|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Genocide article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|Genocide has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|To-do list for Genocide:|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
- 1 Terminology Error in Into
- 2 Countervalue nuclear strikes
- 3 Is the US trade embargo against Cuba genocide?
- 4 Tasmanian Genocide / Black War?
- 5 Eelam TamilGenocide
- 6 Shouldn't there be a link to the killing of the Native Americans?
- 7 Farm Attacks South Africa
- 8 mutually assured destruction
- 9 Recent edits and Holocaust dates
- 10 Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
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.
Countervalue nuclear strikes
To what extent would countervalue nuclear strikes constitute genocide? To date, there have been only two nuclear strikes against a wartime enemy, both against cities, and both of which killed tens of thousands of people. As defined in the opening parts of the genocide article, a genocide is ""the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". Countervalue nuclear strikes are those which "target an opponent's cities and civilian populations". Would that not result in the effective "deliberate and systematic (partial) destruction of a ... group", if the targets had plenty of people living in them? Shouldn't countervalue nuclear strikes be considered at least attempted genocide? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- As an American, this makes me feel uncomfortable, because, taking this to its logical conclusion, it is evident that Harry S Truman authorized genocide against Japanese civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He could've demonstrated the bombs away from the Japanese population, but he didn't do that. Our military deliberately targeted the cities, and the Trinity test had already occurred at this point, so the military probably knew that this bomb would create a deadly and massive explosion. Furthermore, the deliberate targeting of Japanese cities is evidence of a systematic effort, as the US military was already targeting Japanese cities for air raids at this time. Expanding this logic even further, it is also evident that the bombings of London (by the Nazis), Dresden (by the Americans), Berlin (by the Allies), and St. Petersburg (aka Leningrad) (by the Nazis) also constitute genocide, and so do the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the US trade embargo against Cuba genocide?
In Cuba (particularly gov't officials) say that the US trade embargo against Cuba is a form of genocide as per Section C of Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention (deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part), quoting a State Department memo regarding the stated purpose of the embargo that is dated April 6, 1960 (see http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 for full text): "If the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government." The purpose of the trade embargo outlined in the memo (to incite a popular uprising against the Cuban gov't by bringing hunger and disease to the Cuban populace) may sound somewhat inhuman, immoral, and unethical by today's standards, but the US seems to be aware of the fact that using hunger and disease to bring democracy to Cuba so as to coerce Cubans to accept multiparty democracy is not only inhuman, it also violates the right of peoples to self-determination. For example, the vast majority of patients in Cuba who are suffering cancer and other health problems and have to undergo unnecessary surgery because of prohibitions on the sale of US-made medical equipment to Cuba appear to be closer to death, only to have well-experienced Cuban doctors save the patients from death the last minute using medical tools either made in Cuba or Europe. Therefore, it would be cynical for embargo critics to label the embargo as "genocidal". Barack Obama could at least inform the Cuban government that the embargo is not genocide by reminding the State Department's top officials that the purpose of the trade embargo as stated in the 1960 memo doesn't conform to modern ethical standards because embargoes are not meant to coerce peoples to accept US-style democracy by bringing hunger and disease. The Cuban government is just making fun of the current nature of the embargo when discussing the embargo's stated purpose in the 1960 memo. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
- Please suggest specific edits to the article's content. This talk page is not a discussion page for the article's subject. WP:FORUM. In reference to your actual comment, it is farcical to compare actual instances of genocide to a trade embargo. I doubt there exists a reliable source that makes such a claim. Any addition of such a position to the article would likely be WP:ORIGINAL, to say nothing of giving it undue weight under WP:POV. 2601:8:9F00:14A:8474:1D02:1270:56BD (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Tasmanian Genocide / Black War?
Is there a reason this is not included?
Says: "The Black War was one of many conflicts used as an example to define the term genocide as it began to be used in the 1940s" and "By 1876, the full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were commonly regarded as extinct, and most of their culture and language lost to the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btxtsf (talk • contribs) 02:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Farm Attacks South Africa
I notice no mention of the current attacks on Afrikaners in South Africa? Do google search on "Farm Attacks". The percentage black on White attacks and killings is unprecedented in South Africa.
http://www.news24.com/Tags/Topics/farm_attacks http://www.saps.gov.za/statistics/reports/rural_safety/time_to_act.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
mutually assured destruction
Were the threats carried out, it could be considered genocide. Should this be restored to the "See also" section?
—rybec 18:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits and Holocaust dates
I noticed that the Genocide category box at the bottom of the page has edited its Holocaust dates to 1941-1944. This ignores forced death marches and people who died in 1945, as well as ghettos that were established before 1941. I think that it should be changed back to 1939-1945. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)