Talk:Genocide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Intent to destroy" missing from lede – proposal to add[edit]

One of the most common misuses of term genocide in the media is ignorance or amnesia with respect to the "intent" part of the definition. The naive understanding is that, if a genocidal doesn't annihilate a group, that it somehow was "not genocide". For example, someone might believe, "Because there are Native Americans alive today, the United States did not eliminate all the Native American population, therefore the U.S.A. cannot be guilty of genocide against the Native Americans." This logic is incorrect, as the definition shows; the burden of proving genocide is to prove the intent to destroy… which is quite different than total destruction. I move that we should specifically include the word "intent" in the lede, as its a key part of the definition and is probably the most commonly misunderstood aspect of genocide among non-scholars. Objections / dissent? - Jm3 / 13:55, November 17, 2015‎ (UTC)

this is now done. - Jm3 / 01:58, November 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Consensus to keep the hatnote the way it is. THE DIAZ talk • contribs 14:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The hatnote on this page previously read This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation). The hat note has been changed to This article is about the systematic murder or destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is also a page Genocides in history. Should we restore the original hatnote and treat this as a law article? (Talk page discussion is at the end of this section) Seraphim System (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A third option, the best imo, is just to remove the wording completely, retaining only the "for other uses see" part. In an earlier talk discussion, Seraphim System was using the fact that the article was tagged "This article is about the crime" as an argument that the content of this article should be about just "the crime". That was an invalid argument because Wikipedia content cannot be used as source for Wikipedia content, and, furthermore, no discussion had ever taken place deciding that the article should be about just "the crime", and no discussion at all had taken place about the content of the "about" (hatnote) tag. I have put "the crime" in inverted commas because it is not clear to me what is meant by "the crime". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me make it clear - Jorgic is serving a life sentence for a genocide conviction that was upheld by ECHR. The ECHR held universal jurisdiction for the crime genocide, which means any national court can try some for a genocide that was committed outside its territory. It also upheld the broad definition of genocide, in other words, under the ECHR ruling biological-physical destruction is not required. The work of legal scholars should be cited directly to them, or to a general source like Oxford Handbooks, and not represented as part of the Court's holding about an element of a crime (see WP:MOSLAW) Seraphim System (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
???What has this to do with this RfC or my above point? It is an off-topic comment, or have you posted the above in the wrong section by mistake. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I will summarize my understanding of the discussion with User:Iryna Harpy yesterday, which it seems you did not read before responding. On general pages, such as this one, we do not prefer to use primary sources. WP:MOSLEGAL has certain rules in place for the use of legal primary source material that is consistent with established standards in that field. Since this page does not adhere to those guidelines, we are looking into secondary sources. Seraphim System (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Why would imposing a strictly legal interpretation on a widely used concept be thought an improvement? Why would restoring the 'hatnote' be synonymous with treating the subject as though it were solely-legal, this appears to be a false argument used to try to radically alter (and in this case probably distort) an article subject. What on earth has Jorgic got to do with the ostensible subject of the RfC, ie the "hatnote". WP is a general purpose ency, it is not a legal textbook whose purpose, conventions etc may be very different. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ditto on the comments made by Tiptoe and Pincrete. This article has been about 'Genocide' broadly construed since its inception. Taking a hatnote and trying to turn it into the WP:TITLE is contrary to the subject of the article. If it is understood that a MOS:LAW compliant article should be written explicitly covering the subject of 'genocide' in criminal law, it's a separate question. The subject of this article is, however, 'Genocide', not Genocide (law). Rather than proscribe the article, how about creating a separate article where specialists are required. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I phrase the RfC wrong? This article is full of legal content, which is technical content, that does not adhere to guidelines. There are problems with mixing a significant amount of legal writing into non-technical articles...part of it comes from not following the MOS for this type of article and improperly applied legal citations. If this is not a law article, remove the technical law content (Discussion of cases, applying case law to elements of the crime ... ) Seraphim System (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy I am fine with creating a specialist article. In that case, the legal content on this page should be moved, and in its place a brief and general introduction to the subject should be written, with a link to the main page. If I made a page about Descartes' theorem and then decided for no reason that it wasn't about math, and the information on the page was incorrect, that would obviously not be ok. Seraphim System (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete I consider an accusation that I am trying to distort an article subject to be a personal attack, especially when the article content is exclusively on a technical subject, and you are trying to stop me from correcting errors that distort case law. Seraphim System (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: No, I don't think that your wording was wrong. I also understand your intentions to be good, but the article was well sourced using third party and tertiary sources. If there are problems with some of the content, these need to be addressed by exploring and elucidating on sourcing rather than trying to squeeze the content down to fit one aspect of it. If it is understood that a MOS:LAW compliant article should be written explicitly covering the subject of 'genocide' in criminal law, it's a separate question. Firstly, you're not going to find experts in the field who are prepared to develop the article. Really. Unfortunately, asking for any experts in any field (other than medicine) is an excellent method for parring article back to a stub and grinding development to a halt. If the subject only covered genocide in criminal law, it would be another article altogether. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the law article would need to be written (in a draft space?) before removing any of the content here. I don't believe that it's standing on the toes of criminal law, rather it's just citing well sourced content. I'm not sure that there's a bright line here, but there's certainly a fine line for distinction between OR and RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had formal legal education, I'll write the article. It's not enough for the sources to be good, they must be correctly applied to the proposition. This is part of WP:RS. I don't know if I am not being clear, but there is no POV about this - if you cite a case to an element of the crime you must cite the holding, not what we call dicta (unless you make it clear you are citing dicta with introductory signals) - if a law student reads this article, they should be able to rely on what are considered standard practices in this field. Seraphim System (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please compare the Britannica entry on the subject. I understand what your concerns are, but this article adheres to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook." It is not written for students of law, but is a general overview for the lay person. As editors, it is our job to handle the sources and content as intelligently and neutrally as we can. This means that we don't dismiss reliable sources on the subject because it is inconvenient to our perception of what the article is or is not about. I have a very limited background in law (and certainly none in criminal law), but I'd be happy to assist in developing such an article in as far as my abilities allow me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica entry is a good guideline for this article. Law does require specialized knowledge/education, as much as Python syntax and semantics does, and it is easy to make mistakes. To help avoid this, briefs are available (even for Jorgic) - I am very concerned because currently it is not a correct statement of the law in that jurisdiction (ECHR) - if we are not going to use MOS:LAW citation what I can do is fix the wording, add a basic version of the holding without the technical details, and then cite discussion of physical-biological destruction directly to the scholars that support it (avoiding the need to use introductory signals.) Seraphim System (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*1. Keep the current hatnote. My opinion: Per WP:Hatnote, keep the explanation simple as possible, which I think the current hatnote does. Stating 'the crime"requires prerequisite knowledge to know what is the crime, and also the article is broader than an legal crime.

*2. Do not treat this article as only a law article. My opinion: the article subject is broader than genocide law, a separate law article could be written. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After yesterday's discussion (see below) I also think that a full discussion of the law would overburden an overview page. Certain problematic sections like "intent" could be moved or merged into the draft for the new article, and replaced with a general statement that intent is required (and save discussion of what is and is not enough for intent, mens rea/actus reus, etc. for the law page) - this page should provide a general background of the legal history, similar to the scope of the Britannica entry Iryna Harpy posted above Seraphim System (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current hatnote. The article is broader than just the law aspect of genocide. We might need something like Genocide (crime) article which would detail the nuances of genocide in law, but that's a different issue. Darwinian Ape talk 08:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a point to be made in favor of revising the current hatnote based on what Tiptoethrutheminefield said about Seraphim System's alleged non-sequitur re: Jorgic and the ECHR. Given there are legal definitions of genocide that are different (broader, or without overlap) than how the current hatnote defines it, and given that this article covers the crime, the hatnote will need to be more broad to encompass both concepts. It's too narrow now. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology: section repeated twice "In 1944, the term was coined..."[edit]

The sentence at the start of Etymology is repeated verbatim half way through the paragraph, probably due to elaborating this bit without editing it afterwards. Either instance could be removed or redacted to increase readability. 2A02:A03F:83BE:1200:D920:5CF0:712B:8FD9 (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which sentence you mean. The repeats of him coining the term, WOULD IMO alter the meaning, though rephrasing in places is possible. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence, "Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe,[7][8]...should read "Polish Jewish lawyer ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydneyJLevine (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Debate on the Definition of Genocide[edit]

Personally, I think that the concept of genocide should be expanded to include the systematic elimination of so-called "objective enemies", which, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt identifies as groups of people who are targeted regardless as to their having committed what the regime defines as political crimes, as it is still an attempt to eliminate entire sectors of the populace in regards to some essence which is ascribed to the victims, which, if an ascribed essence were, then, included as criteria, may go far enough, as you would still, say, count the people to have been systematically eliminated due to their having been categorized as "mentally ill" by the Third Reich among the victims of the Holocaust. As those who are defined as "mentally ill" do not consist of an ethnicity or nation, the extant definition of the term doesn't seem to be expansive enough to even include all of the victims of the Holocaust, which leads me to suspect that there's bound to be scholarly debate in regards to whether or not the term should specifically refer to the systematic elimination of an ethnicity or nation or whether it should be expanded to include some other criteria. Though the Soviet Union, for instance, did systematically starve the populace of Ukraine, and, thereby, commit genocide, there's a large number of excess deaths which the extant definition can not account for, which just has to have led to some sort of debate upon the definition of the term.

This article mentions the alternative, "democide", but, as there is, for instance, no Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Democide, somehow, someone or another has debated this in some way, shape, or form, perhaps, even quite fiercely. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023[edit]

there should be a chapter about highscores, example: 1. Mao Zedong - between 49 and 78 millions 2. Jozef Stalin - 23.9 millions 3. Adolf Hitler - 17 millions 2A02:2F07:7311:6F00:94DA:E8EC:E166:F23 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mass murder and genocide aren't the same thing and you would be hard-pressed to find sources saying that Mao and Stalin's dead were mainly for racial reasons (with some exceptions such as Holdomor}. Asking which of these three dictators was morally 'worse' is almost a cliche. We wouldn't frame a section here in such 'loaded' terms, but there are already several lists of the major genocidal incidents including 'death tolls'. Pincrete (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Possibile) Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza in 2023[edit]

I present these five points:

1. Blocking and preventing access to essential goods, namely water, food, and medicine.

2. Blocking electrical and gas supplies.

3. Destruction of hospitals.

4. Blocking escape routes, turning Gaza into an open-air prison.

5. Killing a large number of civilians under the pretext of Hamas, not justified even by the high population density.

Today, we see these five points exacerbated, but that doesn't mean they didn't occur, albeit to a lesser extent, before October 7th. Israel imposes a real hardship on the Palestinian people. .

.

--MiaiiwoowLodha (msg) 13:57, 16 nov 2023 (CET)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023[edit]

Period should be contained within quotation marks, as follows:

"acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." 69.122.35.154 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See MOS:LOGICAL, period goes on the outside. RudolfRed (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of the Jewish People[edit]

Please mention this within the context 

of the Nazis with at least as much commentary as given to the Polish and Russian events. They were also a motivating factor of adopting the term in 1948 and yet they are not mentioned once in this article! SydneyJLevine (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of the concept of genocide[edit]

There are quite a large number of critics of the concept of genocide both inside and outside academia. At present all they get are a couple of sentences in the definitions section, which I feel is insufficient. Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics in what sense? There are are people who feel the term is too strictly interpreted and those who think the opposite.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critics in the sense of "the entire concept of genocide is flawed and unhelpful, it's not a matter of how strict the definition is". I'm thinking of people like Christian Gerlach.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Genociding" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Genociding has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1 § Genociding until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide&oldid=1220639579"