This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Slow genocide was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 November 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Genocide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
*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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Slow genocide was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 November 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Genocide. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
*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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)