Talk:Genocide

Terminology Error in Into

I think that the '80 UN nations' who have intergrated the UN Convention into their law did so into their 'DOMESTIC' law, not their 'municipal' law. I don't know how to make that change.

Broken link

Link number two, which is the link referring to what is seen as genocide, is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itssnowing (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No precise definition, so why start with a bad one?

The definition used as the first sentence of the article is horribly flawed by use of "in part", and later on there is a lengthy discussion in the article about what in part means.

Definitions should define things clearly, without need for lengthy discussions about what parts of the definition mean.

So, I'd recommend either dumping the first sentence of this article, and beginning with "no precise definition exists" or by using a better definition such as the one from Random House.

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. "

Thoughts?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The definition at the start is the most common one used and is the legal definition. There are alternatives see also genocide definitions, but we should not be rolling our own. -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Most common according to whom? And, is that in part a self-fufilling prophecy -- by using it here, are causing this poor definition to be the most widely used??

As for rolling our own, of course we shouldn't do that. I proposed Random House's definition as a better alternative.

However, I think it might be best since there is not consensus about the definition, that we skip a definition in the lead section completely.

As an alternative to that, we should at minimum refer to the dispute about what "in parts" means immediately, after we use the definition.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Genocide causes

I don't have access to any academic journals right now, but surely someone, or some people, have posited causal conditions that lead to genocide? The reliance on Stanton throughout the article is troubling because none of the material comes from third-party sources. The Kakar sub-section of 'Stages of genocide, influences leading to genocide, and efforts to prevent it' has acceptable references (although I would assume that citing a footnote is inferior to citing an original piece) but the entire rest of the section does not. The Stanton references are inappropriate due to the source (http://www.genocidewatch.org is not a reliable third-party source), and the rest of the sources have no page numbers. I understand the need to have the Stanton references, as they are the only social-scientific parts of the entire section, but it can only be legitimized via third-party sources - it is not enough that there is a website that proposes this. 24.16.133.58 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cambodian Genocide

The Cambodian Genocide, aka wiki article "Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia" needs to be added as a major incident of genocide somewhere in the this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 00:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, it should be added to Auto-Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And It is added to Auto Genocide!!!! like a long time ago. That is a separate category of its own. I believe you are wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gujarat,India, Genocide

In India, 2002, Gujarat State Goverment sponsered Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.5.6 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No they didn't, I was in India at the time, and I didn't hear of any killings or genocides or anything like that.

Hitler Quote

Wikipedia has an article about the Armenian quote which raises significant doubts about the authenticity of the boxed quote. For this reason the quote was not accepted as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials and may not be sufficiently reliable for this article. Cariaso (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

wishing for a list of genocides --at least 20th century and later

sought a clickable list. found none. maybe soe day. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

An article needs to be made for the genocide operations commited by the Japanese military. That's not something that should be looked over given how the atrocities played out. Not that one should judge them in an emotional factor, but still. It's worth referancing.

I think this article should include a new article of some of the mass killings Japan commited during the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The fight against islamistic terrorism, an actual genocide?

Most of them, that will read this text come from USA or other western countries. I think that the first reaction will be a declination, but i hope that you try to think about this thought, even if you have another opinion.

I think that some parts of genocide still fits to the war against the islamic terrorism:

• Stage 1. The people were divided into us (usa, western world, the good one) and them (the Islamics, Terrorists, Arabic).
• Stage 2. There was much hate speech (especially at the beginning).
• Stage 3. Guantanamo (People treated as animals). Or do you remember the soldier that "fucked" a skull of an dead "terrorist"?
• Stage 4. The greatest reason for the war was the fight against islamic terrorism and soldiers got trained to kill them.
• Stage 5. Propaganda from politicians and media...
• Stage 6. People that looked like islamic or arabic people were threated different by officers, at airports, by other people, ...
• Stage 7. When will the war stop? When all are exterminated?
• Stage 8. USA or the western world will never say that they did a genocide (and much people that will read this, too).

In my opinion this should be mentioned, especially because its actual! How do you think about it?

Please! No Profanity!Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

not sure who wrote the above, but in reply: it is not appropriate to call the west's actions genocide in this case since it does not aim to wipe out the entire muslim people --as a whole. arguably some of the west's actions were awful, but genocide has the additional extra element of: trying to kill off a whole race or other group. to be fair, it might be worth recalling that the west actually tried with military means and other methods to stop an actual attempted regional genocide against muslims: the ethnic cleansing being done to the bosnian muslims in the 1990s. sometimes the USA et al put their lives on the line to protect followers of islam. sometimes. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it and it is just a thought. But Wikipedia says this: Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group..." So you have to be wrong in saying, that the intention to kill all of this group is necessary for a genocide, or the Wikipedia is wrong.

No, the "in part" was added just to make it clear that even if a group kills another group, but misses one person, the act can still be classified as genocide. Otherwise a group killing off another group will not be classified with genocide because they did not kill all of them. If the "in part" did not exist, then the entire group would have to be killed before the UN could respond and classify that as genocide. Otherwise it would be a crime against humanity, for which the punishment or the charges are not nearly as bad. If you want verification from me, remember, I majored in Global Issues, a bunch of that stuff, some Astrophysics and Nuclear physics, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsfaiiedfjaf (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The references 14, 15, about the Armenian Genocide are unrelated, the sentence "killings of Christian Population" is false, since Armenians were not the only Christians in Ottoman Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they were not the only Christian population being targeted. Greeks and Assyrians were as well. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide Vmelkon (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)