Talk:Cultural genocide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of terms

I assume that someone here is better equipped to fix the first paragraph of burning of Jaffna library. Your impartial expertise would be appreciated. 169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On Spanish conquerors

Not only the Spanish conquerors half a millennium ago destroyed cultures but nowadays, in Latin America, even mestizos are finishing the task of the Spaniards by erasing and brushing aside the few remaining native cultures through genocide, discrimination and "christianisation". Actually the latter thing is even more aberrant since the Catholic dogma has helped perpetrate the Third World climate in the continent. What is ironic is that many cheerleaders of the "Latin American Identity" or the "Latino Identity" criticise the Spanish hegemony but they are doing the same thing they reject: Brushing aside minorities, imposing arbitrary "identities" and "westernising" indigenous people through religious and cultural means.--Scandza (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan culture

Before Buddhism, the culture of Tibet was Bön culture. It can be said that Lamarist Buddhism committed "cultural genocide" on the Tibetan Bön culture.

NPOV dispute

Put up NPOV box. I'm tired of having my edits deleted by Neo-Nazis trying to censor anything harmful to them. Hopefully this will attarct some attention to further improve the quality of the article. Viande hachée 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the previous editing stating that "self-proclaimed critics (German Neo-Nazis)" is biased and gives the implication that only extremist Neo-Nazis are critical of the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the city of Dresden.

6:20 July 24th, 2006 in the year of our Lord —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.21.245.53 (talk • contribs) 22:21, July 24, 2006 (UTC)

"Some right-wing extremists have used the term in decrying a purported downfall of Western civilization due to liberal immigration policies

How much of that sentence is NPOV?, or are white people the only ones whose culture doesn't deserve protection? It's very easy to label people who disagree with you as Nazis, but its a cheap trick to discredit their concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.222.55 (talk)

Definitely, just add a source. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. That would be a very good example though. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan be considered cultural genocide? Khoikhoi 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not one could think it such is a philosophical debate like the Azeri-Armenian one playing out below. Personally, I don't think so because, as far as I've read from UNESCO delegates and scholars, there was no active Afghan Buddhist culture that the Taliban was trying to eradicate; the Taliban was just acting on a self-proclaimed religious requirement to destroy iconic statues as such. Iconoclasm is not synonymous with "cultural genocide". But if someone's gone on the record calling it "cultural genocide", that's an example of the term being used in rhetorical debate, and please feel free to add it. Jacob Howley 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is no active Buddist culture in Afghanistan is not relevant. The intent of those doing the destruction, and the reasons behind that intent, are what is relevant. Meowy 01:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

More rigorous distinctions

I think there needs to be more rigorous distinction between "genocide" as a popular rhetorical term for any massive cultural devastation and "genocide" as an international crime that requires specific intent to destroy a racial, religious, national or ethnic group. It should be noted that destruction of cultural property is not included as a genocidal act (e.g. murder, prevention of childbirth, removal of children) in any current international criminal statute. The IRA example is not group-motivated, but an apparently strategic act of political terrorism that results in a big cultural loss. The dam was not built in order to destroy cultural sites, though it may have been built with the knowledge that such a result would occur. The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas was not intended to destroy a cultural group, since local worship of the statues was nonexistent in Afghanistan at the time, but it was a destructive act that deprived the world of its cultural heritage. Whatever other crimes these examples might be (crimes against humanity, war crimes), I highly doubt that anyone could be held accountable for genocide in connection with them. If "cultural genocide" has been applied to these situations rhetorically, then that needs to be explained from a more critical standpoint. (The Bowling Green library example is lamentable, but hardly amounts to the destruction of irreplaceable cultural heritage, much less an intentional, group-motivated act of genocide.) Personally, I am dubious about the actual merit of the term in most cases, aside from inflammatory rhetorical bluster. Jacob Howley 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Quite right. For ex. the Buddha statue incident has long been categorised under Iconoclasm. This whole UN law here was historically aimed at things like missionary activities in South America. For example the American evangelicals like SIL International who contributed toward cultural genocide, whether intentionally through profit motivation or through religious naivety. Viande hachée 15:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I went ahead and revised the Examples section accordingly. Also tried to couch it in more qualified terms. Jacob Howley 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For Artaxiad

Reference to destruction of Armenian khachkars is Armenian. I see no reason why we can't put Azeri--Dacy69 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Pickman is a third party source [1], yet you deleted it and left Armenica, an Armenian source, just to justify you putting that POV addition and pretending that was never added. - Fedayee 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted nothing. I just added information about destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage.Artaxiad reference is incomplete. Initaial reference was to Armenian source and I did not touch to it. Sarah Pickerman reference should be full (not just name) --Dacy69 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you seeing what I am seeing? You took out the Sarah Pickman reference when inserting the Azeri info! Why do you have to lie, I don't get it. Pickman isn't only the name, there's her work too and I provided a link to that in which if you were acting in good faith, you would've "completed" the reference yourself. And in my earlier edit summary, I never said Artaxiad said anything, re-read it please. Also, provide a third party source about the destruction of Azeri cultural heritage just as the Armenians have provided one. - Fedayee 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added reference to neutral source - destruction and looting of Shusha. In the meantime it is necessary to show a full refrence to Sarah Pickman - we have only now name and title of the article. We need what publicatioon, etc. Now it is only Armenian site shown.--Dacy69 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Pickman is from a Archeology magazine, it is a western source it fits the criteria. I removed your referenced material can you show me where it says the "destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in occupied territories by Armenia" Artaxiad 06:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My source is also Western. It also fits criteria. I rephrased the sentence in accordance with the source.And you still failed to present which edition, number of a journal. Yours does not fit criteria. Despite the lack of required full reference I did not touch yours, so please mind correcting and improving your source, before touching mine. Perhaps, as usually you use thrid party source.--Dacy69 08:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, the mosques in Aghdam, Shushi and Nagorno-Karabakh in general were still standing, although quite downtrodden. The one in Yerevan was repaired by Iranians. And none of them were destroyed and turned into a military zone like the khachkars in Nakhichevan. And the De Waal article you have sourced proves me right: "Since they captured Shusha in 1992, the Armenians have rebuilt the imposing church of Gazanchetsots (the mosques are abandoned and in a poor state of repair, but still intact)."

The article actually mentions how a group of Armenians prevented the destruction of cultural landmarks: "Mher Gabrielian, a Shusha Armenian, recalled how he and a group of friends managed to prevent the destruction of some of its cultural landmarks." And that's the only time the word cultural is used in the article. Cultural heritage is not even mentioned. Hakob 09:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We should mention the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia. De Waal described in his book "Black garden" how Armenians pulled down an Azerbaijani mosque in Yerevan in 1990 using a bulldozer. And here's another source on the same topic:

Before one gets too irate at the Azeris, however, one must note the paucity of surviving Islamic remains in Armenia, including the capital of Yerevan. To put this in historical perspective, in 1826, before the signing of the Treaty of Turkmenchai and the ethnic movements that followed in its wake, roughly 90,000 of a total population of 110, 000 in the Khanate of Yerevan were Muslims – Persians, Kurds, and "Turko-Tatar" nomads (the last being the peoples who later became self-conscious Azeris) (Bournoutian 1983:78; and also, however, his critical review 1992:67-8). No matter what demographic statistics one consults, it is simply unquestionable that considerable material remains of Islam must once have existed in this area. Their near total absence today cannot be fortuitous.

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395

Grandmaster 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those qualify as cultural genocide, a destruction is not equal to cultural genocide. An even must be termed as cultural genocide, we do not OR and decide what is cultural genocide or not. What happened in Nakhichevan was termed as such, what happened in Anatolia to the Armenian monuments is called as such. Do you have any work which call cultural genocide what haopened to Muslim monuments in Armenia so that we can add it? Fad (ix) 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1) You should read the UN definition given in the article, particularly item 'b'. So, in the meaning of UN text which is given here as preambula, deliberate destruction of Azerbaijani heritage on occupied territories and in Armenia is cultural genocide. 2) And now about your claim that Armenian cultural genocide is termd as such. Who called Armenian destruction as cultural genocide - it is a view of certain people, or NGOs. The use of terms in Wikipedia is quite troubled issue. We have people and government who call Monte Melkonian terrorist but you refuse to acknowledge that. Yes, some people does, some - not. We can't sometimes use the term aggression with regard to Armenian occupation. We have OIC resolution about destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in occupied territories. You have EU parlaiment resolution - we have OIC. They are equal in a sense that both are regional organizations. 3)Someone in theatrical way announced that he is taking break from Wiki for 3 months. Welcome back so soon.--Dacy69 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the term genocide is legal binding, what happened before its creation to be applied it should be used as Jurisprudence, being compound of the definition. You do not apply UN definition, this is called original research. What happened in Nakhichevan was called cultural genocide according to some source, there are sources which use that term, it can be properly referenced, references which properly use that term. We can not OR and apply the definition. If you do not have a notable source with that term, then it does not go in the Cultural genocide article. Cultural genocide is not just destruction. I am waiting you to provide the sources. Fad (ix) 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which third party source uses the term "cultural genocide"? Grandmaster 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadix, as I know, EU parliament desicion did not used a term cultural genocide (nor UN or any other organization). So, it is so much OR for khachkar issue. Some sources aren't counted as it might be self-proclaimed opinion. If you talk about Jurisprudence then pls. refer to sources in accordance with the international law. --Dacy69 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully what I wrote, the term Jurisprudence was in use, for what happened before the term not after. Some sources are enough to say, "some consider". Fad (ix) 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1 - if you agree that then we can use term terrorism/terrorist in a way you just put - some sources are enough to say "some consider" (for example with regard to Monte Melkonian). That will be equal applicability of the principle you mentioned 2 - examples which produced here was taken for its content. I am afraid but no international legal document exist on calling several events listed in this article as cultural genocide, including khachkar. Any other reflection or opinion is just OR anyway no matter some, many or few consider 3 - I advise you to look at Aivazovsky talkpage. He and Grandmaster negotiated not to spread this issue over various articles. I made my comment. So, we can reach compromise on that. Otherwise, we have enough evidence of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. As a matter of fact, we can have section about mutual destruction of cultural property on NKW page. That will limit all our dispute to one page. But I see that Artaxiad thinks differently - it is he who created a number of pages on every (and sometimes the same) conflict-related event.--Dacy69 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are yet again instinuating, when have I disagreed with the use of terms terrorism and terrorist in an article? If it is properly sourced, the term ""x" considers does fit." I don't even remember having engaged with you on Monte Melkonian, the only time I edited the article, I haven't deleted what you have added, but changed its place for a place which fits better, and I don't remember you disagreed with that, and then you and some Armenians started edit warring over something which I did not follow. As for cultural genocide, the destruction of the Khachkars did happen after the genocide convention, Azerbaijan was accused of deliberatly destroying, it made the news of many newspapers. If you have coverage reports, with such an accusation against the Armenian republic, go ahead. Some non-specific events or destructions do not fit as cultural genocide. As both sides during war have destroyed, bulldozed etc., the difference with the Khachkars was that it was recorded on tape during the destruction, just like whe it happened with the destruction of the Budha giant statue, and it was even compared with it. It was also covered in various newspapers and covered by the American archeological society. We can not start adding every little sources on destructions in the cultural genocide main page, there are thousands around the world. A destruction does not necessarly fit as cultural genocide. The Azerbaijani government representatives have denied that Armenians have ever lived there, the destruction was in connection to that, they were accused of removing the traces of the presence of the Armenians. If you have similar sources and records about any Azeri monuments do provide them here. Fad (ix) 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

it is already provided - 2 sources at least. Armenians try to erase turkic presence in occupied regions - the story of current Shusha project suffice.--Dacy69 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No it does not, I have read this [2], were does it accuse Armenian autorities to destroy Azeri artifacts to erase their presence and then pretend Azeri never lived there. Show me. Fad (ix) 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My two sentences about two separate problems. One - destruction during the war. Second - it is about to intention to erase turkic or let's say islamic presence since mostly turkic people were Moslems. Read carefully what Grandmaster posted - No matter what demographic statistics one consults, it is simply unquestionable that considerable material remains of Islam must once have existed in this area (Armenia). Their near total absence today cannot be fortuitous.

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology).--Dacy69 14:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

there is also OIC resolution - RESOLUTION No.10/30-C, ON THE DESTRUCTION AND DESECRATION OF ISLAMIC HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RELICS AND SHRINES IN THE OCCUPIED AZERI TERRITORIES RESULTING FROM THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA'S AGGRESSION AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN: ...1. Strongly condemns the barbaric acts committed by the Armenian aggressor in the Republic of Azerbaijan aiming at the total annihilation of the Islamic heritage in the occupied Azeri territories; ...--Dacy69 15:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The first source is not valid, it is pre genocide, for it to be called cultural genocide, it should be called as such in published works. That work does not say that. There are thousands, thousands of destroyed artifacts around the world. For the second, go ahead, add that, as long as you say the Islamic conference made that resolution, but you should also add the other quote from De Waal which say that the Mosques are still standing, it contradicts the first. Fad (ix) 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The first source actually written by de Waal. And it is valid because there is no cultral genocide convention - it is UN declaration of 1994. You should know int.law - declaration is not legal document. So point about pregenocide and etc. has no validity in this case. secondly, I see no point to put widely all this dispute here - there is specific page(s) on this issue. So, if you want to launch it here - go ahead, then I will come with my edit. But now I am satisfied with one sentence in the line with metioning other examples since it is not about Armenia-Azerbaijani conflict. And, as I told you - I, Grandmaster and Aivazovsky have discussed how to limit this dispute to one page.And I don't want at this moment to break that negotiations. --Dacy69 15:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC) - And regarding Monte Melkonian - now it seems you retracting but on arbcom page you accused me of vilifying that and other pages. You did not revealed what dispute was about. So you did not followed but accused me.--Dacy69 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First, like I have said, cultural genocide is a very vast subject, there could be thousands of cases. De Waal does not support what you claim, besides, it is about time that we start quoting beside De Waal, he has been more than quoted actually quoted more than his notability would impose, many articles significant positions had as sole source De Waal. I is better that we start finding other works as supplementation. The Khachkar destructions was documented on various notable publications, and the reports after the destructions by Azerbaijan government that Armenians ever never lived there. There were recorded artfiacts, recorded destruction during the destruction itself, and then the denial that Armenians ever lived there. This situation has been recorded on various, various newsources. De Waal and the Islamic conference, in which Armenians don't have even a representative, can not be presented as equally valid as the various coverage of the Khachkar destruction. The Cultural genocide articles is a main and reserved to clearly define cultural genocides. For example, the recorded destruction of 2000 Armenian churchs and the hundreds of monuments in Turkey and the claim they never existed. There are countless numbers of notable publications, clearly mentioning it as "cultural genocide", or the change of the name of a specy because it contained an allusion to Armenians etc. Just search the literature, and you will see what notability, some reference does not justify presenting it in parallel to an event which notability has been established. Also, I am not retracting anything at all, my comments on your actions on Melkonian article was not about content but behaviours. Fad (ix) 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I still have not received the answer to my question. Which third party source uses the term "cultural genocide" with regard to Nakhichevan or anywhere else in Azerbaijan? If it is OR, it has no place here. Grandmaster 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, it was presented as such in the British house of lord, I have an account by Steven Sims in PDF and have his email, he is a lecturer and specialist of Armenian monuments, he will answer you that it was a “Cultural Genocide.” If you want to read the account, you will see that documented church which were standing in 1980s, there is nothing, nothing Armenian left and that the destructions were done the last years. Khachkars were just one example, made the press that much because it was taped. I am not requesting the destructions in Nakhichevan to be added here, what I am saying is that the only notable event which is notable enough for the main “cultural genocide” is the destruction of the Khachkars, it was compared with the destruction of the Budha Statue. Fad (ix) 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

After all your claims about reputable sources your reference to statement of one biased lord in UK parliament does not sustain any critical observation.--Dacy69 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot present opinion of a couple of people as something commonly accepted. We also have opinion of some people, who consider the massacre in Khojaly to be a genocide, but would you agree if it is included in the relevant article as a fact? Grandmaster 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you have used de Waal as sole source for many affirmations in articles, why do you believe that his opinion is worth mentioning as sole source for many articles? Khachkar destruction stand alone, it was compared with the destruction of the Giant Budha, there is nothing Armenian left in Nakhichevan, and this is documented, but I did not request those to be added, what I have said is that Khachkar stand alone, it was reported in various notable sources, the destruction was taped, and later the Government affirmed that there was no Armenians ever living there. You can not present two things in parallel when one has few sources, a fringe, and the other has been reported on various very notable source. Fad (ix) 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Russian news report on cultural genocide of Armenian monuments. Steven Sim's report of his visit to Nakhichevan may shed some light on why some editors on here keep making difficulties and rejecting sources left and right. Happy editing, Hakob 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also reports on destruction of Azeri heritage anyway. We have enough discussed validity of sources. On Armenian side there are EU resolution, several articles, on Azeri - OIC resolution, one book and article. I am sure both sides can dig more. But here, on this page, we mention with 1 sentence various fact across the globe. As for khachkar discussion in details, as I told, there is the separate article on that - I see no reason to widen the topic here.--Dacy69 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The OIC resolution was based on a draft submitted by Azerbaijan, it is represented there. Wikipedia does not only require sources, it require also credible sources. We've been there already, words like "barbaric" etc. and without an particular example does not fit in the context of a source worth being considered as notable enough to be placed on the main Cultural genocide page. The question here is, would a non-Armenian and non-Azeri user possibly add the Khachkar on this main? Yes, The Independent, the Times, the Archeological society of America and other notable publications have reported it. The EU is not taken as alone. It is a particular recorded event. While the said destruction of Muslim monuments does not add up, even de Waal claims the Mosques are still there, the author which you claim support the position. You claim you can dig more sources go ahead do so. But would any neutral contributor who has read on cultural destruction find the sources you provide as worthy to be included on the main in parallel to the Khachkar? Fad (ix) 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First source presented by Hakob is Armenian, and second one is the only third party one. Cultural genocide is not a fact, but interpretation, and is not a common one, but supported only by 1 source. You cannot present it as a fact. I never presented any interpretation by a single source as a fact, check your facts, Fadix. Also destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia is a fact. According to Brokhauz article about Erivan the city had 6 mosques, as of now there’s only 1 left. What happened to the other 5? They could not just disappear or move to another planet. De Waal explained what happened to one of them, it was pulled down with a bulldozer in 1990, soon after the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan started. Obviously, others vanished the same way, as Philip Kohl states. This should be reflected in Wikipedia, if not in this article, then some other one. Grandmaster 13:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, before the Turkic tribs came, there were recorded hundreds of churchs and monuments in the area, a couple remained, various explorers have recorded the ruins and destructions, there is more Armenian monuments in hat now constitute Armenian hich were destroyed than Muslim. And? Where have I claimed that I wanted it as fact, I am tired of you putting words in my mouth to then answer them. Read my repy to Dacy69, on "some source say", oh and no, there is not only one source saying that, Steven Sims calls it Cultural Genocide, you have used De Waal to establish "facts" on various articles, while the two source which I claim would be enough to say some claims for ONE article is to much for you to bear. And no, there was no Azerbaijani cultural heritage destroyed in Armenia, there was Muslim cultural heritage destroyed, they were Persian architectures and monuments, much like in Yerevan there are various churchs and Armenian monuments destroyed desecrated for centuries under Turkic rules. What is the point of that? If after all this, you still don't see why the Khachkars incidence is a stand alone, then there is absolutly no point to assume good faith. The destruction of the Budha Statue as called a cultural genocide, two other neutral sources have compared the destruction of the Khachkars with it. That makes 4 neutral source, without counting the various notable and independent sources which covers it. Bulldozer? Grandmaster, Steven Sims report that from the churchs and Armenian monuments still standing not so long ago in Nachikevan, nothing, nothing absolutly NOTHING remains. Does a source make it enough to place it in the main, NO! The Khachkar is the only notable one. Stop POV pushing. Fad (ix) 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's only 1 source that uses the word, you cannot present it as something generally accepted. And what happened in Armenia was carried out by the state of Armenia, that makes difference. Yes, the state of Armenia was engaged in cultural genocide, if the term means destruction of cultural heritage of other people. Grandmaster 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OR, two very notable source present a comparaison with the Budha statue, two others use the term cultural genocide. With Steven Sims, that makes it two. To add, the various countless numbers of sources. De Waal claims the Mosques still stand, while Sims claims that there is nothing left of the Churchs and monuments in Nakhichevan. But, I am not requesting those to be added on the main, what I a saying is that the Khachkar destruction is a stand alone, because of the reputability of the sources. Adding this in parallel with Muslim monuments does not add up. Because there are Armenian monuments beside the Khachkars destroyed too and are much more notable, but all those are nowhere as notable as the Khachkars destruction and can not be added on the main. Obviously we are turning in circle and you refuse here to to conform with notability. Fad (ix) 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys,I got an idea...Why not just delete this altogether?This articles title("Cultural genocide?")makes it very obvious this article is politically charged,perhaps "cultural assimilition" is a better term?This is an encyclopedia,just because you think there is such a thing as cultural genocide does not make it real.Im deleting this nonsense if someone doesnt fix it soon.

Yes, all political POV claims should be removed. Grandmaster 07:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose deleting the article. The term has traction as a rhetorical phrase, and it has some important history in international law, as I've tried to elucidate in my edits. I would agree that examples might do more harm than good, especially in such touchy cases as the Azeri-Armenian conflict. I think it's helpful to provide supported examples SOLELY to show the term's usage in political debate if and ONLY IF there is a very rigorous explanation that the examples are meant to show usage, not to validate the underlying assertions. Also, while the factual result may be the same, "cultural assimilation" is qualitatively different from "cultural genocide" in usage and effect. Jacob Howley 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind as long as baseless anti-Azerbaijani claims are removed. There's only 1 source that uses the term in that context, and presenting it as something universally accepted is POV. If there are any generally accepted examples, they could be cited, but making this article a piece of political propaganda is wrong and unacceptable. Grandmaster 19:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what you are doing is claiming that an article should stay as long as there is no mention of the Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan (something you call "baseless anti-Azerbaijani claims"...). This is a form of blackmail and it is definitely anti-Wikipedia. The "if this article mentions this, it should be deleted" kinds of edits are considered a disruption to Wikipedia. - Fedayee 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee and Grandmaster: I believe this whole dispute should be irrelevant in light of my edits today (see below). I don't have any stake in the Azeri-Armenian conflict; I'm just concerned with making sure this article includes documented examples of its subject matter. If someone called the Nakhichevan incident "cultural genocide", WHETHER OR NOT IT'S OBJECTIVELY TRUE, then that's an example of how the term has been used. (One certainly doesn't have to agree with Neo-Nazis - I don't! - to cite them as an example of the term's usage.) I respectfully suggest that you take your historical debate to a more appropriate forum. Jacob Howley 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and your edit. For your information, the source you have added by Elmira Suleymanova does not call it cultural genocide...the accusation of genocide is there because she claims that the Armenians tried to exterminate the Azerbaijani population. While she mentions monuments, the word "genocide" is not used in that context. Elmira Suleymanova, among many other things, has said that for the youth of Azerbaijan, Ramil Safarov (who is jailed in Hungary for life for having hacked to death his fellow Armenian collegue) should become an example of "patriotism"... She also claims several "Azerbaijani Genocides" (not in the context of "cultural genocide" but accusing Armenians of extermination). One other example is this.

But if she is ever the source for the word in question, assuming that there are other article from her which is found for "cultural genocide", it should be clarified that the Human Rights Institute in question is not part of any official independent Human Rights Organization, it is owned by Azerbaijan National Academy of science (its president is Rovshan Mustafayev who has accused Armenians of genocide practically against everyone, including against Jews) and it is a government owned enterprise. - Fedayee 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "Azerbaijan's Ombudsman" and "Azerbaijani Commission for Human Rights" are clear enough. Again, this is not about whether she's right or wrong about anything, but the fact that she's used the word genocide to connote alleged cultural destruction. That makes it an example of the term's usage (note that the section is no longer called "Examples OF cultural genocide"). Jacob Howley 18:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee said: Elmira Suleymanova, among many other things, has said that for the youth of Azerbaijan, Ramil Safarov (who is jailed in Hungary for life for having hacked to death his fellow Armenian collegue) should become an example of "patriotism"... Could you please cite your sources for this claim? Azerbaijani officials never said anything like that, moreover, they condemned this murder and extended their condolences to the family of the Armenian officer. I don't think making such baseless claims is any helpful. Grandmaster 06:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Significant Edits for Objectivity

I cleaned up the entire "Examples" section in the hopes of ending the political sniping. I tried to clarify that the section is limited to reported examples of how the term's been used, not examples of what a given editor thinks - rightly or wrongly - is "cultural genocide". I'm welcome to other people adding examples in this vein, as long as there's a clear objective reason to add the citation (i.e. it's in a credible news report, not just some individual's blog). Does that make sense? Jacob Howley 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You have inserted an example about destruction of khachkar based on refering to the word of Armenian Ambassador. That is POV. Your approach is wrong. And I restore other example related to desruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. If we will folow your logic Azerbaijani sources called it also cultural genocide, for example [www.azembassyashg.com/pr/Press-reliz-Qenosid%20kulturi.doc]--Dacy69 16:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Dacy69: Again, I have no interest in either side of the Azeri-Armenian dispute. This is an article about the rhetorical term "cultural genocide", and the Examples section is there for examples of how it's been used. NPOV in this context doesn't mean tit-for-tat examples if only one side's used the term; rather, NPOV means keeping things in objective terms: "this is what someone has CALLED cultural genocide in political debate" and not "this IS cultural genocide (because I think it is)". Remember, cultural genocide isn't even a real legal term! Hence I edited the section to include documented examples that reflect the speaker's POV, not the article's POV. I'm glad you included an example, although because of the language barrier, I've replaced it with a similar example in English that I think says the same thing. Jacob Howley 19:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case you better watch this article because I suppose other editors can question this approach. But for now I am ok.--Dacy69 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed "claims", because I don't think anyone reject that Khachkars are part of its cultural heritage. Anatolmethanol 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think most of the world agrees with you, but some disagree very vehemently: some historians think they were the work of "Caucasian Albanians", others the work of medieval Turks. Not saying these other people are correct, but because this issue has caused NPOV problems on this page before, I think it's unnecessary to make such a bold claim as that the khatchkars unequivocally belong to Armenia. I did edit it to split the difference, though, to say that Armenians as a people identify with the khatchkars as part of their heritage (regardless of who built the khatchkars or to which country's historical heritage they "belong"). This is an undeniably true statement about Armenian culture in itself, and it doesn't make any controversial claims about the khatchkars' true history. Jacob Howley 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, in that case, should an article about Stonehenge be altered to suggest that the site was not unequivocally built by stone-age Britons because some people believe that they were actually built by aliens from outer-space? Meowy 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

IN case the above humour is not appreciated by Jacob Howley , let me explain that the "Caucasian Albanian" tag was not attached to the Julfa cemetery until 2006. The claim appears only in the context of the attempts by Azerbaijan to deny that any destruction had taken place at the cemetery. There is a reference to it in the Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan, but you will not find the phrase "Caucasian Albanian" mentioned in the actual history of Julfa because iti s not real history. Even Azerbaijan has chosen not pursued the "Caucasian Albanian" allegation in relation to the cemetery, partly because the whole concept is laughable to historians, and partly because it is at cross-purposes with the bulk of the Azeri responses: e.g. it raises questions like how can the cemetery be both imaginary and Caucasian Albanian, why should Azerbaijan refuse access to the site if it a Caucasian Albanian site rather than an Armenian one, etc. Meowy 16:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the sarcasm, but you're missing the point, like everyone else. This is NOT an article about the historical fact of Julfa, Shushi, or anything else in the Azeri-Azerbaijan conflict. This IS an article about a controversial phrase that gets bandied about by sources on both sides of the debate. The truth or myth surrounding "Caucasian Albanians" is another topic, one on which I might very well agree with you. The issue is not "WAS Julfa/Shushi/etc. cultural genocide?", but RATHER "HOW do people use this term in debate?" (This article USED TO BE more along the former's lines, but I edited it toward the latter for the sake of objectivity.) Jacob Howley 14:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewording of the first sentence?

"Cultural genocide is a term used to describe the deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons." I suggest that religious, ethnical, and racial reasons should be added. Given that the phrase "cultural genocide" is closely related to the concept of genocide, the same reasons for committing genocide would also apply to those comitting cultural genocide. Maybe something should also be added to express the fact that it has to be done on a large scale and be organised in nature. One person acting alone (and in isolation of other events) to destroy an object would not be commiting cultural genocide. Meowy 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

“Cultural genocide” is not some established term with a known definition. It is rather a rhetorical expression. This quote describes that the word "genocide" is sometimes used very loosely in Armenia.

Genocide furthermore becomes an integrative symbol of “root paradigm” that assimilates a variety of kinds of suffering: there was not only the physical genocide at the end of the Ottoman empire (“Turks”), and the killings in Sumgait and Baku in 1988 by Azerbaijanis (also “Turks”) of Armenians which sparked intensified fighting over Karabakh, but also: (1) the Azerbaijanization of Nakhichevan is called a “white genocide,” that is, one that operates by erasure of evidence of Armenian residence; (2) the air pollution of Yerevan is called “ecological genocide”; (4) the assimilationist policies of Azerbaijan were called “cultural genocide”. This is troublesome insofar as all pragmatic people in this part of the world recognize that Armenians must find ways of living peacefully with their surrounding Turkish-speaking and Muslim neighbors.

George E. Marcus. Perilous States: Conversations on Culture, Politics, and Nation. ISBN 0226504476

We might as well create an article about "ecological genocide", as this expression is also being used sometimes. Grandmaster 11:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your source obviously doesn't know what the term "white genocide" means. It is a genocide committed without the actual taking of life. The origin of the concept partly dates back to the Celtic Church in Ireland which considered enforced exile to be "white martyrdom", as opposed to actual martyrdom (i.e. death) which was called "red martyrdom". Assimilationist policies can be a form of "white genocide", it is not cultural genocide because that term refers to cultural objects and not people. Meowy 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I also don't believe it is a "rhetorical expression". Just because it does not exist a legal concept, does not mean the action itself does not exist. Your argument reminds me of the one used by some Armenian-genocide denialists, those that say it couldn't have been a genocide because the term hadn't been coined in 1915. Meowy 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pls. don't remove before reaching consensus. This issue was discused previously. The term might be used for its substance. (and it is indeed not legal term, it is political expression) The destruction of cultural property is documented fact. --Dacy69 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove what? Meowy 02:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you mean my edit to remove that cited source by Suleymanova. I removed it becasue the author does not use the phrase "cultural genocide", nor does the author imply its use. Meowy 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the xenophobic and racist Elmira Suleymanova badmouthing has a place on Wikipedia: Safarov must become an example of patriotism for the Azerbaijani youth. [3]

Troubles faced by our people as a result of purposeful policies of genocide, deportation and aggression of Armenian chauvinists and their supporters have roots deep into the layers of history.

dozens of thousands of Armenians were intentionally moved from abroad and located in eternal Azerbaijani lands

Jacob inclusion of the source is a misunderstanding of the policies; Suleymanova qualifies as a non-credible source.

Thus, more than 100.000 cultural monuments were destroyed or captured, as well as more than 500 cultural and 100 archaeological monuments and 22 museums were destroyed on the occupied territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Shushi must have been Athens or Rome to have had 100,000 cultural monuments. Jacob's presentation of the Khachkars as merely claimed to be Armenian heritage is a misunderstanding of policy on neutrality. Every single book on Google books, and this without exception, claims Khachkars as being Armenian. Jstor provides three hits, all placing it as Armenian. Azerbaijani nationalistic historians are the only who pass what the rest of the world recognize as Armenian, as Albanian. They do not qualify as reliable source. Also Jacob pushes the attribution of sources a little too far, Wikipedia does per the credibility of sources, require filtration of material. I think sources from governments, embassies etc., should be removed, this creates a false controversy. The Armenian Khachkar destruction should be replaced by what is reported in the article published by the American Archaeological Society on the destruction of Khachkars in Nakhichevan. - Fedayee 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Count every house, shop, office, kiosk, garage, hut, outside toilet, and refuse-bin in Shushi as a "cultural monument" and you might get close to that 100,000 figure! :) Meowy 17:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please watch your language, Meowy. I have other sources about destruction of cultural property of Azerbaijan. Elmira Suleymanova was inserted not by me. But , Fedayee, your political statement here has nothing to do in common with status of cultural monuments destrioyed during the conflict. I agree that we should use either neutral sources or we can rightfully use both national ones. But what you guys trying to do - to remove Azerbaijani source and leave Armenian one. That is unacceptable. --Dacy69 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted nothing of the such. My prior proposal was never on permitting state officials' remarks... those have no value. My main point was previously said before Grandmaster pushed me in another circular discussion to only include the destruction of the Khachkars because it is the only notable one. There are various claims of Armenian cultural heritage destroyed, particularly in Nakhichevan which, unlike the other locations, was outside of the war zone. Did I try to incorporate claims from there? No, only the Khachkar destruction, it is the only one, reported in Western media, discussed by the European parliament, an article from the American Archeology society etc. The only neutral source provided for your support was from De Waal and De Waal article does not justify any inclusion in the cultural genocide article, we've been there. Wikipedia is not tit for that. You accuse us and we accuse you. This is not how it works... - Fedayee 00:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You refer to European parliament discussion of destruction of Armenian khachkars. We have also discussion and resolution within Organization of Islamic Conference about destruction of Azeri cultural heritage. Both organization are equal in principle. During discussion in EU parliament MPs refered to the protection of Christian heritage. Well, the same applies to islamic ones. So, both facts are notable depending which sources you look into.--Dacy69 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also advise to read discussion in sections above. We almost repeat the same arguments.--Dacy69 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I restore quotes - either we have neutral sources or two govt related one--Dacy69 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read what Fedayee said, I suggest going again buddy.Hetoum I 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the point IS NOT whether Julfa is Armenian or Azeri or whether the destruction WAS "cultural genocide". Therefore, the point is not whether someone is credible to speak on that topic. The point IS how people on either side of the debate have used the term. Suleymanova might or might not be credible as to historical fact, but she's someone who has actually used the term rhetorically. Therefore, it is an EXAMPLE OF THE TERM'S USAGE, per the section's title. (Notice that the emphasis has shifted away from purported "examples of cultural genocide".)

Obviously, white supremacists are not credible factual sources either, but they are included as an example of how someone has used the phrase "cultural genocide". As a personal matter, I disagree strongly with white supremacism and xenophobia, yet I've kept the sources because they provide an example of the term, regardless of their underlying correctness or wrongness. I hope the partisans on this discussion thread can similarly distinguish the issues. Jacob Howley 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So, if some African-American (or whatever local ethnic group that is culturally perceived to be most involved in stealing bicycles) nicks someone's bicycle, and the victim cries out "cultural-genocide" and it is subsequently written about, then that too can be inserted into the "rhetorical use" section? That is the sort of nonsense you are inviting if we leave your reasoning unquestioned. The phrase "cultural genocide" has a fairly clear meaning, so a valid use of the phrase has to fit broadly within that meaning. Meowy 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the word "rhetorical" from the section heading. It use here is arguably POV. Many of the authors that are cited as using the phrase "cultural genocide" are not using it for effect, but are using it because they believe that the phrase factually and accurately describes particular events. In other words, there is no rhetorical aspect to the phrase's usage in those cases. Meowy 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

for HetoumI

there is no accpted term of cultural genocide. see discussion above. there is no such term in internatrional legal documents. So, some experts and politicians use that term based on their judgements. case submitted by Azeri is about mass desctruction of Azeri cultural heritage equals to cultural genocide.--Dacy69 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added back the sourced text of a claim of cultural genocide by Azerbaijani side, removed by User:Hetoum I without any explanation. Atabek 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The source that you're adding is nationalist and pro-Azerbaijani. If you don't have a neutral source then stop adding the text back to the article. VartanM 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I will remove also Armenian nationalist source as it is Armenian ambassador, not neutral one.--Dacy69 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Indian Muslims

NPOV violations in the section about Indian treatment of muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aakashrajq (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right?

I think you could add also Pol Pot and his policy ( Red Khmers ). I read about the fact that people couldn't wear glasses or other "western" objects.

Now I think: ... but this was not against the local culture, even if against the culture.

Now I think again: it was against the present local culture for the past local culture.

So, it is genocide. But is it "cultural" or "anti-cultural" ( neologism ( my-logism ))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.53.169 (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD - SYN?

Maybe this is just a poorly written article but it seems like a big SYN violation to me to just list a bunch of instances where a term is used that is never actually defined in any of the sources used. Can someone show that this term is actually defined in any of these sources and that they are all talking about the same thing, and that it is somehow different from genocide? The word "genocide" literally means destruction of a "race" or a "people" -- terms that are coterminous with "culture" if not identical to it. I'm not sure how "cultural genocide" differs from "genocide." csloat (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! For me ( a "real" NPOV! ) there could be this difference: only if genocide can refer not to extermination but to a simple race destruction, as for Cree and Uyghur people, that is cultural genocide, but only if "genocide" is not linked to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.53.169 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In light of the recent AfD for the phrase "enemy of humanity", which similarly, has a bunch of people who utter the same combination of words but don't use it in the same way, I have removed that list. Its ambiguous use in a draft UN convention is kept for editors to evaluate in the future. Quigley (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article on Cultural Genocide

The article on "Genocide" is getting too big, and this article needs an independent entry. It's standard policy to develop sub-articles. A quick search reveals a significant amount of sources dealing specifically with this topic.Maziotis (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OTRS notice: Edit war

OTRS has received notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. I would suggest editors involved in the disagreement consult Wikipedia:Edit war.

Rather than engage in a war of reversals, editors should discuss the entry in question and try to reach consensus. If they find they are unable to do so, Wikipedia has mechanisms for arbitration.

Please consult the following page:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you do not feel that any of the suggestions offered there will be constructive, you can ask for arbitration, but please be aware that this is considered a last step within dispute resolution. Please consult this page:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.

I ask the involved parties to try and find consensus within Wikipedia guidelines, i.e. agree to disagree and place only well-sourced and referenced material on the page, even if it reflects different points of view. The key to resolving this dispute is to stick to the principleWikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and accept that there may be differing opinions regarding this subject. You may also want to consult the pages Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

• I have added this page to my watchlist and will report any and all further disruptive behaviour to the administrators.

• For the record: I have no opinion(s) as to the subject matter of the entry.

Principles

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) The use of Wikipedia for ethnic or political propaganda is prohibited byWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Disruptive editing

3) Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site.

Assume good faith

4) Wikipedia:Assume good faith contemplates the extension of courtesy and good will to other editors on the assumption that they, like you, are here to build an information resource with a neutral point of view based on reliable, verifiable sources.

Courtesy

5) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Neutral point of view

6) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Good faith acceptance of references

7) References may be used which are not available online. It is sufficient that that they may be found and verified using the facilities of an academic library or a service such as Lexis-Nexis. In the absence of demonstrated failure, a user is presumed to be able to adequately cite such references.

Reconciliation

8) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Asav (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE and its consequences being the most OBVIOUS CASE of Cultural cleansing

Consequences of the first owful crime against humanity in XX century:

1. About (or more than) 2,000.000 lives lost in the Armenian homeland.
2. 67 Armenian cities, 3,000 villages and big part of Armenian homeland once occupying over 400, 000 square kilometres lost its true owners’.
3. As a result, the major part of Armenian cultural heritage has been stripped of its true owners’ care and protection for almost a century now. Moreover, it has continually been suffering premeditated destruction and obliteration. Masterpieces of Armenian architecture like 3,368 monasteries and churches now we have lost forever.
4. Most harmful cultural loss was a destruction of a thousands of medieval handwritten illuminated manuscripts and science books collected during the centuries.
5. Another constituent of the Cultural Genocide is a process of Turkification of thousands Armenian toponyms in Western Armenia.
6. Numerous Armenian churches converted into mosques, and massive falsifications of Armenian graveyards remakeed to Seljuk tombstones.
7. So-called "restorations" of Armenian monuments in Turkey, in fact remouving Armenian inscriptions and crosses from them.

Unseen scale of destructions and falsifications against Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey must be qualified as the most OBVIOUS CASE of Cultural genocide inside the humans conscience first, and then it can find place in Wikipedia's pages... Event.Horizon.000 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Note no previous consensus exist on merging cultural genocide and Ethnocide

Please note that no previous consensus exist on merging cultural genocide and Ethnocide. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 08:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

on the Bahá'í Faith

previous entry

In light of concerns raised in a number of circles I propose making an entry here or somewhere along these lines:

See also: Religion in Iran § Bahá'í Faith

The Bahá'í Faith, Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority, is not officially recognized, and has been persecuted during its existence in Iran. Since the 1979 revolution the persecution of Bahá'ís has increased with oppression, the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education and employment. There were an estimated 350,000 Bahá'ís in Iran in 1986. Bahá'ís are neither recognized nor protected by the Iranian constitution. During the drafting of the new constitution the wording intentionally excluded the Bahá'ís from protection as a religious minority.

The Shia clergy, as well as many Iranians, have continued to regard Bahá'ís as heretics, and consequently Bahá'ís have encountered much prejudice and have sometimes been the objects of persecution. The situation of the Bahá'ís improved under the Pahlavi shahs when the government actively sought to secularize public life however there were still organizations actively persecuting the Bahá'ís in addition to there being curses children would learn decrying the Báb and Bahá'ís. See Hojjatieh. Founder of SAVAK, Teymur Bakhtiar, took a pick-ax to a Bahá'í building himself at the time.

Bahá'ís have been officially persecuted, "some 200 of whom have been executed and the rest forced to convert or subjected to the most horrendous disabilities." Systematic targeting of the leadership of the Bahá'í community by killing or disappearing was focused on the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) and Local Spiritual Assemblies (LSAs). Like most conservative Muslims, Khomeini believed Bahá'ís to be apostates, for example issuing a fatwa stating:

It is not acceptable that a tributary [non-Muslim who pays tribute] changes his religion to another religion not recognized by the followers of the previous religion. For example, from the Jews who become Bahai's nothing is accepted except Islam or execution.

and emphasized that the Bahá'ís would not receive any religious rights, since he believed that the Bahá'ís were a political rather than religious movement. Allegations of Bahá'í involvement with other powers have long been repeated in many venues including denunciations from the president. This is all despite the fact that conversion from Judaism and Zoroastrianism is well documented since the 1850s - indeed such a change of status removing legal and social protections.

More recently, documentation has been provided that shows governmental intent to destroy the Bahá'í community. The government has intensified propaganda and hate speech against Bahá'ís through the Iranian media; Bahá'ís are often attacked and dehumanized on political, religious, and social grounds to separate Bahá'ís from the rest of society. According to Eliz Sanasarian "Of all non-Muslim religious minorities the persecution of the Bahais has been the most widespread, systematic, and uninterrupted.… In contrast to other non-Muslim minorities, the Bahais have been spread throughout the country in villages, small towns, and various cities, fueling the paranoia of the prejudiced."

Since the 1979 revolution, the authorities have destroyed most or all of the Baha'i holy places in Iran, including the House of the Bab in Shiraz, a house in Tehran where Bahá'u'lláh was brought up, and other sites connected to aspects of Babi and Baha'i history. These demolitions have sometimes been followed by the construction of mosques in a deliberate act of triumphalism. In addition the Bahá'í Institute for Higher Education, developed in response to some of these persecutions, has been systematically raided. Between 1987 and 2005 the Iranian authorities closed down the university several times as part of the pattern of suppressing the Bahá'í community. Between September 30 and October 3 1998 and most recently on 22 May 2011 officials from the Ministry of Intelligence entered the homes of academic staff of the BIHE, seizing books, computers and personal effects and shutting down buildings used for the school.

Indeed several agencies and experts and journals have published concerns about viewing the developments as a case of genocide: Roméo Dallaire, Genocide Watch, Sentinel Project for Genocide Prevention, War Crimes, Genocide, & Crimes against Humanity and the Journal of Genocide Research.

Smkolins (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - going live with this and see where it goes.... Smkolins (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

going live

Sorry I deleted the content first. If it is not too much of trouble, please do the followings:

1. please provide quotes here (in the talk page) from the sources on which you base your contribution, that specifically mention the phrase "cultural genocide"
2. please then proceed to use these materials (not off-topic content) to demonstrate how this can be used "to explain cultural genocide as an illustrative case", using one to three paragraphs (usually one).
3. please use template {{main}} to provide internal links to the main article.

Thank you.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So after a year and some 20 editors changing content on the page the section is deleted and "moved to talk"? I think this is a highly irregular action unless I'm missing a thrust of editing though I don't see any discussion to speak of. We could as easily begin by leaving the content and discussing it's placement or position in things separately. Deleting it like this seems highly irregular. In return to your questions I have questions -

1. ) I'm confused by a suggestion of main-linking "to the main article" - are you suggesting the content be moved to it's own article?
2. ) The question of citation is weird because there were many references included. It is a religion in Iran (and beyond) and in Iran there are numerous examples of evidence and concern over the approach of the government being one of genocide. So - is this cultural genocide or just an example of genocide? Does a religion being treated this way constitute cultural genocide or other forms of genocide? That's the question I originally asked. I don't see an answer but it doesn't seem to me the right answer is to delete the content. Smkolins (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, please note that I only moved the content to talk page and alerted you immediately on your user page, which does not constitute a bad-faith deletion. Thank you again for laying out your rationales in contributing. I have preliminarily addressed the issues of WP:summary,WP:detail and WP:due in another heading below. Here I focus on the topic, relevance and sources:

summary policy in a nutshell

I quote it here for your reference:

guideline in a nutshell

Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving summaries in their place.

— Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{Main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template., To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original.

--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 04:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

topic, relevance and sources

Per WP:TOPIC policy, Wikipedians are encouraged to examine whether some texts stay on topic. Note also that Wikipedia has a WP:NOR policy that discourages Wikipedians to make their own assessment and conclusions. Please read carefully especially here: WP:SYN, Wikipedians cannot even make synthesis on two ore more reliable sources, unless the very synthesis is also supported by reliable sources.

Hence, since this article is on the topic of "cultural genocide", not "genocide" in general, the texts contributed here should at very least mention the term "cultural genocide" in a substantial way (usually at least a few sentences or better a paragraph or two). Otherwise, it might be a better idea to move the contributed text to other articles "genocide" (if these sources address this topic with the perspective of genocide).

Please also consider how your contributed text is included in articles such as religious persecution, and compare those cases with the cases in genocide. It is much less controversial to include your contributed texts there as they are more on-topic. For entries such as genocide or even cultural genocide, because they have specific legal and academic implications. Again, as Wikipedians we cannot do original research, we have to find some reliable sources to support the statements that "XXX is or can be seen as a case of cultural genocide" or that "AAA considers XXX an act of cultural genocide", etc.

This is what I wanted you to share with me (and other Wikipedians) here on the talk page, so as to establish the relevance to prove that is on topic and relevant. By doing so (leaving records here), it is less likely to be challenged by other Wikipedians in the future. If you cannot find one, I can try my best to find them for you here. Please assume good faith and do ask for help if you need it. However, as I have said, if we cannot find any related references, then we cannot make new synthesis per WP:SYN policy to say something counts as a case of cultural genocide.

--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 04:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Do I percieve a process of narrowing content about examples of genocide to brief entries that then are linked out to their own articles or mentions in other articles? Is there some declaration somewhere that is what is to be done that I missed? Smkolins (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor, but does have some "editing guidelines" regarding summary style

Let me first assure you that I like expansion of articles and that Wikipedia does not censor. Then we can proceed to the editing guidelines about summary style WP:SUMMARY. Note that

Do not put undue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts.

In the same guideline, various examples are given, with the World War II article forking into several main articles using the main template. Also note that in the same guideline, some instructions are given on "Levels of desired details" WP:detail.

So according to these specific guidelines, the aim is to give enough details in different contexts with due weight. Other examples that may be related to your contribution here would be Religious persecution and persecution. Please see how a topic goes from general (say persecution) to a more specific topic (say Religious_persecution), then to the specific case (say Persecution of Bahá'ís). They are all linked with main templates with a summary each. Note also that, in order to give due weight to each of the articles, editors do not simply copy the whole content from Persecution of Bahá'ís to Religious persecution or even persecution, which will cause a series of editorial issues:

1. synchronization of content (what if the main, more specific articles are updated?)
2. lengthy general articles WP:SIZE

So please follow the editorial guidelines to maintain due weight for each articles. I will address the content side of the issue under another heading regarding references and relevance. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 03:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In particular the issue of undue weight - I was familiar with this. Previously the article had more content related to Native Americans and Armenians in one way or another. It was in that context I supplied what as present. I can easily see moving the majority of the content to another article and linking into this one. Smkolins (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Some reliable sources found

For the records, I am no expert on the topic of Bahá'í's faith, but I only document what I have found to be reliable as a researcher and Wikipedian to establish the relevance of Bahá'í's faith to the topic of cultural genocide.

1. A peer-reviewed [4] journal article "Review of secondary literature in English on recent persecutions of Bahá'ís in Iran" mentioned the term "cultural genocide" once in its concluding paragraph: "The case of the Bahá'ís of Iran is distinct enough not only to continue to gain government and academic support world-wide, but also to help clarify and advance international human rights law for minorities, to confirm the illegality of cultural genocide, to confirm the right to freedom of religion and to curtail governmental abuses of human rights. "

1. A book published by a Canadian institution also mentioned the term "cultural genocide" once, but only barely in the note on page 377. Gate of the Heart

The above literature findings may not be enough for the following reasons: (1) the question of non-third party and (2) only passing references of the term "cultural genocide". However, the first one is more substantial than the second one since it is included clearly in the conclusion, giving a clear statement that "The case of the Bahá'ís of Iran is distinct enough... to confirm the illegality of cultural genocide". So base on the first source, I think it is okay to write a sentence as below:

The illegality of cultural genocide in the case of the Bahá'ís of Iran is confirmed by a review of secondary literature in English-language literature --add citation ref tag here--.

From this very sentence as the major third-party secondary source, other claims and sources, preferably supplied in the endnote section by the review article, can be included to support the sentence above, there by developing a paragraph or two to be included in this article on "cultural genocide".

I hope it helps. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 04:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. Thanks. I and whomever should look at writing a sufficient summary and relating it to a larger article or section in another article. I'm thankful for your suggestions.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The proposal is to merge Ethnocide with Cultural genocide, for the reason that these terms are currently used – notwithstanding whatever the original intentions of Lemkin may have been – indistinguishably. Both are admittedly somewhat fuzzy notions and different authors use somewhat different definitions, but as far as I see from the uses there is no systematic difference between the two.  --Lambiam 18:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Comment" - As a merge proposal, which of the two WP:TITLEs would be the preferred one, and why? I'm assuming you mean "Cultural genocide" as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is there academic evidence to suggest that the terms truly are interchangeable? Having taken a quick look around at the usage in various spheres (outside of the Wikipedia articles), they may be a bit fuzzy as to overlapping in certain senses, but ethnocide has a closer correlation to genocide in discourses pertaining to indigenous populations. Cultural genocide is used more specifically in the context of obfuscation of prior cultural identification/self-identification in order to create homogeneous concepts of a nation-state (i.e., Russification or Anglicisation): in other words, an aggressive form of elitism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Irnya Harpy; not appropriate to merge the terms [Ethnocide] with [Cultural Genocide]. 'Ethnic' is not the same as 'culture.' Ethnocide is more closely related to eradication for reasons of race, in the traditional sense of genocide - targeting ancestry. Cultural genocide concerns creative manifestations of culture that issue from a particular people and the will to destroy it (such as and wrote about) - the destructive actions is not necessarily to create a different form, but simply to destroy positive culture, they are always consciously intended and planned; common ancestry is not relevant, but often a myth). On the other hand, Hannah Arendt argued racial genocide may have automated aspects, it may be easily carried out under instructions without specific intention 'no special animus, intent merely on carrying out his duties' - this makes it easier to accomplish, while it appears a more clearcut equation, due to the association of common ancestors. It is theoretically possible for cultural genocide to be perpetrated against members of the same race, who have differentiated culture, for reasons of the difference, rather than genocide, where one turns upon ones own people not for a particular cultural difference but perhaps other social or national reason. Thus, ethnocide is broader but more likely related to race. Although the terms are fuzzy, this problem may be more due to lack of application and clarity from scholars individually, who have chosen to employ the terms. The concepts are clearly different: race alone (genocide) or national/ancestral/social/cultural (ethnocide) vs culture (cultural genocide). If Lemkin did not mean to use the term, he would not have used it. Cultural genocide is also different because it is a more subtle and indirect program to carry out compared to ethnocide, making it easier for perpetrators to get away with - culture can be targeted and attacked in so many more, different, 'soft' ways than simply a racial approach: See . Susan Kennedy 14 August 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFKennedy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Give me one reason why not. Jackninja5 (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please qualify what you agree with, Jackninja5. Your observation doesn't make sense as it stands. Do you agree with the proposal, or do you agree with the above evaluations that there is a distinction, therefore a merger is not appropriate? If you're asking for a reason as to why they shouldn't be merged, try reading the comment by both SFKennedy and myself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It was kind of a rhetorical question but I agree with the merger. Jackninja5 (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Er... Well, as this is a discussion, it would be useful to understand your rationale. Which WP:TOPIC should it be merged to (Lambiam hasn't specified), and why? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

May I add that I have since studied Lemkin's original text and the relevant and current academic literature in detail. Lemkin introduced the term 'genocide' and worked for decades to help the United Nations establish the text on the Genocide Convention. Lemkin made explicit reference to cultural genocide in his original text. The justification for Lemkin's inclusion of cultural genocide can be found in 'Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach' by Damien Short, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol 14, No.6, Nov 2010, p.833-848 and 'Cultural Genocide, the Universal Declaration, and Minority Rights' by Johannes Morsink, Human Rights Quarterly, 1999, Vol. 21, p.1009-1060. From Short (2010): quoting Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (the seminal work on genocide, per se), Lemkin described the deliberate destruction of a nation or ethnic group in one of two ways: 1) by killing its individual members - physical genocide (Lemkin used the term 'barbarity') 2) by undermining its way of life - cultural genocide (Lemkin used the term 'vandalism'). Lemkin wrote (Short, 2010, p.837): 'Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group: the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.' This did not refer only to ethnocide; it referred to destruction of national sentiment and culture. In Lemkin's formulation, Short (2010, p.837) cites, culture is the unit of collective memory, whereby the legacies of the dead can be kept alive and each cultural group has its own unique distinctive genius deserving of protection. I hope this information helps establish justification for the use of the term 'cultural genocide' as certainly it is well established as part of the original conception of the term and as a field of academic record and inquiry in its own right. I also agree the Armenian case is well and truly established, as is Tibet and others; perhaps the Armenian case should have a page linked. Certainly there is no Islamic claim to cultural genocide; rather, it tends to be a European phenomena and spread through colonialism and colonial transfer of states, leaving minority cultures vulnerable to nation-building processes of the dominant culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFKennedy (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I believe I can offer some clarification here. Referring to the 1981 UNESCO Declaration: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000499/049951eo.pdf -- which declares the two to be synonymous and equivalent to genocide. However, contemporary and historical usage of ethnocide and cultural genocide have not been equivalent. Ethnocide and genocide typically occur in tandem, yet ethnocide is much more specific a term. Ethnocide may occur in absence of genocide and, importantly, ethnocide may refer to mass death that could not qualify as genocidal (i.e., with intent, or even with a perpetrator). Usage of ethnocide has generally be confused and inconsistent. To quote Martin Shaw, respected genocide scholar, in his book "What is Genocide?": "we should question the utility of 'ethnocide' [...] its close affinity with the concept genocide, and the somewhat varied and confused amplification of its meaning without adequate reference to the derivative attributions of the Genocide Convention 1948 [1951], or [Raphael] Lemkin's work, tends to render it superfluous for both analytic and descriptive purposes." --in short, it is my opinion that 1) the term is useless, 2) that this fact should be highlighted, 3) that this ethnocide article should be merged with the genocide article separate to cultural genocide, and 4) that the cultural genocide article should also merged with the generic genocide article. Aleksandraws (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is indisputably true that Cultural Genocide is used as an equivalent to Ethnocide although the term Ethnocide is actually more specific as Cultural genocide does not have to be a component of eradicating a culture, which ethnocide can pertain to, even when no killings are taking place. I understand term geno-cide implies eradication of the gene which is only biological in existence, so if not meant literally it would only be describing ethniocide as a politically loaded spin term. I hope I am being lucid enough.

Ethnocide is wrong but not a crime under internaitonal law as Ethnocides are taking place all around the world at present and can not be stopped nor penalized. The Han culture in China is absorbing minority ethnicities through Hanification. The Russian culture is absorbing minority ethnicities through Russificaiton. Hindi culture is absorbing minority cultures in India. Anglo-saxon culture is absorbing minority ethnicities in many places around the world. State Jewishness is absorbing minority forms of Hebraic culture and religion (e.g. Subbotniks now almost completely extinct) in Israel. When the minority ethnicities have been completely assimilated, they will have adopted the trappings of the religion, dress, music, eating habits, etc., of the dominant culture. It happens a lot but it is not an international crime even though it is heart-breakingly tragic. All of these are ethnocides, definitely. Cultural genocide might describe it to a layman's mind, but scientifically the term does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, it might be better to absorb Cultural genocide into Ethnocide than vice-versa, as all Cultural genocide is ethnocide, but not all ethnocide is cultural genocide. Chrislamic.State (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage

I propose moving the article List of destroyed heritage to Destruction of cultural heritage (currently a redirect to Cultural genocide), adding much more content, and splitting the by country lists into separate articles. If anyone can help out, please join the discussion at Talk:List of destroyed heritage#Destruction of cultural heritage. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Destruction of ethnicities

I want to call attention upon the vandalism of those who don't want the reality of the cultural genocide in the Islamic countries during the last two or three decades to be posted.

Much of Saudi Arabia's aid has gone to poorer islamic countries or Islamic communities in non-Islamic countries. This "aid" has contributed to the spreading of a uniform and puritanical form of Islam, disregarding the needs and traditions of the different ethnic groups. Therefore Saudi Arabia has spearheaded the destruction of formerly mellow and colorful Islamic cultures. This form of silent cultural genocide has been going on since the late 1970's and has so far been largely unopposed.Mohonu (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you were to provide proper references then it could be included - but you are not giving any proper references. And remember, any reference you use must actually have used the phrase "cultural genocide" and used it in a legitimate way. For example, in my opinion, what Wahhabi fundamentalists amongst the Saudi Arabian forces in Kossovo did to Kossovo's Ottoman architectural heritage should be classed as cultural genocide - but I cannot place any of that on this page because I have no sources to hand which describe the destruction there as "cultural genocide". Meowy 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources you have cited actually use the phrase "cultural genocide" - the way you have written the section that I have (again) removed sounds like it is just your opinion that what has happened is cultural genocide? If the sources do actually say it, then I would be happy for the removed information to return, but only if it were worded so that it clearly indicates that the sources do use the phrase "cultural genocide". I think it should also be shortened. Meowy 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I used the readers response because it was put in a succint manner. But no, I have to acknowledge that none of the authors (and there are many more) mentioned uses the term "cultural genocide". They use terms like "acculturation" or "destruction of cultural values" in Sumatra, Java, Maldives or Mindanao. Also there is a definite emphasis in the fact that those traditionally syncretistic Muslim cultures (Minangkabau, Acehnese, Maldivians, Southern Filipinos) don't have the resources to stand against the formidable "global" Saudi educational, religious and political influence.

At any rate time will tell whether these are ethnocides or cultural genocides.Mohonu (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, even if it does amount to cultural genocide, if none of the cited authors actually describe it as a "cultural genocide" then it can't be mentioned in the article. Meowy 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the second section of the article (Relevance to International Law) specifies that: Despite its lack of legal currency, the term has acquired rhetorical value as a phrase that is used to protest against the destruction of cultural heritage. The destruction of "weaker" localized Muslim cultures by the formidable machinery of petrodollar wealth and influence can be included even if the authors specified don't specifically mention it. Therefore Mohonu's point (shortened to make space) is definitely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.48.17 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical or not, none of the cited sources actually use the phrase "cultural genocide" - so it is just your personal POV opinion that it is "cultural genocide". That is why it is not a valid addition. Meowy 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed material relating to Poland and South Africa from the article for the same reason. However, maybe there is need to expand the article to include references to incidents or policies that a reasonable person would say amounted to cultural genocide, even though the actual phrase "cultural genocide" has not been used to describe those incidents or policies. Meowy 17:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the article itself, "although this usage has been criticized as engendering a risk of confusing ethnicity with culture." That's interesting because ethnicity refers to the culture, national origin and language all together. People can be of the same race but two different cultures, Africans and African Americans, for example. See Ethnicity and race are two different things and ethnicity actually refers to culture, the two aren't being confused. --97.86.125.147 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Genocide of the culture of South Vietnam after the reunification of Vietnam in 1975 forced upon by the Hanoi regime by exertion of military power

Since 1975, in “liberated” South Vietnam:

- “Important” positions, e.g. in the administration, in the medias (Radio, TV, Newspapers), in the public services, in the education (schools, universities...) are filled by Vietnamese speaking North Vietnamese dialect,

- Newsreader, news anchors, moderators, talk show hosts with North Vietnamese dialect dominate radio programs, TV programs,

- South Vietnamese literature, South Vietnamese words are fully discarded from the media (Radio, TV, Newspapers) and from the public life,

- South Vietnamese phonetic notations, South Vietnamese words are completely removed from all dictionaries,

- North Vietnamese people are "resettled" to South Vietnam. Especially in Saigon you think, you are not living in South Vietnam, but in North Vietnam.

All the political steps listed above should serve to totally suppress and destruct in the long term the South Vietnamese culture in spoken and in written! Even in Vietnam 3 main dialects exist (North, Central and South) the Hanoi Regime will “make” the North Vietnamese dialect as “unique” official dialect in Vietnam!

Parallel on the “political purges” the Hanoi regime is committing a cultural genocide against the South Vietnamese culture. This happens on the same scale as a genocide against a “foreign culture”.

Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Cultural genocide of "Confederate" monuments

This edit [5] was, correctly, deleted because it was unsourced. However there must be some sources that would support its inclusion. I find the "on the wrong side of humanity" wording in the linked SPLC site chilling - in it they are fellow travellers with the culprits of the many sourced examples of cultural genocides: the perpetrators of most of them will have displayed similar opinions about the necessity of the good work they were doing. 78.149.46.96 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

List of cultural genocides

I'm going to blank this entire section as the title purports to be objective and authoritative, when what constitutes a "culture" is subjective. As this is a value judgement of one group over another, a claim of cultural genocide does not rise above propaganda against the supposed perpetrators, and neutral POV does not allow taking sides. If a child is spanked by their parents for taking a sweet before dinner, has the child's sweets-loving "culture" been "genocided?" If someone in a scholarly article claims it has been, does this go on the "List of cultural genocides?" Or is it only included if white, Western liberals like that take against the given parents and so uncritically jump on that particular bandwagon of hate? Viewing that neutrally, would *that* not be a belief that the parents' culture should be geoncided? In other words, the inherent value judgement is problematic since saying cultural genocide is wrong sets up a morality system where one ought to culturally commit cultural genocide against a culture that culturally engages in cultural genocide. As was pointed out above, we could call the removal of Confederate monuments in the US, "white genocide." We could add the US Civil War itself, genociding the good whites' culture of the chattel slavery of blacks; the later legal battles against the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups... You can't get around that fighting against an oppressor is an attempt to commit genocide against their culture of oppression, and fighting to be the oppressor is an attempt to commit genocide against your target's culture of freedom. Picking one side or the other as the "correct" victim of cultural genocide violates neutral POV. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:B9CA:FEAE:22D9:48C8 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And I've reinstated it - you need to have a better rationale than that for removing appropriately sourced material in one go like that. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That it's sourced is irrelevant as it isn't attributed as an empty claim, but purports to be an objective list of occurrences.

<List of nuclear bombings>

"Yo, I just dropped a NUKE on your ass!"

Source: "On Monday, August 30th, respondent totally dropped a NUKE on his opponent's ass!"

Does the list of nuclear bombings go up by one simply because the claim is sourced? No, the subjectivity overrides. The claim of a nuke being dropped does not mean one actually has been. It does not belong under a list of nuclear bombings, but under a list of *opinions* of nuclear bombings. Which probably doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:B9CA:FEAE:22D9:48C8 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and your analogy is an odd one, since there is no question or ambiguity concerning the number of nuclear bombings that have taken place, so I'm not sure what you're driving at, except that you don't like the content. Wikipedia has many dynamic lists that can never completely satisfy a given set of criteria. Perhaps a hatnote to that effect may help with your concerns. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The analogy highlighted the absurdity of claims being treated as an objective fact. This here is a subjective labeling of arbitrary traits between humans as "culture" (when the only real unit of humanity is the individual), the reification that said culture has a life of its own, and the claim that that life has been destroyed. But every act of authority can be said to destroy the opposing reality. It can be said that I committed cultural genocide against the people who wanted to violate Neutral POV by editing Wikipedia to have their pet list of claims of cultural genocide treated as an objectively true list. It can be said that you committed genocide against my culture of correcting such bias. Since anything and everything can be purported to be a culture and anything that impacts it in any way can be called the genocide of what it was changed from, it is the height of absurdity to try to make a list that purports to be some "objective list" of perpetrators and victims of cultural genocide. That one person viewing the world through the bias of their own culture sees a cultural genocide in the acts of another does not mean that such is an objective pronouncement against them, it is merely proof that they have a culture that includes making pronouncements against others. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:B9CA:FEAE:22D9:48C8 (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have objections to specific elements, please explain why you think they should be removed. Removing all examples because you think they're all arbitrary isn't helpful. If you want to change Wikipedia's sourcing policies, you need to get that accomplished first. That said, if there are specific examples that you do not feel are notable or credible, please cite them on this talkpage for discussion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources are subjective claims. The heading they are under treats them as being objective facts. This violates Neutral POV. I can source ten thousand American articles calling the Taliban terrorists, but that doesn't mean we make a <List of terrorist organizations> with entry number 1 being the Taliban and call it properly sourced. We have a <list of *DESIGNATED* terrorist groups> broken down by which government or organization is designating them, highlighting the subjective nature of the designation. This is an objective list of the subjective claims. Here we do not have an objective list of subjective claims, but a claim that they are objective instances of cultural genocide, simply because somebody, somewhere decided to target someone with that label. If you wish to change this to a <List of designated cultural genocides> broken down by the designating agency, I will not object in any way. I do not wish to do that work, and since it violates neutral POV as it stands, it should not stand as it is now. 2601:18B:8200:3AE:B9CA:FEAE:22D9:48C8 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Then propose a heading, rather than complaining in generalities about a topic that is inherently ambiguous. I assure you that nobody can agree on what a real life and death genocide is, so I’m not sure why you think objectivity is achievable here, or that the alternative is nothing at all. There is no requirement in NPOV that anything be “objective.” Everything to do with cultural matters is inherently subjective and subject to value judgments. There’s no formula that can yield objective truth. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese Cultural Revolution

Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, I would argue, was a cultural genocide against his own native culture. This brief yet significant time-period of several years, had Mao's government actively attempting to annihilate many, if not most facets of 'old culture' throughout all of Mainland China. As of when these lines were written, this particular cultural genocide has yet to be mentioned on the page. 2.53.153.148 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Africa

Why is Africa not even once mentioned nor how cultural genocide is an alive concept to this day. 212.83.93.109 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition

This lists a massive amount of clauses from various treaties with only one source - one that starts out by disagreeing with the article and saying that the Genocide Convention does not prohibit cultural genocide! It needs heavy trimming, and all mentioned treaties etc. need sources linking them to cultural genocide. Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing This Page

Hello everyone! I plan on possibly contributing to this article by adding a section addressing cultural genocide in Africa and as opposed to just listing out the instances of cultural destruction. On this page cultural genocide is discussed briefly and much of the information is related to the coining of the term by Lemkin and its insertion into international laws. There is a list of instances of cultural genocide for Europe, Asia, Oceania, and North America, but strangely no mention of Africa. As opposed to just listing out the instances of cultural destruction and theft in Africa, I would like to discuss how this allowed for the colonization and crippling of post-colonial African civilizations. If I have time I would also like to delve into its effects on the current economical states of African nations. For more information on my references, please take a look at my User page. EEmenike (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Blacks not victims of Forced Assimilation and Cultural Genocide?

How is it that U.S. black slaves are neither mentioned here nor on the Forced assimilation page? Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)