Talk:Genocide/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"in part" and "action to destroy"

The first sentence now is: "Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part". I don't think that "in part" can be correct. If it were, then if someone tries to kill one member of a group, given that each member of a group is *part* of that group, this attempted murder is genocide. Even an attempted suicide would count as a genocide. So I think this needs to be cleared up. Moreover, "action to destroy" is a little confusing. "Action of destroying" or simply "destruction" is clearer. I suggest this revision: "Genocide is the attempted destruction of a people, usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group." I think "attempted" conveys well enough that the action needs to be deliberate/intentional. I recognize that this proposed definition introduces the opposite problem: if someone attempts to kill all *other* members of his group, then that is surely genocide even though there is one part of the group (himself) that he did not intend to kill. However, I think the proposed definition should be preferred to the current one, as it has fewer imperfections. Omphaloscope talk 23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I now see that the article clarifies that "part" is usually taken to mean "substantial part". So I suggest: Genocide is the attempted destruction of a people– usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group–in whole or in large part." Omphaloscope talk 23:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've revised the opening sentence, removing the clause about parts and wholes. I think that is a nuance that the reader can discover as he or she reads the article. There are many nuances in how the term is used (e.g., there is disagreement over how to define the term, and disagreement over whether a genocide needs to be officially declared as such in order to be one), but I think we don't need to get into those details in the opening sentence. What is needed, I think, is a clear sentence that orients readers appropriately without bogging them down in details. Omphaloscope talk 01:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your objections to the original lead definition are understandable, but I feel like you've erased the distinction between genocide and attempted genocide for no reason. "Attempt to Commit Genocide" is listed separately in the UN Genocide convention from genocide. I would propose the following alteration: "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people, usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group." Retroflexivity (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hm, just thinking about this... The Nazis didn't succeed in destroying the Jewish people (so they didn't intentionally destroy that people), but they did commit the crime of genocide, right? The UN definition defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." So, even by that definition, one doesn't need to destroy a people in order to commit genocide. However, if genocide is defined as 'the destruction of a people' then one would have to carry out this action (i.e. the destruction, the destroying, the total elimination of a people) in order to qualify as committing genocide, no? Perhaps the U.N. itself made this mistake? I suppose this article shouldn't attempt to resolve this philosophical-legal issue. (Continuing to think out loud: It is possible that 'committing genocide' is like 'crossing the ocean' or 'drawing a circle' in that it is something one can be doing even if one does not complete the action. But it would be strange to say "the Nazis were committing genocide, though they did not finish; they did not succeed in committing genocide.") Omphaloscope talk 01:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Omphaloscope: The Nazis did not succeed in entirely destroying European Jewry; they did inflict massive destruction upon European Jewry, however. I believe that the term "destruction" does not imply entire or complete destruction. If you want to clarify that destruction without complete elimination constitutes genocide, I think the most appropriate thing to do is to restore the "in whole or in part" phrase to the first sentence. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 06:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a good account of various proposed definitions here: Genocide definitions. Some people think genocide is the actual destruction of people, others that it is the attempt to destroy. I think this article should perhaps mention both definitions without taking a side. Omphaloscope talk 01:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Omphaloscope: We need to actually present a working definition of the term Genocide. This article (and the article you linked) already provide exposition on this subject. The definition of genocide is extremely contentious, and therefore the definition in the lead should be accommodating to mainstream genocide definitions; my belief is that the lead already does this by using the phrase "usually defined". — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 06:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The trouble with using "intentional", whilst it hones in on the key element is that it precludes the (inevitable) partial nature of all such destruction. Personally I think "attempted" is a better summary, and whilst it does not explicitly mention intent, you can't attempt to do something without intent and attempting/intending to destroy a people is the crime, regardless of how (un)successful one is. The alternative would be to restore "whole or part". There is no numerical threshold at which a 'hate crime' crosses over into 'genocide', in theory, killing a handful of people would be 'genocide' if the intent was to destroy the group. We're in danger of crossing over into WP:OR here, but I agree that we shouldn't get bogged down in arriving at a definition that covers every conceivable reading or inteerpretation. Detail can be filled in later.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete:I agree that "attempted" clearly indicates intent, and that my edit made it sound too much like genocide referred only to successful complete destruction; see my response to Omphaloscope. I still don't really like using the term "attempted" because I think it unintentionally includes failed attempts at genocide, but I'm happy to defer to you or Omphaloscope on this.
That being said, I think your statement about "killing a handful people" is incorrect and over-literal: first, the UN document currently linked in the lead contains the following footnote:

It might be necessary to determine if all or only a part of the group at risk within a specific geographical location is being targeted. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough (substantial) to have an impact on the group as a whole. The substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions (numbers) and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group (emblematic).

Second, Lemkin in an NYT letter titled Nature of Genocide (I don't know how to avoid this paywall, sorry) states that "Genocide is a rare crime of great magnitude", and later states that "Very often discrimination against individuals, which is dealt with by the U.N. Human Rights projects, has been confused with the Genocide Convention, which deals with annihilation." — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 23:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

in theory, killing a handful of people would be 'genocide' if the intent was to destroy the group. The emphasis there was on the in theory, and if the intent bits. Yes, it is difficult to imagine a real-world scenario in which anything other than substantial numbers would constitute genocide, either legally or in more general use. But there is no defined number or proportion. Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Currently Genocide#"In_whole_or_in_part" contradicts your assertion. It seems like your phrase "in theory" is meant to refer to a theoretical interpretation of the UN Genocide Convention, and the section I linked indicates that it is contradicted by the UN's current interpretation.
That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that the documents cited in that section unambiguously support its claims. The document itself only renders as legal opinion that the part targeted must be substantial, not that the part destroyed must be substantial. The Lemkin quotations in the document, however, support the view in the section linked. I might try to research this more and edit that section to be more accurate. As in the sources I quoted one post earlier, the UN currently indicates that "The substantiality requirement [...] captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions (numbers)". There might be other cases and opinions supporting this statement. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 20:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I must be communicating badly. The key part of what I meant is that there is no actual "defined number or proportion" in legal terms, though the term has never been used when the numbers targetted were not substantial. Tangentially, there is a heated discussion in academia and elsewhere over whether the Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs is genocide, even though there are no known killings (the accusation come about because of measures to suppress population numbers). Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Genocide is the act of destroying – or in some definitions, attempting to destroy – an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group." Re the meaning of 'destruction': the term 'destruction' tends to suggest complete or nearly complete annihilation. The OED defines 'destroy' as "To bring to nought, put an end to; to do away with, annihilate (any institution, condition, state, quality, or thing immaterial)"; "To put out of existence (living beings); to deprive of life; to slay, kill."; "To pull down or undo (that which has been built); to demolish, raze to the ground." Omphaloscope talk 12:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Omphaloscope: I'm actually surprised that nearly every dictionary seems to only define "destruction" as complete destruction of some sort. I guess I've been mistaking hyperbolic use of the term for its actual meaning. I'd still prefer to use "in whole or in part" to clarify this distinction, so I would suggest instead:

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people — usually defined as ethnic, national, racial, or religious group — in whole or in part.

I'm retaining the "usually defined" phrase because I think it's intended to potentially include less strict definitions of genocide, especially where genocidal intent is political in nature (e.g. Cambodian Genocide, see in Genocide definitions United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96, Jack Nusan Porter's definition, Steven T. Katz's definition, John Cox's defintion. See also Leo Kuper's discussion on the definition.)
I'm not super attached to my suggestions and I'm not trying to edit war here, so if either you or Pincrete prefer your suggestion you're welcome to edit it how you like. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 23:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Retroflexivity: I think your definition is not bad. I assume it goes without saying that 'part' here means 'substantial part'. Note that, as far as I can tell, the definition implies that aiming to destroy only part of an ethnic group, and successfully doing so, would be genocide. For example, if someone killed all the wealthy members of a certain nation, that would be genocide according to this definition (I think). After all, it is the intentional partial destruction of a national group. Do you agree? Is this a valid objection to the definition? If so, is this a serious-enough objection that this definition should be revised? Perhaps it isn't. I think an imperfect definition is tolerable at the start of the article. We might also consider leaving out the word 'intentional', since it is not clear that a genocide needs to be intentional. The thought "if I had accidentally knocked that huge vat of arsenic into the water supply, I would have been responsible for a genocide, an accidental one" is not a contradiction in terms. (I realize I'm just thinking on my own about this, which is original research. But I think probably the best way to avoid doing original research is not to embrace an objectionable definition as correct, but to noncommittally discuss definitions already put forward in the literature, using a clause like "...is usually defined as...".) Omphaloscope talk 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Omphaloscope: Yes, in part means "in substantial part". I think my definition is sufficiently similar to the UN definition for your question about killing "all the wealthy members of a certain nation" to be a question about the UN definition as well; I'll try to answer this question instead.
I think the answer is yes, that is genocide by the UN definition. As seen in the quote below, the destruction of the part targeted should be thought of in terms of the impact on the overall group. Killing all the affluent members of a certain nation would certainly have a substantial impact on that nation, and the systematic targeting of members of the group clearly indicates genocidal intent.
Now I'll explain why I think my definition is so similar to the UN definition, and to do this I'll highlight the minor differences between mine and theirs: first, I have removed the "as such" from the end, which I believe indicates that the victim group and its members are targeted specifically for being members of the victim group; I think specifying this is unnecessary in the opening sentence. Second, where the UN definition has "acts committed with intent to destroy", I have put "intentional destruction", which I believe is shorter and reasonably similar. The main potential difference here is that "intentional destruction" might exclude "acts committed with intent to destroy" that failed to cause destruction or only caused minor destruction. I don't think that this is really a difference, because the UN literature I've already cited in this discussion says things like

The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough (substantial) to have an impact on the group as a whole. The substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions (numbers) and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group (emblematic). --This Document

Further, the UN genocide convention only defines five types of acts that can constitute genocide. Each one is clearly destructive, and trying and failing to commit any one of these acts would only constitute attempted genocide, which is also given as a crime in the UN genocide convention.
I think we should leave "intentional" in the definition; it emphasizes that genocide involves genocidal intent, as seen in the "acts taken with the intent to destroy" part of the UN definition. In your example of accidental mass arsenic poisoning, there is no clear intent to destroy. It's definitely accidental genocide in the popular sense of genocide as mass death, but I'm not sure it's actually genocide in the sense of the UN convention, and I don't think the UN would call it genocide unless they suspected that it wasn't really an "accident".
As for your concern about WP:OR, that policy doesn't apply to talk pages, and since your comments are clearly in good faith there's always WP:IAR to fall back on. — Retroflexivity［talk ❘ contribs］ 02:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Section on misuse of term

Hi, I added a section on the misuse of term but was reverted ([1]) by Pincrete invoking the essay WP:COATRACK. I don't think my addition constitutes any form of coatracking, to the contrary, as an encyclopedia aiming to provide information in an easily accessible form for everyone, I consider it to be our professional duty to describe, backed up by highly reliable sources, what genocide is and what it is not. I agree that in an ideal world a positive definition would be all that is necessary, but sometimes it is also helpful to explicitly describe what is not covered under a definition to make it impossible to misunderstand a meaning. Given that Putin is prominently misusing the term and that significant portions of the Russian population have difficulties to access neutral and independent media and therefore might actually assume that Putin's use of the term is correct, it is important that we explicitly mark his usage as incorrect. WP:COATRACK mentions that material might be "irrelevant, undue or biased". Given the extensive coverage of Putin's misuse of term in media across the globe (except for in Russia), I think including this example is relevant and appropriate here. I'm open for improved wording or for including additional information, but I think we are not doing some portions of our audience a service if we don't address this explicitly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I was careful to label your edit as Good Faith. I don't doubt that practically all sources would agree that Putin's 'genocide' claims are somewhere between massive, massive hyperbole and outright lies, but does saying that Putin is currently massively exaggerating/lying (or as you put it "misusing the term") tell anyone anything about what genocide actually is? Or is it a very topical comment on what/who Putin is and what the present instance is really? Would we put on the rape article a topical instance of a false accusation, ditto fraud, robbery, murder etc. I'm not of course implying that genocide is in any way comparable to fraud, but the principle remains that any such content is much more about the current instance (Putin and the invasion) than about the broader subject, which is what I meant by it being COATRACKing. Pincrete (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. To answer your question but does saying that Putin is currently massively exaggerating/lying (or as you put it "misusing the term") tell anyone anything about what genocide actually is?, not by itself, but for those who are under the impression that Putin's use of the term is correct (which certainly is a minority on global scale, but not in Russia, where media are censored or blocked), our set of definitions in the article won't help them unless we explicitly tell them that Putin's use of the term is incorrect.

Sure, a lot of people abuse a lot of terms and we don't routinely list them all in corresponding articles (although I have occasionally seen examples in prominent cases - just because I just ran into one: Gaslighting#Excessive_misuse_of_the_term_"gaslighting"). This is a case that is being discussed globally, therefore I think it is relevant enough to be included in the article.

My intention is not to further expand on this in this article (unless other people would find this appropriate), but just to raise a little "caveat" sign there by including this two-liner, so that the target audience who might come here looking up what Putin's "genocide" means, would stop for a moment, start questioning things and ideally go on to educate themselves about the topic in the other articles we have on the topic.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

So, could this convince you to add it to the article? What do other editors think about it?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My position remains that knowing someone can mis-use the term, or in this instance, frankly, lie in using the term, doesn't really tell anyone anything about what genocide is. Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But if someone does not have a good understanding of what genocide is already and has only very limited access to independent sources, then telling them the definition alone does not help much either. If they see Putin using the term and have nothing else to compare with they might even come to the conclusion that he's applying the term correctly - unless someone explicitly tells them that he's not. So, it's not so much about the definition, more about the application. Not an issue for people (like us) with a stable reference system around us based on reliable information, but not necessarily obvious for someone for whom the reference is incomplete, contradictory, or floating.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The term before WW2

Lemkin is credited with popularizing the term and making it an actionable legal concept, but he was not the first to actually use the term. In March 1917, Hjalmar Branting, leader of the Social Democrat party of Sweden (and a few years later, prime minister) used the term "folkmord" ('murder of a people/nation') in a speech on the Ottoman-run genocide of Armenians, Kurds and other peoples in Anatolia and Syria. The speech was made during an indoor public meeting to raise awareness of what was happening, at Norra Bantorget in central Stockholm (a square in which Branting himself would be honoured with a monument some years after his death in 1925). Both the word "folkmord" and the meaning implied by Branting are essentially the same as those used by Lemkin a quarter of a century later, and "folkmord" is still the word for genocide in Swedish to this day. I don't know whether Branting had borrowed the term from someone else, presumably a German speaker, but he was certainly the first one to use the word in the Nordic countries and far ahead of Lemkin.

Source: a document from a multi-party proposal at the Swedish parliament in 2008, aiming to recognize the acts of 1915 as a genocide: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/motion/folkmordet-1915-pa-armenier_GW02U332

I'll translate the relevant bit, it's about two-thirds down the page. After quoting a number of cables and documents by Swedish diplomats (P G A Anckarswärd and Einar af Wirsén, both of them posted to Constantinople) dating to 1915/16, documents that clearly characterize the ongoing actions as ethnic cleansing, ethnically based extermination, and even quoting a 1942 memoir by Wirsén that uses the actual word "folkmord", the text goes on:

"Beyond these there are many eyewitness accounts published, by missionaries and field workers such as Alma Johansson, Maria Anholm, Lars Erik Högberg, E. John Larson, Olga Moberg, Per Pehrsson and others. Hjalmar Branting was the very first person to use the term genocide, long before Raphael Lemkin used this concept, in a speech on March 26, 1917, calling the persecution of the Armenians "a well organized and systematic genocide. worse than anything ever seen in this vein in Europe".

The fact that Branting highlighted this and actually called it a genocide in public is attested in many books and research articles about him, and obviously notable. Strausszek (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The article already says "Before the term genocide was coined, there were various ways of describing such events. Some languages already had words for such killings, including German (Völkermord, lit. 'murder of a people') and Polish (ludobójstwo, lit. 'killing of a people or nation')." How is this term different and not already covered? Secondly, do WP:RS specifically say anything about Branting's use before Lemkin? One of the sources you give above says the opposite ... that Lemkin coined the term. This sounds like WP:SYNTH at the moment. I don't think anyone doubts that there have been various ways historically to refer to mass ethnic murders, but the term itself and its initial legal definition is usually credited to Lemkin. Pincrete (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between coining a term and actually being the first to use it. "Punk rock" for instance existed as a vague slang term in the late 1960s, close to what we now call rough garage rock/surfer rock, Nuggets-type bands, but it was the later punk movement, launched in 1976/77, that actually made it a widespread term, therefore that coined the term and gave it broad currency. Lemkin made "genocide" an established legal concept, but the word and essentials of the concept itself clearly exiated before him. "Folkmord" in Swedish is practically a cognate of Lemkin's later Latin-Greek term genocide: both terms literally read out "people/racial group - murder".

The article here is about the term and the history of the concept, not about Lemkin personally. If the term existed with much the same sense in a different language, and referring to the same events (the 1915 persecutions), a quarter of a century before Lemkin began using it in print, then that's certainly notable.

The text I linked to and translated should certainly suffice as a reliable source; it discusses the history of the term in the context of growing awareness of genocide, and it was written by a group of parliamentarians and published as official print. It doesn't get much more established than that (and Branting himself is a well-known figure to historians, even outside of Sweden). The speech was reported by newspapers right away and it is attested and quoted in several places online. If you're going to insist that all sources used by the English Wikipedia have to be in English, then I can inform you that lots of articles would have been impossible to write, badly depleted or littered with misunderstandings if that was the rule. The fact is that not all that's important in history is well served by English books and English sources. Strausszek (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I just checked with the article on Wiki-De (in German) and it says that Lemkin's term was likely a direct translation from the Polish term, for a draft law proposal written by him in 1943 on behalf of the Polish government-in-exile in London. To give it more weight, he based his rendering on Latin and Greek words, but the sense and structure of his word are the same as the Polish and Swedish terms. Where the Polish term came from, how long it had been around and whether it too was a translated term we simply don't know. Strausszek (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is about genocide itself, rather than the history or origins of the term, which we cover only briefly. We acknowledge already that similar European terms preceded Lemkin's and give two examples, which have similar literal meanings. I don't see how the Swedish term (which of course in turn probably has its own 'back-story') is especially notable. It would need stronger sources than this IMO to make any argument other than that other ways of describing such events existed before Lemkin. Many people (including Hitler I believe) had written about instances of mass ethnic murder before Lemkin, including East European pogroms and also about the killing of Armenians. That isn't sufficient proof of growing awareness of genocide, though Lemkin probably was aware of Branting's writings and the Swedish term as he was aware of those of other commentators and other terms. Do WP:RS in general credit Branting with any role? If not any addition would be undue IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Add alternative definitions based on gender, sexual orientation, and especially sexual identity

I've add a paragraph at end of the Other Definitions section, supported by about a dozen sources, mostly academic, a few news sources. There's much more to add, which might be done in the article on Definitions of genocide. But I think this brief discussion is warranted by the scholarship and attention to the issue. ProfGray (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gray - This was sorely needed. I went ahead and updated your references to citation templates and linked to the articles wherever possible. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

grammar error

If i'm not mistaken, as i'm not a native speaker, in the first sentence it should read group instead of 'a people' but i cant correct it. Maybe someone could do that or tell me if its correct. Robert Sonter (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A people is correct - an imperfect term but usually meaning a substantial human group linked by ethnicity. Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

History

Genocide 41.182.135.150 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for Amhara genocide

People who edit here may be interested in Talk:Amhara genocide#Requested move 13 January 2023. Boud (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

As a label, it is contentious because it is moralizing,[13] and has been used as a type of moral category since the late 1990S

Kind of an ... loaded orphan statement ... a section missing from the article?? 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:C9BD:D334:7295:541A (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect etymology

The article states that Raphael Lemkin combined "..the Greek word γένος (genos, 'race, people') with the Latin suffix -caedo ('act of killing')" to create the word genocide. However, in the source given for this, Lemkin is said to have combined "genos" and "cide". I looked up the etymology of genocide in a few different dictionaries and they told me the same thing. The suffix -cide comes from Middle French, which comes from the Latin suffix -cīda, meaning "killer", which itself comes from the Latin word caedere, meaning "to kill". Nordtman (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I suspect that this is a case of immediate/ultimate root of the second part. Lemkin would hardly have needed to go back to Latin anyhow, since 'cide' was already well established as an English suffix (homicide, matricide, fratricide, regicide etc) and his own text suggests he went no further back than utilising this existing suffix (even if he was aware of the Latin root). I'm not sure at present how to rephrase, we are currently implying that Lemkin did something more complicated than he actually did. Pincrete (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested edit: Second and sixth prohibited acts

Under "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" the text reads "The final prohibited act is the only prohibited act that does not lead to physical or biological destruction..." but under "Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)" the text says this act "can encompass a wide range of non-fatal genocidal acts."

Surely non-fatal acts do not lead to physical destruction. I would change the aforementioned text to "Along with the second, the final prohibited act does not necessarily lead to physical or biological destruction..." -- 46.212.53.203 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

'Single' intent?

In the section Genocide#Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, which was introduced by SeymourJustice (talk · contribs) a few years ago, there is a formulation which I find questionable:

It encompasses acts with the single intent of affecting reproduction and intimate relationships, such as involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, the prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

followed by a reference to Stanton. I react to the qualifier 'single' (which was employed already by SeymourJustice). I looked at the given source. and did not find any justification for this qualifier there. (This is seemingly at variance with SeymourJustice's answer to the question in Talk:Genocide/Archive 7#Inserting subtlety and nuance around the non-killing acts of genocide - just added. However, law is not my expertise; if I haven't grasped the meaning correctly, I hope SeymourJustice or someone else will explain why I'm wrong.)

The trouble, as far as I understand it, is that the phrase 'single intent' would make the clause non-applicable, if there was a mixed intent, with just part of it covered by the convention's definition of genocide. Say, forinstance, that the authorities force sterilisation on a substantial part of the women belonging to a specific racial minority, with two clear and outspoken goals: To lessen the economic burden of maintaining the costs and trouble with care-taking and upbringing of children for women from this minority, and also achieve at least a partial elimination of this ethnical group, as a long time goal. As far as I understand the convention, and the discussion in given source, the second intent would be enough to classify (and, if the perpetrators are brought to justice, punish) this as a clear case of genocide. The same would be the case, if a substantial number of adolescent boys from a certain ethnic minority were forcefully castrated, both in order to lessen their sexual urges, and thereby also the spread of veneric diseases, and in order to exterminate this group in the long run. I find nothing stating that the existence of another intention (possibly even a legal one) voids the claim that these acts would be genocides, just since this means that the deeds were not done with the 'single' intent to prevent reproduction.

@SeymourJustice: The general overhaul you made at that time was more in the direction that there should be a 'clear' intent or a 'specific' intent (as contrasted to, e.~g., classical crimes of war, where a greater stress is put on the actual effects of the deed, if I got this right). Are you sure that this was not what you intended in this place, too? I now remove the word 'single'. If you restore it, then please consider some clarification, and improved sources! JoergenB (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I had a feeling at the time that much that was being added at that time was WP:OR-ish/ Essay-ish, or at least unhelpfully phrased, but could not dispute specifics as I did not have access to the sources. I suspect your scepticism here is apt. Pincrete (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@JoergenB your confusion here is warranted. After some reflection and review of key sources, I removed the word "intent" altogether. The reason being to avoid confusion between the specific intent of genocide ("the intent to destroy") with what is required in relation to the act, which is a goal or purpose of preventing births. SeymourJustice (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Add topic

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, and also to

2A02:A314:843C:A00:85AA:E27A:83B0:7A75 (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Scholarly Debate on the Definition of Genocide

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

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)

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

Genocide of the Jewish People

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"Genociding" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Critics of the concept of genocide

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)

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)

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)

Gerlach's claim that genocide is "an instrument of liberal imperialism" may be fringe. Biases against African countries I have read many places, and many claims of bias against Serbia saying that even a white Christian country can be prosecuted if it is poor enough, but I haven't seen genocide described as "liberal imperialism" by anyone other than Gerlach and suspect it would be undue for this article. Ben Azura (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Really Did you miss a group? Were just the Romani, Poles, Serbs Croats and Muslims part of the Holocaust?

World War II (1939–1945) The Holocaust Romani Poles Serbs Croats and Muslims 2600:8800:2D00:8A00:21F7:50D7:DA69:3866 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The ip is referring to the sidebar which does not make clear that the the Holocaust article is specifically about "the genocide of European Jews". The other links refer to atrocities against other effected ethnic and national groups during World War II. Ben Azura (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The Croats and Muslims is perhaps not optimally summarised, since the targetted groups were any and all non-Chetniks ie non-Serb-Royalists (inc partisans and Jews, though numerically mainly Croats and Bosniak Muslims). Most of the other articles seem accurately summarised.Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel vs. Palestine

I'd like to question why 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza is in brackets while Palestinian genocide accusation is not. Does this imply something that shouldn't be implied here? SirShaunIV (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone has sought to clarify one but not the other. Genocide articles are typically framed as Victim group genocide, when a clear WP:COMMONNAME has been established, with 'allegations' or similar when apt. Both topics are/have been subject to naming discussions and clear topic names have not been established. What do you think is being implied by the bracketed info and how could they be clearer do you think? The text btw is in the topic template, rather than this specific article.Pincrete (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

Change the definition of genocide to: "intentional and systematic acts aimed at destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, including killing its members, causing serious harm, and creating conditions intended to bring about its physical destruction". Carlo Ce (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The actual definition "the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part" is too vague. Carlo Ce (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence is only a broad overview of the topic and summarises both Lemkin's view and the legal definition. Personally I don't see any problem with that opening sentence, as long as it is expanded later.Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see "systematic" added to the definition. The rest is secondary. Carlo Ce (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Is being 'systematic' inherent in the various definitions? While many genocides have been systematic, others, such as some against indigenous groups have been intermittent and fairly randomly carried out over extended periods. The 'intentional' part is central to most definitions, I'm not sure that 'systematic' is. Apart from any other objection, the addition would be clunky phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly not an uncontroversial edit to be made via the edit request template before developing a consensus. PianoDan (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Quotation about the definition

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/magazine/genocide-definition.html has a quotation that might be useful as a way of introducing the multiplicity of definitions:

The word "genocide," the international-affairs scholar Zachariah Mampilly says, is not meant to be precise. "It's meant to serve a political, moral purpose, not to be a technical legal term".

The article seems like a decent 10–15-minute-long summary of the history of definitions, with some focus on the Israel–Hamas mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Intent to destroy" missing from lede – proposal to add

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

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)

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)

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)

???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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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.

(Possibile) Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza in 2023

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)

Intentional?

While I understand the thinking behind not 'privileging' the legal definition, removing 'intentional' would allow for genuinely accidental or war-resulting destructions being genocide. AFAI can see, all definition include some variant of 'intentional/deliberate' etc, whether the link to genocidal intent is strictly necessary/informative is a matter that I have mixed feelings about. I've restored for now. Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true that "no definition allows for accidental destruction or total wipe-out in conflict"; in the case of colonial genocides, many are considered such despite difficulty in finding an "intent to destroy"[2] The issue of intent is more vexing when the genocide is not perpetrated by a single centralized power. Which perpetrators of the Sayfo can be said to have an "intent", "plan", or "aim" to destroy the Assyrian people, even in part?

Ultimately I am collecting different definitions, and will come back here with a list that can be examined for commonalities that can be used to build a better first sentence of the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Genocide definitions

Lemkin 1944: genocide "is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves ... Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group ... Genocide has two phases: one, the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor." Genocide Convention 1948: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" Chalk and Jonassohn 1990: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." Adrian Gallagher (2013) defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size' Shaw 2014: "action in which armed power organizations treat civilian social groups as enemies and aim to destroy their real or putative social power, by means of killing, violence and coercion against individuals whom they regard as members of the groups".

Also worth checking this paper: most genocide scholars accept cultural genocide and indirect/structural genocide, at least if the correct intent is present. (t · c) buidhe 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[3] I don't think this edit is accurate. Except for the Genocide Convention, this kind of wording is not found—and some specify that genocide can be committed against any group of individuals, as defined by the perpetrator (see above). The first sentence should strive for commonality between different definitions, and "people" or "population" are both vague enough to capture the variety of specifications for the targeted group according to various definitions of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

and some specify that genocide can be committed against any group of individuals, as defined by the perpetrator. What then is the defining characteristic? It seems at least vague, and somewhat self-contradictory to say " and aims at the destruction of a people" and then say, it could be 'any group of individuals', without saying anything about the character or size of the group. I'm aware that there are many who think that social classes or political groups should be included as potential 'targets', there may be other groups, but it remains the case that race/nationality/religion are the most common traits attacked and the most obvious understanding of 'a people'. 'A people' is a very broad term, but it cannot be understood as meaning 'any group of individuals'. What concerned me was that the opening sentence had become so all-embracing that it had failed to identify the topic. Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Most of the academic definitions don't specify exactly what kind of group needs to be attacked. Just looking at the ones quoted above we have "a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator", "civilian social groups", and "a group (as defined by the perpetrator)".

Lemkin said "national groups," but he meant it much more broadly than it would be expected by the typical reader: "Lemkin, quite literally, believed that people who shared similar tastes in art, people who were part of the same labor union, people who gambled, all constituted national groups." (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Article needs a restructure

Here are some thoughts for overhauling the article:

1. Origins of the concept—including etymology, historical context, Lemkin's role
2. Genocide Convention and legal definition / legal cases (including alternative legal definition) —possible sub article Genocide (crime)
3. Genocide studies—including alternative non-legal definitions, criticism of the concept of genocide
4. Causes of genocide (eg. colonialism and genocide, war and genocide), perpetrator studies, genocide prevention
5. Effects of genocide
6. Genocide in history—focusing on trends rather than individual events (prehistoric origins, European colonialism, "century of genocide")
7. Genocide recognition politics and genocide denial/justification

(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I applaud the (much-needed) pruning and tidying of this (somewhat bloated) article.Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, thanks for the great work!

Right now, history section is missing Part 2 Empire-Building And State Domination in The Cambridge World History of Genocide Vol. 2. For example, chapter 5: Atrocity and Genocide in Japan’s Invasion of Korea wouldn't be covered by European colonialism. I think we should add a sentence or two about that.

We are also missing history after WW2. I guess this would be covered by Part 3 The Nation-State System During The Cold War in The Cambridge World History of Genocide Vol. 3 Bogazicili (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

European colonialism

Bogazicili Thanks for your edits but I think they are redundant. The entire idea of settler colonialism was invented in large part to signify that European colonialism did not end with the establishment of self governing states overseas. So all of the genocides in the Americas would be considered a product of European colonialism (although perhaps it could be Western colonialism to avoid confusion on this point). (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No I don't think they are redundant. It's important to recognize that it has continued after the establishment of independent states, such as California genocide. "Western colonialism" sounds confusing. Is California genocide "Western colonialism"? Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Colonial states" is also used in other sources. The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 349:

Colonial genocide has even become a widely used distinct category. However, it is important to note that genocidal violence in most of colonial Africa differs in some considerable ways from genocides committed in North American and Australian settler colonies: European colonization of Africa did not inevitably lead to the expulsion and/or annihilation of the indigenous populations. There are two reasons for this difference: whereas colonization preceded the formation of bureaucratic colonial states in America and Australia, European settlement followed the establishment of colonial administration in Africa. As a result, the colonial states in the British New World territories were almost unlimitedly dominated by settlers’ interests. In Africa, by contrast, the settlers’ influence and ability to fight and expel the Africans on their own was more restricted because the colonial states were still weak and their power relied on the cooperation with indigenous chiefs.

Bogazicili (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Obviously not all situations are the same, but it's still redundant the way you worded it. Especially since Adhikari is discussing both of them in the paragraph you edited. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't see it as redundant. Maybe it is for you since you have a lot of prior knowledge. But this is an encyclopedia article. It should be written for a general audience.

You can't assume that readers will know "The entire idea of settler colonialism was invented in large part to signify that European colonialism did not end with the establishment of self governing states overseas". Why do you not explain that in the article? The article is only 2k words. I also used a different source than Adhikari. It is better to use multiple sources. Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I was about to post here myself, I also think the addition redundant, and possibly confusing. Any state which came about as a result of European colonialism, whether it was still wholly governed by by the 'mother country' or wholly self-governing (or an intermediate state such as some British 'colonies/dominions'), would be covered by the term 'European colonialism'. They may not all be identical in other respects, but they are all the result of such colonialism.

Why would a reader understand/know that, for example, countries in the American continent were 'colonial states', but not know that they were the product of 'European colonialism'?Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Is California genocide European colonialism? Also, the source makes a distinction and clarification. Why do you want to omit that? The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2, p. 38:

With these works, a near consensus emerged. By most scholarly definitions and consistent with the UN Convention, these scholars all asserted that genocide against at least some Indigenous peoples had occurred in North America following colonisation, perpetuated first by colonial empires and then by independent nation-states

Bogazicili (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the lead which is necessarily a summary, but it doesn't make the distinction you claim, it simply says that genocide ocurred "following colonisation", both before and after the places became independent states. Our text said "It is particularly associated with European colonialism", how is that untrue or incomplete?

California is not a state at all, in the sense of being an independent nation, colonial or otherwise. California was though colonised by people of European extraction. Are you now claiming that the reader would recognise California as being a 'colonial state'. Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What would you suggest for the lead? I think just saying European colonization is insufficient.

You assume the reader would know "Any state which came about as a result of European colonialism, whether it was still wholly governed by by the 'mother country' or wholly self-governing (or an intermediate state such as some British 'colonies/dominions'), would be covered by the term 'European colonialism'".

Maybe we can say Western colonialism in the lead or European colonization and newly established states, or something like that. But the sentence I added into the body should stay. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The sentence you added to the body is not particularly helpful to readers, imo. Since it is settlers on the ground who are the driving force behind anti indigenous genocide to begin with, there is no obvious reason why it should stop when the settlers give fealty to a slightly less distant authority. If the reader wrongly believes that the government is the leading perpetrator, that is the most important misconception to correct. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can say Western colonialism in the lead or European colonization and newly established states, or something like that I personally don't have a problem with 'Western colonialism', but 'newly established states' fundamentally changes the meaning (which is that these states were, or evolved from European colonies and were largely run by 'settlers'). That they were 'new' is incidental. Pincrete (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

. That is incorrect. State or national governments or government officials were also responsible

• The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 338:

  In 1851, Governor Burnett gave official voice to the genocidal intent of settler violence against the California Indians, stating: ‘[T]he white man, to whom time is money, and who labors hard all day to create the comforts of life, cannot sit up all night to watch his property . . . after being robbed a few times he becomes desperate, and resolves upon a war of extermination.’ According to Burnett, ‘A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct.’72

• The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 339:

  The genocidal intent of California settlers and government officials was acted out in numerous battles and massacres (and aided by technological advances in weaponry, especially after the Civil War), in the abduction and sexual abuse of Indian women, and in the economic exploitation of Indian child labourers

• The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2, p. 47:

  Within twenty years of settlement, the Aboriginal population of Victoria had declined by 80 per cent. Most of Australia’s 750 Aboriginal languages lost their last speakers. In the 1930s, after a century of child stealing and family disruption, the official policy of 'breeding out the colour’ was implemented. It was genocide, exactly as Lemkin was then trying to make it understood. It was not only about killings, but also about words and actions that signified an intention to destroy a human group.2

Saying In places like North America, genocide of indigenous peoples continued after the establishment of independent states also doesn't suggest "government is the leading perpetrator". That seems to be your personal interpretation. Bogazicili (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I never said that government officials weren't involved , merely that in my opinion your edits start from the premise that, for example, Canada becoming officially independent from the United Kingdom is necessarily going to make a significant difference in terms of what is happening on the ground in Manitoba. It is not correct to put so much emphasis on this in the article unless it is the driving force behind genocides. (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I also have to admit that I'm not sure about the sentence "According to Mark Levene, seeing native people as "savages" and racism "played a critical role in psychocultural justifications for genocide" in areas such as Australia and North America". This was also the justification for genocide in many other cases, even non-colonial ones. I'll look for a more general source and then put it in a different section. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, are you trying to remove any mention of Australia and North America in the History section?

As for your earlier reply, I see the issue. You thought my premise was about drivers because of where I placed the sentence. No, I was just trying to clarify the timeline. As I said, "European colonialism" sounds too vague. We need to clarify what is meant by that term. The source makes it clear.

The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Introduction Chapter, p. 10:

This volume offers, besides other imperial expansionist cases such as those from early modern China and Japan, empirical evidence for Barta’s observation across five centuries of European settler colonial history. In Part I, ‘Settler Colonialism’, three chapters collectively survey the colonial histories of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. These chapters bring the many differences between these colonies to light, but it is what connects them that determines their histories as genocidal: the goal of imposing a new settler society on Indigenous lands. Further, these chapters articulate how genocide has shaped the nationalist historiographies of settler colonies.

I'll reword the sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph, so it's clear it's clarifying what is meant by "European colonialism" Bogazicili (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The article is about genocide in general so the sources we cite should also be about genocide in general, rather than specific cases of genocide. The added material to the history section makes me concerned about due weight when the colonialism material is now making up more than half of the history section. I do not agree with giving North America / Australia undue prominence—this isn't even all of the Anglo-American settler colonialism as the source you just quoted makes clear—and if it's possible to cover them in combination with other cases of genocide, that structure seems more suitable for an overview article. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe, you gave Amalek as an example for the ancient period. North America and Australia should be used as examples for what is meant by colonial genocides. North America and Australia are mentioned so many times even only in the Introduction Chapter in the above source.

The reason for UNDUE weight is your long-winded economic explanation. Economic explanation should be moved to Causes section. Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

European colonialism would include ALL of America (N & S), as well as much of Africa and Asia. I don't understand why N. America and Australia would be singled out. I also don't think 'colonial state' is either clear or obvious. Would 'former colonies' not be clearer, if it is felt necessary to distinguish them from 'true' colonies? Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I clarified with this sentence: The destruction of indigenous societies as part of European colonialism, including in colonial states such as United States and Australia, was initially not recognized as a form of genocide. based on above source. Otherwise, it's too vague. I'm ok with moving the entire paragraph starting with "According to Mohamed Adhikari, the two" to Causes section. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)