 'Ausaat' as 'cleansing' (which is simply wrong) but as 'Seed'. Flamarande (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

- I'm talking mainly about replacing the translation-This a quote from Mamdani book's and noted as such. We can't change a quoted content-as it would falsify what really is stated by Mamdani. This is the way he translates this sentence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not challenging in any way that the translation used by Mamdani is poorer, but you argue that it has to stay because Mamdani used it in his book?

Note: Mamadani doesn't seem to have translated the paragraph at all (It's even possible that he doesn't know German). I strongly agree with Fences&Windows: It's very likely that Mamadani used this translation [8]. This issue is simply too weird. The same guy (JBG) seems to have given two quite different translations from a single text. I'm going to ask for advice from the Language desk. Flamarande (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If we are quoting someone we can't change this quote.I don't know if the translation is poorer. I haven't seen any sources by you that say so.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to raise these points in the language desk. How good is your knowledge of the German language? Ask anyone you know and trust who reads German if you don't trust my word for it. Rest assured that I'm not trying to deceive you. Are you truly going to ask for a written source which compares these two translations which each other? Flamarande (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the above is irrelevant. You can't change a quoted content because you disagree with it. If we are quoting Mamdani, the exact quote must be used, no matter if somebody believes his translation is "poor". You can't manipulate quotes.

Are you truly going to ask for a written source which compares these two translations which each other? Of course. We don't base wikipedia on personal research. Please provide a source that criticises Mamdani's translation. Even if that would be the case, than still this wouldn't be the reason for changing Mamdani's quotes. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Mamadin's quote and analysis stays unchanged as it is. JBG's 2nd translation is also included in the article, together with a note of the original German text. Fair enough? Flamarande (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What for and where? We already have a good translation. Is there any particular reason why we should change it?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You already won that battle. No one is going to change Mamadin's quote and analysis (it stays unchanged as it is). However a sourced translation of the whole original German text can only improve the whole article. Rest assured: I'm not going to make any sneaky comparision between the two. They will also not appear in the same section.Flamarande (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle? You might want to read on this rule[9]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read these articles: Metaphor and Hyperbole. Flamarande (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To me the section "Influence on Nazi Germany" reads like an article on academic study of the genocide and its influence, not like an article on the genocide itself. I think it would be more appropriate to say how the genocide influenced Nazi Germany, and relegate the details of who said what to a note in the references similar to the example at WP:CITEBUNDLE. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says "According to Mamdani in both cases there was a Social Darwinist notion of "cleansing" after which "something new" would "emerge"..." but Mamdani (who, it seems, relied on a bad translation and may not have been able to understand the original even if he had seen it) plainly has this wrong, as Trotha (shocking bully though he was) said nothing about "cleansing". Clearly this was a real genocide, but for a historian to use an incorrect translation to make a mistaken point discredits his work, and in my view once we have seen that the point is wrong it should have no place in the English Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk)

Wrong figures

I do not have access to the source for the annual death rate figures cited on the paragraph Concentration Camps, but 227% seems perhaps a bit too high. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.4.32.103 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Surely this is an error. Should it be 27%? I've added a tag. Arrivisto (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article lacks completely any information about the German public reaction on Trotha's policy. His order were immidiately reversed after they became known in Germany. Leutwein refused to cooperate with Trotha and resigned from his post. The German parliament refused to pass a budgetary law for the additional requirements of the colonial troops (August Bebel compared Trotha to a "butcher's assistent"). This led to the dissolution of the Reichstag and early elections in 1907. The Kaiser refused to meet Trotha after his return to Germany. That's just on first sight, there's probably much more to say . HerkusMonte (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree and will add that genocide of Herero was of concern to some Germans due to fear of losing valuable slave labour and cattle(that was breeded by Herero).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You think August Bebel , co-founder of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, was afraid of losing slaves in Africa? OOPS. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought your statement was about general public opinion and views not about Bebel who you mentioned only briefly in brackets.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire German colonial system was replaced because of this event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire#cite_note-Garfield.2C_p._83-27

It certainly wasn't great, but this event of genocide was clearly not seen as tolerable by the German public, caused early elections which were completely run on the premise of anti colonial resentiments and outrage about reported brutality and mismanagement and enforced a reform of the German colonial system to improve the management of the colonies and the treatment of the native populations. This happened despite conservatives, not social democrats remaining in power, aka it was not dependant on a social democratic leader. 77.4.101.130 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Name of this article

I do not question that the Herero and Namaqua uprising ended in genocide. But if you click "what links here" and follow the links you will see that in almost all cases this sad piece of history is called "Herero and Namaqua uprising", not genocide.

Take for instance Seeis: In the Herero and Nama uprising of 1904/05 Seeis was the location of two clashes.... This must be piped for the sentence to make sense, how can a genocide have battles and clashes? And so it appears in many, many articles. Or, if you force it into the "genocide" clause you get an illogical phrasing, see e.g. Omaheke Region: ...were killed by German patrols along the perimeter of the Omaheke. This was the turning point in the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. How can a genocide have a turning point?

To me, having an article that is so often referred to via a piped link (or outside the flow of prose, per See-also or {{main}} template) indicates that the article has the wrong title. I know this has been discussed before but the straw poll happened in 2006. Any new opinions on that? --Pgallert (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I largely don't care if this article is called "Herero and Namaqua genocide" or "Herero and Namaqua uprising". I vaguely like the second better because the genocide is one the aspects (certainly the main aspect) of the uprising itself (it began as an uprising which became a defeat which lead to a bloody suppression which turned into a genocide). I suggest you look for serious and respected sources like Encyclopedia Britannica and look what title they are using. After gathering serious evidence that one title is used more often than the other you can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves (read the instructions carefully). Flamarande (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not intend to gather this evidence, nor do I think it is feasible: There has been coverage of the genocide, and there has been coverage of the war--to show that one title wins over the other, I would have to evaluate every source that uses it, and my results might still be seen as synthesis or original research. What I did intend to do is to try to gather consensus, something that I apparently did not yet achieve. It would be great if other editors of the article came forward and offered their opinion. --Pgallert (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, why is the article not labelled the "Herero and Namaqua uprising" which it clearly was, one sadly which also ended in genocide.Tempsperdue (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Herero and Namaqua uprising" would be a better title, without in any way belittling the vile genocide that it led to. This section seems to show broad agreement for such a change, so I propose that the title should be changed after a couple of weeks from now, unless major objectors come forward. Arrivisto (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not comfortable to treat 2 supports and 1 "not-oppose", if you will, as consensus. On the other hand, the original post is now two years old, that gave plenty of time to complain. Will consider filing a move request next week. --Pgallert (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we appear to be talking about two different things: a war between the Herrero and their Namaqua allies on one side and the Germans on the other, and the apparent genocide carried out by the Kaiser's men on the Herrero and the Namaqua populations, including the killing of many innocent people through starvation, disease, and thirst, in the wake of the rebellions in German South-West Africa. Both are historical facts, both are notable, however trying to deal with both on a single page does not properly address either.

What is needed is a division of this page into two: one page dealing with the war according to the standard war template and mentioning the genocide in a sub-section, the other dealing with the genocide. The page on the second Anglo-Boer war, for example, does not only address the deaths of civilians from disease and malnutrition in British concentration camps, indeed doing so would be an utter distortion of history. Instead the concentration camps are dealt with fully on a separate page and only referred to relatively briefly on the page about the war itself.

The best way to acheive this is turn the redirect at Herrero rebellion (judging by Google Books, the most common name for this war) back into a full article and look at incoming links to see where they should land - at the genocide page or at the war page? FOARP (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Split the page?

Split this article into two linked articles - one on the Herero and Namaqua Genocide, one on the Herero Wars.

Reasons:

1) Texts commonly refer to these as separate but connected events - "The Scramble for Africa: White Man's Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876-1912" by Thomas Pakenham, for example.

2) Ending the edit-warring over the validity of the title - obviously it is valid to refer to the genocide as exactly what it was - a genocide, but just as obviously the Battle of Waterberg was part of a war.

3) Bringing the article into line with similar subjects (i.e., The Holocaust and The Second World War, Bosnian Genocide and Bosnian War, Rwandan Civil War and the Rwandan Genocide).FOARP (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support FOARP (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Switch to oppose per discussion below. --Pgallert (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC) for structural reasons (FOARP's point 3). Renaming into Herero and Namaqua War would also be an option, with the Genocide as one section. Note that I was involved in a discussion with a view against the current title, if that matters here. --Pgallert (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose events are known as genocide. FOARP tries to conceal genocide and extermination in his edits.
• Support - per FOARP. United States Man (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - at this point I'm not seeing a sufficient reason for the split. The genocide is the primary topic and the war wasn't that much of a war - the "Background" section of the article adequately summarizes the issue. What exactly is suppose to be split off here? This really sounds like an excuse to create a WP:POVFORK.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support They are each notable in their own rights. This article is fine as written and named. Another article re: the Uprising or War needs to be created. There seems to be enough source material for that one, too. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Please comment on the content not individual editors. Any comment on editors will be removed.

RE: USER:Pgallert's suggestion. It is certainly a good idea for the over-arching page coving the war to have a section on the genocide, descibing in brief what is described on this page, with a link to this page. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a WP:POVFORK, right now there isn't a page on the war, instead the war is treated as an unimportant background to the genocide whereas in reality it was a significant historical event. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Leave this article alone.Create article about Herero War on your own. You want to delete information about genocide from here like in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creato9 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

. . . . that's the idea, but please lay off commenting on editors. FOARP (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell currently there's only eight sentences, or about 2000 characters out of 204000, that have to do with the "war" here, the rest are about the genocide. That's about 10% of the article which is about appropriate. In other words, there just isn't material here to "split off". I can see some point in making a separate article on "Herero Wars" but this doesn't really impact *this* article in any way.Volunteer Marek 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No objection to having a new article covering the revolts in more detail, but there's nothing to remove from this article - as mentioned above, there is almost nothing to split off. Greenman (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I'm discussing this here is because the page that previously covered the war was turned into a re-direct to this page and the material in it was thinned out and merged into this page - resurrecting the page on the war means undoing this. This is the reason why you can still see links on some pages to both the article on the genocide and to the rebellion. If the consensus is that doing this will actually not impact this page then I'm OK with just resurrecting the page on the war and otherwise leaving this page as-is, but I wanted to make sure that doing so wouldn't just result in work being reverted.

As you can see from some of the above comments, any edits on this page can be controversial, drawing accusations of revisionism and denial of the genocide, so I guess you can see why I'm being cautious on this subject FOARP (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

One concern is whether there's enough information to justify a separate article, as the space between the commencement of hostilities and the commencement of genocide under Von Trotha appears brief. There's very little in this article that could be separated? Can you give an outline of what the new article will contain? Greenman (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Introduction, 2) The origin of the war, 3) The Herero uprising, 4) The German response, 5) The events leading up to the battle of Waterberg and the battle itself, 7) The Nama uprising, 8) The surrender of the Herero and Nama, 9) The genocide (with a link to this page), 10) The end of the war. The basic model would be something along the lines of this article on the Maji-Maji Rebellion which was concurrent with the Herero uprising, but with a infobox as with other wars. FOARP (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The last non-redirect version of Herero Wars is from 2006 and contains one reference, to the genocide. As such, a resurrection would not make much sense. I can, otoh, understand VM's point that the war is covered with so little detail that whatever is there now can serve as a background to the genocide. Seen from this angle I agree, there is no need to split.

However, this leaves us with a specific article with no parent, much like if we had an article on King's Gambit whereto Chess redirects. There are thousands of sources on the Herero and Namaqua War of 1904-1907, just someone has to write it ;) --Pgallert (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a new article on the war under the old title should contain much more information than the original article did. As Pgallert says, there is plenty of information on the Herero/Nama guerilla movement and its leaders as well as German colonial forces that could be integrated into such an article but which does not fit on this page. As an example, Samuel Mahero's forces defeated three attempts by German armoured trains to relieve the siege of Okahandja in January 1904 ("Herero Heroes: A Socio-Political History of the Herero of Namibia, 1890-1923", Jan-Bart Gewald, P.160) - a fact I find fascinating and demonstrative of the Herero's spirit of resistance to German rule - but this cannot really be described as part of the genocide, since it pre-dates von Trotha's Extermination Order (which did not happen until October 1904 - ten months later), indeed von Trotha did not even arrive in GSWA until June 1904. Similarly, the role of Hendrik Witbooi in this conflict appears to have been complex - in this article he is described as having first rebelled against the Germans in 1903, then fought on the German side against the Herero, and then rebelled against the Germans again, but is an article on the genocide - a genocide for which Hendrik Witbooi had no responsibility - really the place to include information on his switching of sides? FOARP (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with this, so reasonable consensus that this article can be left as is for now, and a new article containing more detailed information started under a different name? Greenman (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Even on Wikipedia there are snippets of referenced information that would just need to be recompiled. Viz. e.g. ǁKhauxaǃnas, Leonardville, Namibia, Seeis, Red Nation (Namibia), Manasse ǃNoreseb, and many, many more. --Pgallert (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the that the logic that the Genocide and War (or Uprising) should be treated as separate—but connected—is sound. Wars and genocides may be inter-twined, but are two different things, usually notable in their own right.

The "Background" and "Revolts" sections of this article would be a good start to a separate article about "The H&N War," "Revolts," or (maybe better) "Uprising". That would get a stub at least going on that content, which is interesting and notable enough in its own accord. (I don't see that as being a POV fork.)

With that said, this article is fine as it is, although the "Background" and "Revolts" sections could be pared down (with a "Main Article" link installed) once the other article is written. (This is in response to a request for comment.) GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing

I am closing this discussion as requested on WP:AN. I read the consensus to say that a new article at Herero Wars is needed because the war has a separate identity from the genocide. The analogy to "King's Gambit" being just a small part of "chess", while somewhat exaggerated, is on point. Although it is not ideal to revert to a 2006 version, that is what I will do, and I will leave it to the editors with knowledge of the subject matter to improve on whatever that version says. I commend everyone involved for an insightful discussion. Chutznik (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

German page says no genocide

The title of the german page ist not about any genocide. So who ist wrong? the germans or the English site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konreed (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference is no doubt in the interpretation of the facts, but what matters is the interpretation given by reliable sources, and the English-language sources support the use of the word "genocide". See, for instance, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights#Whitaker Report. Moonraker (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The pages were wrongly linked; the English edition has an article on the war and on the genocide (one aspect of the war), whereas the German edition only has the general article, on the war. I have fixed the wrong interlanguage links just now. --Pgallert (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Title "Colonisation and Genocide"

The title should be "Colonisation and Genocide". The Namibians were colonised and enslaved. Uprising sounds like the germans were forced to subdue an uprising which is not a logical context of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konreed (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been selected to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd like to ask the English Wikipedia community to join our efforts and improve the article before December 31, 2014 (any timezone); a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review in early 2015. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that editors can decide if and how to use them. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Maharero monument Okahandja.jpg

Hello all, maybe someone has some spare time to review the text of the inscription that i added to the linked picture. Especially the second part is important because it contains a text of a for me unknown language. Does anyone know? Thank you, --Aschroet (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disgustingly biased and distorted wiki with a name that should be changed

There is only actually one recorded bit evidence of genocide attempt by the Herero to kill all Germans. Not Germans to kill Herero. Only at Wikipedia do I come across this incredibly idiotic propaganda passing as legit information. ever colonial uprising that was put down by the controlling empire would fall under genocide on these grounds. So were are other genocides in wikipedia? It's clear someone(s) with a racial or political axe to grind has been preening this article to give a false impression. if this was a genocide, the simple action of a colonial power putting down a revolt, than wikipedia is missing dozens if not hundreds of "genocides" of ever colonial power ever. This place is such a joke of wanna-be historians who only want to manipulate history for their own bigotries. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can contribute or make changes to the articles. Most everything in this article has a reference at the bottom (many of them are books). If you have access to the references and you find out they are incorrect or wrongly quoted or just shouldn't be used for information, we would all like to know about it. You can edit the page directly, and you can provide your own source. If you don't know how, just put the source directly into the article and somebody will be along to take a look and use it as a citation if it's a good one. There may or may not be Wikipedia articles about other genocides, and if you want to add another, Wikipedia editors (all volunteers) ask you to do so. Sincerely, 00:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)BeenAroundAWhile (talk)

World War II

So, can someone explain why the Germans were not exterminated with nuclear weapons during World War Two? I think we need a section on why Germans are allowed to populate the Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.29.80 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You might find the answer at Nuclear arms race#World War II. Also, kindly read WP:Talk page guidelines, wherein it is stated "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050225073749/http://www.dw-world.de:80/dw/article/0,1564,1084266,00.html to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1084266,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Namaqua vs Nama usage

I find "Nama" to be a more colloquial term than "Namaqua". The latter is an archaic term, thus I suggest we chance the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbassman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Leoneor Faber-Jonker for his work and for his helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Leonor notes below.

Quality of the Summary

Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?

Missing:
Y An important element missing from the summary is that many, if not most, victims of the genocide died in concentration camps throughout the colony. Suggested alteration in the third paragraph: ‘The first phase of the genocide was characterized by (….) forces. Once defeated, thousands of Herero and Nama were imprisoned in concentration camps, where the majority died of disease, abuse, and exhaustion.’ (Gewald, Colonization, genocide and resurgence pp 167, 209, Olusoga, Namibia: genocide and the second reich).

Too detailed:
Y Too detailed for a general overview (third paragraph): ‘Some sources also claim that the German colonial army systematically poisoned desert water wells’ (more likely incidental, thin evidence).

Further suggestions for improvement:
Y Possibly better to change ‘It is considered to have been the first genocide of the 20th century’ in the first paragraph into ‘It is considered as one of the first genocides of the 20th century’ because the Whitaker report (fourth paragraph) speaks of ‘one of the earliest attempts at genocide in the 20th century.
Y The date 12 January in the second paragraph is best left out, since Samuel Maharero only intervened after the first attack. Suggested alteration: ‘In January 1904…’
Y Since Herero leader Samuel Maharero is mentioned in this summary, maybe Nama captain Hendrik Witbooi should also be mentioned in the second paragraph: he was the leader of the Nama rebels.
Y Third paragraph ‘ (…) and an estimated 10,000 Nama died’.
Too many footnotes follow the statements ‘It is considered to have been the first genocide of the 20th century’ (first paragraph) and ‘In total, between 24,000 and 100,000 and 10,000 Nama died (third paragraph)
See ‘5. References’.

Structure and style of the article

Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?

Presentation of topic and structure:
Generally, the topic is well presented for a general public. The background of the genocide could be presented more clearly by adding an extra header referring to German colonial policy in German South-West Africa (a divide-and-rule policy based on protection treaties, characterized by disregard and abuse of Herero and Nama) preceding the revolts, following the first two paragraphs. (‘The Herero (…) white settlement’).
There is an inconsistency in the spelling of the plural of Herero, it is sometimes spelled as Hereros. I should always be spelled ‘Herero’ without the –s.

Y The paragraph 2.2 Medical experiments implies that this was an integral part of the genocide. However, while medical experimentation on living prisoners was rare (the evidence is thin), experimentation with dead body parts of the prisoners was rife. Renaming the paragraph would be a solution.

Y 3.1 Recognition could be split into 3.1 Recognition and 3.2. Repatriation. The repatriation of Namibian skulls from Berlin to Namibia is in my view significant enough to merit its own header. The information should also be expanded (see 3. Content below).

Paragraphs:

• Under 1. Background: add 1.1. German colonial policy
• Unify ‘Under German colonial rule … resentment’ and ‘Over the next decade…South-West Africa’ under 1. Background.
• Under 1.1. Revolts: unify revised (see ‘content’) first sentence with 6th paragraph.
• Under 2.1. Concentration camps: unify ‘Many Herero … malnutrition’ with ‘Food in the (…) nursing care.’ and ‘Shootings (…) were common’. Start a new paragraph from ‘A 28 September 1905 article (etc.)’.
• Under 2.1. Concentration camps: bring forward ‘During the war (…) Herero and Namaqua people’. This should be the first sentence of the paragraph which now start with ‘A 28 September 1905 article (etc.) because it describes a general circumstance followed by two examples: an observation by Percival Griffith and by Fred Cornell.
• Y 2.2. Medical experiments needs to be revised. Suggested new header: 2.2. Medical experiments and scientific racism.
• Y Under 3. Aftermath, add 3.2 Repatriation (a section discussing the return of Namibian skulls from Germany).
• 3. Y Aftermath: Start a new paragraph with ‘In 1915, at the start World War I (etc.)’

Writing style:
The article is well written although some information is given twice. Under 1.1 Revolts, the fifth paragraph repeats the information given above: ‘In 1903 the Herero learned of (…) reasons for the revolt.’ This paragraph can be left out.
The article contains a lot of citations under 2. Genocide and 2.1 Concentration camps. Although the information given is correct, it seems to be included to ‘prove’ that the genocide was in fact a genocide. For a general article, it therefore contains quite a lot of detailed (graphic) information.

Content

Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.

1. Background

Add:

• Y First paragraph: the Nama were pastoralists and traders living to the South of the Herero (Olusoga & Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 22).
• The Germans managed to get a foothold in the area thanks to internal strife and rivalry. Under the first Reichskommissar they established themselves in the area by signing protection treaties with various local leaders. They used the Nama threat to coax Herero chiefs into signing treaties (Karlheinz Graudenz and Hanns-Michael Schindler, Die deutschen Kolonien (1988): 58/ Conrad, Deutsche Kolonialgeschichte: 29).
• Herero soon found out protection treaties were worthless as Germans were unable and unwilling to stand up against Hendrik Witbooi and many Germans were violent and abusive. Rape of black women was common, a crime that the German authorities were reluctant to punish. These abuses were justified by the conviction shared by the majority of the German settlers (and soldiers) of belonging to a superior race (Benjamin Madley, ‘Patterns of frontier genocide 1803-1910’, Journal of Genocide Research 6 (2004) 183- 184).
• It must be made clear that the Germans made a series of treaties with Herero and Nama, rather than one treaty with Kamaherero, Leutwein consciously used a divide and rule strategy. (Zimmerer and Zeller, Genocide in German South-West Africa: 26).
• Herero had little choice but to sign the treaties because Herero society became fragmented and impoverished in the first decades of colonial rule. Political unity in Herero society unraveled after Samuel Maharero illegitimately took the place of his father, and Rinderpest reaching Namibia in 1896 dealt another heavy blow. Prof. dr. Jan-Bart Gewald argues that Herero society had lost its independence and ‘became dependent on the good will of the colonial state for its very existence’ (Gewald, colonization, genocide and resurgence 194, 199, 200-201).

Delete:

• Y ‘Eventually the area was to be inhabited predominantly by German settlers and become African Germany’. Gives the impression that this actually happened rather than it being an ideal.

Y Under image: Nama king Hendrik Witbooi should be Nama captain Hendrik Witbooi.

1.1 Revolts

Add:

• (first lines): In January 1904 Herero finally revolted, initially only in Okahandja. (unify with ‘The Herero judged... desperate surprise attack.’). The brutal response of the Germans ensured that the uprising spiraled into a full-scale war. (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s holocaust 129).
• Paragraph between 7th and 8th paragraph ‘(...) German missionaries’ and ‘Leutwein was (...): Exagerrated reports of the initial attacks on white settlers provoked outright war fever in Germany (Madley, ‘Patterns of frontier genocide 1803-1910’, 185). The German press constructed an image of the Herero as a fearsome barbarian, a dangerous enemy that did not actually exist in reality (Olusoga, BBC documentary and Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 130). In the jingoistic atmosphere that developed, settlers did not have faith in Leutwein’s attempt to solve matters through negotiation with Maharero and demanded military action. (Gewald, ‘Colonization, genocide and resurgence’, 205). )This prompted Kaiser Wilhelm to send in Lothar von Trotha).
• Von Trotha had forged a reputation for ruthlessness as a commander in German East Africa and had been in charge of a unit attacking Chinese villages in the aftermath of the Boxer Rebellion in 1901 (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 138).

Delete:

• ‘In 1903, some of the Nama tribes rose in revolt (...) January 1904’. The Herero attacks in Okahandja were isolated from Witbooi’s attacks, in fact Witbooi and the Herero were still enemies at this point.
• In 1903 the Herero (...) revolt): already said elsewhere.
• ‘The timing of the attack was carefully planned (...) in his colony’ This wrongfully gives the impression of a coordinated, nationwide attack. Maherero only became involved after the initial attacks.
• ‘Leutwein was forced to request (...) in Berlin.’ Leutwein did not request an experienced officer himself. He was an advocate of a diplomatic rather than a military solution.

2. Genocide

Add:

• Beginning of the paragraph: By the time Von Trotha arrived in the colony in June, the vast majority of the Herero, some 50,000, had united under the leadership of Samuel Maharero. Together with tens of thousands of cattle they had congregated around the Waterberg plateau while the Herero leaders were considering their options. (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 141).
• 5th paragraph: ‘(...) issued a warning to the Herero which became known as the Vernichtungsbefehl (Gewald, ‘Colonization, genocide and resurgence, 206-207.) (since this is how almost all literature relevant to the topic refers to the order like this, it seems important to include).
• 6th paragraph: ‘Benjamin Madley has argued that frustration on the part of the Germans played an important part in this course of action. The German troops suffered from disease and had to deal with an inhospitable terrain, lack of water, and an opponent who, when fighting did occur, used guerrilla tactics. (Madley, ‘Patterns of frontier genocide’, 185) Added to this was fear of the enemy, fueled by findings of dead mutilated soldiers on the battlefield. (Gerhardus Pool, Die Herero-opstand 1904-1907, 161, Faber-Jonker).
• 9th paragraph. Suggested alteration: replace ‘Upon the arrival of the new orders at the end of 1904, prisoners were herded into concentration camps’ with ‘In December 1904 the Vernichtungsbefehl was lifted again, but this only meant the start of the last and most destructive phase of the genocide as prisoners were rounded up and put into concentration camps were they were used as slave labourers.’ As mentioned above the majority of the victims lost their lives in the camps rather than on the battlefield. This should be emphasized.
• I miss a final paragraph on Nama involvement in the war: ‘At Waterberg, some Nama had fought on the side of the Germans. Soon afterwards however, captain Hendrik Witbooi decided that war with the Germans was inevitable. He commence hostilities in September 1904, attacking isolated farms and villages. (Cooper, ‘Reparations for the Herero genocide’, 114/ Olusoga and Erichsen, Kaiser’s Holocaust, 176). What followed was a guerrilla war that continued for years, even after Witbooi was fatally wounded and died on 29 October 1905. (Zimmerer and Zeller, Genocide in South-West Africa, 147).

Delete:

• ‘fewer than 1,000 reached Bechuanaland, where they were granted asylum’ (4th paragraph) double information with final sentence of this paragraph.
• ‘After the war (...) Battle of Beresonia’ in the 6th paragraph. This information seems a bit obscure to include in an article for a general public. It is also information with an agenda, to demonstrate the preconceived nature of the genocide. This is subject of debate.
• Final sentence: ‘(...) or exploited as human guinea pigs in medical experiments’. See feedback under 2. Structure and style of the article.

2.1 Concentration camps

Alter: caption of second photo: I believe these are Nama rather than Herero prisoners of war.

Add:

• Dysentery, scurvy, and lung diseases were common. Scurvy was a very common disease in the camps. (‘Erichsen, ‘The angel of death...’, 50.)

Delete:

• First paragraph: ‘The British government (...) in 1918’ This is not relevant information for this paragraph.
• Second paragraph: ‘Estimates of (...) 74%’ These estimates are really vague and impossible to make for camps generally: at Shark Island the vast majority died, but in other camps the living conditions were better.
• 9th paragraph: ‘Trotha was (...) native diseases’, this does not refer to the concentration camps: they were established after Von Trotha had left the country.

2.2. Medical experiments

Alter:

• title, see 2. Structure and style of the article.
• 4th paragraph: replace ‘The last (...) in 2014’ by ‘More human remains were repatriated to Namibia in 2013 and 2014.
• ‘An estimated 300 skulls’ to ‘hundreds of skulls’. The source for 300 is a newspaper, and it seems quite random. I believe the estimate is on the low side.

Add:

• In 1913, Eugen Fischer’s ‘Die Rehobother Bastards und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen’ legitimitated in science what was already ‘widely construed to be common knowledge’: the existence of the moral, cultural, and physical hierarchy in races’.(Krautwurst, ‘The joy of looking’, 178) In this study he set out to demonstrate the dangers of miscegenation using the Namibian Rehobother Basters, a people of Afrikaner/ Khoisan descent as an example. (maybe the reference to Eugen Fischer should be left out altogether).
• On at least one occasion in 1903 Lieutenant Zürn, stationed in Okahandja, ordered his men to dig up Herero skulls, probably as ‘an easy source of additional income’. There was a worldwide trade in human remains at the time and anthropological collectors would have been eager to buy such skulls. (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 127-128/ Faber-Jonker 34) In 1905, Ludwig Conradt, a German trader and confidential of Samuel Maharero, would name the ‘desecration of the graves in Okahandja’ as ‘one of the main reasons why the Herero had risen up’. (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 128). Zürn brought home an Herero skull, which he donated two years later to anthropologist Felix von Luschan. He also provided the latter with contacts in German South-West Africa to help him ‘secure a larger collection of Herero skulls for scientific investigation’. (Zimmerman, Adventures in the skin trade, 174).
• On the request of anthropological collectors in Germany, medical doctors in the concentration camps embarked on a more systematic collecting. (Zimmerman, Adventures in the skin trade, 175-176). Unify with ‘An estimated 300 skulls..’.
• On request of anthropologist and anatomist Paul Bartels preserved heads of Nama and Herero prisoners were also sent from the concentration camps to Pathological Institute in Berlin. Bartels and his doctoral students used the heads for race research, comparing their facial tissue and muscular structure with that of ‘whites’. (Schnalke, ‘’Normale’ Wissenschaft’ in Stoecker, Schnalke, Winkelmann 171)

Delete:

• 1st paragraph: ‘Eugen Fischer (...) test subjects’. This is incorrect!
• 3th paragraph ‘for burial’. They were not buried, but are kept in storage facilities of the Independence Memorial Museum.

2.3 Number of victims

I’m surprised by numbers mentioned in the first sentence (25,000 Herero remaining in GSWA in 1905) because the 1911 census recorded only 15,130 Herero remaining in the colony.

Add:

• Of the estimated 80,000 Herero who lived in German South-West Africa before the war, only 15,130 were recorded in the 1911 census. (Cooper, ‘Reparations for the Herero genocide, 114).
• The Nama population went down from an estimated 20,000 before the war, to an estimated 13,000 after the war. Of the estimated 2,400 Nama who had been imprisoned in concentration camps, only 248 remained alive in 1909. (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 229).

3. Aftermath

Add:

• First paragraph: ‘With the closure of the camps in January 1908, all surviving Herero (etc.)’ (Olusoga and Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust, 230).
• Nama were kept imprisoned longer, because they were considered both inferior labourers and a threat. The survivors of Shark Island concentration camp were kept imprisoned until 1912. (Olusoga and Erichsen, TheKaiser’s Holocaust, 234-235).
• The Reiterdenkmal was finally removed from its plinth in December 2013. (Ed., 'Reiterdenkmal disappears overnight', Namibian Sun (26 December 2013)). The Independence Memorial Museum and a new statue commemorating both the genocide and Namibian independence were put in its place. Ed., 'Genocide victims get statue', Namibian Sun (16 September 2013).
• I miss a paragraph on the Blue Book, now mentioned under 2.1. Concentration camps. Suggested addition: ‘Immediately after taking over the territory, the British government commissioned a detailed report of the colonial crimes committed in German South-West Africa, the so called Blue Book. In 1928, after Namibia had become a South African mandate, it was banned and destroyed in the interest of white unity. (Gewald and Silvester, Words cannot be found, 2003).

Delete:

• ‘From that time (...) registration number’. This is not the case, prisoners from the concentration camps who were put to work as slave labourers wore such metal tags during the war.

3.1. Recognition

Add:

• Third paragraph: ‘All legal cases were finally dismissed in 2007. (Cooper, ‘Reparations for the Herero genocide, 115).
• Final paragraph: In September 2011 20 skulls from the collection of Charité University Hospital were returned to Namibia. Another repatriation of Namibian human remains from Germany followed in 2013.

3.2. Media

Add:

• The South African artist William Kentridge (on Wikipedia) made the installation ‘Black Box/ Chambre Noir’ (2005) about the Herero and Namaqua genocide.

3.3. Continuity between the Herero Genocide and the Holocaust
Add:

• Robert Gerwarth and Stephan Malinowski have pointed out that the First World War is absent in the continuity thesis. They argue that the Nazi war of annihilation constituted a break rather than a contination of the colonial tradition because it was preceded by a war in which new dimensions of destruction were reached, followed by experiences of defeat, revolution, and civil war. (Gerwarth and Malinowski, ‘Der Holocaust als “Kolonialer Genozid”?’, 439.

Delete:

• Third paragraph: ‘Eugen Fischer was not the only person who took part in both genocides’. This is incorrect. He did not commit any atrocities in German South-West Africa.

International and local dimension

Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.

See also 2. Structure and style of the article. The article is slightly biased. Only very recently the Germans have acknowledged that what happened in German South-West Africa was in fact a genocide, the article, probably made before this official acknowledgement, seems to have an underlying agenda of wanting to prove that it was a genocide. This is evident in the number of detailed (graphic) quotations under 2. Genocide and 2.1. Concentration camps.

The article under 2. Genocide also suggests that the genocide was preconceived. However, this is subject of debate. It will be more balanced when the following information is deleted in this paragraph:

• ‘After the war (...) Battle of Beresonia’ in the 6th paragraph. This information seems a bit obscure to include in an article for a general public. It is also information with an agenda, to demonstrate the preconceived nature of the genocide. This is subject of debate.

And the following added:

• 6th paragraph: ‘Benjamin Madley has argued that frustration on the part of the Germans played an important part in this course of action. The German troops suffered from disease and had to deal with an inhospitable terrain, lack of water, and an opponent who, when fighting did occur, used guerrilla tactics. (Madley, ‘Patterns of frontier genocide’, 185) Added to this was fear of the enemy, fueled by findings of dead mutilated soldiers on the battlefield. (Gerhardus Pool, Die Herero-opstand 1904-1907, 161, Faber-Jonker).

Under 3.3. Continuity between the Herero Genocide and the Holocaust only arguments supporting the continuity thesis are given. The paragraph would be improved by including the following information:

• Robert Gerwarth and Stephan Malinowski have pointed out that the First World War is absent in the continuity thesis. They argue that the Nazi war of annihilation constituted a break rather than a contination of the colonial tradition because it was preceded by a war in which new dimensions of destruction were reached, followed by experiences of defeat, revolution, and civil war. (Gerwarth and Malinowski, ‘Der Holocaust als “Kolonialer Genozid”?’, 439.

References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)

Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.

Under 8. Further reading/ 9. External links add:

• http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2013/11/18/these-skulls-are-not-enough-the-repatriation-of-namibianhuman-remains-from-berlin-to-windhoek-in-2011/

Add:

• Conrad, Sebastian, Deutsche Kolonialgeschichte (München: C. H. Beck, 2008).
• Cooper, Allan D., ‘Reparations for the Herero genocide: defining the limits of international litigation’, African Affairs 106:422 (2006) 113-126.
• Erichsen, Casper W., “The angel of death has descended violently among them”. Concentration camps and prisoners-of-war in Namibia, 1904-1908 (Leiden: African Studies Centre Research Report 79, 2005).
• Faber-Jonker, Leonor, ‘‘More than just an object’. A material analysis of the return and retention of Namibian skulls from Germany’, Research master thesis, University of Utrecht (21 August 2015).
• Förster, Larissa, Dag Henrichsen and Michael Bollig, Namibia – Deutschland. Eine geteilte Geschichte. Widerstand – Gewalt – Erinnerung (Köln: Rautenstrauch-Joest-Museum für Völkerkunde/ Wolfratshausen: Edition Minerva, 2004).
• Gerwarth, Robert and Stephan Malinowski, ‘Der Holocaust als “kolonialer Genozid”? Europäische Kolonialgewalt und nationalsozialistischer Vernichtungskrieg’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 33:3 (2007) 439-466.
• Gewald, Jan-Bart and Jeremy Silvester, Words cannot be found. German colonial rule in Namibia. An annotated reprint of the 1918 Blue Book (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
• Krautwurst, Udo, ‘The joy of looking: early German anthropology, photography and audience formation’ in: Anette Hoffmann (ed.), What we see. Reconsidering an anthropometrical collection from Southern Africa: images, voices, and versioning (Basel: Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 2009) 148-181.
• Leutwein, Theodor, Elf Jahre Gouverneur in Deutsch-Südwestafrika (Berlin: E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1908).
• Madley, Benjamin, ‘Patterns of frontier genocide 1803-1910’, Journal of Genocide Research 6:2 (2004) 167-192.
• Olusoga, David and Casper W. Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust. Germany’s forgotten genocide and the colonial roots of Nazism (London: Faber and Faber, 2010).
• Pool, Gerardus, Die Herero-opstand 1904-1907 (Cape Town: Hollandsch Afrikaansche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1979).
• Stoecker, Holger, Thomas Schnalke and Andreas Winkelmann (ed.), Sammeln, erforschen, zurückgeben? Menschliche Gebeine aus der Kolonialzeit in akademischen und musealen Sammlungen (Berlin: Ch. Links Verlag, 2013)
• Zeller, Joachim, ‘“Wie Vieh wurden hunderte zu Tode getrieben und wie Vieh begraben”. Fotodokumente aus dem deutschen Konzentrationslager in Swakopmund/ Namibia 1904-1908’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 49:3 (2001) 226-243.
• Zimmerer, Jürgen and Joachim Zeller, Genocide in German South-West Africa. The colonial war of 1904-1908 and its aftermath (Monmouth: Merlin Press, 2008).
• Zimmerer, Jürgen, ‘Annihilation in Africa: the “race war” in German Southwest Africa (1904-1908) and its significance for a global history of genocide’, GHI Bulletin 37 (2005) 51-57.

Remove:

• References: 5, 7, 10-13, 18, 23, 24, 27, 38, 39, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 55, 83.

Checked. But not too keen removing references... Anthere (talk)

• Bibliography:

Y ** Clark, Christopher, Iron Kingdom (2006). Book discusses Prussia between 1600-1947, less relevant. Y ** Bridgman, ‘The revolt of the Hereros’ (1981) dated. Y ** Remove 1x: Hull, Absolute destruction (2006), included twice.

Requested move 17 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Herero and Namaqua Genocide → Herero and Namaqua genocide – Not a proper name, so lowercase genocide. Like most other genocides, the term is descriptive. Very few sources use the term "Herero and Namaqua genocide", either caps or not, until after Wikipedia started using it. Most of the capitalized appearances that one finds are citations of a title by that name, in title case, so not evidence that the term would be treated as a proper name. The bigram "Namaque genocide" is too rare to appear in the Google's n-gram stats, but "Herero genocide" does appear, only in lowercase: [10]. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Although the debate itself is ongoing, the current usage is predominantly in lowercase. --Pgallert (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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

British historial propaganda

Should it be pointed out that pro-british historians seek to make the britishs invasions and killings of natives look nice and noble so that black people think the british are the lesser evil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.219.139 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have a reputable source, feel free. I doubt there is one and weasel words must be avoided. 204.102.226.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Call for review of sourcing of the lede

Lede's need not have citations present, if all material in the lede is present in, and sourced in the main body of the article. Here, in this article's lede, one sees the oddest of approaches to demonstrating an article's content is verifiable:

• Most of the lede has no inline citations appearing, but
• Two sentences have ten citatons between them.

Moreover, some of those ten are poor, in that they are to books, but list no page numbers. Please, regular editors here, make the lede as good as the article as a whole—the lede should summarise the main body, and its approach to sourcing should be consistent, and encyclopedic. That is, (a) all of the lede content's factual sentences should have 1-2 inline citations, representative of the sources appearing in the main body, or (b) no inline citations should appear at all, with all lede content clearly tied to sentences in the main body, where the inline citations sourcing the summary sentences can easily be seen.

Please, remove the redundant citations for these two sentences, add page numbers as needed, and do not permit the lede to be in far worse condition (as it is now) than the the rest of the article. Cheers. A fan of this article, 73.210.155.96 (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224022131/http://faculty.unlv.edu/anderson/publications/hererogenocide.html to http://faculty.unlv.edu/anderson/publications/hererogenocide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Source

Source #82 is rather dubious. It tries to draw a connection between Hermann Goering and the Herero and Namaqua Genocide simply because his father was the colonial governor 15 years before the rebellion took place, and because he stood next to Franz Ritter von Epp at a Nazi Party Rally one time. Von Epp's own involvement in genocidal activities in German Southwest Africa is just assumed because he was a company commander during the rebellion, there is no proof given at all. Also, his involvement in the Holocaust is dubious as well, he was simply a figurehead with absolutely no power at all by 1936, the Holocaust is understood to have started in 1941, well after his position was powerless. He even campaigned for the release of more than 4000 concentration camp inmates, notably successful in the case of Erwein von Aretin.

--74.59.112.163 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also dubious is the selective use of sources, source #31 clearly states that v. Trotha's proclamation about indiscriminately shooting Hereros was quickly rescinded, but this article makes no mention of it. Also, the supposedly sourced statements from this book appear nowhere in the actual source, especially the ones about a supposed racial struggle.

--74.59.112.163 (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems your objections are not in dispute, nor that one dares to debate them. 105.12.1.207 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Secondary source on "regular rapes"?

The article states that "German soldiers regularly raped young Herero women", giving just a tertiary source (the "Dictionary of Genocide" by Totten et al), which in turn just states this in its entry on mass-rapes without referring to any source. If that has been "regular" with the army for rapes and gang-rapes I am sure there will be other sources to back up tis statement. I came up empty, though. For example: the claim of repeated (and ignored) reports by Herero officials on rapes by German settlers leading to the conflict is well covered. As this claim makes a major difference on the character of the campaign I suggest it is either better sourced or removed. ASchudak (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Surviving Herero.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no genocide

Article in german:

https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/voelkermord-an-den-hereros-in-deutsch-suedwestafrika-a-1098649.html

80.131.51.193 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That article presents the fringe view of some Germans in Namibia. For as long as the scientific mainstream and major political actors (in Germany and Namibia) reject it, there shouldn't not be too much space devoted to this point of view. Determining what really happened is not the task of Wikipedians.

Having said that, the article indeed is unbalanced because (a) it does not even mention the controversy around the classification as genocide, and (b) several sections of it are fringe views more extreme than the one the Spiegel article above supports. For instance, the link to the Third Reich is dubious at best, the concentration camps had nothing to do with von Trotha's order and housed more Damara/Nama people than Hereros, and there is no indication that an extermination of the Nama(qua) was ever planned. --Pgallert (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous Edits

Page has been edited to include false information 2601:245:4580:A370:C50B:97:3CF3:EAE5 (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Khoikhoi instead of Hottentot

My impression is that Hottentot is an antiquated and racially offensive term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hottentot_(racial_term). Can we replace it with Khoi, Khoikhoi or Khoisan when not providing direct quotations?

I'm not completely against it. However, the only place where the term is used is a section that describes a distant past, when what we today call Khoikhoi or Khoisan, had no other English name except Hottentot. --Pgallert (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pgallert I see the word "Hottentot" used quite often in reliable sources in genocide studies scholarship such as the "Century of Genocide" edited by Samuel Totten et. al. In some of the testimonies about the Herero genocide/massacre in that book, some of the Herero survivors themselves used the word "Hottentot". If it has racist connotations, I certainly support its change. I am not opposed to using substitutes such as Khoikhoi or Khoekhoe. My only concern is the term is used in the scholarship itself. Changing a term used in scholarship might potentially misrepresent scholarship, especially if substitute terms like "Khoikhoi", "Khoekhoe" and "Hottentot" do not always mean the same thing, in every context. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You are claiming it to be an offensive term? No. Who considers it offensive. What source considers it an offensive term? CheeseInTea (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)CheeseInTea