Talk:Democide

Spanish inquisition

This page erroneously claims that 350,000 people died during the Spanish Inquisition. It's reference is also very weak. In contrast, the actual wikipedia article on the Spanish Inquisition states that a much more accurate estimate is 3500 to 5000 people over several centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.182.112 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are confused about the meaning of the figures in the tables (deleted as of this post, but which, in my opinion, ought to be restored). The figure of 350,000 murders by the Spanish Inquisition is correct because that is the democide figure given by Rummel, which is the subject of this article and may be verified by consulting the chart on Rummel's web page "Democide: Murder by Government". The figure should be 350,000 not because that is the number of murders committed by the Spanish Inquisition, but because that's the number Rummel concludes were committed by the Spanish Inquisition. This should not be so hard to grasp.

Looking back at the (sorry) history of this article, I see that editors had repeatedly altered the numbers to suit their own judgments of the facts, altered without references — but it's just as well because the only relevant references are to publications by Rummel (or possibly to another study that uses the concept of "democide"). Please remember that this is not an article about the "best consensus of historians" regarding mass murders by states (though that would make an excellent section on this article, probably in a "criticism" section), but rather this article is intended to describe the theory and conclusions of the concept of democide as formulated by R. J. Rummel.

If you wish to add something like a "Criticism of Rummel's Methods and Conclusions" section to this article where his figures are disputed, please do so, but remember that ideally you should cite reliable sources that directly criticize Rummel's work, since doing your own research to contradict his figures is discouraged by Wikipedia as "original research" for good reasons, among which are that not every source (and possibly no other source) will be using Rummel's definitions, and thus will not be directly comparable. —Blanchette (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is lacking relevant information

There is no information about the number of deaths in the US and number of deaths caused by the US. It's expected that the US is the "leader" in all spreadsheets except for the dictators, but it seems that Rummel and the University of Hawaii has forgotten to include that numbers, therefore it is of no sense to keep this article.

Ginekolog (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Expected by whom? Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Democides

Ginekolog, Here's what Rummel concludes in his Statistics of Democide, Chapter 13:

"Putting together all the subtotals (lines 333 to 350), in this century the United States probably murdered about 583,000 people (line 350), conceivable even as many as 1,641,000 all told. Virtually all of these were foreigners killed during foreign wars. Domestically, throughout this [i.e. 20th] century the American Federal or state governments were responsible for the murder of about 1 out of every 1,111,000 Americans per year."

When the democide tables are restored to this article these conclusions should be included. —Blanchette (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is BS

As I explained on Serbian Wikipedia. If we sum all deaths from Bleiburgh (the highest number is 55,000, the lowest few thousands) + Foibas (~1000), events in Vojvodina (the highest number is 40,000)+ few thousands immediately after the WW2 + Goli Otok (the highest number is 15,000) we get around 150,000. And where did Mr. Rummel find those 1,000,000 deaths? -- Bojan  Talk  22:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is total BS. AfD, post haste. At the very least the figures and tables, which are absolute and TOTAL nonsense, will surely get removed. What we have here are fake numbers from some website sporting someone's unpublished estimates and listing "MEAGMURDERERS" and "DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS" :). None of this is published, none of the websites present any primary sources whatsoever, yet they cover the most grave and serious of subjects. The silly "estimates" appear out of nowhere, no explanation, no elaboration, no reference or source, no way to check the data. "Out of nowhere"? I should say almost out of nowhere - the figure on the supposed number of casualties by "MEGAMURDERER" Josip Broz Tito is an exact copy of the estimated number of Yugoslav casualties of WWII (1,072,000). If it wasn't so distasteful and offensive it would surely be a first-class joke.

In the end, even if the figures are published, primary sources and elaboration on these extreme figures will be asked for in order to establish the verifiability of these claims. Some of these numbers are unthinkably extreme, and unless they have some kind of backing I can't imagine them being listed here on enWiki. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rummel's numbers on Yugoslavia were persuasively debunked in the article published in some scientific journal. The article's conclusion was that if Rummel applied the same methodology to other cases, his numbers were a complete BS (I cannot remember the source off the top of my head, try to look in the archives of the Mall killing under Communists talk page). Rummel's response was that even if his figures on Yugoslavia were wrong, other figures are absolutely correct. Other scholars noted that Rummel's collectivisation deaths were similar BS. Interestingly, an analysis has been done of the Rummel's math approach (he uses rather sophisticated statistical apparatus for his studies) that lead to a conclusion that the control experiment (a pure noise as an input) produces almost identical results.
I will be busy in real life for next two weeks, however, it is quite necessary to add a huge "criticism" section to the article. Try to think about that, and I'll provide a help with sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the explanation. About 1,072,000 people dying due to the "MEGAMURDER" right after about 1,072,000 people died during the occupation sounded more than a little ridiculous, even if we weren't talking about a country of only 15,000,000 people or so. I removed the tables, and I can't imagine them being restored if a large number of Rummel's figures were debunked. A Criticism section would be appropriate regardless, and I'll certainly put something together when I have a look at the sources. Rummel seems to have been very sloppy indeed, and right-wing extremists in the Balkans and Italy are quoting him all over the place. itWiki is crawling with accusations of "megamurder", "democide", and other fake words leveled at the Yugoslav authorities of the period. I imagine this is only the tip of the iceberg. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm. Until somebody can come up with a reference I think we have to leave this in. I believe Paul when he says he's seen it, but without the reference, we actually have references to a book. Wikipedia is verifiability over truth...- Wolfkeeper 01:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While awaiting the source, I recommend you exclude the Yugoslav entry from the table if you must return it. I have not seen the sources, so I can't speak for other entries, but the Yugoslav one is erroneous to the point of comedy. There is no question that it is vastly exaggerated. Unless the post-war Yugoslav authorities were trying to match the number of casualties from WWII on purpose :P, this seems almost like a falsification.

I will add that restoring the list is a mistake, imho. The millions and billions haphazardly listed there are plainly absurd and have no place in a serious encyclopaedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this article is not BS, though it may describe a false theory!

Please reread the note at the top of this page:

This is an article describing a theory. Please remember that in your complaints. The theory is contested but it is a theory and a body of research referenced extensively in the actual publications!

The issue is not 'Does Rummel's democide theory accurately describe the facts?' but 'Does this article accurately describe Rummel's democide theory?'

I notice that the tables of democides were removed on the grounds that they were not true to the facts. This is NOT a legitimate reason to remove this material. A legitimate reason would be that (a) the tables do not reflect the actual conclusions of Rummel's democide studies, or (b) Rummel's conclusions are not relevant or useful as a part of the article. I think the tables are very interesting as a starting point for study and evaluation and should be restored if they correctly describe Rummel's conclusions.

However, I think that a new section is required after the tables, namely, "Criticisms of Rummel's democide conclusions" or the like. Judging by the intensity of feeling in this talk page, surely there must be reliable sources one can cite that take issue with Rummel's methods and conclusions. Please remember that Wikipedia rules frown on your providing your own synthesis of information as a means of objecting to Rummel's data. Please cite reliable published objections to Rummel's conclusions.

I suspect that some of the objections on this page that led to the deletion of the democide tables were made by editors who did not make an effort to study Rummel's methods or do serious research into the critical literature. If you have the time please check Rummel's website and restore his tables accurately if he has published them there, while at the same time providing the Wikipedia reader with a summary of the important objections thereto. I leave this task to those of you who have some special interest or knowledge of these issues, since I am little more than an interested reader who would like to know the facts of democide studies, such as they may be. —Blanchette (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand You, mate. Those numbers came out of nowhere, they have not historic/scientific ground, they are fictional, exaggerated. It is not a theroy, it is just a neologism devised and used by one man. -- Bojan  Talk  06:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bojan, I think you should re-read my posts on this page and try to follow my argument that the issue is not whether Rummel's numbers are right or wrong. The Phlogiston theory is wrong, but that does not mean it is of no interest to researchers, and it certainly doesn't mean that the numerical findings of that theory, were they available, would be of no interest. You seem to be concerned that some falsehood may be mentioned on Wikipedia, yet the spirit of Wikipedia is to cite the research that disproves the falsehood, not to suppress it. See WP: GREATWRONGS which states in part:

Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability.

—Blanchette (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I will tell you what is Rummel's method: take any high estimated death toll (no matter of its political agenda, accuracy and/or authenticity, no matter how they died or who killed them), sum them, include it in list of democidal countries and label them as deka-mega-murderers, centi-kilo-murderers, etc... Btw, in a deleted table appears data for Bosnia and Serbia (Kosovo). I couldn't check them in source at the top of the table. For Bosnia is stated 200,000 victims. There were fought civil war between three (or four) warring factions and official figures from official Bosnian institute are less then 100,000. 10,000 killed in Kosovo from December 1998 till July 1999 match with NATO propaganda. -- Bojan  Talk  09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many blatantly wrong figures there, that's for certain. How in the world would you suggest we include them while making sufficient note of their obvious inaccuracy? We simply cannot have an article listing misleading false figures on Wikipedia without a flashing, red sign saying "WROOOONG!! DO NOT CITE!" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bojan, can you please cite (here in this discussion) your source for the information on Rummel's method? Can you point to the page(s) in his books or on his website that demonstrate that this is his method or name a journal article or other reliable source that supports your claim about his method? We are getting somewhere with the contradicting figures from the Bosnian Institute figures from 12/98 to 7/99, but are these the dates for which Rummel is reporting? In any case, if you would please record the dates, numbers, etc. from that publication, with the usual citation information, at least this would be a start in writing our criticism section after I re-edit the article to include at least one of Rummel's tables. The table I have in mind is not from his website — though, as a respected expert in the field, such references to his research would not be off limits — but from the scholarly journal in which they were published (Journal of Peace Research). That table, from 1994, does not appear to have any figures for Bosnia — the closest in that region is "Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87," but at least it gives a sample of his conclusions.

DIREKTOR, remember, what figures are blatantly wrong, obviously inaccurate, and misleading would seem to be a matter of ones premises, methodology, and perhaps nationalistic biases, but if their falsehood is so obvious, you should be able to cite the sources that contradict them, right? Your claim that we cannot have an article listing false figures on Wikipedia is not supported by any Wikipedia policy I am aware of, but I am aware of the policy that states the criteria include not truth, but verifiability. I can verify that the figures on the table I will add to this article are the figures published by Rummel in a reliable source, so your task will have to be finding figures that contradict them in another reliable source. I have found a few minor objections to Rummel's method in the scholarly literature, which I will cite in the "Criticism" section, but not enough to contradict any particular figures. I will continue the search.

Meanwhile, since you seem to be watching this page, I would appreciate some acknowledgment from you, Bojan and DIREKTOR, that you understand the Wikipedia policy regarding "verifiability" versus "truth." See WP:VERIFY. I look forward to working with you to find a consensus on these issues before I re-edit the article. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I do understand what is verifiability, but is doesn't imply that everything senseless work should be included into Wikipedia articles. I do not have any sources, I have mind and I can distinguish what could be truth and what is not worth of space it occupies. -- Bojan  Talk  10:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that if you want to discuss Rummel seriously, you have to separate two things: his statistical approach and the data he used for his analysis. The core of the Rummel's methodology is the factor analysis. He described his methodology in ( R. J. Rummel. Understanding Factor Analysis. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Dec., 1967), pp. 444-480). The data he used for the analysis were obtained by him either directly from secondary sources (Conquest), or by approximation. Since the mathematical apparatus he used is universal, these two parts (apparatus and the data) can and should be discussed separately. The math (not the approach itself, but the way Rummel did it) has been criticised by several scholars, who argued that the random data set leads to the same conclusions. The data has been questioned, e.g. in the case of Yugoslavia, and Rummel admitted that the data for Yugoslavia might be incorrect, although other data were fine. Other scholars demonstrated that the data for the USSR were also exaggeration. One way or the another, Rummel's data and Rummel's methodology should be discussed separately, and only after reading his "Understanding Factor Analysis." can we discuss it seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Some sources and quotes

On the Rummel's data on Yugoslavia:

Criticism by Dulić:

"Abstract: The article provides a critical analysis of the quantitative method used by Rudolph J. Rummel in order to estimate the democide rate for various political systems in the 20th century. The first part shows that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito's Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. The second part shows how the data have influenced the mid-estimates Rummel uses for further statistical analysis. A com- parison with demographic research in former Yugoslavia shows that Rummel's mid-estimates for Tito's mass killings are much too high and contravene his data for the population deficit in Yugoslavia. The author also criticizes a key assumption in Rummel's method of 'reasonable approximation', namely, that overestimations tend to be taken out by underestimations. It is shown why such a proposition is prob- lematic, particularly in this case where there is a wide discrepancy between high and low estimates. Although the article concentrates on communist terror in former Yugoslavia, the results may have wider implications for Rummel's research if he uses similar sources in other case studies. If so, Rummel would need to revise the method and exclude unreliable estimations in order to obtain useful data."

"...he proposes a comparative method called reasonable approximation, by which the researcher uses many estimates for each case study and arrives at a plausible figure by "narrowing the range of estimates to what a hypothetical, reasonable analyst would arrive at in viewing all the available information"."

"For instance, Rummel (1998: 172, line 93a) quotes Omrnanin (1972: 181), who claimed that 'about a million Croatians were slaughtered by the Serbs in the last war: by Serbian Chetniks and Com- munists', with half a million killed at Bleiburg. OmrEanin uses Kiszling (1956: 232) as a source in this case. Kiszling, on the other hand, does not quote any direct sources, but refers to Krunoslav Draganovid, describing him as 'a Croatian cleric, who - as far as was possible - has traced all mass executions, [and] believes, that after the Bleiburg capitulation there were at least fifty Katyns [in Yugoslavia]'.

Unfortunately, it is rather problematic to use people such as Omreanin and DraganoviC as objective scholars on Bleiburg and associated atrocities. When Vladimir Zerjavid in the late 1980s published his work on the Yugoslav wartime population losses, where he claimed that the total death toll at Bleiburg and the subsequent 'death-marches' was approximately 50,000 Croats and Muslims (today's Bosniaks),5 Omrcanin made the following comment in the Croatian weekly Slobodni Tjednik:

"ZerjaviC's work is a falsification. It is Slavko Goldstein6 who has paid [for] it. He is rich and receives enormous amounts of money from American Jews. He has admitted that it is around 120,000 dollars per year, but what he receives apart from that is not known. But the Zagreb native Harie Friedenreich (who teaches at a university in Philadelphia, USA), has written that not one Jew was killed in Croatia until the autumn of 1944. And Martin Heidegger's wife Ana Harent [sic], who is also a Jew, has written that it was nowhere as good for the Jews as in Croatia. Moreover, it was the Bolsheviks who eradi- cated [slistavali] the Jews, the Jews who lived well with us, like everyone else. Oh, all those numbers are invented. Regarding Bleiburg, where the Bolsheviks killed 550,000 Croats (300,000 from the army and 200,000 civilians) it is brought down to 26,000 Ustashe and 18,000 Domobrani"

Regarding the crimes committed by the Ustashe in the so-called Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Drvava Hrvatska; hence- forth, NDH), Omrdanin displays a rather disturbing disregard for established historical facts. Beginning within a fortnight after the creation of the NDH in April 1941, the Ustasha authorities adopted racial laws.8 In the summer and autumn of 1941, they insti- tuted concentration camps and began mur- dering the state's undesired elements en masse."

"If Prcela is correct, it would appear that the material used by Rummel and Tolstoy is of Ustasha provenance, while some of the authors appear to have been members of the NDH administration that managed to escape through the American postwar 'Rat line' (Tomasevich, 2001: 760). During the Cold War, they remained active in the nationalist emigration and exploited the Bleiburg symbol for propagandistic purposes. Of course, that is their prerogative, but one has to keep it in mind when assess- ing their standing as 'reasonably authori- tative and credible' sources."

"The estimate regarding the killings in Belgrade after its liberation in October 1944 is a telling example of the problems that can arise when one uses such an unsophisticated method of estimation. Rummel (1998: 172, lines 69-70) uses 70,000 killed as a mid- estimate by quoting Reuben H. Markham's 100,000, which he believes to be 'exagger- ated', and Martin (1990: 271), who writes, 'it was widely believed that 50,000 to 60,000 residents of the city perished'. The problem is that Martin's figure is much too high, while it is unclear whether Markham actually made such an estimate.23 The city had approximately 400,000 inhabitants in 1941, which would mean that at least 20% were killed in 1944. That would require a large part of the city's present inhabitants to have relatives and friends that perished during this period. This is simply not the case."

"Rummel argued that we cannot depend on very few sources and therefore should use those that are at the extremes and reasonably authoritative. Unfortunately, it soon became evident that the estimates he used were neither authoritative nor credible. One could argue that Rummel would hardly have had any sources to work with if he had applied more source criticism to his research. However, lack of data can never be used as an alibi, and sometimes we have to accept that basic research has not yet been conducted."

(Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 85-102)

Rummel's response:

"(1) I estimated the democide of 218 regimes, 1900-87. Tito's Yugoslavia was only one of them. Testing my estimate and method on 1 out of 218 'data points' can say nothing about my estimates or methods in general."

"He does not do a critical analysis of the whole 1944-87 period for my estimate ofTito' democide, but only 1944-48, 12.5% of the period I covered."

"He claims my Tito democide estimate is 'much too high to be taken lightly' (p. 99). He provides no estimate of his own for comparison, a serious omission."

(the response is brief, so I cannot give more quotes to avoid a copyright violation).

(One-Thirteenth of a Data Point Does Not a Generalization Make: A Response to Dulić. Author(s): Rudolph J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 103-104)

Dulic's responce:

"Dulic lists some of the most important points in Rummel's critique. He argues that the objections are misplaced since he is quoting Rummel or using his data. Moreover, Rummel could have shown why he feels that Dulik is wrong by giving his own estimates to be compared with Duli's extrapolations. Most importantly, Dulid argues that Rummel has avoided the central point of his critique, namely, that of source criticism. Contrary to Rummel, Dulik argues that the case study on Tito's Yugoslavia might well have wider implications, since it focuses on Rummel's method. The methodological problems need to be addressed before Rummel's data and conclusions can be considered reliable. Whether such a revision would yield significantly new results remains undecided."

"As I said in the conclusions, I have shown that there are serious problems with Rummel's method, which is precisely why this one 'data point' might have wider implications. I do not understand why Rummel so categorically refuses to accept the possibility that he might have made similar errors elsewhere, when he has used the same method throughout his research. That is why I call on Rummel to revise his method and properly narrow down the sources to those that are indeed reasonably authoritative and credible. Until then, at least I do not feel comfortable with using his data and leave to the reader to assess the validity of my critique."

(A Reply to Rummel. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On the Rummel's statistical approach:

"Rummel asserts that his postulated relationship between nonfreedom and international conflict can be found in the Azar data set as well as his own data set, even though he finds severe faults with Azar's methods of conflict scaling. Evaluation of Rummel's arguments indicates that he does not understand the nature of the Azar data set sonstruction and misinterprets multiple regression and Kendall's Tau B results. Extensive re-analysis further demonstrated a lack of relationship between nonfreedom and conflict in the Azar data set."

(On Rummel's Omnipresent Theory. Author(s): Jack Vincent. Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 119-125)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On the Rummel's data on the Soviet death toll:

"In a series of nine chapters Rummel then explains how he reaches the figure of sixty-one million dead, and despite the complex tables and intricate computations, his explanation is quite unsatisfactory. Some general points first: Rummel uses no Russian-language sources and cites a variety of secondary sources as if they were all of equal worth, when some are scholarly and some far from it. He also assumes that the entire labour camp population was innocent: for Rummel, deaths in labour camps while serving a prison sentence are legitimate elements in what he calls 'democide' and much space is devoted to computing death rates in camps, yet some of those who died in this way were common criminals or actual Nazi collaborators, while a camp death rate of twenty-six per cent seems hard to credit, even at the height of Stalinism.

"Rummel is at his least contentious when dealing with collectivization and purges."

"Ironically, given Rummel's rather naive mission to show the utter inhu- manity of 'Marxism', his own figures can be turned against him."(Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)

On the Rummel's democide theory in general

"Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses. When judging particular countries, he repeatedly draws the conclusion that the more people died the worse the regime. This connection is true for some cases, but not others. Often deaths are attributable to neither direct governmental action nor governments' tacit approval of vigilante activity, but, rather, to the consequences of war, displacement, or famine."

"Despite his rich and detailed information and data, Rummel's at- tempt at explanation seems oversimplified. He introduces but does not review the theoretical literature, and apologizes for his failure to offer attributions."

"In Rummel's view, democracy appears to be the cure-all that ends repression. This position is wishful and not persuasive. Not all authori- tarian or traditional polities are likely to commit genocide, nor are the local traditions and political cultures of many third-world states neces sarily compatible with democratic traditions." (Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

MANY THANKS Paul Siebert for the great work in tracing down those critical sources. I do not have a great deal of time to devote to this article but at least now we have the beginning of a criticism section and a better justification for showing some of Rummel's numerical conclusions which are so disdained by some contributors to this talk page, and now, as we see, are well criticized in the scholarly literature as well. To be more specific, the table I propose to include, because it is journal published, is found in: Rudolph J. Rummel, "Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), p. 3 (Table I. 20th Century Democide). The article is available at: JSTOR (requires library account or fee). I think that is his most general table. I will try to format its figures for a Wikipedia table (something I have to learn how to do) but do not hesitate to take up this task, other Wikipedians, if I am slow to get there. —Blanchette (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple definitions of genocide

There are multiple definitions, and indeed multiple legal definitions, of genocide. In a number of countries Soviet mass killings are considered by law to be genocide, for example. So one cannot speak of "the legal" definition of genocide, because no such things exists. One can speak of narrow definitions of genocide instead, in this context. Tataral (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is surely a shared definitions, along with many particulars attached in specific cases. Can one really say there is no shared legal definition of genocide??The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...But I see what you mean. I hope my change is found reasonable. The phrase "narrow definitions" seemed to me slightly too emphatic for this narrow context. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)