Talk:Genocide Convention

Untitled
Three different pages link here, so think a moment before reverting this move, okay? --Ed Poor

Political killings

 * Because the convention required the support of the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, it excluded actions undertaken by those nations. As a result, the convention excludes from the definition of genocide the killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group, and that of cultural killings.

Was there a draft with a broader definition that was rejected, or this is yet another piece of anticommunism?

And what the heck is "cultural killings" and why would Soviets want to kill culturally (all sovietologists insist that soviets (NKVD) killed brutally :-)? mikka (t) 02:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As a similar paragraph is still part of the article, I would like to resume the discussion: There was a broader definition which included political groups. Nevertheless, the finally successful approach to remove political groups was led by Iran, Uruguay and Egypt. The US representative took it over and proposed the change to the Sixth Committee. Finally, the Soviet Union abstained the vote about the removal or inclusion of political groups. I would therefore propose to a) remove the political for the moment complete and/or b) display the wide discussion which arose around this topic, with its arguments and stakeholders. Errotu (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment
For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Serbia
The ICJ concluded that Serbia violated this Genocide Convention during the Bosnian War, in February this year. The article should have some reference to it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

United States
We know when the treaty was ratified and entered effect in the United States, but when was it signed and by whom? Which Presidents supported and opposed the treaty during the ~20 year gap between 1967 and 1986? MrZaius talk  21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Northern Mayan. I think that you should call this the "Epiphany Convention". You really should start a "Wait Policy" that's about discretion. You sit around on your white pampered Gaian asses with your big "universary" degrees & reckon you've figured something out. You get the various lineages of individuals of the Distinct Species of the various human species to talk about this within oppressive contexts, like you're finally "on your way", or as if those various lineages of oppressed people are impressed that somebody else would realize the truth, & you're much greater the detriment to those people. You might as well stand there with your arms folded & suggest, "Yeah, tell your oppressors. Yeah, we got you." I'm curious, did you pull this out of the "Vatican Spiritual Treasury" or what? My sentiments for you: Call this the "Epiphany Convention". ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunalugi (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In part
--PBS (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 [2001] ICTY 8 (2 August 2001) (ii) "In part"
 * International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 [2004] ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) A. The Definition of the Part of the Group
 * Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 5, by Avril McDonald, H. Fisher. "Developments of Genocide Law" by W.A. Shabas pp. 145-
 * The permanent international criminal court: legal and policy issues, by Dominic McGoldrick, Peter J. Rowe, Eric Donnelly pp. 147-

There werent a genocide in Bosnia
Edward S Herman said that is a Myth.--95.114.91.61 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because he's stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.182.203 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ P arties & Reservations & Immunity from Prosecution 

"Provisos granting immunity from prosecution for genocide without its consent were made by Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia."

The sentence is difficult to understand and, more importantly, is inaccurate. With a single exception (the Philippines' exclusion of its Head of State), the declarations/reservations by the cited nations neither grant an absolute nor blanket immunity from prosecution (which is the tenor of the text as currently written). Instead, they require consent by the nation to prosecution of its citizenry before an international court for a charge of genocide, in several instances explicitly reserving the possibility of trying the crime in its courts. I'm replacing the quoted sentence ...

"Sixteen nations conditioned ratification, accession, or succession to the Convention on one or more declarations, reservations, or understandings that explicitly require that the nation grant consent to trial of its citizenry before an international court for the crime of genocide." Irish Melkite (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On a further look, I moved that text from "Parties" to "Reservations" and deleted 3 quotes from the convention which had no direct bearing on the issue of reservations and really were not otherwise contributory. Irish Melkite (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
@‎Liesbeth98 Please discuss your problems with the article here. You can not change the article without a consensus, so the article will stay as it is. That is how Wikipedia works. Now you can state what problems you have. ok? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC) @Tuvixer Sure, my problem is 1) why are you are adding it there, 2) why only that particular one and not other genocides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesbeth98 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not adding it there. I did not put it there. If you want to edit Wikipedia you need to know the rules first, and you can't remove content without a consensus, and you can't change article without consensus. You need to discuss your problems on the talk page. --Tuvixer (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Liesbeth98 because that's what the word "genocide" was created for, the Armenian Genocide. Read the article on Genocide before making unexplained changes. --92slim (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Srebrenica
I don't normally go close to this subject - it is one I'd rather not touch. Obviously the rules on redirects are different from rules on article titles therefore do not have to observe neutrality. I've glimpsed that discussion has taken place to Srebrenica massacre on whether to move it to genocide (see Talk:Srebrenica massacre). I have not followed but my guess is that based on the wide range of scholarly disagreement on matters of whether it should be labelled "genocide" and over what really happened, the article has not been moved. As such, it would be in breach of WP:NPOV to continue to use the term indiscriminately. -- OJ ( TALK ) 10:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion here, please stop edit warring or I will have to report you. It is a genocide as stated in the ruling of the ICTY. There is no discussion, we have a court decision. end of the story. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. Move the article to Srebrenica genocide and I'll self-revert. End of the story. --OJ (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It already is. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's not, it sits at Srebrenica massacre. --OJ (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a redirect for the Srebrenica Genocide probably because the deniers have managed to push that, but that is simply not the case because we have a ruling of the ICTY and there should be no discussion about this. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tuvixer, I have self-reverted because with my first edit having formally removed something, it counts as a revert, and I had reached four with my last because I failed to spot that my first was inside 24 hours. To that end I self-reverted and if you check my history, where I normally self-revert, I tend not to restore the version I edited. Having seen your sandbox draft for what I can only assume to be a pending report to administrators, I welcome the prospect of using noticeboards or seeking a third opinion. But I will tell you one thing, if you believe that the ICTY is some kind of all-defining truth which trumps refuting scholars to the point that we can use ICTY public statements indiscriminately without parity, then you and I will be having tough times ahead as editors. As for your suggestion that the article title is a victory for "deniers", that only goes to show you know very little about the "denial" factor. In truth, alternative views on Srebrenica are so diverse that you cannot categorise them all one way. Obviously there are those to believe the published estimate to be grossly inflated ( I have no comment here ) but then there are those to accept the figure but believe the incident had been allowed to take place on purpose for what was to come ( I have no comment here ), then there are those who simply question the findings ( I have no comment here ) and so forth. Then there are those who accept everything per mainstream media and western-sponsored "tribunals" and "investigations" ( I have no comment here either ), so they don't dispute the figure but they don't accept the term "genocide" for other reasons concerning the definition of the word. So you could say that massacre deniers and genocide deniers are two different categories. The headache for so many editors is that these "deniers" are not restricted to the Serb nation, nor to non-academic individuals from outside, but highly respected sholars and qualified persons who are not Serb ( I have no comment here ). --OJ (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WW2
Were any of the 171 Jewish high ranking officers in the WW2 German military (Generals, admirals, colonels) ever tried in a court for genocide? Were any of the 150,000 Jewish soldiers in the German military ever tried for genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.119 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No one was tried for genocide based on actions taken in World War II. Genocide as a crime was not defined until the Convention was written, which was after the war. Anyone tried for actions during the war was tried for either war crimes or crimes against humanity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genocide Convention. 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/20121020233944/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genocide Convention. 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/20140924170456/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803022821/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyjudgment/ibhy_ijudgment_20070226_frame.htm to http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyjudgment/ibhy_ijudgment_20070226_frame.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge
Shouldn't Genocide under municipal laws be merged to this article? Editor2020 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It might work better at List of parties to the Genocide Convention. Klbrain (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the "Americas"
Why no mention? Colonizer governments engage in genocidal acts per the convention's definition to this very day. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:4D93:1F56:3883:1B12 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Newlines described as "non-partisan" in wikivoice
Hi I find your rationale for reverting my removal of "non-partisan" as a descriptor for Newlines somewhat confusing.

1. You state that "non-partisan has a limited meaning". The page you link to describes "non-partisan" as "a lack of affiliation with, and a lack of bias toward, a political party." As I understand your point here, the descriptor "non-partisan" means "not affiliated with any US political party" in this context. However, given that in this context, Newlines' view is not related to US domestic politics but to events occurring in another country, I have to question the relevance of including a descriptor indicating that Newlines is unaffiliated with a political party.

2. As a corollary of the above, if "non-partisan" does have a limited meaning, surely it would be best to avoid using this descriptor, in order to eliminate possible reader confusion. For example, as I'm sure you would agree, "non-partisan" is not the same as "neutral".

3. Finally, you write that "non-partisan has a limited meaning and its what our sources say about them so its appropriate for wikivoice". The only source currently for the line containing use of "non-partisan" as a descriptor is a link to Newlines itself; do you have other WP:RS that refer to Newlines as, for example, "the non-partisan Newlines Institute"? Google searches for the exact phrase "the nonpartisan Newlines Institute" and "the non-partisan Newlines Institute" return 10 and 3 results respectively, none of them RS. To me, it currently looks like the statement "its what our sources say about them so its appropriate for wikivoice" is false, which would suggest that it is, in fact, not appropriate for wikivoice.

I will be removing the descriptor absent RS that are not Newlines' statements about themselves.

cheers

Anotheranothername (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m seeing it noted in coverage, for instance . I’m not wedded to the term, it doesn’t add much... But theres no real issue beyond style with using it in wikivoice. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast reply! :D First link is paywalled for me, I do see "nonpartisan" in the second. I agree it doesn't add much though so it would be best to err on the side of neutrality for wikivoice, i.e., "think tank" is the most accurate descriptor.


 * cheers


 * Anotheranothername (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just "think tank” works for me, we should probably also use a real source rather than Newlines themselves. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

2023 Gaza Palestinian Genocide
The current activities of the US government in support of Israel should be classified as a genocide against the Palestinian people. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation should have been included
Hitler brought those who experience attraction to the same sex, bisexuals and homosexuals into the concentration camps and persecuted them as a group due to an innate trait.

But due to discrimination still being so widespread trying to wipe out a group based on their orientation was excluded. This should be noted in the page as a failing of the convention since it was something that was obviously occurring and follows the typical role of genocide.

If anyone is trying to counter that being homosexual or bisexual doesn't make sense to put it under that well. Religions a choice and it's there. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It's not something that can be chosen. People choose to not believe religions all the time. NekoKey (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"due to traditional American suspicion of any international authority that could override US law"?
There needs to be a citation for the claim that this was the reason for the United States not ratifying the convention until 1988, and doing so only with reservations. It seems pretty clear to me that the actual reason was that such things as Jim Crow laws meant that the US was by the convention's own definition committing genocide. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)