Talk:Genocide/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

The term genocide was coined in response the Armenian Genocide ?

This sentence seems dubious "The term genocide was coined in response the Armenian Genocide", the OED gives the origin of the term as 1940's. The first source says "..when Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the 1915 annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide". Taking 29 years to coin a term hardly qualifies as 'a response', neither is citing the 'Armenian Genocide' as an example, the same as coining the term as 'a response' I know the sources refer to attempts by Lemkin to get 'crimes against groups', recognised before 1944, but if no published use of the term existed before 1944, the term simply did not exist before then.

Another source used states explicitly "in the course of his monumental study Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, the late Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide - from the Greek genos (race or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing) - to describe the deliberate destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. The concept was catching, and in December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution recognizing genocide as a crime under international law … … Axis Rule in Occupied Europe doesn't sound much like 'the Armenian Genocide'! Pincrete (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that struck me as being a change in contravention to WP:NOR. The history and background of Lemkin's interests are WP:OFFTOPIC for the scope of this article (and can be argued out on his bio, or on the definitions of genocide article), but the only matter of concern here is that it was coined by him, then adopted by the UN. No, the Axis Rule was certainly not the recognition of the term on the strength of a genocide which took place over 20 years earlier. To draw such a conclusion is WP:SYNTH and should be omitted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel that perhaps the best course of action here is for any editor who has the time (not me at the moment, I'm afraid) to read Axis Rule in Occupied Europe and to see what Lemkin said therein about the origin of the term. Specifically, did he describe its coinage as being (akin to) a response to the Armenian genocide, or not? If so, then this should be cited in the article. If not, then that part of the article should perhaps be rewritten appropriately. zazpot (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually came here precisely to clarify when/how the term was coined and was a bit surprised by the claim and agree that it is SYNTH. I wasn't sufficiently certain of the true picture to make the edit myself at that time. I also agree that precisely how Lemkin evolved his views over many years is a detail for the biog page. 'Armenia' is an example of the newly coined term, one of a number I believe in his book, but the term was not coined as 'a response' to Armenia. Unless there were an absolutely unequivocal statement from Lemkin that it was such a response, we have to go with what 2ndary sources are saying, which is that it was an example.
I'm prepared to try and make the edit, however what I'm a bit unsure of at present is where Nazi racial policies in occupied Europe, and specifically the holocaust fit into the 'coinage' narrative, (ie were these the primary subject of Lemkin's book, which the book title suggests, were they also examples, if not how did they fit into Lemkin's account?). Alternatively we could simply avoid characterising ANY relationship between Lemkin's coinage and these events/policies. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to clarify this. It is important that Lemkin's motivation to dedicate his whole life to working against mass murder is mentionned. Power makes it clear that he was motivated by his observation of the Holocaust as well. Philippe Sands book gives even more reference to this. I have tried to reduce the books to those most directly related to Lemkin's motivation. Joel Mc (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC) p. 77 in "Axis Rule.." is but one example of the influence of Nazi mass murders on him. Joel Mc (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
There is little doubt that what you say is true about Lemkin's 'life work', which went beyond 'physical' destruction of peoples, to encompass intentional 'cultural' destruction. However that kind of detail probably belongs on 'his' article, and the book article. What is relevant here is the meaning and genesis of the term, expressed accurately and succinctly. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, but, to be clear, I would not agree to "simply avoid characterising ANY relationship between Lemkin's coinage and these events/policies." Joel Mc (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
A significant part of Lemkin's book, the part mainly concerned with genocide, is here. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought that I had made it clear above that I would not agree not to link Lemkin's motivation for work on genocide. I have returned the Armenians and added the Nazis. Joel Mc (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Joel Mc, I don't object to your edits on first look, since they relate to Lemkin's lifelong interests (which are RS'd ), rather than to coinage of the term, which is much more blurred, but which is clearly in a book about Nazi policies. A detail is that other mass murders, apart from 'Armenian', were also referred to by Lemkin in that book. I hope we agree about the context of coinage, but that no specific event(s) led solely, directly to the coinage. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm still unhappy about the wording of the lead, which still implies that the word was coined to describe Armenian killings. Can we agree that the word was coined in a book describing Nazi practices/policies in occupied Europe (many of these events and practices have since acquired their own terms, such as Holocaust, but Lemkin does not use these terms nor identify/classify the specific events in the way that they have been classified post-WWII).
Lemkin's book cites examples from history including 'Armenia', other 'Ottoman' massacres, Tsarist and E. European pogroms etc..
Lemkin had a lifelong interest in crimes against peoples, which he himself attributes to learning about the Armenian killings as a young man in the late 1920's, an interest which he pursued through other mass actions against peoples.
I believe all three of these is true and RS'd, what I don't accept is that the word was coined specifically to describe 'Armenia', nor indeed any specific event(s), though the strongest contender would have to be 'Nazi crimes'. Pincrete (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem in changing the second para in the lede, how about: "The term genocide was coined in response to mass murder of populations in the 20th century, ranging from that of the Armenians beginning in 1915 and to the mass murders in Nazi controlled Europe.” Added info for background: Lemkin referred to the Armenian issue with respect to creating the concept later referred as genocide in talks and lectures he gave at and around Duke University, 1941-2 in North Carolina. (Sands, Philippe (2016). East West Street : on the origins of "Genocide" and "Crimes Against Humanity”. Chapter 72) He also referred to the Armenian events in his article in the American Scholar (Volume 15, no. 2 (April 1946), p. 227-230) Joel Mc (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a simpler suggestion, but it's late now and my brain hurts! On a side-note, I found several other articles claiming/implying that those incidents solely prompted coinage of the term! Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
92slim please read (and join) this discussion. Sources do not state that Lemkin 'coined the term in response' to any single event, and you can't equate Lemkin's use of 'Nazi war crimes in Europe' with the Holocaust, since he is referring to many war crimes OTHER than even the broader use of 'Holocaust' (ie including Roma etc). Lemkin is clear that what was being done to the Jews and to Poles, Russians and other E. Europeans was more brutal than what was happening in W. Europe, but the book is about ALL 'crimes against peoples' in occupied Europe and the term was coined in a book about those crimes. Lemkin did become interested in the subject initially because of hearing about Armenia, and he does cite Armenia (and several other examples) as 'classic examples' but he coined the term nearly twenty years after first becoming interested in what happened in Armenia and in a different context. Let's find a way to represent all this clearly and succinctly. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
92slim can't join the discussion due to being blocked. But I agree with you. El_C 22:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete:, @El C: Note, I'm only here because I've been editing at Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide denial lately and am not taking a stance here either way, but various sources do state that he coined it mostly due to witnessing the Armenian Genocide. I can't access his autobiography through my University but it's supposedly on page 19-20. When Lemkin coined it the full scale of the Holocaust was not yet common knowledge, but he was obviously already drawing parellels. Example from United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "The origin of the term genocide and its codification in international law have their roots in the mass murder of Armenians in 1915–16. Lawyer Raphael Lemkin, the coiner of the word and later its champion at the United Nations, repeatedly stated that early exposure to newspaper stories about Ottoman crimes against Armenians was key to his beliefs about the need for legal protection of groups (a core element in the UN Genocide Convention of 1948)." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is widely recognised that Lemkin's interest in the subject of 'crimes against peoples' was first aroused by various incidents, notably Armenia. But the term was not coined in respomse to that event. nor any single event, but the context of coinage is 'WWII crimes' (and not specifically those against Jews, nor against E Europe).

There are several 'historical' (ie pre-WWII) examples given in Lemkin's book, inc Armenia and various C19th pogroms. Many WP articles, on the basis of being given by Lemkin as examples, claimed to be the origin of the term. I'm afraid NONE of them are. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting subject for discussion, however, for the purposes of this article, trying to draw our own conclusions remains OR and SYNTH. I think this line of inquiry should be terminated on the article's talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you read law review, they dont care about anything before it was defined as a crime. Makes things easier. Seraphim System (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Lemkin did not invent genocide, he coined a new term for already existing acts. An act of genocide would have been a crime under existing laws before the term genocide was coined and defined as a crime. For example, it was the opinion of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal in its examination of the Armenian Genocide that the 1948 International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was formally expressing an already existing prohibition. So I think that the term "genocide" can, if sourced, be reasonably applied to all modern-era (mid to late 19th century and onward) acts of genocide (because the acts would have been prohibited by existing laws). Further back than that and any assertions of genocide would require much stronger sourcing, not just one-off claims by lobbyists or activists. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not 'law review' or any other single RS. It's not our objective to 'make things easier' according to one editor's POV. Who are you aiming at making the subject of genocide 'easier' for? Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT carefully. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: @Tiptoethrutheminefield: Do you know what law review is? There are many articles on Wikipedia, on many different topics. This is a law article. My response to WP:IDONTLIKEIT would be that questions of inclusion or exclusion should be governed by relevance or scope of the article. I'm not sure your comment is constructive User:Iryna Harpy.
From what User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield said above, there may be more sources to add about this. Searching HeinOnline for "genocide retroactively lemkin" yields several on-topic articles. The fact that genocide as a legal definition has been applied retroactively is not a legally trivial matter, and has been discussed in several law review articles.
When trying to make a difficult, technical subject accessible or "easier" for readers I rely on the best sources I have available. For law articles, I use mostly HeinOnline and Oxford Law - these sources make my job as an editor easier, because these sources are specialized for the subject I am working on (including Oxford Law Citator). I also share resources! - Would you like to help me add this information to the article? - I can send you the articles. They are quite difficult, and I would appreciate constructive help from other editors. Seraphim System (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no quibbles with improving the legal content, but how have you come to the conclusion that this is exclusively an article on law? Genocide studies is a multidisciplinary field. Disqualifying reliable sources on the subject may be your preference, but the article should not be treated as being exclusive to law. As to how you organise your approach to problematic subjects, you're free to use any system you wish to assist you as a clear thinking exercise, but that is merely your own preference. Please don't try to proscribe content according to your position. (Incidentally, I'd be more than happy to read through any legal articles you'd like to send on. The more information, the better.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you think I am trying to disqualify? The majority of this article is about law, genocide as a crime and genocide trials - not "Genocide Studies" - there are a number of other pages for that. I see some minor sections on history and social sciences that are not a problem, though the final section should probably be linked to its main page as it seems to have been split from this article already. Seraphim System (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
If I were to set up a page Genocide (law) for example, I am concerned it would overlap significantly with this page. Is there some multidisciplinary content you would want to add to expand this page and then we could spin-out law to Genocide (law)? There is Genocide under municipal laws, but that's a different matter entirely. Also, because this page says This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation).
ADD: @Iryna Harpy: I sent you part of an article by Yuval Shany that, in my opinon, clarifies the connection between Lemkin and the codification of genocide as a crime, and background pre-Lemkin discussion of Armenian genocide (using language "new crimes" against "humanity and civilization) Seraphim System (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Seraphim System. Received. I'll read through it in the next couple of days when I can set aside some quiet time to focus and deliberate. Yes, I agree that this article is a bit of a mix and match job. There may be some overlaps, but it doesn't preclude the creation of an article specifically dedicated to the more explicit legal definition. Defining genocide has been a long term headache for Wikipedia. If you haven't already done so, it might be worth reading some of the discussions on talk page archives such as Talk:Genocides in history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy Since another editor has already included the note This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation). and because this change would be major and effect a lot of pages and existing links, I don't think we should decide on spinout without broader consensus. I think the law aspect of the article is in pretty good shape, but I see inconsistent citation style and bare urls in the text. If we could get it cleaned up, and refine the language in the lead origin section to reflect the comments above, and academic sources, I think it is close to GA review. Seraphim System (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System, regarding your assertion that the subject of the article is "the crime" - Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia content. I see no previous discussion that decided the "about" tag should have the wording "the crime" or that this article is solely about "the crime". I have altered the tag's content to the wording used to describe this article's subject in the disambiguation page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield I disagree with that, and I don't think you should change it without any attempt at reaching consensus so I am reverting it. This page is about genocide, the crime - the description you chose is better suited for the history page. Seraphim System (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield If the content of the page is not enough evidence for you, then I suggest opening the discussion up for broader community consensus. I would rather work on improving citation and putting the page up for GA review, without possibly disrupting a number of existing links by spinning out a law article, that would in large part replicate this article. You both want to exclude specific genocide history's from the page, while insisting it is a broader page then the existing content suggests. This would be a major change, and it needs broad community consensus and a discussion of how it would effect links on existing pages. This is the Genocide (law) page - there isn't another one, at this point, nor do I see a particular need for another one as your comment below indicates historical and other information would overburden this page. Seraphim System (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you disagree with? With my assertion that there has been no previous discussion on the content of the "about" tag? Please cite that discussion if you disagree. If you disagree with the actual wording, you need to properly explain why, not just say "I disagree" or assert that it is "disrupting" your personal concept of the article. I am reverting your revert given the absence of any argument presented by you. My argument, to restate it, is the wording I have used is also the wording used to describe this article in the disambiguation page. It is also clear from the recent comments here that there is disagreement that the article should be limited to "the crime" and I see no prior discussion deciding on such a limitation. And the content of an about tag does not affect links on existing pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Evidently, the latest round of 'improvements' on the article slipped under my radar (or, to be precise, my rather hefty watchlist). What does 'about the crime' mean? Is someone trying to disambiguate the act of genocide from the Genocide Convention's criminal code? If so, it was a shocker of an attempt... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Whoa, I can't believe that the hatnote has been there so long without my paying attention to it. Shame on me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason why this can't be a stable GA article. Reaching clear consensus about the scope of the page is part of that, I think. The fact that the hatnote was there means other editors, at some point, disagreed with the peculiar vision the two of you share for this article (that law pages are "POV" - an assertion that I find bizarre and unjustifiable.) If other editors want to open this page up to include more information, then I will create a separate page for Genocide (law). Seraphim System (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think I need a strong cup of tea, a Bex and a little lie-down. Seraphim System, you're welcome to open the RfC, but please take heed of the wording. At the moment it reads as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please read WP:RFC/HOW and reformulate your argument ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. Seraphim System (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Jorgic

Iryna Harpy Is there a reason that the discussion on Jorgic includes everything but the Court's holding? Totally misrepresents the source, this needs to be rewritten to meet legal writing standards, or removed entirely. Misrepresenting case citations is not the way to do things. This is why one should not cite cases without legal citation, because the only thing that should be cited directly to a case is a proposition that the case supports directly (this does not include dicta.) Anything else should use proper citation signals like See and parentheticals. Wikipedia has legal writing guidelines MOS:LAW - I'm sorry you feel its POV, but I did not make up these rules " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." There are good reasons these rules are in place, as you can see. Seraphim System (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that citing this case is problematic (even outside of your concerns) in that it uses a WP:PRIMARY (to all intents and purposes) source to extrapolate content without reliable secondary/third party sources to provide any form of analysis. As is, a further secondary source is desirable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The Court cited Schabas, I still haven't found the part they were referring to. I must have a different edition or something but I will search through it again. Seraphim System (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I've found these as secondary sources for the concept of 'intent' just from a cursory search:
  • Sangkul Kim (24 May 2016). A Collective Theory of Genocidal Intent. Springer. p. 181. ISBN 978-94-6265-123-4.
  • Andrzej Jakubowski (2016). Cultural Rights as Collective Rights: An International Law Perspective. BRILL. p. 321-322. ISBN 978-90-04-31202-9.
--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
All good points - also Van Anraat was about intent too. Jakubowski is a little confusing because he is talking about mens rea and Jorgic, and then actus reus in Krstic - Jorgic was tried under the equivalent of (a) and (c), not (e) so we need to be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH here - ICTY also said that even if it wasn't a genocidal act it could go to intent (cited in Jorgic) - a full discussion of this will probably be too detailed for this article. There is also this from Schabas:

Many contemporary international criminal prosecutions are based upon a theory known as ‘joint criminal enterprise’. It recognizes that atrocities that qualify as international crimes, including genocide, are committed by groups and organizations, acting with a common purpose. In practice, it means that the leaders or organizers will be held responsible for the crimes committed by their associates, even those that they did not specifically intend, to the extent that these were a reasonable and foreseeable outcome of the common purpose or joint enterprise.

Seraphim System (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the Jorgic v Germany judgment of 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that the German national courts’ rather broad interpretation of the genocidal intent to destroy, so as to cover the applicant’s acts committed in the course of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was consistent with the essence of that offence and could reasonably have been foreseen by the applicant at the material time (at para. 114). Notably, the ECtHR, in its judgment of July 2007, considered these issues within the context of its deliberations regarding the principle Nullapoenanullumcrimen sine lege as contained in Art. 7 (1) ECHR. Thus, the ECtHR merely held that in 1992, when the applicant had committed his offences—long before in 2001 the Krstić trial chamber expressly rejected the German Federal Constitutional Court’s broad interpretation of the intent to destroy, arguing that the offence of genocide was restricted to acts aimed at the physical or biological destruction of a group—it could have reasonably been foreseen by the perpetrator that his intent to destroy a group as a social unit might be subsumed under the crime of genocide by German courts. However, the ECtHR did not deliver a ruling on how in its opinion the ‘intent to destroy’ should be interpreted in 2007.

from MPEPIL Seraphim System (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Killing/Murder?

A couple of recent IP edits, one of which appears to be responding to a 'reddit' discussion, are arguing about the 'a-historical' use of the term 'murder' in this article. Whilst I am generally sympathetic to using the less emotive 'killing', where there is not a clear legal reason to do otherwise, some of the changes being argued over include altering quotes, which is a definite No-No. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm predisposed to the use of 'killing' as being less emotive (and more encyclopaedic) than 'murder'. It's also far more of a standard usage of language in academic texts on the subject, but I guess that that's just my own preference. The changes certainly strike me as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by virtue of a change in the lexicology of the subject using Wikipedia as leverage for changing the language normally used by sources, so I'll register my disdain over heavy-handed revisionist techniques to make a point. There may be no legal reason to reinstate 'killing', but does it reflect RS? I'm not about to parse the WP:EUPHEMISM guideline, but the WP:COMMONSENSE application is to avoid modified language in news-style reportage. Changing every instance of 'killing' is a political statement that is not our place to make as editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 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:

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

checkY 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) 21:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Genocide vs. Massacre

What is the difference between a "genocide" and a "massacre"? Are there clear-cut criterias for such terms? Thanks. 139.192.174.17 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mainly intention, with genocide the intention to 'destroy the race/people' must be present. Also massacre refers to a single event, whereas genocide can be - and often is - an extended campaign. So a number of massacres can add up to genocide. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Inserting subtlety and nuance around the non-killing acts of genocide - just added

Hello fellow Wikipedia editors,

I just made a substantive edit that primarily centered around inserting some nuance regarding the non-killing acts of genocide. This led me to 1) edit the subsections (under international law) on genocidal intent and 2) create a new subsection (also under international law) on genocidal acts as defined by the Genocide Convention.

I'm new to editing so please weigh with any comments, corrections, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeymourJustice (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

SeymourJustice, to save me checking everything, could you confirm that all of the changes you made are explicitly stated in the sources used, (ie you checked the given source in order to create the content). On first impression, some of your changes seem sound, some appear fairly questionable. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete Yes, textual support for all of these changes can be found in the source material I cited. Moving forward, would you like to outline what changes you find "questionable"? --SeymourJustice (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Genocide correlates with state collapse.

State collapse is a new Wikipedia page, a comparative study of how, when and why states (Nazi Germany, Austria Hungary, imperial Russia, Yugoslavia, USSR, Iraq, Libya, Congo free state, etc) decline and collapse with disturbing regularity, seeking violence and scapegoats as they do so. If anyone has pertinent comments to add, most grateful. Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. --evrik (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of genocides by death toll

There was Discussion about people adding different events and it ended with some agreeing on a merge Jack90s15 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Genocide definitely should have its own article. Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this is a list of genocides in history and it must be separate from the main article. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The number of generally accepted genocide is fairly small and can be easily accommodated on this page - which already discussed many of them. The present list article attracts addition of ethnic cleaning events that are not accepted as genocides by most scholars. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz: The list is short because it doesn't list any pre-modern genocides. Genocides and genocidal rape were very common during bronze age and antiquity. Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well... Genocide is a modern concept, that does not apply to ancient times very well, nor do scholars of the ancient era use the label. Mass killing / enslavement of cities that refused to surrender at the end of long sieges was SOP - e.g. read Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Genocides recognized per the UN definition are few and modern.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just because term "genocide" was invented recently doesn't mean genocides didn't exist prior. Scientists use this term for much earlier events. Here is article about genocides by Proto-Indo-Europeans who wiped majority of local men in Europe and parts of South Asia. Because of this modern Europeans have mostly Middle Eastern EEF/Anatolia_N maternal ancestry, mostly paleo-Siberian ANE/EHG paternal ancestry, and speak IE languages. Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of-most-murderous-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/

  • Support: the list of events recognised as genocide by the preponderance of sources is quite small and can be accommodated in this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present. If the list really was confined to the "gold standard" cases, I might be willing to support, but at present it isn't and I think that if even if much more rigourous criteria were established for inclusion - there would still be too many cases for inclusion in the main article. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Combining this page would equate genocide with killing rather than the full range of genocidal violence and looks solely at the number of deaths rather than the intent. SeymourJustice (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your oppose vote, but am puzzled by the logic. The only instances I know of in which an event has deemed to be legally genocide (eg Srebrenica), but where killing was numerically relatively low( as a percentage of whole group, and almost exclusively male) - it is precisely because of intent, rather than numbers, that caused it to be labelled genocide. I think everyone accepts that intent, rather than total numbers or percentages, is the defining feature.Pincrete (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the "genocides by death toll" page it has only one reference to intent and is otherwise just a list of magnitude. If this were to appear on the main page for genocide, it is a reasonable fear that members of the general public less familiar with the legal requirements and primacy of intent would be further led to believe genocide=killing. SeymourJustice (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Genocide does not equal killing, genocide is much broader and with no intent, whereas killing requires a goal (why do you want to kill someone in the first place?). Hansen SebastianTalk 14:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

% инфляции = % геноцида.

Раньше были слова "коэффициент производительности труда". Например если выращенной еды было достаточно штобы не быть голодным и в следующем году вырастить столько же - коэффициент был = 100%. Или 1. Выращщено/Затрачено = 1 (100% если в процентах, можно и в канарейках штоб красивее!/!)) .


Если вырастили не 100%, а только 92% - тогда инфляция (замедление роста). Следовательно можно "поднять цены" (ускорить ?) на 8%. При старых з/п-тах!


Можно боротьця с шпионами! Уворовыващими по 3 колоска пшеницы с каждого поля. Прямо как медьведь на овсах!! Сволочь.. Ну просто вредитель! Мирового пролетариата.. все голодают.. Волга усохла вся.. ужас! Теперь и людей жрут. Киты на нерест не зашли.. Чем заправить Мерседэц-Дец-Бац Бац! Капец .. ??

176.59.209.106 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Cambodia

I disagree with putting the Cambodian genocide in the Lede as an example of a genocide. The Cambodian genocide had elements in it that individually meet the definition we are using in the article for genocide, but as a whole, it wasn't a genocide. A genocide, according ot the definition being used here, means to systemically try to destroy a particular ethnic/national/religious group, whereas the event that history knows of as the 'Cambodian genocide' was a campaign of mass murder directed against Cambodians in general, almost entirely with a focus on eliminating perceived political enemies, and not with the intention of annihilating a specific ethnic group. During the Cambodian genocide, they attempted to destroy certain ethnic groups as well, and those actions meet the definition of genocide, but those actions only account for a portion of the historical events described by the term 'Cambodian genocide'. The Cambodian genocide is more of an example of largescale mass murder, which is not strictly what we mean here in the article by the term 'genocide'. Reesorville (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

The German word for genocide (de:Völkermord; ngram) and Polish pl:ludobójstwo (source) already existed in the 19th century. Apparently Lemkin translated the Polish word into Latin, that's where the word "genocide" comes from. (t · c) buidhe 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:buidhe, this edit and SOME of what was previously inserted, seem to be attempts to 'upstage' Lemkin, by fairly peripheral sources, with content that isn't especially important. All sources relating to the beginnibg of the term mention Lemkin, war time, 'genos' and 'caedo/cide'. Arguing that Lemkin simply translated from a Polish and/or German word or that he MAY HAVE encountered the Polish word through another's writings, and MAY HAVE 'borrowed' it - possibly consciously or unconsciously - is plausible, but highly speculative, fairly WP:FRINGE and not terribly important anyway. The word came into being and was defined through Lemkin during WWII. There are 100 possible ways Lemkin might have seen the need for the term and arrived at it - putting speculative accounts at the beginning of the article by writers who are not acknowledged experts on Lemkin seems to detract, rather than clarify.
The quote is overlong IMO, especially so early in the article, and the Churchill claim - apart from being factual content repeated in the following sentence is frankly crass Churchill, on the other hand, speaking at about the same time, was reduced to describing German atrocities in Poland as "the crime without a name. Churchill was a great - and highly accessible speech-maker - he wasn't 'reduced to' using that description because the word genocide hadn't yet been invented any more than he was 'reduced to' using the term Iron Curtain because he didn't know the proper name for the E European alliances. He is employing understatement to imply a crime which was 'unspeakable' in its horror was occurring. The phrase he uses is 100 times more powerful than the single word.
I think that German and Polish words for a similar idea existed before Lemkin, is interesting background, any more than that is a FRINGE, idea which is not supported by the majority of writers about Lemkin and franly unimportant. Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ihrig's book is a high quality scholarly source. Furthermore, most sources that go into more depth on Lemkin's coinage actually take the time to go through precedents and earlier concepts for what he codified. The idea of genocide did not come out of thin air. [1][2][3][4] (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No one disputes that Ihrig is a reasonably good source in his topic area - which is not Lemkin, nor Churchill, seemingly. Nor does anyone think that 'genocide' came out of thin air AFAIK. That does not justify intruding a relatively obscure source into 'pole position' with speculative content. The first source you give above describes why Lemkin rejected the Polish and German words as inadequate - as he also did with other terms such as "denationalization". What is particular about the Polish and German words and what do we know about them other than that Lemkin probably knew them and rejected them. Pincrete (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Ihrig is an expert on the genocide discourse in Germany between the wars. Which is exactly what he is cited for.
Without an explanation of what there was before Lemkin, his contribution will be misunderstood. Also, FYI, the words "Völkermord" and "ludobójstwo" are still used in German and Polish as their word for genocide. The idea that they ever meant something other than genocide (in the general sense) is a strange and unsupported idea. (t · c) buidhe 10:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually, by 'genocide' Lemkin meant the killing of a people - cultural etc obliteration, of which physical killing of individuals was simply an aspect. In modern usage, the word has come to mean 'the killing of people' (of the same race) ie ethnic mass murder. I'm not sure where either the Polish or German words fit into that picture - what appears to be the case is that the Pol/Ger terms have the more limited 'killing' meaning, but that hardly seems pertinent since speculation about where Lemkin got the word is just that - speculation not endorsed by the majority of sources actually writing about Lemkin. An expert on 'genocide discourse in Germany between the wars' knows nothing about how or why Lemkin came to the term, but we hartdly need a source to say that mass killings had been known by other names before Lemkin, which is how Ihrig is being used. Were we to go into precisely the various meanings, which I don't believe is necessary so early in the article, it would be apt to make the distinction between actual and cultural 'murder', which is central to what Lemkin proposed, and how use of the term has evolved in practice to mean mass actual murder. The source you quoted above does go precisely into those more nuanced meanings, which is why the source describes terms used to mean "de-nationalization", ie destruction of identity as well as of human life.
Tomaszewski doesn't even claim to know where the word came from beyond speculating that Lemkin may have translated existing Polish/German terms! Wow! Beyond being informed that related terms existed for similar events before Lemkin, what purpose does all this speculation serve? Pincrete (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Use of the word "Volkermord" led to what Ihrig called "the great genocide debate" in Germany—in the 1920s! Yes, Lemkin codified the concept of genocide, and coined the English word "genocide", but he did not invent the idea. (Arguably genocide perpetrators did).
Actually, by 'genocide' Lemkin meant the killing of a people - cultural etc obliteration, of which physical killing of individuals was simply an aspect. This is partly true, but all generally recognized genocides involve large scale killings, and cultural genocide is not part of the Genocide Convention. Ultimately, if you want to claim that such words as Volkermord ever meant anything other than the general idea of genocide (eg the killing of a people—Volkermord does not mean mass murder in general), you will have to rely on reliable sources and not just your hypothesizing. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Words commonly don't have exact equivalence between languages, especially where ideas or concepts are concerned. I cannot see what is gained by the additional text except that two sources which are both relatively marginal are given ther opportunity to attempt to 'upstage' Lemkin - contrary to the great body of sources. Why it is not sufficient for you that we acknowledge that Polish and German both had words which described similar concepts is the mystery to me. The great body of sources make no mention of either the Polish or German terms, so the onus is on you to establish their relevance to the origin. Apart from anything else, some of the text leads to anachrorisms such as "In a letter dated October 3, 1943, Krystyna Wituska described the German atrocities in Poland as "cold-blooded genocide." Although the English word genocide was introduced only in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, I did not hesitate to use it in translation. Wituska used the German word Volksmord, in Polish ludobojstwo. in other words Wituska DIDN"T refer to 'genocide' in the letter, she referred to a German term, which in Polish is ludobojstwo, which I claim predates Lemkin - even though Lemkin's book was completed before 1943! This is all confusing rather than clarifying and it is done in pursuit of a theory which is hardly worth arguing about, ie that various words existed in various languages before Lemkin . The term came into being almost solely because of him however, regardless of where he may have consciously or otherwise absorbed previous terms.Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I cited sources saying that these words mean "genocide". If you want to challenge that you would have to cite sources saying that they mean something else. Keep in mind that there are many definitions of genocide just in English which probably exceed any inter-language variation. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course these words mean genocide - within the limits of the extent that concepts have exact equivalence between languages - "race extermination" also meant genocide within the same limits, as do various English and French terms (some of which are mentioned in one of your sources above) which focus on various elements of the phenomenon. What is lacking is evidence that the majority of sources draw attention to these Polish and German words as relevant to the origin of the term. Is it surprising that a Polish source and one who is a Germany-expert are claiming to 'own' this concept? Why does it matter anyhow? Regardless of where Lemkin may have got his ideas - which may well have included the German and Polish terms (and perhaps Eng, Fr, It, Arm, ?? … …), the term was coined and defined by Lemkin and has Gk and Lat roots. There were other ways of speaking about such events previously and other languages have words with similar (literal) meanings. That is what we say at present.Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It's essential to give some context for the coinage of "genocide" in the background section, including the preexisting legal concept of crimes against humanity, Lemkin's 1933 proposal, debates on genocide that predated Lemkin, etc. Virtually all sources that go into significant detail on Lemkin mention precursors to the concept he defined in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Not including hardly any background goes against the ideal that all Wikipedia articles should place the subject in appropriate context. If there are words in English, French, or any other language that are relevant to mention, I would be in favor of inclusion. (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The section is called "origin of the term", you label this section "Etymology". Pre-existing legal or other concepts have little bearing on either of those - certainly when they are being used to imply a fairly marginal, if not FRINGE idea that those other languages REALLY invented the term first - they didn't, as far as the majority of sources are concerned, which do not even mention the Polish or German terms. All languages - including English - had other ways to refer to mass ethnic killings, and social destruction, to mention those other ways briefly is useful background IMO. However, to go beyond that so early in a long article, with text that is somewhat anachronistic simply "muddies the water", using non-mainstream sources, to no advantage IMO.
I don't have any objection to pre-cursor legal concepts being included in relevant sections (I thought they were/are), but that is not what is being proposed at present, rather the opposite, that exactly equivalent German and Polish words predated Lemkin's term and that they are somehow the 'real' origin of the term. Pincrete (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Lemkin invented the word "genocide", but he didn't invent the concept out of whole cloth. Ihrig repeatedly discusses Lemkin and also states that "a pre-Lemkin definition of genocide" exists (p. 271). You can easily find various German sources discussing exactly this, the pre-Lemkin definitions of genocide.[5][6][7][8] "The term [genocide] was created by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphaël Lemkin for a conceptual and juridical redefinition of mass crimes against civilians by the Nazis in the occupied territories. However, the term already existed in other languages: in French nationicides9 and in German Völkermord. "[9] (According to this source, Völkermord was used somewhat more broadly, but the examples given are all covered by broader definitions of "genocide" or polemical uses in English, e.g. [10]). I also found a conference paper on "A linguistic precedent of Genocide: the «exécrations nationicides» described by François-Nöel Babeuf in Du Systéme de Dépopulation".
You keep saying "marginal" and "fringe" without citing any evidence that it is. Words such as Völkermord are widely discussed by the sources which cover in detail how Lemkin came up with the term "genocide". (Details are less likely in sources that are not specifically focused on Lemkin.) Since Lemkin spoke both Polish and German, and he was almost certainly aware that such words existed, it does seem relevant to include. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"a pre-Lemkin definition of genocide" is inherently anachronistic AFAI am concerned. You cannot have a definition of a word which doesn't yet exist - the sentence only makes sense if one mentally inserts sub-clauses while reading it (a pre-Lemkin definition of (what would probably today be called) genocide ). You CAN have a word or term which has a similar meaning or use and there are several of those in several languages, we list some of them. The sources (Ihrig and the Polish writer) are relatively marginal to books either about Lemkin or about the concept of 'genocide' and certainly about the English language. If you are not seeking to imply that someone other than Lemkin REALLY coined the term, what purpose does the additional text have in a section called "origin of the term". Given Lemkin's long interest in the subject, I have no problem admitting that Lemkin probably had heard of ALL the European terms available at that time - but most sources don't mention, let alone give any prominence to either the Polish or German terms as being involved in those origins. Maybe they should, but they don't. Pincrete (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Holodomor to the pre World War II

I cannot spot it anywhere but this article definitely should include this. Please, refer to Holodomor and its references in case of hesitation. V9k8 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Add Genocide of the Ingrian Finns to the pre World War II

The same as about Holodomor I don't see anywhere reference to Genocide of the Ingrian Finns. V9k8 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources for definitions section

Today, the definition of genocide is widely accepted (unanmiously?) expanded to include more than just ethnic groups and nationality. So, it is not the "opinion of one individual" that you removed from the article. This should not have been removed. Gators bayou (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the effect of putting recent definitions, some from 'not-great' academics into 'pole' position, (without accounting for how they differ from earlier, or legal definitions) whilst pushing the chronological account half-way down the page, is simply muddled. And no, AFAIK there is no universally accepted definition "expanded to include more than just ethnic groups and nationality" - what does it even mean? Are you meaning political/social groups? Religious groups? Who? Also section titles are inaccurate "Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide" opens with several paras that are not criticisms and not even definitions, but even if they were, what would be the point of placing 'criticisms' of the historical/legal definitions, before the exposition of those very positions.
There does not appear to be any support for your changes - individual content may be apt to be added, but fundamentally altering structure and content has no support AFAI can see, consequently I am reverting to the previous stable text. Get support if you wish to make substantial changes.Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It's fine. The criticisms section was already in the article and I'm aware of the issues with it. Lemkin wrote les collectivites ethniques, confessionelles ou sociales - according to reliable sources, "thus omitting race". What our article says is somewhat muddles. I was reading a newer book when I saw citations stating this and growing distressed that is what I was trying to fix in the article when those changes were reverted. I don't think Graham Kinloch is unreliable for this. As a sociology professor from UFloriday, he might not be a heavy-hitter for the development of jurisprudential though but this is a basic fact and when I looked at the article and saw citations to WordPress I thought Kinloch would be an ok source for a start. I guess not? I can add more heavy-hitting sources too,it's not only one [11]. For straightforward facts like this there are potentially many references that could be cited but is it required to add them all? Gators bayou (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ps There also appears to be a fair amount of WP:OR and flawed, unclear or off-topic info/text in the additions. For example "Taken together, Porter and Lemkin's definitions encompass the concept of the destruction of minorities (not limited to ethnic groups or nationalities), including: … …" Why would one want to take these definitions together? Clearly there are numerous interpretations of 'genos' and variants on the terms 'race', 'nation'. 'tribe', 'ethnic group'etc, - which all very naturally overlap with 'religion' and all of which have a strong subjective basis, often defined by the outsider, but other than that, these 'critics' are adding a fairly narrow palette of political and social attributes. Also why is a quote by Lemkin being used to support this claim? Why are discussions about democide (a related though distinct concept) given such prominence relative to the mainstream/historical/legal history of genocide itself? Pincrete (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally my main objections were structure and muddled text. There are people who think definitions should be broadened ( I don't think they are a majority) to include political/social/other characteristics ... It's probably accepted that religion is at least a secondary factor (but often an aspect of 'race' anyway - as it was in Bosnia, for Yazidis, and for the Jews in WWII). I didn't think it was clear in your text what ADDITIONAL factors and what clarifiers (eg perception) were being proposed by these recent sources. Simply a list of slightly varying definitions isn't very coherent IMO.Pincrete (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you shared your objections because I agree with most of them. It is Kinloch's opinion (to synthesize Lemkin and Porter) and that may not be due weight. Democide is also from Porter's quote. I'm generally ok with removal of Porter. In the historical context Lemkin wrote during the idea of race was not accepted immediately. It's not trivial and more should be said about it in this article. The criticisms section would be improved by downsizing and removal of irrelevant content. Gators bayou (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Killing members of the group

This section, seems full of WP:OR, most obvious is "A near-uniform pattern has emerged throughout history in which men and adolescent boys are singled out for murder in the early stages". This seems to be accurate iro recent genocides (where the males were a potential threat and the women either spared or enslaved), but wholly untrue of the holocaust and other events. Much of that whole section seems SYNTHed but I don't have access to the texts. Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide has an RFC

Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of changes by Pincrete

I am writing here to express my concerns that you are reverting attempts by other editors to improve this article. You should not revert other editors good faith contributions because an article is not improved by the reverting of new editors. You have removed Bosnian genocide and Al-Anfal genocide, both very prominent and extensively published genocides. Please show the secondary source for the selection of prominent genocides before restoring. Inserting a note into an article can not be a substitute for verifiable. Gators bayou (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Gators bayou, I have been watching this article for at least three or four years, during that time, the most frequent addition is an editor wanting to add to the list of examples. Almost always the addition is fairly well documented as having been genocide (though occasionally editors want to add examples of disputed cases or cases of 'politicide' or similar). If all those additions had stood, this sentence would no longer be a brief mention of a few examples in an introduction to the general subject - but would be replace the 'list' article to which we link. Personally, I would prefer a representative sample of the most notable examples from across the globe - this I tried to do for a long time - such a sample might include Bosnia as being extremely well known in the West - but what objective criteria do you employ which includes Bosnia, but excludes WWII examples against Serbs and other Eastern Europeans where the death toll was much greater? Another editor set the 'deaths' criteria, it isn't ideal IMO, but it is manageable and objective and avoids endless wrangling about "if this, why not that ?". Apart from any other consideration, the lead is always meant to summarise the article body, many - if not most - proposed insertions are not mentioned anywhere in the body because they simply had no role in the development of the concept or of related laws. I'd happily take this matter to RfC if wanted - but an endless, formless list of what individual editors consider notable is not a practical option IMO. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Absolute understanding how this would be a time consuming recurrence. Unless other editors have objections to restoring the content in general, an RfC is not needed, only providing a due weight source for the claim. I haven't found one yet, but I'll let you know as soon as that changes! Gators bayou (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't object to your removal - though there are alternative strategies such as to summarise how specific examples contributed to the evolution of the concept or of laws and institutions - though this runs similar 'bloat' risks.Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass killing

I want to express my concern over the specific line "While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in all recognized genocides.", of which my edits have been repeatedly reverted. There are various problems with this particular line, and not just because of my personal preferences.

The problem is that who determines what is a "recognized genocide" in this context? Academia? Specific political organizations? Certain countries? As stated earlier in my edit summaries as well as the article itself, recognition of certain events as genocide often varies depending on the organization/government. There have been cases where certain events have been recognized by some governments as genocide of which there is scant evidence of mass killing (for example Canada and the Netherlands with the ongoing treatment of Uyghurs). There are also cases where an event has recognition as genocide by many countries/non-fringe organizations but whose recognition is not universal (ex. the Holodomor). And even cases where there's broad recognition of genocide, there are those who think otherwise (ex. the Turkish government with respect to the Armenian Genocide). In addition to the statement itself being unsourced, to say that mass killing has been present in "all recognized genocides" is highly misleading given genocides tend to have varying degrees of recognition as well as that the definition of genocide is contentious. Dankmemes2 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Acadian genocide?

Is the with subsequent language policies to erase the french language a genocide? It seems similar to the Circassians genocide, a pre-industrial act of erasing one people's legacy from a certain land. Not to forget the boats that were to send Acadians back to France where not given care to make it safely to the other side of the Atlantic, resulting in many people drowning in sinking skips. Children were taken in some cases and sold as servants in the thirteen colonies and the caribbean islands. It also resulted in a big diaspora in Canada, France and the United States. These all seem like traits of a genocide. --24.200.142.118 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No one else seems to classify it as one, so that doesn't fit the right criteria. What happened to the Acadians was more similar to the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). With the Circassians, there was a clear attempt to kill, but with the Acadians, they were just deported. Ethnic cleansing might be the correct title. 135.23.20.146 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
As with most other things on WP, only WP:RS can establish whether something is genocide or not. There are many instances where a small number of sources say yes, while the majority say no. Acadian expulsion appears to be an instance where few or no sources say yes. It is also harder to establish in historical instances whether the word applies. But these are all matters for the Expulsions of Acadians page rather than this one. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Dersim rebellion has an RFC

Dersim rebellion has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --TataofTata (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

U.N. definition in the lead

I think the quotation of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention in the lead is misleading (I was personally misled by it): the statement "the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such' " appears to suggest that intent is the only deciding factor and the nature of the act is insignificant or irrelevant. The remainder of the second paragraph enumerates the U.N.'s listed acts of genocide, but only says that genocide "includes" them, as opposed to stating that they are an essential part of the definition. The full U.N. definition is given in the "International Law" section.

Lemkin, who was closely involved with writhing the Genocide Convention, elsewhere described genocide as a large process not limited to the individual acts.[1] However, the U.N. convention does not espouse this view, so we shouldn't quote it as though it does. I plan on changing the text to the following:

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". These five acts were killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Fussell, Jim. "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Chapter IX: Genocide, by Raphael Lemkin, 1944 – – Prevent Genocide International". Retrieved 30 April 2017.
  2. ^ "Genocide Background". United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.
  3. ^ "Legal definition of genocide" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
  4. ^ News, VOA. "What Is Genocide?". Voice of America. Retrieved 22 October 2017. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  5. ^ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide art. 2, 78 U.N.T.S. 277, 9 December 1948.

- Retroflexivity (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  • "forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group" Wouldn't this definition include the recruiting practices of the Janissaries ?:
    "Janissaries began as elite corps made up through the devşirme system of child levy, by which Albanians, Armenians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Croats, Greeks, and Serbs were taken, levied, subjected to circumcision and conversion to Islam, and incorporated into the Ottoman army." Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    • This is tangential: I'm just trying to make the quote right, not figure out exactly what acts might or might not fall under the Genocide Convention. That being said, it would hinge on whether the practice of procuring children was taken with the intent of destroying those ethnic/national groups mentioned. I'm not an expert on Ottoman history; it's possible that there are already publications on this question. That being said, I would be surprised if that were a major factor; my lay impression of Ottoman history is that they just wanted loyal soldiers.
      I messed with your formatting a little, I hope you don't mind. --Retroflexivity (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've researched this a little, in an article called "Are There Any Children for Sale?": Genocide and the Transfer of Armenian Children (1915-1922) in the Journal of Human Rights, on page 288 at the bottom it says that at the Greek delegation to writing the genocide convention specifically made reference to the devshirme; the Turkish delegation objected (as context, it is worth mentioning previous conflicts).
      In an essay titled "Children and Genocide" by Panayiotis Diamadis in "Genocide Perspectives IV", he says on page 318
      "Over the lifetime of the Ottoman Empire (almost six centuries), the devshirme played a major role in reversing the demographic face of Anatolia. During this period, the territory went from being almost exclusively Christian in population in the 1000s, to having an Islamic majority by the 1800s. While the intent of the Ottoman Court may not have been intentionally genocidal in the Convention’s sense, the effect of policies and practices such as the devshirme was definitely genocidal."
      Diamadis explicitly says that population control was "arguably the most important" function of devshirme, and the description ranging from page 315 to 318 paints a very genocidal picture. Diamadis at one point cites an interview with Artak Shakaryan, who wrote a book called "'Blood levy' in the Ottoman Empire: the case of Devshirme", which I can't track down a copy of. On page 93 of "Empire, Colony, Genocide", John Docker provides some more commentary on this issue and indicates that the American Jewish Historical Society has relevant documents on Lemkin's opinions on this issue. Another good book is "Controversies in The Field of Genocide Studies" with a relevant section called "Controversies Around Governmental and Parliamentary Recognition of the Armenian, Hellenic, and Assyrian Genocides". I'm getting pretty tired of researching this, so if you're still interested in whether devshirme was genocide, and under what definitions it was, you're probably going to have to pick this one up for yourself. I should mention in conclusion that I'm not confident that Diamadis definitively established his stated findings, and I would be a little surprised if your typical scholar of Ottoman history thought of devshirme as genocide. --Retroflexivity (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurennoble, Mbrennan8. Peer reviewers: Graycake.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bengal famine

When reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historiography, the topic of genocide comes to one's mind. Of course, history is always written by the winners, so Churchill could never be discredited for it during the Cold War, but that was then. Today, "more recent analyses often stress political factors", just as they should. So, shouldn't the Bengal famine also be in the "Part of a series on Genocide"-list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiodeugenio (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Lemkin and the Armenian genocide...

There is no record of Lemkin learning about this genocide until he was studying at Lwow University in 1921. See Raphael Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide pp. 27, 36. It seems to be the Tehlirian trial that first gripped his interest. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:buidhe, that is irrelevant and fairly WP:OR, since it does not point to sources making your claim explicitly, but is simply you arguing that since there is no record of him having heard about the Armenian genocide prior to this event, it is necessarily what sparked his interest.
It is relatively irrelevant since your text does not say that his interest in or awareness of the Armenian genocide dates to the assassination - it says his lifelong interest in mass murder of peoples (ie ALL genocide) dates to hearing about the assassination. Lemkin's own page and every account I have read trace an interest in such 'mass murder' back to childhood, including an interest in pogroms in Russia. Most mention the Armenian genocide as being a key stage in him formulating the notion of a need for a legal framework. His own page mentions a question which he supposedly asked in response to the assassination. None of the sources on 'his' page make the clain which your text does, many explicitly refute it.
You are making a fundamental change to text which has been in place for quite a time and which is supported by numerous references on 'his' page - as wel as those used here. At present we don't have even one source, and certainly not a quote, that supports the text which you wish to substitute but many that make a much less categorical point. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that the balance of sources make the point which you want to make and to get agreement from other editors. You have not done so AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The sources that have due weight in this context are those that actually discuss Lemkin's life in depth, not those which just mention it in passing. YOUR preferred version of the page misleadingly states that "Lemkin's lifelong interest in the mass murder of populations was sparked by reading about the Armenian Genocide." From this one might believe that he first read about the genocide when it was occurring, which is not the case according to the source I cited. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I also think the long-term text tends to have implied that he had NO interest in the topic area prior to hearing about Armenia - whereas, for whatever reason, he appeared to have an interest even from childhood, of which an interest in Armenia was a stage. Your compromise is VERY good IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I became interested in genocide, because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians and after the Armenians, Hitler took action. - Raphael Lemkin https://www.quotemaster.org/q87207ab51734dbb2ae74923672e930d8 2003:E8:5F02:9A54:7022:A6E4:77A1:D4EA (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
What does that prove? It can be read that Armenia was what sparked his interest OR that he is citing an example of the "many times" which led up to Hitler. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide/Archive_7&oldid=1149962459"