Talk:Genocide

Stages of genocide chart

I have been reading genocidewatch trying to find the political POV that genocide is a market failure, or that it is to be dealt with by intervention. It doesn't say that. They are NPOV enough to offend most everyone, me included, but the chart should not be deleted for the reason given. I will be away, other opinions please. Meggar 05:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the chart should not be deleted, I would quibble with most of the points, for example People are divided into "us and them". implies that US and THEM is a manufactured phenomenon. My experience of living in several countries is that all people do this naturally because if helps reinforce their own group identity. For example Woody Allen's well known (and far from unique) dislike for all things L.A. reinforces his like for N.Y.. I would also argue with allmost all of the "Preventive measures" which show a more heavy POV eg Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. It depends on whether "should" means "must" or "ought". But overall the chart seems to me to be worth keeping in the article, particularly as the source of the chart is up front in the first sentence. If anyone can find a published criticism of it then so much the better and that can be included as well. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

firstly, the preventive measures column is purely political (vis-a-vis the characteristics column); it seems to be directed at government and advocates things that many people oppose, such as banning "hate speech". this also implies that genocides generally happen by will of the populus, and i'm pretty sure that genocide is typically an act of the state (unless someone could give me a counter-example...) this is all pov. secondly, it seems to me to be presented as factual material, especially by the title. a more npov title would be "Genocide Watch's analysis of...", but then it's no longer about genocide as much as genocide watch. if anything, there should be a section about the "Causes of genocide" and white-washing asf., but for now, i don't think genocide watch's analysis/propaganda and subsequent criticism deserves an entire section. Bob A 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

To wander off topic here - I don’t wish to tout this particular group, but reading their stuff I get the impression that they don’t care much whose fault it is, whether the state or the people, the Left or the Right, or which political system is more evil than another. They seem more interested in measures to prevent potential genocides from growing to the stage where drastic intervention would be needed, and give examples of some that didn’t happen with the help of negotiation and other relief. That would not be a bad slant to work into the rest of the article.

Laying blame, picking the victims from the perpetrators is not useful but is part of the problem. In fact we are all a part of both groups. Better said by Simone Weil: Meggar 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that barbarism be considered as a permanent and universal human characteristic that becomes more or less pronounced according to the play of circumstances. - Simone Weil

Genocide in history

I removed the the list of "deliberate large-scale killings of entire groups of people" which Andrew Alexander reintroduced into the article because any list is going to be either too inclusive or exclusive for some people. The large-scale killings which have been found to be Genocide under international law are in the article and any others are open to "Points of View" accusations. Just see the archived talk pages for examples of this. To make a point or two: why the "past century" does that mean 100 years or the 20th century why just the last 100 years? Why include Rwanda but exclude Germany and Poland and there was deliberate mass killing in the trenches of the First Word War which is not listed. I could go, on but as the genocides recognised under international law are already listed and discussed in the article, I do not think that an arbitary list of mass killings should appear in this section, just the link to the article Genocide in history. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This problem is easy to solve. I suggest changing "deliberate large-scale killings of entire groups of people" into "deliberate large-scale killings of entire groups of civilians during peace time". Would this resolve the issue with WWI? Please note, the section is talking about mass killings of civilians in human history. Mentioning specific examples of such killings is appropriate, don't you think?--Andrew Alexander 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The section is talking about "Genocide in history" not about "Mass killings" in history and readers will assume that any list is a list that the author(s) designates as genocides. If it is not a list of Genocides then it should not be in this article and if it is in this article then it is going to be a POV list, therefore I do not think that such a list should be present when there is another article devoted to the subject. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did "a list of Genocides" come from? Isn't that already a very strong point of view? A list of mass homicides is actually less biased since it's based on nothing but well known facts. The article then goes to say "Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter." Yet, you are making it "clear-cut" in this article, thus enforcing a POV.--Andrew Alexander 01:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am making it clear cut because the article is named "Genocide" not "Mass killings" and the section is "Genocide in history" not "Mass killing in history" --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Is the goal of this article to provide NPOV or just your personal view on what genocide and what's not? Why can't the reader decide for himself? All we need to do is to provide relevant historical facts.--Andrew Alexander 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Which question have I not answered? There is a whole article dedicated to "provid[ing] relevant historical facts" called Genocides in history which this article says is the "Main article:" on the first line of the section "Genocides in history" with a link to the article. So if a person wishes to find out more it is only one click away. How would an arbitrary list of "Mass killings" improve this article particularly as not all mass killings are genocides? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question "Where did "a list of Genocides" come from?". If I open Genocides in history, there are more genocides listed there than in this article. Again, despite your personal assertion, genocide is not a clear-cut term. So which definition of genocide and whose judgement of specific mass killings do you wish to apply in this article?--Andrew Alexander 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Genocide is a clear cut term under international law. There is a list of genocides in this article which international courts have judged to be genocides. Any other alleged genocides are just that, alleged. You will have noticed that "Genocides in history" carries a two templates {{totallydisputed}} {{ceanup-date}}(August 2005) IMHO it is better to keep the non-NPOV in that article rather than importing it into this one and having the same debate here. I think this debate is becoming stale and it needs others to join in because I do not think that either of us is going to persuade the other to come around to their POV. So if you are lurking please add your POV to this debate. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So your answer is, only those mass killings that are acknowleged to be genocides by "international courts" are "true" genocides. This way the Holocaust is not a genocide since the definition of genocide was brought forward only after the Nuremburg Trials. I am not aware of any international court convicting any Nazi criminals after that. Meanwhile the word "genocide" was coined to reflect the crime of the Holocaust. Also, I am not opposing or supporting your views, just trying to learn them better.--Andrew Alexander 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. I think that this article should restrict its self to those mass killings that are acknowledged to be genocides by international courts, not because they are the only "true" genocides, but because they are the only genocides which can be called such and have international legal backing and acceptance. As you point out the word "genocide" was coined to reflect the crimes of the Holocaust and as such I think it would be perverse not to include that episode in this article, particularly as the major criminals were found guilty of "crimes against humanity" and the wording of the London Charter, which although not using the yet to be coined word genocide, did define a "crime against humanity" along similar lines ("namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds") to the CPPCG definition. A further, argument to including the Holocaust in this article is that there are hundreds of references which state that the Holocaust was a genocide and those who argue against this position are for the most part discredited Holocaust deniers so it too has legal backing and widespread acceptance as a genocide. For alleged genocides, there tend to be people on both sides of the argument and I think that those are better dealt with in the article "genocides in history" --Philip Baird Shearer 17:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you just weasel your way out of the question. If it's "yes and no" then don't interfere with the edits. It isn't your prerogative to decide on these matters. And many of those "mass killings" were internationally accepted as genocides. So again your POV is a pure speculation, a way to discriminate one mass killing from another based on personal preferences. Since when Stalin mass murders aren't internationally accepted as crimes against humanity? Every democratic country in the world thinks so. Yet we weasel and don't accept it?--Andrew Alexander 21:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I can not answer the question with a simple yes or know because you constructed you argument about what you thought I though in a similar way to the classic question "Do you sill beat your wife?". I am sorry that you think I "just weasel your way out of the question", it was not my intention to do so and I think the rest of my answer makes my position clear. It is lucky for me that there is no prohibition on weasel words on talk pages :-) There are however policies which effect what is written on article pages including no original research and verifiability, and guidelines on citing sources and reliable sources. I do not have to decide if Stalin's mass murders are "internationally accepted as crimes against humanity" because this article is about genocide not crimes against humanity and if you know that they are internationally accepted as genocide, then you will be able to provide reliable sources which state that such actions are internationally accepted as genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why we are arguing this here. Would it not be more constructive to work togehter on the Genocides in history article to get reliable sources for the entries there, before trying to decide if any particular historical genocide should appear on this page? For example the one entry uner the USSR is for the Holodomor with the sentence "The proponents of the 'Holodomor' term maintain that the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people engineered by the Soviet government." Now there is a weasel term with no reliable source on the page to back it up. I am sure that you could help improve the article by providing sources as to who claims it is a genocide --Philip Baird Shearer 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Circassian genocide

It was really the first intentional large-scale genocide of the modern times, as well as the model case of the consequent tradition of ethnic cleansing. It was also the largest single genocide of the 19th century.

The Circassian genocide ended at about same time with the launching of the Jewish deportations in 1880s, when more than three million Circassians had been expelled from the territories occupied by Russia. The numbers of those who were killed, are not known. Anyway, it meant 90 per cent of the whole Circassian population. Anssi Kullberg, The Eurasian Politician - October 2003

• Circassian Genocide By Antero Leitzinger

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.214.46.54 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2006.

• Genocide Watch, Circassian Genocide

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glenn G (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If this was a genocide, and "one swallow does not make a summer", IMHO it belongs on the Genocides in history page --Philip Baird Shearer 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Worst Genocides

I just removed the claim that the slaughter of the indigenous people of North America was the worst genocide in history. It may have been a very large genocide, certainly millions of people died and many populations were wiped out, many deliberately, but there is a big question over whether it was the largest.

To address this issue I think that we should have a chart with the largest genocides - low and high credible/established estimates, and a list of major genocides in the twentieth century (and present...)

What do others think? Mostlyharmless

We have that under Genocides in history. Rather than duplicate that battleground here it is better to delete the line telling us about the current best known genocide. We don't need an encyclopedia for that. - done. Meggar 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is a word, and that word has a meaning. Events that correspond to that meaning should be considered genocides..Why is it then that we have this strange tradition of only acknowleging genocides when the UN acknowleges it first? No mention is made here of the Armenian genocide, the 1971 genocide in East Pakistan (1.5 million people killed, 500,000 women raped), and little is mentioned on the genocide in Darfur and that in Bosnia...If the reason is that nobody bothered to expand the entry to include these historical events, I'll start on that as soon as I can. Amibidhrohi 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the Bosnia geonocide, all the others you mention are open to claims and counter claims (as no-one was found guilty of the crime of genocide), as such it is better that they go in genocides in history. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Differentiating between genocide-as-legal-charge and genocide-as-analytical-description can be tricky. Most documented mass killings have some kind of scholarly consensus regarding death tolls and incidences of related atrocities, with defensible low estimates and high estimates for the numbers of people affected. An encyclopedic entry that gets into numbers should list the generally accepted low-high ranges, as some parts of the "Genocides in History" article do. When the facts are not established (how much was killing and how much was unintended pandemic disease, e.g.), this should be noted. When the facts are sparse they should include references, to make sure that death tolls or the "genocide" label are not just political invective from some partisan groups. Adding descriptors like "worst" or "largest" veers close to POV territory, particularly for events with large noncombatant death tolls (the Americas from the Spanish conquest on, or Soviet collectivization 1929-1933, e.g.) that don't necessarily neatly fit under the "genocide" concept. - Ramseyk 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

people overlook the indian genocide in America, but it was really ruthless, and probably, if not, id say it was pretty much the worst for the times that we live. Not only they were eliminated systematicly (with the decimation of the buffalo, for example, as the buffalo was the equivalent of seals to skimos) but they were stolen from their lands, religion, culture and language. Laws did not aplied equallly to indians either, a crime that a white man could get away with imprisonment, sometimes meant death for an indian. Across the american continent, there are hundreds of native languages that have been lost, as most indians died of disease or deliberately by the colonists. In Argentina, landowners used to pay for indian penises/ears (trophies that certified the killing of an indian), today theres almost no indian population in Argentina, same thing can be sayd of the US, today there is a reduced native population, without any land that they could call their own, now most of their lands belong to those who were once immigrants. For its own good, wikipedia should not use adjetives, any adjetive is an enemy to NPOV, but that doesnt mean that there was in fact a genocide, if not, then were are the indians who used to roam this land?.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.119.55 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to suggestion of chart, there is response "We have that under Genocides in history." There's no chart there. A chart is ALWAYS more helpful to absorb and comprehend copious amounts of info. Since there are so many different and distinct genocides, a chart would, IMHO, be very, very useful.

Depending on your perspective, there's always going to be disagreement as to which was the worst genocide. Jtpaladin 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Genocide's exclusion of Politicide

Preface:

I’m a new user to the comment/edit side of Wikipedia and am NOT an expert on Genocide. Because of these two factors, I am uncomfortable doing an edit change to this article so I opted to start a discussion in the hope that someone more qualified than I might make the suggested edits; if they have merit.

Background:

When doing some research on Genocide I found myself uncomfortable with the limited definition given in Wikipedia. That said, I understand and support the use of a standard internationally recognized definition for Genocide, and unfortunately, the CPPCG is all we appear to have.

As stated in the Wikipedia article, "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" governments that approved the international definition were/are actively engaged in the "... killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group, and that of cultural killings." To avoid accountability for their crimes, these governments deliberately excluded these atrocities from the official international definition of genocide.

To me, this is the equivalent of having criminals write the legal definition of what constitutes a crime – but the CPPCG definition is better than nothing. Hopefully it will someday be expanded to include all government-sponsored atrocities against humanity.

Suggested Addition(s):

In the “Criticisms of the CPPCG” section, I would like to see the term "Politicide" added, with a link to the Wikipedia Politicide page. Possibly other relevant “-cide’s” I am not aware of should be added too. This would help people doing research on government sponsored atrocities to easily understand why the deliberate murder of tens of millions of Russians, Chinese, and others are not “Genocide” and are allowed under international law.

Terry Jacobs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.28.61.16 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that there is another person dipping their toes into the wiki water :-) Have you created an account yet. If so you can sign you posts to the talk page with ~~~~ which will expand into name and date.

What you can not see on the page because I hid them as HTML comments is

Much debate about genocide revolves around the proper definition of the word "genocide". The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in this legal definition has been criticized. By whom? This needs a source Some historians and sociologists when discussing genocide include actions against such groups. Most generally, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a social identity. All this section needs a source!

What you are suggesting should be added to this paragraph. But this paragraph does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability test "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." This paragrah needs a rewrite with source to justify the statments. Perhapse you could make it you first project and include Politicide. :-)

BTW The deliberate murder of tens of millions have since 1945 comes under crimes against humanity (but who would enforce it is another thing) and are coverd by the term (but not treaty law) autogenocide.

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The international court is against serbs. THey forgot all about their suffering in the second world war. Why isn't there as many croatians indited for war crimes as serbs even though they drove out the entire population of serb krajina? Ever heard of Medack Dzep? Jebesh ti mater hrvatsku!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.131.152 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Charts are good yet I thought the topic was worst not largest genocide in history —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.213.208.249 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

citing sources

user:Armenars you have added this text to the page:

The term was coined in reference to the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks at the turn of the 20th century, making it the first genocide of the century.

You have not cited sources for this addition. Please see the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Please include the source you are using for this addition before you re-submit it to this page.--Philip Baird Shearer 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the German genocide of the Herero tribe is most often cited as the first genocide of the 20th century, and whether a specific word is used to describe an event is not conclusive as to whether it is genocide or not (notwithstanding that I would like to broaden the very legal scope of this article, I might do it when I have more time on my hands). --Cybbe 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "the Herero tribe is most often cited as the first genocide of the 20th century." I just did a Google search for "first genocide of the 20th century" Herero, and compared it to the search, "first genocide of the 20th century" Armenian. The results were not even close; the Armenian search had 200 times the number of hits as the Herero search. It's ironic that this section is about citing sources; a poignant example that making claims without backing them up certainly has its pitfalls. Leon7 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

genocide

for an act to be called a genocide,is there exact number? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.95.4 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Legally speaking, no, but I do believe the United States attached a understanding when they ratified the convention to that extent, i.e. that they "understood" article 2 to mean the destruction of a "substantial part of the group". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cybbe (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) found that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004):

• 8 It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisic, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”[10] The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.”[11] As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group.[12]
• 9 The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.[13] These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion. In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”[14] This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.[15]
• 10 This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term "in part" contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term "genocide" and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that "the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety."[16] He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that "the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale."[17] Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group.[18] In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that "the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group," this formulation being the aim of the Convention.
• 11 Recent commentators have adhered to this view. The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that "the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group."[20] The same interpretation was adopted earlier by the 1985 report of Benjamin Whitaker, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[21]
• 12 The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.

The last sentence is significant and in my opinion potentially controversial, because it is a way of including things like social-economic groups which the USSR had excluded from the original drafting of the convention. It was used in this case to say that men were more important to the group identity than women and children. Also the argument used to find this massacre a genocide is probably storing up trouble for future cases:

• 13 The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders.[23] The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.

Because first it is not accurate, the Germans treated Jews in Tunisia (Africa) as they treated Jews in every area they occupied (see Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation). Second because it was used, with the last sentence of paragraph 12, to find the killing of around 8,000 men as Genocide, even though as the judgement says in paragraph 15 "The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time". This ruling has the potential of moving the defintion of Genocide from the group that has been killed to the perpotrator. What I mean by this is that Radislav Krstic was found guilty of genocide because he kill all those men he had access to in Srebrenica which was most of the total Muslim male population he had access too. Theoretically even if Slobodan Milosevic had been found guilty of complicity in the massacre he might not have been found guilty of genocide if he could prove that he had access to more of the victim population, turning his access at Srebrenica from a substancial part of the victim population to an unsubstancial part. It turns the crime of Genocide from one of absolute, ie anyone who took part is guilty of complicity in a genocide, to one of degree based on the size of the population the purpatraor has access too. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Intervention

I have removed the following under WP:V because there are no citations:

A country which recognizes that what another country does is genocide, may take action and intervene. However, there is no well-accepted doctrine of 'humanitarian intervention' in international law, and such forcible intervention may infringe the prohibition on the use of force. The Genocide Convention only provides that the State on whose territory the crime of genocide is committed, or an international penal tribunal, may prosecute the perpetrators of genocide. Other States do not have an obligation to prosecute them, but may do so under their domestic penal laws. Indeed, each Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention must enact legislation in order to criminalise and punish acts of genocide. States are of course able to bring the matter before the Security Council, which is empowered to take forcible enforcement measures in accordance with international law in order to stop genocidal acts.(my emphasis)

Using the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December 9, 1948 I see that there are several article which have a bearing on this:

• Article 3: The definition
• Article 5:The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
• Article 6:Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
• Article 7: Says that a party to the convention will grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

AFAICT none of the above has the implication that the first two sentences of the article paragraph implies. I think the author(s) of the sentences was/were confused by Article 8 which says:

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

This is far from take action and intervene as understood by the second sentence of the paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph grew from this initial edit Revision as of 14:55, 16 May 2006 by the IP number Special:Contributions/219.78.35.222. So there is no way to ask the original author for the source of the statment --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

List genocides?

I was surprised that this article does not list or even mentions examples of genocides throughout history. At the very least, I think there should be mention of any and all specific genocides that have existing WP articles so they can be linked to from here--certainly the major ones (unless one already exists elsewhere in WP). Leon7 06:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Genocides in history - you must have missed that link in the article. Rmhermen 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility To Protect

The Independent on Saturday 16 Spetember 2006 ran an article by Paul Vallely Day for Darfur inspires protests in 32 countries saying that:

...

The protest is over the refusal of the Sudanese government to allow a 20,000-strong United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur to protect the civilian population as a war escalates between the Sudanese army - with its ruthless Janjaweed militia - and various rebel groups. Campaigners fear that Sudan will use the new offensive to impose a brutal and definitive solution.

Tomorrow has been chosen because it is the first anniversary of a revision of international law by world leaders at the United Nations which insisted that the need to protect people from atrocities must override the notion of national sovereignty.

Under the Responsibility To Protect (RTP), the UN agreed that states would share "responsibility to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner" to prevent grave atrocities like genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity "when the government of the people concerned is unwilling or unable to do so".' ...

If there is general consensus that RTP is interpreted as the Indi interprets it, it should be documented in this article. Because it drives a coach and horses through Article 2.7 of the UN Charter:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This Guardian article by Conor Foley Don't bypass the UN July 28, 2006:

In April 2006 the UN Security Council adopted a resolution accepting its responsibility "to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis" to protect people against war crimes, ethnic cleansing and other violations.

Seems RTP is also known by the acroynm R2P. A guick Google on "to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council"" turned up about 198 English URLs, these two documents from the start of the list seem relevent:

• Responsibility to Protect website of (United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a Company limited by Guarantee)

Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly [on September 17] 2005 ...

• Oxfam Press Release - 28 April 2006 Security Council passes landmark resolution – world has responsibility to protect people from genocide

Now all someone has to do is write up an article and link it into this one! --Philip Baird Shearer 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So I've made a start see UN Security Council Resolution 1674 --Philip Baird Shearer 11:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also the article 2005 World Summit which ties into the World Summit Outcome Document mentioned in Resolution 1674 --Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Genocide in America

I'd just like to remind everyone here that America was formed by genocide. So few people realize these days that Europeans killed thousands of Native American populations when they came to America, both through the rapid spread of disease and through slavery and just plain killing them off.

See colonialism. Lapaz 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, Europeans did not purposefully kill through the spread of disease as a form of genocide. That's inaccurate.Kiyosaki 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

Some comments on Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide are welcome, as one user has been repeatedly trying to insert a negationist POV in it. Thanks, Lapaz 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess

It's full of vandalism and unsourced nonsense -- could we semi-protect it for a while to get it back to an acceptable state? Twinxor t 21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific please? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Genocide denial

I have deleted this new section, because it is wide open to endless POV. It includes many alledged Genocides which have not been found by any international court and are better covered in either the articles historical revisionism (negationism) or genocides in history --Philip Baird Shearer 09:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other genocides other than murder there are also diseases for example Orphans of Rwanda. Contact em at ktxchic@yahoo.com.

Armenian Genocide

Am I missing this? Why isn't it included? Please leave note on my Discussion page, thanks.Kiyosaki 10:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it happened before the Genocide Convention and is an alleged genocide. See the section (and the main article) Genocide in history where many other alledged genocides and genocides are listed--Philip Baird Shearer 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason it is considered 'alleged' is because modern-day Turkey (and its exclaves) deny it. The majority of the western academic world accepts and defines it as genocide. It certainly should be listed, particularly seeing as how it was used as an example in coining the word (see Raphael Lemkin).The Myotis 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no international tribunal to try the perpetrators. Those who were tried were tried under domestic laws and as there was no such offence as genocide at that time so if they were found guilty they were found guilty of other crimes. There should not be any listing of the genocide here because it is covered in the Genocide in history and it is only an alleged genocide given that there was no guilty verdict handed down by an international tribunal. The perpetrators of the Holocaust were not found guilty of Genocide but of crimes against humanity, but they were found guilty by an international tribunal of those crimes. I think it better that only incidents where people are found guilty of Genocide are listed in this article. Those incidents before the Convention, or incidents where there was not a trial, are listed in the article Genocide in history as it stops this article being the focus of POV wars. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Talat, Enver and Cemal all fled turkey before they could be tried under any court (though a Turkish military tribunal did try them in abstentia and find them guilty of war crimes) and all were killed ( Enver in Russia, Talat in Germany, and Cemal in Georgia) within 7 years. Just because the guilty parties fled justice (and because the Turkish tribunal is not international) does not mean these events did not occur. If the League of Nations, which had only been established only a year before Tallat’s death, had managed to apprehend these war criminals, then it surely would have found them guilty. The fact that a national court – the very nation they had controlled - found them guilty should be worth something.The Myotis 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the information given in the article is the academic and judicial meaning of genocide, some critics are ultimately political. Cemal Pasha found guilty by the Ottoman Empire not because of he interfered any mass killing but beause he provoked the ethnic Arabs for a rebellion movement. The other misleading point is their murders. Cemal Pasha was murdered by Armenian paralimilitary groups in Tbilisi on 22nd July 1922, Talat Pasha was killed by an Armenian named Sogomon Tehliryan in Germany in 1921 and Enver Pasha was killed in Tajikistan on the 4th of August 1922 in battlefield. (Gürer - 17.08.07)

VATG's Edits

I have posted the following message on VATG's User Page:

I can appreciate it that you have a personal point of view about using the term Armenian genocide. However, outside of Turkey and some smally dennier communities, the Armenian genocide is widely accepted as a term referring to events in Turkey during WWI. Your single minded attempt to remove any reference to Armenia and the Armenians from the Genocide page and Genocide denial page is not helpful and should be stopped. It not, I will proceed with the next steps for stopping such practice. Joel Mc 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate any suggestions re: next steps Joel Mc 09:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

VATG 11:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)VAGT's reply: Your attitude is a good indication of how the truth is suppressed all over by a wealthy and aggressive propaganda machine. It is you who should stop abusing Wikipedia by inserting your falsified allegations. You are most welcome to create distortions in you own web sites. The Armenians must face with their history and prevent further sufferings in our region because of puppets of contemporary imperialists. Peace at home, peace in the World.

Wikipedia is not free web space for promoting unfounded theories, VAGT, and if you want to be heard you will have to make a valid point on the talk page (if you can). Or perhaps you would prefer to add to the List of conspiracy theories article? Joel, if VAGT continues to POV-attack articles, I would recommend finding an administrator to give him/her a official warning temporary block. The Myotis 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer stated the following on wht the Armenian genocide should not be listed: Because it happened before the Genocide Convention and is an alleged genocide. See the section (and the main article) Genocide in history where many other alledged genocides and genocides are listed--Philip Baird Shearer 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Philip Baird Shearer forgets that likewise the Jewish Holocaust occured before the 1948 UN Convention. So, according to his rules neither the Holocaust should be listed. International Genocide laws and conventions apply fully on the current Turkish state that continues to obfuscate and deny it's genocide of the Armenians. - Berge Jololian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.198.233 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Philip Baird Shearer, self proclaimed "expert" stated that the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 does not qualify to be listed because as he puts it, occurred before the UN Convention and is "alleged" genocide. Mr. Shearer is either a denialist or an idiot (perhaps both). The last act of the perpetrator of a genocide is Denial. The only country in the world that denies its genocide of the Armenians is Turkey and Philip Baird Shearer. In a report by Dr. Tessa Hoffman on Turkey's treatment of its minorities, she reports that in 1983 the Turkish army forced an Armenian village named Harent in present day eastern Turkey and forced the 600 inhabitants of the village to renounce their identity, convert their religion to Islam, and change their Christian Armenian names to Islamic Turkic names. The Church village was changed to a Mosque and the names of the forced converts proudly published in local newspapers. If that is not on going genocide, what is? The Turkish government went even further in 2002 by changing all the scientific names of native plants and animals in the Armenian plateau (eastern turkey) to erase any references to Armenian. Not to mention the thousands of historical Armenian monuments spanning over two millenniums deliberately destroyed and eradicated. Genocide stops when denial ceases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jololian (talk • contribs) 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Raphael Lemkin who was a lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent and a Holocaust survivor was so affected by the barbarity that befell the Armenians at the hands of the Turks between 1915-23, that he created the word GENOCIDE to describe what had happened to the Armenians. Lemkin's frame of mind during the 1930's was on the Armenian experience. The 1948 UN convention on prevention of genocides cites the Armenian genocide as an example. (1949 CBS News interview with Lemkin -Video)

The word genocide was coined by Lemkin to describe the Armenian experience. The word "genocide" existed because of the Armenian experience.

The word “holocaust” has been widely used since the 17th century to refer to the violent death of a large number of people. Before World War II the word was used by Winston Churchill and others to describe the Armenian Genocide of World War I.

Before Lemkin coined the word genocide to describe the Armenian mass slaughter it was known as the Armenian holocaust.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars unanimously approved a 2005 letter stating that “the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide” is that the murders were genocidal.

To deny the Armenian genocide “is like Holocaust denial,” said Gregory Stanton, vice president of the association, president of Genocide Watch and a professor of human rights at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia.

Many leading scholars say the massacres clearly fit the definition of genocide. - Berge Jololian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.161.240 (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

genocide in novels

i was thinking about adding on a secetion about genocides in text and maybe a links to articals consering anti-genocide organizations but i'm a new user and have no idea what i'm doing.comeback2009 10:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your best bet, in that case, would be to post your suggested additions here on the talk page first. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Large scale miscegenation

Would large scale miscegenation qualify as a form of genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.231.108 (talk • contribs)

Genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." So no, not unless 'miscegenation' was imposed in order 'to prevent births within the group'. Yours, Sam Clark 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Genocide disambiguation page?

Given that Genocide is also the title of a Doctor Who novel, couldn't there be some sort of disambiguation page? I recall linking it to the top of the page but it seems nonexistent now. DrWho42 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Autism

I think that Autism rights movement#Opposition_to_eliminating_autism should be mentioned in this article somewhere. --Max 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't seee the connection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.109.123 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Darfur/ICC

I've moved around the headings re: Darfur and the intro about the ICC. I think this format better makes the distinction between the pre-ICC approach and the current ICC approach, while also deterring the random listing of "genocides" that haven't been officially investigated under international law (eg. User:Philip Baird Shearer's West Papua concerns). Wl219 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

first sentence / definition

Since the official definition of genocide allows for the cultural/religious destruction of a people's way of life, the first sentence is somewhat misleading. I think a reading of something like "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a group of people and their way of life ...". I think it is important to emphasize that destruction of culture (such as forcibly deporting/kill all rural members of a ethnic group such as happened with the Kurds) is an intentional part of the definition of genocide. R343L 07:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

gfjdyueryu

Genocide (Doctor Who)

I recently reverted the edit made by 194.80.32.8 since Genocide is also a Doctor Who novel. If anyone disagrees with my revert, please discuss it here. DrWho42 02:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and I agree with IP. This word is so "big", it probably pops up a thousand times as an episode title, if we should have one line for every one of those series it would be a big stupid silly mess. I say this despite having failed finding ny more examples, and I know, we have -yet- only this Dr Who episode there, but I felt it is, kind of, out of it's league in this article- this is such a major thing for humanity, a TV-series does not belong here. I am sure anyone looking for the given episode would accept not finding it here, or even a redirect here. It is possible you could build a disambiguation page for it, and then just add "for other meanings of the word Genocide, look here" style, but the Dr Who ref now seems very silly to me. (Or novel. Whatever.)Greswik 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pharos has fixed this, great. Greswik 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Theories of Genocide, Prevention Strategies

This article lacks an overview of the theoretical explanations available for genocides, as well as a listing of (suggested or practiced) longer term strategies for genocide prevention (as opposed to the strategies listed in the table with a typical sequence of genocidal events, which really do not represent preventive but reactive measures). Is this really all that genocide research has been able to come up with so far - just classifying and typologizing historical genocides and making them an international crime? If so, that may be a start, but it probably isn´t much of a longterm achievement yet. If there is more ... plz experts add it to the article. --Thewolf37 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Boer War

How is the murder of one quarter of two independent countries (Tranvaal & Orange Free State) population by Britain not a genocide? They attacked their countries, burned down their houses, killed all their livestock and herded the women and children into concentration camps where they were ill fed and died in the tens of thousands. Please add this atrocity to your article. Worst of all, the perpetrators of this atrocity are still heroes of British history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.14.137.80 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Stages of Genocide

I'm doing a genocide research project and looking unde stages of genocide. Wtf! Where's stage 3? It's missing! -Anonymous

Genocide in Iraq

Everyday in Iraq lots of muslims and hindus die. Sadly this is not only because of old age or diseases etc. This is because of suicidal attacks all over the country. Churches, Mosques and other buildings are burnt down, or simply bombed and the people behind all this terror blame their religion. In no bible or holy book of any religion doeas it say that you should hurt someone (e.g: Bible : love your neighbour). There are lots of information on this subject all over the web, depending on what you search. Information displayed and contributed by Shotgun333

Lead section

I'd like to add a section on genocide to the death article in tying in with war and acts of murder, but I need a summary version of this article, and the current lead section is still very short. I haven't got time to read through it myself and summarize right now, but if someone involved in editing this article would like to do so it would help a lot. Richard001 06:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit to the lede--a paren indicating that extermination is not necessary in the lede graf. I also added a 2nd graf: "It is important to note that under the various accepted definitions (see below), the act or crime of genocide does not reqire that the subject people actually become extinct or eliminated. In fact, most targets of genocide have managed to continue to exist as a people." I think this is good to have this up top. I was just stunned in an online conversation with someone who should know better who thought that genocide means only that absolute extermination of a people. By that definition almost nothing we think of today as genocide would qualify. So I though it important to make this point clearer near the top--even tho is is already in the entry lower down. (People today have short attn spans!) RUReady2Testify 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Coining of the term genocide

It isn't clear to me, what needs to be referenced in this para: the narrowness of the definition or that it was mainly based on the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide or that it was narrow because it was based on the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. What is more the statement about the narrowness of the definition is perhaps misleading. His definition reads: "By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group." (In 1946 he is even clearer: "Genocide is the crime of destroying national, racial or religious groups.) In the rest of the text he tends to use the word "national group" but the context seems clear that he means both national and ethnic groups. Already in 1933 he defines the "offense of barbarity" as committed against racial, religious, or social collectivities. I suggest editing the para to read as follows:

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1943, from the roots γένος genos (Greek for family, tribe or race) and -cide (Latin - occidere - to massacre) in the context of the Jewish Holocaust. Lemkin's genocide definition was based mainly on the Holocaust and Armenian genocide. It addressed crimes against "national, racial or religious groups". His definition included not only physical genocide but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of the group.

Finally, I propose deleting the last para of this section as repetitive. Joel Mc 11:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Genocide

By Ahmet Altan May 9, 2005 http://www.gazetem.net/ahmetaltan.asp Translated by the Zoryan Institute

I would like to ask a very simple, ordinary question.

Would you wish to be an Armenian in 1915?

No, you wouldn't.

Because now you know you would have been killed.

Please stop arguing about the number of murdered or the denials or the attempts to replace pain with statistics.

No one is denying that Armenians were murdered, right?

It may be 300,000, or 500,000, or 1.5 million.

I don't know which number is the truth, or whether anyone knows the true number accurately.

What I do know is the existence of the death and pain beyond these numbers.

I am also aware how we forget that we are talking about human beings when we are passionately debating the numbers.

Those numbers cannot describe the murdered babies, women, the elderly, the teenage boys and girls.

If we leave the numbers aside, and if we allow ourselves to hear the story of only one of these murders, I am sure that even those of us who get enraged when they hear the words "Armenian Genocide" will feel the pain, will have tears in their eyes.

Because they will realize that we are talking about human beings.

When we hear about a baby pulled from a mother's hands to be dashed on the rocks, or a youth shot to death beside a hill, or an old woman throttled by her slender neck, even the hard-hearted among us will be ashamed to say, "Yes, but these people killed the Turks."

Most of these people did not kill anyone.

These people became the innocent victims of a crazed government powered by murder, pitiless but also totally incompetent in governing.

This bloody insanity was a barbarism, not something for us to take pride in or be part of.

This was a slaughter that we should be ashamed of, and, if possible, something that we can sympathize with and share the pain.

I understand that the word "genocide" has a damningly critical meaning, based on the relentless insistence of the Armenians' "Accept the Genocide" argument, or the Turks' "No, it was not a genocide" counterargument, even though the Turks accept the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians.

And yet, this word is not that important for me, even though it has significance in politics and diplomacy.

What is more important for me is the fact that many innocent people were killed so barbarically.

When I see the shadow of this bloody event on the present world, I see a greater injustice done to the Armenians.

Our crime today is not to allow the present Armenians even to grieve for their cruelly killed relatives and parents.

Which Armenian living in Turkey today can openly grieve and commemorate a murdered grandmother, grandfather or uncle?

I have nothing in common with the terrible sin of the past Ittihadists, but the sin of not allowing grief for the dead belongs to all of us today.

Do you really want to commit this sin?

Is there anyone among us who would not shed tears for a family attacked at home in the middle of the night, or for a little girl left all alone in the desert during the nightmare called "deportation," or for a white-bearded grandfather shot?

Whether you call it genocide or not, hundreds of thousands of human beings were murdered.

Hundreds of thousands of lives snuffed out.

The fact that some Armenian gangs murdered some Turks cannot be an excuse to mask the truth that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were murdered.

A human being of conscience is capable of grieving for the Armenians, as well as the Turks, as well as the Kurds.

We all should.

Babies died; women and old people died.

They died in pain, tormented, terrified.

Is it really so important what religion or race these murdered people had?

Even in these terrifying times there were Turks who risked their lives trying to rescue Armenian children.

We are the children of these rescuers, as well as the children of the murderers.

Instead of justifying and arguing on behalf of the murderers, why don't we praise and defend the rescuers' compassion, honesty, and courage?

There are no more victims left to be rescued today, but there is a grief, a pain, to be shared and supported.

What's the use of a bloody, warmongering dance around a deep pain?

Forget the numbers, forget the Armenians, forget the Turks, just think of the babies, teenagers, and old people with necks broken, bellies slashed, bodies mutilated. Think about these people, one by one.

If nothing moves in you when you hear a baby wail as her mother is murdered, I have nothing to say to you.

Then add my name to the list of "traitors."

Because I am ready to share the grief and pain with the Armenians.

Because I still believe there is something yet to be rescued from all these meaningless and pitiless arguments, and that something is called "humanity."

Opening statement on the definition of 'genocide'

The old statement defined genocide as the "mass killing" of a group. This is not an accurate summary either of scholarly consensus or international law. In both the CPPCG and in Raphael Lemkin's original 1944 formulation, mass killing is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for genocide. In the CPPCG definition, for example, one could be guilty of genocide for forcibly removing the children of a national group with an intent to prevent that national group from reproducing itself (as happened to many First Nations groups in Canada, for example; although the Canadian state has not been charged with genocide, in principle it could be). In scholarly and activist literature, some authors defend the association of genocide with mass killing while others insist on a multidimensional conception of genocide. It is more "NPOV", so to speak, to introduce genocide as the "intentional destruction" of a group; this phrase is a bit ambiguous but that ambiguity is proper to the term as it is currently used. -- Christopher Powell 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "deliberate and systematic extermination" to substitute "destruction" for extermination and removed the OED citation. The Oxford English Dictionary for once is not authoritative, and in fact wrong. Neither the CPPCG, nor Lemkin's writing, equate genocide with physical extermination. Under the CPPCG, killing does not have to happen at all for genocide to take place. There are many scholars who disagree and define genocide in terms of mass killing, but there are also many who do not. The opening statement should be reasonably inclusive. Christopher Powell 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. The legal opinions expressed this year have clearly shown that the legal definition of genocide involves the physical killing of a group (or "part" of a group). See for example the European Court of Human Rights judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007: As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing' ' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.(ECHR Paragraph 45, quoting the ICJ (search on "Jorgic v. Germany")). -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the revert. Sorry to be stubborn, but this is an important and slippery point. Destruction, even physical destruction, is not the same thing as extermination. At issue is the question of whether genocide is understood as a process the object of which is more than a collection of individuals - a culture, a shared or communal existence, a 'social fact' in the Durkheimian sense - or whether genocide is 'only' the killing of individuals chosen for killing because of their group membership. Raphael Lemkin very clearly understood his own concept in terms of the former sense; the Convention is not inconsistent with such an interpretation; the point continues to be contested among scholars (e.g. Jean-Paul Sartre, Tony Barta, Thompson and Quets, Ward Churchill, Dirk Moses, etc.) and in general use.

This is particularly relevant in debates over genocides against indigenous peoples by settler societies, especially liberal-democratic settler societies that have not consistently sought the total physical extermination of their indigenous populations. I recognize that individualist definitions of genocide that reduce the term to one form or another of mass killing tend to predominate, especially in the U.S. literature, but the question is far from settled and I think that too specific a definition violates NPOV. Christopher Powell 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings

I don't want to stir up any spirits, but isn't, in respect with the UN definition, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocidal? I'm really not trying to make a point here, it really is an honest question. - Amenzix 13:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't aimed to target the Japanese people specifically, and in fact many more suffered (Koreans, American POWs), but you should consult reliable sources rather than fellow Wikipedians. In my opinion, it could be considered terrorism (in order to terrify the Japanese government, I am also not trying to make a point here), but certainly not genocide. Colchicum 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Preventive measures"

Some of these "Preventive measures" for the Stages of Genocide sound inconsistent with some of the freedoms expected in a liberal democracy. I mean, "Hate radio stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned."? America and alot of other Western developed nations don't ban the Neo-Nazis from spewing their slime. And what exactly is a "hate radio station"? The Genocide Watch link only briefly mentions possible preventive measures against Genocide. The "Preventive measures" column should at the very least be expanded upon with additional sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.101.174 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put the list in the context of its presentation. Please have a look at it now and see if it reads better. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Are identity cards a necessary step for genocides?

I just read that the Soviets required mandatory registration and issued identity cards to prevent Ukrainians from fleeing the Holodomor in December 1932. This reminds me of how the Nazis used identity documents to determine who was Jewish, and the Rwandans used them not just to determine but practically to define who was Hutu and who was Tutsi. The "stages of genocide" document presented describes such steps as classification and organization as general processes in a racist context, but it occurs to me that these processes more typically (though not always) occur first in the ostensibly neutral context of identifying and tracking the population at large, and only later turn out to be very helpful in facilitating mass murder. It follows that the originating source of genocides is not the tiny racist group with its propaganda, but the general social policy that classifies human beings as objects that must be tagged and controlled. Do you suppose this is correct? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find more genocide with economic origin than racist. The racism/religious bigotry is merely the vehicle by which the leader manipulates people.202.235.215.33 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Greek and Assyrian Genocide recognised

IAGS Officially Recognizes Greek Genocide (1914-1922) In a groundbreaking move, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has voted overwhelmingly to recognize the genocides inflicted on Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire between 1914 and 1923.

The resolution passed with the support of fully 83 percent of IAGS members who voted. The resolution (text below) declares that "it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks." It "calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution."

In 1997, the IAGS officially recognized the Armenian genocide. The current resolution notes that while activist and scholarly efforts have resulted in widespread acceptance of the Armenian genocide, there has been "little recognition of the qualitatively similar genocides against other Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire ." Assyrians, along with Pontian and Anatolian Greeks, were killed on a scale equivalent in per capita terms to the catastrophe inflicted on the Armenian population of the empire -- and by much the same methods, including mass executions, death marches, and starvation.

IAGS member Adam Jones drafted the resolution, and lobbied for it along with fellow member Thea Halo, whose mother Sano survived the Pontian Greek genocide. In an address to the membership at the IAGS conference in Sarajevo, Bosnia, in July 2007, Jones paid tribute to the efforts of "representatives of the Greek and Assyrian communities ... to publicize and call on the present Turkish government to acknowledge the genocides inflicted on their populations," which had made Asia Minor their home for millennia. The umbrella term "Assyrians" includes Chaldeans, Nestorians, Syriacs, Aramaens, Eastern Orthodox Syrians, and Jacobites.

"The overwhelming backing given to this resolution by the world's leading genocide scholars organization will help to raise consciousness about the Assyrian and Greek genocides," Jones said on December 15. "It will also act as a powerful counter to those, especially in present-day Turkey , who still ignore or deny outright the genocides of the Ottoman Christian minorities."

The resolution stated that "the denial of genocide is widely recognized as the final stage of genocide, enshrining impunity for the perpetrators of genocide, and demonstrably paving the way for future genocides." The Assyrian population of Iraq , for example, remains highly vulnerable to genocidal attack. Since 2003, Iraqi Assyrians have been exposed to severe persecution and "ethnic cleansing"; it is believed that up to half the Assyrian population has fled the country.

FULL TEXT OF THE IAGS RESOLUTION:

Quote: WHEREAS the denial of genocide is widely recognized as the final stage of genocide, enshrining impunity for the perpetrators of genocide, and demonstrably paving the way for future genocides;

WHEREAS the Ottoman genocide against minority populations during and following the First World War is usually depicted as a genocide against Armenians alone, with little recognition of the qualitatively similar genocides against other Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire ;

BE IT RESOLVED that it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Association calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution.

[1]

[2] Megistias (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION

No, the information that you claim here is false and merely is a collection of falsified information that you gathered from the web to reflect your personal twisted opinion. The UN definition of genocide and any related decisions only refer to events during WWII and post-WWII. The declarations that you cite here also are neither objective nor from valid institutions. The IAGS is a politically motivated organization that disrespects the history beyond comprehension and lacks the ethical framework to produce valid and reliable resolutions. IAGS is a "weeping wall" if you will, where nations that lost wars seek to recuperate their financial losses and social humiliation by passing resolutions to press the winner nations to secede a portion of their wealth and to publicly apologize. They do not have any scientific credibility and their sources of income is from the very countries that claim their population to have experienced genocide. The conflict of interest alone precludes IAGS from being taken seriously in the international arena, except of course by the countries that pay for the salaries of those scholars. (Armenia, Greece, Armenian and Greek diaspora in France and USA). Before posting next time get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.172.8 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't rant and make baseless and un-sourced accusations, particularly when it has no real relation to the article itself. If you really want to prove the IAGS is 'wrong' (I have yet to a single source, valid or otherwise, that says so) for some reason, do so on their article. Thank you. The Myotis (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section (intro)

I completely agree with the HTML comment after the lead section. It would be great if it could be rewritten - the legal definition moved into the main part of the article and be replaced with a summary of the rest of the article.

I think that the legal definition is pretty wordy, and doesn't add massively important points to the first sentence; it could be rephrased in a way that's more easy to understand and shorter; the full definition is more specialist and would fit better in the main part (to help towards complete knowledge rather than a summary).

Examples of genocide (etc.) would be great in the intro.

Thanks for all you hard work! Drum guy (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A Moral Hierarchy of Evil: The UN's Genocide Loophole

In the references section, I have added Jonah Goldberg's The Genocide Loophole, in which the author states that the bias inherent in the UN's genocide law "leaves the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century — self-described Marxist-Leninists — somewhat off the hook." Indeed, the U.N.-style definition of genocide amounts to "a moral hierarchy of evil, which in effect renders mass murder a second-tier crime if it's done in the name of social progress, modernization or other Enlightenment ideals."

Goldberg adds that this "is dangerous thinking; people perceived to be blocking progress — farmers, aristocrats, reactionaries — can be more forgivably slaughtered than ethnic groups because they're allegedly part of the problem, not the solution. After all, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet."

"Today, Mao and Stalin aren't in Hitler's class of evil because Hitler wasn't a "modernizer," he was a racist … It's a wrongheaded distinction. Murder is murder, whether the motive is bigotry or the pursuit of allegedly enlightened social planning." Asteriks (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The promotion of creating mixed-race babies is, by definition, genocide

So why does it not say that in the article?--Corpses In Their Mouths (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Classification (Yes).
• Symbolization (maybe propagators use somethig?).
• Dehumanization (depends. Forcing people to breed might be "bad" treatment -> Yes. Minimizing dementia -> "good" goal -> No?).
• Organization (Yes).
• Polarization (Yes).
• Preparation (Yes).
• Extermination (No? Unless You count exterminating unborn non-mixed-race babies :) ).
• Denial (of what :) That those kids would / wouldn't be f**ed up otherwise?). 4/8 100% Yes. Even though it's Half-true(tm) I say Hmmm. 8) ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.232.26 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ali Hassan al-Majid of Iraq was convicted of genocide

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition 6 Spetember 2008

An IP address |141.150.45.62 added the following to the article (that I have moved here for further discussion):

1) * * * What follows are related observations extracted from my short book (Ludwik Kowalski, "Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under The Stalinist Regime" Wasteland Press, Shelbyville, 2008, ISBN 978-1-60047-232-9). * * *

Extended content

a) Are mass killings avoidable? Hitler's holocaust was based on racism; Stalin's slaughter was based on the concept of class struggle. Can we say that these two ideologies of intolerance are responsible for mass killings? Or should the tragedies be attributed to the evil nature of leaders? The two tyrants were not alone; it is impossible to kill millions without favorable social conditions. Can such conditions be identified? Can they be eliminated? How can this be done? I am not sure how to answer such questions. But I strongly believe that all occurrences of mass genocide should be analyzed and exposed, not hidden or forgotten. Mass murder occurs when brutal and sadistic criminals, to be found in every society, are promoted to positions of dominance, when propaganda is used to dehumanize the targeted population and when children are inoculated with intolerance and hatred. It occurs when victims ("inferior races" or "class enemies") are excluded from the norms of morality, when ideological totalitarianism is imposed and when freedom is suspended. Fear and violence, the preconditions of genocide, are likely to be found in societies with large numbers of thieves and informants. . . . b) Is moral sensitivity of people sufficient to protect world societies from mass murderers? Probably not. What else is essential? Elimination of extreme poverty and injustice. How can this be accomplished? Many sociologists have asked this question. Karl Marx was one of them. He believed that the "proletarian dictatorship" was the answer. I suspect that the 20th century will be named after this kind of dictatorship. The idea was tried in many countries and failed. It did not create justice; it replaced old tyrants with more brutal tyrants. Lenin, Stalin and Mao are well known examples. So where is the answer? I do not know. Is man's inhumanity to man avoidable? Perhaps not, perhaps it should be accepted as part of human nature. If this is accepted then episodes of mass murder can be compared with other calamities, like epidemics, earthquakes and wars. (The black death epidemic did kill about one third of Europe's population in the Middle Ages; the Aids epidemic is rampant today; disasters caused by global warming are predicted, etc.) But scientific understanding of epidemics has often resulted in great improvements. Likewise, constructing less vulnerable buildings, or avoiding certain locations, can minimize consequences of earthquakes. What happened in the Soviet Union should not be attributed only to Stalin's despotic inclinations; it should also be attributed to the ideology he inherited from Lenin. We do not accept natural disasters passively; we do everything possible to prevent them, or at least to reduce their undesirable consequences. Why should man's inhumanity to man be accepted as unavoidable? Humanity is also part of nature. Most people want justice and deplore suffering. Shouldn't this be the basis for working toward elimination of man-made calamities?

Similar edits have been added to other pages by the same IP address eg this one to Torture promoting the same book by Ludwik Kowalski.

We clearly can not leave it in as it is, as we have no way of knowing if the author has given permission for copyright material to appear in this article under GFDL, and even if the author has is there anything in the text that adds value to this particular article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

List of known genocides

Hello, I think it would be very good if somebody has the knowledge and the will to make a wikipage regarding a list of known genocide's in history and currently. Just an idea. Thx. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is such a list, just I did not find it, in which case please do kindly point me to it. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So far I found the Genocide category as a starting point, is there any other, better structured, better documented? Like the Book burning page? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Genocides in history. The Myotis (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Colombia

Dear Wikipedians: I have noticed that among all countries included in the genocide article Colombia does not appear. It seems to me that the situation in that country has been overlooked. The paramilitaries have been systematically killing peasants in northern Colombia and in the Antioquia Department. This killings are believed to reach already 10.000 innocent civilians, killed and tortured by means of machetes and chainsaws. Shouldn't it be considered a genocide? Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entry please see the article genocide in history and add it there if you have reliable sources that claim a genocide took place. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Areas overlooked, left out: theoretical explanations, post-genocidal states, etc

Hello all. I have taken a look at this article and it appears, as aforementioned, that it lacks some areas of discussion that are fairly critical to the topic. First, why is 90% of this article centered around genocide as defined by law? This approach is rather narrow and looks at genocide from a viewpoint that fails to take into account the breadth of the violent acts involved. When a user commented on miscegenation as genocidal, it was turned away because it did not fit the proper legal definition. But you would be hard pressed to not call rape on a mass scale (given certain preconditions) genocidal. I also think that academia has a better grasp of this concept than what is written into law. After all, General Dallaire asserted that a meager few thousand troops would be able to halt the genocide in Rwanda as it reached its peak in 1994, yet the UN failed to acknowledge these crimes. Now nearly a million are dead. Why base an article on an institution that has failed miserably (or not even tried) to enforce its laws? Maybe I'm just pushing an agenda here, but it doesn't really make sense to me. This legal definition seems to have left a few genocides out of the list. The killing of Armenians by Young Turks, Ukrainians by the USSR, those by the Khmer Rouge, and the murdering of the indigenous peoples of Guatamalan by the counterinsurgency there, which was also aided by the United States. Speaking of the United States, how has the murder of Native Americans fallen outside of the scope of genocide? This article disgusts me. You should make this addition: that people won't recognize genocide if it is not large-scale, or if it doesn't show overt mass-killings, or if it is perpetrated by the Western world.

This leads me to my second question, which was mentioned by another user. Where are the theoretical explanations of genocide? One of the prominent theories is openly disputed, wrongly, by the introduction. The U.N. states that genocide occurred throughout history? What history? Where is the citation for this? Because it's plain bullshit. There is little evidence of genocide occurring in history; it's a modern event. This is fairly established in the academic world, by those who actually study war, violence, and its forms. I don't see why this article lacks reference to Goldhagen or Zygmunt Bauman. Genocide is a modern event only made possible by modernity which represents the purest form of humanity in its modern form.

Third, there is a weak reference to some sort of genocidal prevention rubric, which is nonsense, yet there is no mention of the study of post-genocidal states?

Sorry for the way I put these points across, and looking over them now I will not make edits. This article is unimpressive. I don't expect any wikipedia article to cover the whole scope of any concept, but the article about Jay Cutler is more extensive. And he's only been in the NFL for 2.3 seasons. --Mtoyama (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see the linked articles like Genocides in history and Definitions of genocide? Rmhermen (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On the specific question that "The U.N. states that genocide occurred throughout history? What history?", I have added a citation to the article.[3] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack, well, editing wikipedia while in tired and in a bad mood is not a good idea. Thanks for the citation, I will check that out when I have time. That history looks fairly extensive, but I would still like to see a theory section on the main genocide article. I will review all of this when I have a bit of time. Sorry for the childish approach in my original writeup. --Mtoyama (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I blind or where is the Armenian genocide?

This is weird that I cannot find anything in the article about genocide anything about the Armenian genocide of 1915. This makes the article at least inacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.122.175 (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Coining of the term genocide", but also see the article genocides in history --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Experts on genocide have written that genocide denial is an extension of (and often integral to) the actual genocide: thus the Armenian Genocide could be seen as an ongoing event due to the continuing denial of it at state level by Turkey. I'll try to add something about this into the article at some future date. BTW, I hope the above editor will not see this as a reason to archive this discussion. Meowy 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Former Yugoslavia

I have updated the relevant info on Karadžić, but I think someone should check my English and find a better way to phrase that... BytEfLUSh (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanking and tag

I don't understand the "dubious" tag on the Spanish judicial definition of genocide, nor the blanking of the explanation of the in-built political limitations on the UN Security Council's efficacy in preventing or even ameliorating genocide.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish source is several years out of date. It may well be true but a much more up to date source is needed because by now some of the arguments will have been discussed in depth. I did a quick search but all the sources I looked at were as old as the one listed. In the next day or so I'll see if I can find a more up to date one.

The position of the UN Security council is a bit more complicated than the sentence added implies. It is not that they have a veto, it is also that without the active support of some of the permanent members, it is very unlikely that the UN has the strength to do anything (even if the permanent members do not use their veto). Although this is well known it is OR without a source. I think a better option is to mention how the ICC can only investigate the situation in a country if invited to do so by the state (as has happened in Uganda) or if the Security Council requests the ICC to do so under Article 13.b of the Rome Statute. The Security Council has done this for the first time over the situation in Darfur which may be a big step forward in Genocide prevention. (see Darfur conflict#International Criminal Court). --PBS (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With the situation in Spain, here is a 2003 reference Argentine Military Officers Face Trial in Spanish Courts by Richard J. Wilson which describes some of the details of this. But these from March 2008 also makes interesting reading Spain to extradite "Dirty War" Argentine officer by Reuters and Spain authorizes Cavallo's extradition to Argentina.

I have found a reference to the Spanish law on genocide and it covers the same four groups as the Genocide Convention not politicide see footnote 14 in "Spanish Criminal Prosecutions Use International Human Rights Law to Battle Impunity in Chile and Argentina" by Richard Wilson. --PBS (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it was a judge of the Argentine Federal Court (The Shock Doctrine, pages 100-102) who put the strongest case for it being genocide, outside of the four groups criteria. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that the Spanish argument was that the "in part" requirement of a national group was met (ie a protected group under their law). I think that Carlos Rozanski's has built an elaborate argument, but notice that Ricardo Miguel Cavallo has been extradited from Spain to Argentina for crimes against humanity not genocide, and Rozanski sent Miguel Etchecolatz down for crimes against humanity not for the crime of genocide. What is more useful if you wish to progress this line of argument (although because Rozanski recognised it to be controversial, it should be attributed to him "Carlos Rozanski's has stated ...") is the last paragraph and in particular the footnote on page 101. But I think the place to put it is in the section as a stand alone paragraph in the "Criticisms of the CPPCG and other definitions of genocide" section after the Barbara Harff paragraph and before the Rummel paragraph, not in the lead. Also I think that there should be an entry in the Genocides in history page for this point of view. --PBS (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I have now added a section to the Genocides in history article on the Dirty war.[4] I have also added the countries mentioned in the source for having genocide under their municipal law broader than that of CPPCG.[5] --PBS (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Add this inter wiki link

• ta:இனவழிப்பு —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.198.191 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Catholic inquisition

Men in white robes (? organisation) came. Prepared as much as gallows (preparation) to do their job. Mob shouted "Witches!" (classification). "Burn them"(extermination).

Tortured (dehumanitazion) women crept inside of crowd. Satanic marks (symbolization) burned on their bruised naked breasts (polarization) (? just a wild guess, certainly not crosses :) - but 5-star was "that" symbol.). They we're found guilty and burned to death.

1000 years later. "We did it in good faith" (denial) said Church. Let me guess, people tend to forget? :) Was this Inquisition inquisition genocide? If not, why? Thanks ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.232.26 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where are the Native Americans?

Why is it so difficult to find the words "Native American" or "Indian" in combination with "genocide" or "holocaust" at this so-called "encyclopedia"? There is clearly a concerted effort to prevent anyone from telling the truth about the systematic eradication (genocidal ethnic-cleansing holocaust) of the native peoples from the Americas by the European invaders. And don't point me to Indian massacre, because that so-called "article" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Somebody needs to work the truth into this article and not let the historical revisionism (denialism) continue. Not Genocides in history or some other backwater article, but this article, the main article on genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We just wait for the people with knowledge to come along and add it. SO, you seem to know and care, that makes it your responsibility. Do the research, add to the article, just make sure you follow our core policies of WP:NPOVWP:V and WP:NOR. It is up to YOU! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't be a serious editor anymore. I was broken by the WP system years ago. The gatekeepers always find a way to block the truth, regardless of the subject. Whether they gang up on you with sock/meat-puppets to revert all your additions without your being able to defend your edits in kind (or risk a block), or whether they police the references to find problems with any that sources what they don't want sourced, or whether it's some other form of policy-gaming, they'll be manning those gates, around the clock. I'm only one person. I could perhaps join a group of like-minded people to wage counter attacks, but that would only legitimize their tactics, and besides, I believe it was Sun Tzu who said, "He who has the admin bit, mans the gates." Or something. Anyway all I want is for a sympathetic admin to do the right thing. I learned long ago that the admins write WP, whether directly or indirectly. To get the truth about the US atrocities into this US-centric wiki would require admin approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you fear you work will be reverted, write a paragraph or two of NPOV, NOR text, with verifiabl reliable sources, on the US and SPanish Genocides of Native Americans, and we can disuss and improve it on this page before adding it to the article Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I know better than to try anymore. I invite you to take a look at the edits to this article by User:Philip_Baird_Shearer for some examples of what I mean (I only checked the first page). When powerful people are determined to keep certain information out of an article, then it won't be added, even if the consensus among common editors was to add it. The powerful stick together and back one another up. Again, the administrators write Wikipedia. Common editors are allowed to do janitorial duty, but are not allowed to do any serious content work. I came to discuss this with the hope that a sympathetic admin sees it and does the right thing, but that's all I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Administrators have nothing to do with this, they simply perform routine maintenance functons; everyone is an editor. Editors do all the serous content work (as long as they are collaborative and comply with policy). Wikipedia works because people write the articles they want to write. Obviously you just do not ant to do squat, and want to tell other people to do the work you are too lazy to do. You want to write something, go ahead and write it. Don't tell me to write it. Who the hell made you my boss? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too lazy. I just know, after nearly 7 years of editing and observing this site, that the cabal is very much real and biases are strictly enforced. If I thought for a moment that I could sneak it past the gatekeepers, I'd write an article-long piece on the native American genocide and invite others to cannibalize it for whatever the consensus found worthy of inclusion. But I swore to never put my heart into this project ever again after having undergone that very process in the past and seen all my efforts dashed by admins -- who iced the cake by blocking me for complaining about their abuse. So, no, I think I'll just continue raising a stink and voicing complaints that I know other share. One of these days, we're going to get some changes on this site. Oh, and I haven't asked you personally to do anything. You're welcome to take a hike.