Talk:Genocide/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Definition of Genocide

I feel the definition of Genocide in this article is too narrow. It does not include non-ethnic genocide i.e/ LGTB please come up with a definition that includes groups beyond ethnicity, and the other terms stated currently, and use a term that can include the LGTB, as well as others that might not fit the definition. http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/stopping_gay_genocide_in_uganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

POV

Could someone say what the POV problems are. Is it what constitutes genocide, what groups have been victims of genocide, or something else? It's a bit (emotionally) difficult to read through this article to see the problems. Redsxfenway (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As no one has answered I am removing the POV template added in October -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redsxfenway: Yes. PBS: Replaced. --70.105.233.62 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.7.96.36, 31 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I request that the following text be removed from the section on "Coinage": "In 1933, Lemkin prepared an essay entitled the Crime of Barbarity in which genocide was portrayed as a crime against international law. The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, originated with the experience of the Assyrians[7] massacred in Iraq on 11 August 1933. To Lemkin, the event in Iraq evoked "memories of the slaughter of Armenians" during World War I.[7] He presented his first proposal to outlaw such "acts of barbarism" to the Legal Council of the League of Nations in Madrid the same year. The proposal failed, and his work incurred the disapproval of the Polish government, which was at the time pursuing a policy of conciliation with Nazi Germany.[7]"

=======================================================

I propose the following text for the section on "Coinage":

In 1933 Lemkin made a presentation to the Legal Council of the League of Nations conference on international criminal law in Madrid, for which he prepared an essay on the Crime of Barbarity as a crime against international law. The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, was based on the Armenian Genocide. In a 1949 television interview, asked by host Quincy Howe w

Genocide in South Africa

I would kindly like to inform you about the ongoing white genocide in the Republic of South-Africa. Since 1994, the end of the so-called Apartheid, whites people, especially white farmers, have been subject to extremely brutal and racist murders. About 50 people on average are murdered in South-Africa per day, of which at least 20 of them are whites(95+ % black on white murder rate). Please take into consideration that white people make up only 9% (4 500 000) of the demographics in South-Africa and therefore the white murder rate in South-Africa is quite significant. http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

This article is Bias towards the Holocaust and in denial of the White Genocide in South Africa.

The neutrality of this article is disputed as giving to much attention to the Holocaust and downplaying other holocausts like the The Holodomor in Ukraine and the white Genocide in South Africa.

The Genocide in South Africa is being perfected by calling the Genocide "ordinary crime" and ignoring other supporting Genocidal programs like Affirmative Action against a minority.

Here is an example of methods used by Zionists to edit Wikipedia. This method is used to propagandize the Holocaust and downplay the Holodomor, white genocide in South Africa, and other Genocides. The Palestinian Genocide will also not ne noted in this article, and all kinds of junk reasons used to censor the Palestinian Genocide: Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

Terminology Error in Into

I think that the '80 UN nations' who have intergrated the UN Convention into their law did so into their 'DOMESTIC' law, not their 'municipal' law. I don't know how to make that change.

Create the page aracial, it has nothing to do with the Holocaust so it deserves a separate page

Noun

{{en-noun}}

1. {{lb|en|sociology|philosophy}} Not accepting the racial nomenclature but only the empathetically humane (not necessarily genetically human) race. (not a "corporeal aracial" due to multiraciality but a "philosophical aracial", even a multiracial can be if doesn't focus on the flesh)hat went into his creation of the term, Mr. Lemkin replied, "I became interested in genocide because it happened many times. It happened to the Armenians, and after the Armenians Hitler took action. . . ."

This will bring the section on "Coinage" under "Genocide" into line with your other pages on the genocides starting in 1915 in Ottoman Turkey.

========================================================

24.7.96.36 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The change you propose completely removes the reference in the Assyrians, which is actually supported by the source. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish to set aside for now the question of the possible final wording of the "Coining of the term" paragraph and am not wedded to my previously proposed wording. But I still find the paragraph in question totally unacceptable, your citing the "source" notwithstanding. The lines in the EuropaWorld article are not presented as explanatory of Lemkin's COINING of the term "genocide". Yet, on the "Genocide" page they are presented as explaining his coining of the term. The result is a distortion. The 1933 Madrid Conference was indeed part of the history of Lemkin's development of the genocide concept, but it wasn't the genesis of the concept, let alone the moment the term was coined. The term was coined in 1943 and, as the interview with Quincy Howe clearly shows, the search for the concept began with the Armenian Genocide. Your response, please.

24.7.96.36 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

========================================================

The following is the "source" provided: http://www.europaworld.org/issue40/raphaellemkin22601.htm This is a web article which is not a primary source and which does not in turn provide any primary source for the statement it makes concerning the importance of the Simele massacres in the development of Lemkin's thinking. The phrasing of the relevant paragraph as it stands muddies the clear primacy of the Armenian Genocide in Lemkin's thought by referring to the Simele massacres first, then reducing what happened to the Armenians to his "memories". This is turning the historical reality of the development of the concept on its head. Lemkin was acutely aware of the Armenian Genocide in all its aspects well before 1933.

In terms of eliminating reference to the Assyrians, that is cetainly not the point. The Assyrians can be and should be mentioned on the same page, but in a separate section where the various genocides are listed. The absence of such a section is a glaring hole in the "Genocide" page. But in terms of the development of the genocide concept in Lemkin's thinking, primacy should be given to the Armenian Genocide, since he made that abundantly clear.

Here is the link for the interview with Lemkin by Quincy Howe which it would be well to include in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCebMq-GmH4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.96.36 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request related to section 1 "Coining of the term genocide" under main heading "Genocide"

{{editsemiprotected}} Text to be removed from main page on "Genocide", sub-section 1 "Coining of the term genocide":

In 1933, Lemkin prepared an essay entitled the Crime of Barbarity in which genocide was portrayed as a crime against international law. The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, originated with the experience of the Assyrians massacred in Iraq on 11 August 1933. To Lemkin, the event in Iraq evoked "memories of the slaughter of Armenians" during World War I.

Text to replace the removed text:

In 1933 Lemkin made a presentation to the Legal Council of the League of Nations conference on international criminal law in Madrid, for which he prepared an essay on the Crime of Barbarity as a crime against international law. The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, was based on the Armenian Genocide and prompted by the experience of Assyrians[2]massacred in Iraq during the 1933 Simele massacre.[3]

Diranakir (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

24.7.96.36 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The current source doesn't support that strong a link to the Armenian Genocide and it's not clear what sources you are referencing with [2] and [3]. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your response. The following is your objection to the proposed change:

Not done: The current source doesn't support that strong a link to the Armenian Genocide and it's not clear what sources you are referencing with [2] and [3]. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The following is my explanation:

The lines I propose are taken from the Wikipedia Raphael Lemkin page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin ). They are found on that page under "Working Life" and are the first two sentences of the second paragraph of that section. I should have deleted the reference numbers since they were from a different page. To clarify: source [2] on the Lemkin page is the same as source [9] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide ). That source is http://www.europaworld.org/issue40/raphaellemkin22601.htm

Source [3] can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin in the end notes. It is: William Korey "Raphael Lemkin: 'The Unofficial Man' ", Midstream June-July 1969

The statement of the relationship in Lemkin's thought between the Armenian Genocide and the Simele Massacres is more accurately expressed in the Lemkin article than in the Genocide article (under "Coining") The "Genocide" article will be improved by making it consistent with the Lemkin page. It's not clear what you mean in saying the current source doesn't support that strong a link to the Armenian Genocide. Is that source the present version of the article or something else? Thank you.

Diranakir (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The Europeworld source says "In 1933 Dr Lemkin was deeply disturbed by the massacre of Christian Assyrians by Iraqis. His distress was compounded by earlier memories of the slaughter of Armenians by Turks during the First World War." That wording expresses an equal or slightly less than equal relationship of the Armenian Genocide to the more recent attrocity. That is quite different from "...based on the Armenian Genocide and prompted ..." which suggests the more recent event merely reminded him of the previous event, upon which he then based his work. The current text seems to capture the Europaworld source better than your suggested text. I don't have a copy of your other reference. Could you copy the applicable portion here? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: source [2] on the Lemkin page is the same as source [9] at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide ). That source is http://www.europaworld.org/issue40/raphaellemkin22601.htm Source [3] can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin in the end notes. It is: William Korey "Raphael Lemkin: 'The Unofficial Man' ", Midstream June-July 1969.

Now to the central point: What is said about the Madrid conference and the Assyrians in the EuropaWorld piece is not presented as related to Lemkin's coining of the term genocide. It is a presentation of his state of mind at the time of the conference and writing his proposal. Therefore using the quote under the heading "Coining" is misleading. The Madrid conference was just one milestone on his way to coining the term in 1943. Lemkin was acutely aware of the Armenian Genocide over a decade before 1933, and that was the beginning of his search for a legal concept to condemn and punish such a crime. In 1921 when he heard about the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian for assassinating Talat Pasha, the man primarily responsible for directing the Armenian Genocide. Lemkin asked his law professor why the Armenians did not have Talat arrested for the massacres. His professor replied that there was no law under which such an arrest could be made. Lemkin said that it was inconsistent that a man like Tehlirian could be put on trial for killing one man, but that his oppressor could not be charged for killing over a million people. In 1949 in a nationally televised interview with American journalist Quincy Howe, Mr. Howe introduced Lemkin as the man who had created the word genocide. He then asked Lemkin the background to his creation of the word. Lemkin said the following: "There were many genocides. First it happened to the Armenians, and then Hitler picked it up. . . ." In the light of this history (which I have presented from memory but am ready to source if you need) I don't see how it is tenable for you to maintain that the quote from EuropaWorld, taken out of context as it is, shows that the Assyrian massacres of 1933 had more to do with Lemkin's coining of the term than the Armenian Genocide. I think the lines from the Lemkin page which I have suggested as a substitute capture the reality of Lemkin's thinking much more truthfully. 24.7.96.36 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary Material That Has A Bearing On The Issue: It is very unclear what basis the EuropaWorld article has for giving such prominence in Lemkin's thinking to the Simele events at the time of the Madrid Conference. There is no author's name attached to the article, nor is any reference offered on this point.

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that source [3] on the Lemkin page [William Korey "Raphael Lemkin: 'The Unofficial Man' ", Midstream June-July 1969] does not contain a single reference to the Assyrians. On the other hand the Armenians are mentioned very prominently on page 46 of the article as follows: ' In 1928 and until 1934, the brilliant young law professor [Lemkin] was appointed Prosecuting Attorney for Warsaw. . . . . Rekindled at this time were memories of the Armenian massacre. He began a detailed study of their depth and character which culminated in an episode which prefigured his U. N. struggle of 1946-48. Before a League of Nations-sponsored conference held in Madrid, Spain in 1933, the now prominent Warsaw public prosecutor proposed that the "destruction of national, religious, and racial groups" be declared "an international crime". . . . .' Diranakir (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Genocide/Archive 6 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I'm afraid that neither EuropaWorld nor Midstream appear to me to be a reliable academic source under Wikipedia standards. I'd suggest deferring the debate about his motivations until reliable sources can be found. Until that time, a reliable source for the following can be found at Vrdoljak A. Human Rights and Genocide: The Work of Lauterpacht and Lemkin in Modern International Law. European Journal of International Law. November 2009;20(4):1163-1194, a copy of which (posted by the author and presumably the same as published) can be found online here, and it seems to me that the current paragraph ought to be cut down to the following until a reliable source can be found for his motivations (perhaps in his book?): "In 1933, at the request of the organizing committee of the fifth International Congress of the League of Nations in Madrid, Lemkin prepared a paper entitled 'Les actes constituent un danger general (interetatique) consideres comme delist de droit des gens' (Acts Constituting a General [Transnational] Danger considered as Crimes under the Law of Nations). In the report he defined a 'crime of barbarity' and a 'crime of vandalism' as crimes of hatred or extermination against races or religious or social groups or against their cultural artifacts which could be prosecuted under international law in any nation where an offender was found. His ideas were reviewed at the Congress, but no action was taken."

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Rewrite of proposed text. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User_talk:TransporterMan#Re_Third_Opinion_at_Talk:Genocide — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC): I need some clarification regarding your response to my request for 3O. I may be overlooking something, but the provisional alternative wording you suggest does not seem to be addressed to the "Coining" heading, which is the section I'm calling into question. The crux of my objection is the following statement therein: "The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, originated with the experience of the Assyrians[9] massacred in Iraq on 11 August 1933." I also have a problem with this material being under the heading "Coining". Diranakir (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing your question on my talk page, I rewrote the next–to–last sentence of my proposed language. (As you pointed out, it previously read, "In the report he portrayed genocide as a crime against international law which could be prosecuted in any nation where an offender was found, not just in the nation where the crime was committed.") Though I didn't rewrite it for that reason, I think the rewritten language — see above — may better address your issue about the material being included in the Coining section. Let me make it clear that my suggested language would replace the entire paragraph, not just the portion you suggested be replaced, and there would not be any remaining reference to Assyrians or Armenians at all. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also moved from User_talk:TransporterMan#Re_Third_Opinion_at_Talk:Genocide — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC):

I just deleted a previous version of my comment and apologize if you read it. I wasn't focused at the time and was way off. That aside, I find your opinions very consistent with mine, i. e., that the two sources are not valid for the text they are claimed to support and that it is best to leave out mention of either ethnic group.

I accept your suggested text follows:

In 1933, at the request of the organizing committee of the fifth International Congress of the League of Nations in Madrid, Lemkin prepared a paper entitled 'Les actes constituent un danger general (interetatique) consideres comme delist de droit des gens' (Acts Constituting a General [Transnational] Danger considered as Crimes under the Law of Nations). In the report he portrayed genocide as a crime against international law which could be prosecuted in any nation where an offender was found, not just in the nation where the crime was committed. His ideas were reviewed at the Congress, but no action was taken.

My assumption is that you see the above as a good replacement for the following (as it now exists):

In 1933, Lemkin prepared an essay entitled the Crime of Barbarity in which genocide was portrayed as a crime against international law. The concept of the crime, which later evolved into the idea of genocide, originated with the experience of the Assyrians[9] massacred in Iraq on 11 August 1933. To Lemkin, the event in Iraq evoked "memories of the slaughter of Armenians" during World War I.[9] He presented his first proposal to outlaw such "acts of barbarism" to the Legal Council of the League of Nations in Madrid the same year. The proposal failed, and his work incurred the disapproval of the Polish government, which was at the time pursuing a policy of conciliation with Nazi Germany.[9]

If this is correct so far, am I entitled with the authority of your suggestion to go ahead and make the change, or is there something else that needs to happen before that is done? I want to do things in an orderly way. Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put it, the purpose of Third Opinions is like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." I thus have no authority to decide anything; my opinion is just that, an opinion. Indeed, as noted in the disclaimer section of my Third Opinion, under the Third Opinion rules my opinion cannot even be considered in achieving consensus. To make the change, just as with any other change at Wikipedia, you must obtain consensus. You might put a comment on Celestra's talk page inviting a comment on your proposal, or you can just go ahead and boldly make it and see if it is reverted. Good luck, and best wishes, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

TransporterMan: I appreciate your advice, perceive where you're coming from, will mull it over and then do something or other. Wikipedia ethics are starting to grow on me. Thanks very much for your input. Diranakir (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition and article lacking mention of one group...?

I know there haven't been mass killings of LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Queer) people, aside from Hitler's killings. Still, the definition of Genocide at the top of the article should include the words "cultural group" and something about sexual orientation as well, to be inclusive. What else would systematic mass killing of LGBTQ people be but genocide?

Genocide disguised as crime

Example: Violent Crime in SA

I maintain that the violent crime in SA against whites is actively encouraged, endorsed, supported and perpetuated by the ANC terrorist regime as nothing less than retribution for apartheid.

The senior ANC terrorists are as complicit in each and every atrocity committed against the white minority as their free-agents on the ground who are clearly perpetrating such atrocities on expressed or implied instruction from the ANC terrorist hierarchy as part of the broader, ongoing strategy of the genocide of whites which has been cunningly disguised by liberals as crime.

This is not crime, it is a suburban war and a genocide against the white minority in South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.88.10 (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arbirx, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please review the article about Genocide and change "Christian population" to Armenian population, specifically. Under "Coining of the term genocide", where it states: "...The concept originated in his youth when he first heard of the Ottoman government's mass killings of its Christian population during the First World War." I would like you to review and specify that the "Christian population" in Ottoman government were Armenians. You can watch this video on Youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCebMq-GmH4) where Dr. Raphael Lamkin himself states that he created the word genocide because of the Armenian killings by the Ottoman government. thank you Arbirx (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved this request over from Template talk:Discrimination sidebar. Requests need to go on the talk page associated with the article.

Edit requests need reliable sources, and YouTube is not such a source. If you can find an appropriate source, please reinstate the request (here). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

importance of Lemkin quote

The third paragraph of the lead section is:

During a video interview with Raphael Lemkin, the interviewer asked him about how he came to be interested in this genocide. He replied; "Became intersted in genocide because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians, after Armenians Hitler took action".[7] [8]

I think it's out of place in the introduction, being a specific statement of the evolution of ideas of Raphael Lemkin. Due credit is given to him in the second paragraph (for coining the term and being an early opponent of genocidaires) but it seems to me that it's not encyclopedic to devote a whole lead paragraph about the general subject of genocide to the above quote.

So, per Ali55te's suggestion I'm raising the issue for discussion - should this quote stay or go?

P.S. I originally removed the passage in question to the biographic article about Lemkin - from where it was struck out by another editor (Labattblueboy) who claimed that it gave superfluous information, given the extant Lemkin article. FYI.

Bazuz (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think this paragraph suits more to the genocide in history section ? Ali55te (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of adding a new section like "prominent opponents of genocide" (or some better title). Bazuz (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the quote accurate? How can somebody say they became interested in the topic of genocide because it happened so often and then cite just two examples in the manner given. IMHO the quote reads 'funny', like it is taken out of context or has had something important omitted.1812ahill (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The quote is accurate, but I agree that such a sound bite doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. There are much better quotes from Lemkin in Power, Samantha (2003) p.19, for example (there are many others which explain why he became interested in the issue). Even then, such quotes would be more appropriate in the article on Lemkin himself.Joel Mc (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

Link number two, which is the link referring to what is seen as genocide, is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itssnowing (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No precise definition, so why start with a bad one?

The definition used as the first sentence of the article is horribly flawed by use of "in part", and later on there is a lengthy discussion in the article about what in part means.

Definitions should define things clearly, without need for lengthy discussions about what parts of the definition mean.

So, I'd recommend either dumping the first sentence of this article, and beginning with "no precise definition exists" or by using a better definition such as the one from Random House.

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. "

Thoughts?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The definition at the start is the most common one used and is the legal definition. There are alternatives see also genocide definitions, but we should not be rolling our own. -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Most common according to whom? And, is that in part a self-fufilling prophecy -- by using it here, are causing this poor definition to be the most widely used??

As for rolling our own, of course we shouldn't do that. I proposed Random House's definition as a better alternative.

However, I think it might be best since there is not consensus about the definition, that we skip a definition in the lead section completely.

As an alternative to that, we should at minimum refer to the dispute about what "in parts" means immediately, after we use the definition.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Genocide causes

I don't have access to any academic journals right now, but surely someone, or some people, have posited causal conditions that lead to genocide? The reliance on Stanton throughout the article is troubling because none of the material comes from third-party sources. The Kakar sub-section of 'Stages of genocide, influences leading to genocide, and efforts to prevent it' has acceptable references (although I would assume that citing a footnote is inferior to citing an original piece) but the entire rest of the section does not. The Stanton references are inappropriate due to the source (http://www.genocidewatch.org is not a reliable third-party source), and the rest of the sources have no page numbers. I understand the need to have the Stanton references, as they are the only social-scientific parts of the entire section, but it can only be legitimized via third-party sources - it is not enough that there is a website that proposes this. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cambodian Genocide

The Cambodian Genocide, aka wiki article "Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia" needs to be added as a major incident of genocide somewhere in the this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, it should be added to Auto-Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And It is added to Auto Genocide!!!! like a long time ago. That is a separate category of its own. I believe you are wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Auto Genocide is a subcategory of genocide. Since the Cambodian genocide is significant enough based on the numbers murdered (approx 2 million), it should be briefly mentioned in this article. Gizziiusa (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)gizziiusa

Hitler Quote

Wikipedia has an article about the Armenian quote which raises significant doubts about the authenticity of the boxed quote. For this reason the quote was not accepted as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials and may not be sufficiently reliable for this article. Cariaso (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I will remove it since it is shown as a fact in the article.--Abbatai 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gujarat,India, Genocide

In India, 2002, Gujarat State Goverment sponsered Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.5.6 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No they didn't, I was in India at the time, and I didn't hear of any killings or genocides or anything like that.

wrong kill muslim in gujrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.76.3 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

wishing for a list of genocides --at least 20th century and later

sought a clickable list. found none. maybe soe day. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

An article needs to be made for the genocide operations commited by the Japanese military. That's not something that should be looked over given how the atrocities played out. Not that one should judge them in an emotional factor, but still. It's worth referancing.

I think this article should include a new article of some of the mass killings Japan commited during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We should add Eurabia as a white European deliberate genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.71.223 (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The fight against islamistic terrorism, an actual genocide?

Most of them, that will read this text come from USA or other western countries. I think that the first reaction will be a declination, but i hope that you try to think about this thought, even if you have another opinion.

I think that some parts of genocide still fits to the war against the islamic terrorism:

• Stage 1. The people were divided into us (usa, western world, the good one) and them (the Islamics, Terrorists, Arabic).
• Stage 2. There was much hate speech (especially at the beginning).
• Stage 3. Guantanamo (People treated as animals). Or do you remember the soldier that "fucked" a skull of an dead "terrorist"?
• Stage 4. The greatest reason for the war was the fight against islamic terrorism and soldiers got trained to kill them.
• Stage 5. Propaganda from politicians and media...
• Stage 6. People that looked like islamic or arabic people were threated different by officers, at airports, by other people, ...
• Stage 7. When will the war stop? When all are exterminated?
• Stage 8. USA or the western world will never say that they did a genocide (and much people that will read this, too).

In my opinion this should be mentioned, especially because its actual! How do you think about it?

Please! No Profanity!Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

not sure who wrote the above, but in reply: it is not appropriate to call the west's actions genocide in this case since it does not aim to wipe out the entire muslim people --as a whole. arguably some of the west's actions were awful, but genocide has the additional extra element of: trying to kill off a whole race or other group. to be fair, it might be worth recalling that the west actually tried with military means and other methods to stop an actual attempted regional genocide against muslims: the ethnic cleansing being done to the bosnian muslims in the 1990s. sometimes the USA et al put their lives on the line to protect followers of islam. sometimes. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it and it is just a thought. But Wikipedia says this: Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group..." So you have to be wrong in saying, that the intention to kill all of this group is necessary for a genocide, or the Wikipedia is wrong.

No, the "in part" was added just to make it clear that even if a group kills another group, but misses one person, the act can still be classified as genocide. Otherwise a group killing off another group will not be classified with genocide because they did not kill all of them. If the "in part" did not exist, then the entire group would have to be killed before the UN could respond and classify that as genocide. Otherwise it would be a crime against humanity, for which the punishment or the charges are not nearly as bad. If you want verification from me, remember, I majored in Global Issues, a bunch of that stuff, some Astrophysics and Nuclear physics, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The references 14, 15, about the Armenian Genocide are unrelated, the sentence "killings of Christian Population" is false, since Armenians were not the only Christians in Ottoman Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were not the only Christian population being targeted. Greeks and Assyrians were as well. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide Vmelkon (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Vmelkon, UN does not consider Armenian relocation prosess as a genocide . Even today armenian relocation/genocide is highly disputed . For Greeks and Assyrians , many Assyrian and Greek historians disagree with the term genocide .Sadly, genocide word is highly politicized nowadays . we cannot call every tragic event between two nations a genocide just because we dont like a country or its people . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.16.7 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_recognition#International_organisations the UN recognized it in 1985. If you read the beginning of this whole topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide), you will see that Rafael Lemkin, the creator of the term genocide, was trying to describe what was happening to the Armenians and then to the Jews. This is not the place to discuss denial of the Armenian Genocide, if you want to, do so here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_denial — Preceding unsigned comment added by99.240.211.235(talk) 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Image of genocide inappropriate

Why is the image of a concentration camp used to represent genocide? It says in its caption "It was not a killing zone" so it is actually proving my point. Maybe for a labor camp, a slave camp, article but it is not representative of "genocide." Far more representative pictures are available. One solution would be also to have no image to avoid what i see as a certain bias prevalent on wikipedia. --41.177.75.39 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

To address request for a source for completion of ICTY and the ICTR

To address request for a source for completion of ICTY and the ICTR which is embedded in the section heading and not a suitable place for a citation:

• "Moreover, trial work is expected to be finished by June 2012 and appeals work is on track to be completed by the end of 2014." (Address to the United Nations Security Council by Judge Khalida Rachid Khan, President of the ICTR, - Six monthly Report on the Completion Strategy of the ICTR 7 December 2011.
• "The ICTY branch of the Residual Mechanism will begin operating on 1 July 2013" (Completing the ICTY’s work: the Residual Mechanism) and Graph in Completion Strategy page 45.

-- PBS (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Another school of thought on genocide

black intellectual tradition

Another school of thought on genocide has come from the black intellectual tradition, mostly in the United States. In 1951 William Patterson, acting as National Executive Secretary of the Civil Rights Congress, along with a delegation of fellow activists, went to the United Nations secretary general to charge the United States government with genocide. With We Charge Genocide: The Historic Petition to the United Nations for Relief from a Crime of the United States Government Against the Negro People, Patterson and his delegation took full advantage of the new human rights discourses being produced in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust to seek remedy for centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, and the pre-mature deaths of millions of black Americans. In his 2008 book, Never Meant to Survive: Genocide and Utopias in Black Diaspora Communities, Anthropologist João H. Costas Vargas argues decades later that, according to the UN definition of genocide, the term must still be used to describe anti-black racism in the United States. With the destruction of black bodies, culture, and reproduction as the modern nation-state's imperative, Vargas argues, "the degrees of infrahumanity according to which Black communities exist and against which they resist only attest to the continuity of modernity's genocidal impetus." Michelle Alexander's groundbreaking study of race in the criminal justice system in the United States, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, suggests the usefulness of the term genocide to describe the mass incarceration of black and brown people in the United States since the end of the Jim Crow era. Arguing that the War on Drugs has stripped the citizenship rights of more black Americans than slavery itself, Alexander defines genocide both as cultural destruction but reconsiders death in the context of the loss of citizenship rather than merely the ending of a life. While the charge of genocide against black America has not been picked up by mainstream legal and international human rights discourses, a burgeoning group of scholars and activists are applying the phrase to slavery, Jim Crow, mass incarceration, and urban poverty, and calling attention to the racialization of pre-mature death in the United States and abroad. Notes

I think that the three paragraphs listed above may be suitable for a topic specific article, but to include three paragraphs here in a section called "Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide" gives undue weight to what is a minority point of view. -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

First use of the word "genocide"

Forgive me if I'm mistaken - but I don't see any precise date mentioned in this article (or the Lemkin one) about when the word genocide was first used in public by Lemkin. If the date is known, surely it should be mentioned. And if it is not known, that fact is curious enough to be mentioned too. Meowy 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The first para in the Lemkin article points out: " He first used the word in print in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress (1944)" I haven't looked further.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Though it must have been coined a while before that date. And in that text how is this new word explained, I wonder? You don't just drop a newly invented word into a text without giving some explanation as to its meaning and why it was needed to be coined. Meowy 15:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't have my copy with me, the orgin of the word is discussed in Samantha Power's book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. I believe it was a rather newly invented word. --Joel Mc (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just listened to that section of Power's book. If I understood correctly, Lemkin coined the term and first published it in Axis Rule with an extensive description of what it means. The meaning was much as we understand it today. Coining a suitable term for the atrocities he was campaigning against was a major effort of Lemkin's. It was soon included in at least two dictionaries.--LUOF (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Countervalue nuclear strikes

To what extent would countervalue nuclear strikes constitute genocide? To date, there have been only two nuclear strikes against a wartime enemy, both against cities, and both of which killed tens of thousands of people. As defined in the opening parts of the genocide article, a genocide is ""the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". Countervalue nuclear strikes are those which "target an opponent's cities and civilian populations". Would that not result in the effective "deliberate and systematic (partial) destruction of a ... group", if the targets had plenty of people living in them? Shouldn't countervalue nuclear strikes be considered at least attempted genocide? 192.12.88.62 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

As an American, this makes me feel uncomfortable, because, taking this to its logical conclusion, it is evident that Harry S Truman authorized genocide against Japanese civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He could've demonstrated the bombs away from the Japanese population, but he didn't do that. Our military deliberately targeted the cities, and the Trinity test had already occurred at this point, so the military probably knew that this bomb would create a deadly and massive explosion. Furthermore, the deliberate targeting of Japanese cities is evidence of a systematic effort, as the US military was already targeting Japanese cities for air raids at this time. Expanding this logic even further, it is also evident that the bombings of London (by the Nazis), Dresden (by the Americans), Berlin (by the Allies), and St. Petersburg (aka Leningrad) (by the Nazis) also constitute genocide, and so do the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 192.12.88.62 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Tasmanian Genocide / Black War?

Is there a reason this is not included?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War

Says: "The Black War was one of many conflicts used as an example to define the term genocide as it began to be used in the 1940s" and "By 1876, the full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were commonly regarded as extinct, and most of their culture and language lost to the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btxtsf (talk • contribs) 02:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Eelam TamilGenocide

Need to add this Genocide 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverCow666 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Farm Attacks South Africa

I notice no mention of the current attacks on Afrikaners in South Africa? Do google search on "Farm Attacks". The percentage black on White attacks and killings is unprecedented in South Africa.

http://www.news24.com/Tags/Topics/farm_attacks http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/rural_safety/time_to_act.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.4.226 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

mutually assured destruction

Were the threats carried out, it could be considered genocide. Should this be restored to the "See also" section?

[1]

—rybec 18:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits and Holocaust dates

I noticed that the Genocide category box at the bottom of the page has edited its Holocaust dates to 1941-1944. This ignores forced death marches and people who died in 1945, as well as ghettos that were established before 1941. I think that it should be changed back to 1939-1945. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.71.149 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the US trade embargo against Cuba genocide?

In Cuba (particularly gov't officials) say that the US trade embargo against Cuba is a form of genocide as per Section C of Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention (deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part), quoting a State Department memo regarding the stated purpose of the embargo that is dated April 6, 1960 (see http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 for full text): "If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government." The purpose of the trade embargo outlined in the memo (to incite a popular uprising against the Cuban gov't by bringing hunger and disease to the Cuban populace) may sound somewhat inhuman, immoral, and unethical by today's standards, but the US seems to be aware of the fact that using hunger and disease to bring democracy to Cuba so as to coerce Cubans to accept multiparty democracy is not only inhuman, it also violates the right of peoples to self-determination. For example, the vast majority of patients in Cuba who are suffering cancer and other health problems and have to undergo unnecessary surgery because of prohibitions on the sale of US-made medical equipment to Cuba appear to be closer to death, only to have well-experienced Cuban doctors save the patients from death the last minute using medical tools either made in Cuba or Europe. Therefore, it would be cynical for embargo critics to label the embargo as "genocidal". Barack Obama could at least inform the Cuban government that the embargo is not genocide by reminding the State Department's top officials that the purpose of the trade embargo as stated in the 1960 memo doesn't conform to modern ethical standards because embargoes are not meant to coerce peoples to accept US-style democracy by bringing hunger and disease. The Cuban government is just making fun of the current nature of the embargo when discussing the embargo's stated purpose in the 1960 memo. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Please suggest specific edits to the article's content. This talk page is not a discussion page for the article's subject. WP:FORUM. In reference to your actual comment, it is farcical to compare actual instances of genocide to a trade embargo. I doubt there exists a reliable source that makes such a claim. Any addition of such a position to the article would likely be WP:ORIGINAL, to say nothing of giving it undue weight under WP:POV. 2601:8:9F00:14A:8474:1D02:1270:56BD (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link to the killing of the Native Americans?

If I'm well informed some 100 million slaughtered and lost their homeland? --78.29.239.185 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can add a link to this article and see if WP:consensus retains it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza and Palestine

I notice if I search for Gaza or Palestine in this article, no text comes up. This shows bias. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Cambodia

The charges for genocide only relates to the killing of the Vietnamese and Cham minorities. The majority of killings are not treated as genocide but as crime against humanity. Shouldn't the section on Cambodia make this clearer and focus on the genocide charges? Iselilja (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Another one?

Hi!: a remarkable question in dealing with genocides may be how far, or how early the concept could or should be applied: 1 Samuel 15:3-> Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. The Amalek article in Wikipedia records the sentence from a Rabbin of Germans and Armenians being: 'Amalek', on the occasion of the Kaiser visiting the Holy Lands. A XXI century politician, in a nation placed East to Zyon, wears the surname: 'Malek'. 'Malek' sounds close to: 'Moloch', may: 'Amalek', be: 'Ab-Malek', the Moloch's men or tribe? (Moloch equals Saturn and Chronos) Regards.--Jgrosay (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Raphael Lemkin's Connection to Coining the Term Genocide

The section discussing Raphael Lemkin's connection to the coining of the term could elaborate on his conception of the idea. He stated that it had two phases which included the destruction of an oppressed group, and the imposition of the suppressor's will. This definition further explains the concept and breaks away from traditional ideologies of a simple mass killing of a specific group. Mariah1160 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Guatemalan Genocide

This article makes no mention of the genocide of the Ixil people in Guatemala during the 80's, which I think should be changed. In 2013 Montt was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity; at the very least there should be a mention of it, since there is none now. The only time Guatemala is mentioned is in the further readings section. KatieTJF (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian 'Genocide'

I disagree with the use of 'Armenian genocide' when describing genocides of the past. This is a historical debate that continues today and this page should not be bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.73.233 (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's not biased, it reflects a consensus among international historians, and is also clearly supported by historic material evidence. Denying that there was an Armenian genocide is fringe, and should not be given undue weight per Wikipedia's rules. Thomas.W ^talk 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rohingyas in Birmanya

What's about one of the most persecuted ethnic group in the World ! (UNO source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomMonteillet (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

More evidence of how wikipedia is politicized

Now we are labelling any killings by a "Communist" government a genocide? Even when they don't actually target any ethnic group? Which is what a "genocide" is supposed to mean? Interesting and how very convenient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if the right place or not

I'm not sure if this is entirely appropriate to ask here or not, but the page in question can effect this entry. Long story short, the article for Effects of genocide on youth is up for proposed deletion. It's a student project and needs a lot of work to make it fit guidelines, but I do think that it could explore the subject in a way that this article couldn't due to space limitations. Anyone here want to help that article out any or at the very least merge some of this into this article? I'd hate to see it just get deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Need to improve diction of English-language paragraphs

The following passages, for example, seem garbled in English:

“was later included as a descriptive term to the process of indictment, but not yet as a formal legal term”; “a coordinated strategy to destroy a group of people, a process that could be accomplished through total annihilation as well as strategies that eliminate key elements of the group's basic existence, including language, culture, and economic infrastructure”; and “a concept of mobilizing much of the international relations and community, to working together and preventing the occurrence of such events happening within history and the international society”; “By formally recognizing the act of genocide as a crime, involves the undergoing prosecution that begins with not only seeing genocide as outrageous past any moral standpoint but also may be a legal liability within international relations.” 160.253.0.120 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Soviet POWs

I spotted a recent edit and it raised a question for me -- was the fate of Soviet POWs in WWII a genocide?

Here are a few sources:

• Adam Jones in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction includes the extermination of Soviet POWs discuss it as "the least-known modern genocides" (see Google book preview

• Cannot see if the author terms it genocide, but it's included in the context -- Doris L. Bergen: War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust (Google book

preview)

• Hitler's Forgotten Genocides: The Fate of Soviet POWs by Thomas Earl Porter: pdf online

• Soviet POWs on the Eastern Front, 1941-1942 -- This appears to be a research project / a course. From online description: "The Nazi leadership cadre planned for genocide against the Soviet Red Army well before the invasion"; "All in all, the Nazi genocide against Soviet POWs remains one of the greatest crimes perpetrated in the history of humanity." Cited in references: "Berkhoff, Karel C. “The “Russian” Prisoners of War in Nazi-Ruled Ukraine as Victims of Genocidal Massacre,” Holocaust Genocide Studies 15, no. 1 (2001): 1-32.

So it looks to me that at least some in the research community is beginning to look at the treatment of Soviet POWs as a genocide. Any feedback on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't it part of the greater genocide against slavs in particular? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian Genocide

Isn't the Ukrainian Holodomor a genocide?Holodomor

NataliyaKlymko (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Did you see Holodomor genocide question?--Polmandc (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you see what Raphael Lemkin has to say about Holodomor? http://www.uccla.ca/SOVIET_GENOCIDE_IN_THE_UKRAINE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Client42 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And? Your point being?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It was, and many nations have officially called it such. With approx. 5-million victims (more than most of the other genocides listed), it is worth listing in the opening section of the article. I have added it.DoctorEric (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman Genocide

Hello, please remember the 2.5 million Ottoman Turks killed by the Armenians, Russians and others during the period of WWI. An article describing the details should be named as the Ottoman Genocide. -Ribbontool (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

kurdish genocide

I propose removing kurdish genocide in the lead beacuse even the article redirects to Al-Anfal campaign not to kurdish genocide. Genocide of Yazidis by ISIS could be replaced with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.170.64 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Guenther Lewy reference

Sorry, I should have explained better my revert. Guenter Lewy is renowned scholar and academic who has specialized, inter alia, in history related to genocide. Some of his views are controversial and some people (myself included) feel that he has taken a rather narrow view of the term genocide. But the crude label “genocide denier” does not really apply. But for more than twenty years he has published widely on the issue in scholarly journals as well as other peer reviewed publications, examining carefully the definition of genocide as it is applies to mass murders. It is not surprising that there is some disagreement about his conclusions. This book brings together many of the articles he has written on the subject and is useful for most discussions relating to genocides and other mass murders. It is published by a university press which is why I previously used the term peer-reviewed. --Joel Mc (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Odd one out

Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, and more recently the Kurdish Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide and the Rwandan genocide.

Now I'm not saying it's less valid or less of a genocide than the others, but one in particular stands out here. I have never heard of this Bangladesh genocide. Is it as well-known as the others there? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It is well known and doesn't stand out. Clicking the article might have helped in alleviating your ignorance.

Shopnochura (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack and removal of sourced content

In this edit sourced content was reverted [2] and a personal attack was done in the edit summary. The edits I did were not just as claimed by the user critical of Kurds, but also of Turks, Ottomans and Iraqi Army and Palestinians. What is commmon in the edits is that they were pro-Christian and pro-Assyrian, not that they were anti-Ottoman or anti-Kurdish. What was added is based upon reliable sources and found in other words in articles like Assyrian Genocide and Armenian genocide. Can I ask the user who reverted to give a policy based reason for the revert, and other users to comment? Thanks.

Also, the user is wrong that it is irrelevant, or it is opinion, but many historians have argued that kurdish-Assyrian animosity dating back decades or even longer have played a major role in such events. He cannot say that this irrelevant. See for example the section "The Kurds responsibility for the massacre" in Aboona, H (2008). Assyrians and Ottomans: intercommunal relations on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire. Cambria Press. And the British knew well of the generals anti-assyrian animosity, as do the Assyrians.

Can the image be added without mentioning that the general was Kurdish or that the army was Iraqi?

See the contributions of 87.189.128.42 (talk · contribs) and my comments on their talk page. The fact that an Iraqi nationalist was Kurdish is indeed irrelevant without reliable sources saying it is relevant. That's policy - WP:VERIFY etc. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Assyrians have been attacked in the middle east by either Turkish, Kurdish or Arab generals or tribes for the most part, so I do not find it irrelevant, as there is a documented anti-assyrian animosity of these groups. Just ask any Assyrian human rights organization really. This source [3] says Bakr Sidqi is also accused of having tried to set up a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq, which would include the Kurds of Iran . Even your source notes that he was accused of Anti-arabism because he was Kurdish. This source [4] says he promoted kurds and turkomans until they were 90 percent, ...but [despite Bakr] Iraq could hardly be transformed into a kurdish or turkish state. Also your source is just one opinion. There could be others.

The article correctly states that the work on defining this term was prompted by the simele massacre. There was no other image of this, but should be added for illustration which is normal procedure. The image is attributed to Simele massacre. Please discuss if other image(s) on this massacre should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.128.42 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012101425/http://www.oxfam.org:80/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060428_un to http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060428_un
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509214458/http://www.echr.coe.int:80/echr/ to http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703061139/http://www.unakrt-online.org/Docs/GA%20Documents/A-Res-57-228B.pdf to http://unakrt-online.org/Docs/GA%20Documents/A-Res-57-228B.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.minorityrights.org/admin/Download/pdf/MRGGenocideReport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317083807/http://www.netnebraska.org/extras/humanrights/02gen/0200/0200_01.htm to http://netnebraska.org/extras/humanrights/02gen/0200/0200_01.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the introductory and UN definitions

Unless I've been missing something, historical campaigns of genocide clearly target political and social groups, such as the Left, communists, socialists and trades unionists (the latter being potentially apolitical and therefore social). In Cambodia and China professionals were targeted, another social group. Groups have also clearly been subject to genocide because of their sexual inclinations. This is touched upon in the current definitions by the phrase 'or in part' (with reference to the genocide of peoples) but no overt mention of genocide of political and social groups is made, despite its clear historical importance. This seems in line with traditional conservative prohibition on discussion of sex, religion and politics(!), on the grounds that such discussions can become inflammatory. But religious groups are overtly mentioned, and there is no consistent ban on these topics elsewhere in Wikipedia guidelines or indeed UN literature. Why does it matter to me suddenly now? Because I have suddenly become consciously aware of the possibility of historical trend towards genocide towards myself and my own political and social groups in my own life/lifetime. I have suddenly become aware of this in the course of preparing a legal case, and suddenly feel let down and disappointed to find that standard definitions of genocide fail to overtly record its clear politico-social aspect. This makes the claim to be a possible victim of genocide sound potentially less plausible in a court of law. But realistically, it shouldn't do, should it, and I and others like myself shouldn't suffer because of UN or Wikipedian squeamishness - Amen? Traditionally, the victim groups I refer to have perhaps done less than our share, overtly, in our group identity role, in terms of reversing trends towards genocide - this was, in my case at least, linked to not knowing what to do or say or when. But let's hope this initial Talk section post marks a break in that trend.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

5.150.92.174, the standard definition (génos), and UN legal definition both imply a national or ethnic group. There are other terms for targetting groups according to their politics or some other factor. Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, 5.150.92.174, while your comment is politely constructed, it is original research. Please read WP:SOAP. This is an article talk page, not a forum. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nuremberg is key

With regard to the recent debate here regarding competing definitions of genocide, Count 3 of the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials seems sufficiently inclusive to shed some light on the matter: 'They (the defendants) conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—viz., the extermination of racial and national groups—against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.' In other words, yes it's racial, yes it's religious, but yes it's quite clearly social as well - 'classes of people' - even in the minds of the Allied lawyers of 1945, when the word 'genocide' was only two years old. Also, it's important to consider how the word 'national' varies in meaning between normal peacetime and a time of immediate post-war occupation. The Allies are occupying whole nations at the time of this legal definition, and mulling judgment over the treatment of whole nations over which they have assumed jurisdiction. Thus a 'national group' means 'any group in that nation.' As time goes on, Allied occupation ends, but the same legal terminology is, confusingly, retained, wrongly suggesting nations rather than groups within a nation.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, send us a copy of your book when it's published, until then, we rely on boring old WP:RSs. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think quoting sources was such a big issue on a Talk page(?). My quote comes from the Genocide definitions page on Wikipedia.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for the addition, I don't think it was strictly necessary, but it does no harm. What we cannot do is extrapolate from a few words in one use at Nuremberg, a general principle, ie that the term ordinarily, or legally encompasses 'classes of people' defined by something other than race/ethnicity. Pincrete (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to 'extrapolate from a few words in one use at Nuremberg,' we can simply acquire a basic education re the trial and the events leading to it. The alternative being Holocaust denial.--94.116.127.228 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert to group

Even though it seems rather petty, I reverted because it is not really a question of English usage, but after much debate, the Convention was drawn up not to protect people in general, but people as members of a selected list of groups. See Power (2003), p. 57. Joel Mc (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A people does not mean "people in general', it means a 'nation' or other distinct racial/ethnic group. Saying "a group of people (usually defined as a ..... group)" Is clumsy and unnecessary, also it is the intention to destroy the group, rather than a group of the group that characterises genocide, death of a people, rather than death of many people. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Reading Lemkin as well as looking at the debates in the GA, it is clear that the focus was on protecting groups, not “a people” which is why the convention make explicit mention of which groups of people. Not for example political groups or parties. This can be seen in Power’s discussion, and even more clearly in Philippe Sands discussion of Lemkin and Lauterpact.[Sands, Philippe (2016)] The Convention of course does not mention “a people” But the issue is not worth spending more time on even if it is a little misleading. Joel Mc (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"A people", always means a national or ethnic group, "a group of people" doesn't. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that “a group” doesn’t always mean “a people”. For example a religious group which is protected by the Convention, i.e. Baha'is or Jehovah's Witnesses are groups that governments tried to eliminate and were protected by the Convention, But neither can be designated as “a people”. Perhaps it would be better to drop the word "people" altogether and use the more comprehensive definition which is in the Convention. Joel Mc (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be a presumption in the above discussion that the UN Convention overrides/rules Wikipedian efforts to define 'genocide' in 2017. Since when was Wikipedia a department of the United Nations?--5.150.92.174 (talk)

Since the UN Convention had the power to define the term legally, when WP is granted that power, then .... Any other valid defs backed by WP:RSs are also welcome. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the persecution of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' has never been described as 'genocide', I did a quick search and this view was confirmed, although they (and the mentally or physically ill, political opponents, gays etc) are sometimes included in the broader definition of the Holocaust. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and therefore part and parcel of the particular genocide referred to as 'the Holocaust.'--94.116.127.228 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, partly I suspect because the term genocide and the convention comes later. However, FYI, Doris Bergen in her book, War & genocide : a concise history of the Holocaust (2009) describes Nazi attitudes and practices re: Jehovah's Witnesses. Joel Mc (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The terms overlap in meaning, (especially in relation to the Nazis, who targetted various groups for various 'reasons'), but the terms 'genocide' and 'holocaust' are not synonyms. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

I would think the Albigensian Crusader meets the qualifications of genocide. It was an intentional and systemic course of action to wipe out all followers of Catharism in the medieval period. In fact, the person who coined the term genocide, Raphael Lemkin, stated that it was a prime example of religious genocide. The documented instances of genocide for the "Part of a Series on Genocide" fails to mention this. I don't know where to say this so I just said it on the main page for genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austrianarchduke (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Austrianarchduke, see here. I would think that it would not qualify for inclusion in 'general' lists or articles, since the description is disputed. However there might be articles where a mention, including the 'dispute', would be apt. I don't know which though! Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Native American Genocide

We plan to add to the already existing article on Genocide. We plan to add a section about Native American genocide. In this section we will discuss how genocide has been carried out against these indigenous people for hundreds of years in North America. This topic will span from early American History to modern day issues. The sources listed below are the ones we will use to build our writing. 

Andersen, Chris, and Jean M. O'Brien. Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies, edited by Chris Andersen, and Jean M. O'Brien, Taylor and Francis, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/lib/UAZ/detail.action?docID=4771878. Lindsay, Brendan C.. Murder State, edited by Brendan C. Lindsay, UNP - Nebraska, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/lib/UAZ/detail.action?docID=915522.

Magliari, Michael F. "Ethnic Cleansing And The Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America." H-Net Reviews In The Humanities & Social Sciences (2016): 1-6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120624336&site=ehost-live

HIXSON, WALTER L. "Policing The Past: Indian Removal And Genocide Studies." Western Historical Quarterly 47.4 (2016): 439-443. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=119107668&site=ehost-live

Melançon, Jérôme. "Colonial Genocide In Indigenous North America." Canadian Journal Of Sociology 41.4 (2016): 565-568. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120553784&site=ehost-live] (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Laurennoble (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

“Atrocities Against Native Americans” United to End Genocide. 2016. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/native-americans

Ostler, Jeffrey. “Genocide and American Indian History. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Web. 14 Feb 2017. http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3

Mbrennan8 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there is already an article at Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples. It may be more appropriate to add and improve the section at that article, with a brief mention here and link to the fuller article using the Template:See also, in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE weight. Happy Editing! meamemg (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Mbrennan8, I agree with Meamemg, in general I would say that there is already too much detail on this article about individual instances, which pretty much all have their own articles. The effect of specific instances occupying too much 'space' is that the overall article becomes unreadably long. Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There is also this article. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That the Native American deaths generally meet the bar for genocide is at best debatable; the requirement of intentional destruction was not generally met. The "Genocide and American Indian History" source cited covers this in some detail. I'd suggest that the section, as-written, isn't an accurate representation of the mainstream understanding of the situation. From what I can tell, this section is a student project that has, as a thesis, that the situation was genocide...and I'm not sure that the "start with a thesis, then argue in favor of the position" is the most-reasonable way to go about covering material for an encyclopedia.

Mark7-2 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the neutrality issue (which I don't know enough about to comment), I'm afraid that this confirms my opinion that this content would be better in a related article, where proper balance could be given to whether/by whom this is regarded as genocide. I'm sorry, but there is already too much detailed info on this page about specific occurences. This page is necessarily mainly about the concept and history of the term, legal definitions etc, linked articles explore specific events. Pincrete (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not in this article, I think. We have the Genocides in history article for these things, plus the option of stand-alone articles if the material is suitable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)