This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
Second, Lemkin in an NYT letter titled Nature of Genocide (I don't know how to avoid this paywall, sorry) states thatIt 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).
"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)
"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.
"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)
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.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
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Genocide 41.182.135.150 ( talk) 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
People who edit here may be interested in Talk:Amhara genocide#Requested move 13 January 2023. Boud ( talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, and also to
Part of a series on |
Genocide |
---|
Issues |
Related topics |
Category |
2A02:A314:843C:A00:85AA:E27A:83B0:7A75 ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
Second, Lemkin in an NYT letter titled Nature of Genocide (I don't know how to avoid this paywall, sorry) states thatIt 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).
"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)
"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.
"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)
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.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
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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Genocide 41.182.135.150 ( talk) 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
People who edit here may be interested in Talk:Amhara genocide#Requested move 13 January 2023. Boud ( talk) 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, and also to
Part of a series on |
Genocide |
---|
Issues |
Related topics |
Category |
2A02:A314:843C:A00:85AA:E27A:83B0:7A75 ( talk) 21:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
This
edit request to
Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)