Jump to content

Talk:Genocide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.150.92.174 (talk) at 19:36, 15 March 2017 (→‎Problems with the introductory and UN definitions: response to genocide denier). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Find sources notice This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurennoble, Mbrennan8 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Graycake.

Genocide in South Africa

I would kindly like to inform you about the ongoing white genocide in the Republic of South-Africa. Since 1994, the end of the so-called Apartheid, whites people, especially white farmers, have been subject to extremely brutal and racist murders. About 50 people on average are murdered in South-Africa per day, of which at least 20 of them are whites(95+ % black on white murder rate). Please take into consideration that white people make up only 9% (4 500 000) of the demographics in South-Africa and therefore the white murder rate in South-Africa is quite significant. http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

This article is Bias towards the Holocaust and in denial of the White Genocide in South Africa.

The neutrality of this article is disputed as giving to much attention to the Holocaust and downplaying other holocausts like the The Holodomor in Ukraine and the white Genocide in South Africa.

The Genocide in South Africa is being perfected by calling the Genocide "ordinary crime" and ignoring other supporting Genocidal programs like Affirmative Action against a minority.

Here is an example of methods used by Zionists to edit Wikipedia. This method is used to propagandize the Holocaust and downplay the Holodomor, white genocide in South Africa, and other Genocides. The Palestinian Genocide will also not ne noted in this article, and all kinds of junk reasons used to censor the Palestinian Genocide: Course: Zionist Editing on Wikipedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

Terminology Error in Into

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

"Intent to destroy" missing from lede – proposal to add

One of the most common misuses of term genocide in the media is ignorance or amnesia with respect to the "intent" part of the definition. The naive understanding is that, if a genocidal doesn't annihilate a group, that it somehow was "not genocide". For example, someone might believe, "Because there are Native Americans alive today, the United States did not eliminate all the Native American population, therefore the U.S.A. cannot be guilty of genocide against the Native Americans." This logic is incorrect, as the definition shows; the burden of proving genocide is to prove the intent to destroy… which is quite different than total destruction. I move that we should specifically include the word "intent" in the lede, as its a key part of the definition and is probably the most commonly misunderstood aspect of genocide among non-scholars. Objections / dissent? - Jm3 / 13:55, November 17, 2015‎ (UTC)

this is now done. - Jm3 / 01:58, November 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

Odd one out

Well-known examples of genocide include the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, and more recently the Kurdish Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide and the Rwandan genocide.

Now I'm not saying it's less valid or less of a genocide than the others, but one in particular stands out here. I have never heard of this Bangladesh genocide. Is it as well-known as the others there? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known and doesn't stand out. Clicking the article might have helped in alleviating your ignorance.
Shopnochura (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create the page aracial, it has nothing to do with the Holocaust so it deserves a separate page

Noun

Template:En-noun

  1. Template:Lb Not accepting the racial nomenclature but only the empathetically humane (not necessarily genetically human) race. (not a "corporeal aracial" due to multiraciality but a "philosophical aracial", even a multiracial can be if doesn't focus on the flesh)

Personal attack and removal of sourced content

In this edit sourced content was reverted [1] and a personal attack was done in the edit summary. The edits I did were not just as claimed by the user critical of Kurds, but also of Turks, Ottomans and Iraqi Army and Palestinians. What is commmon in the edits is that they were pro-Christian and pro-Assyrian, not that they were anti-Ottoman or anti-Kurdish. What was added is based upon reliable sources and found in other words in articles like Assyrian Genocide and Armenian genocide. Can I ask the user who reverted to give a policy based reason for the revert, and other users to comment? Thanks.

Also, the user is wrong that it is irrelevant, or it is opinion, but many historians have argued that kurdish-Assyrian animosity dating back decades or even longer have played a major role in such events. He cannot say that this irrelevant. See for example the section "The Kurds responsibility for the massacre" in Aboona, H (2008). Assyrians and Ottomans: intercommunal relations on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire. Cambria Press. And the British knew well of the generals anti-assyrian animosity, as do the Assyrians.

Can the image be added without mentioning that the general was Kurdish or that the army was Iraqi?

See the contributions of 87.189.128.42 (talk · contribs) and my comments on their talk page. The fact that an Iraqi nationalist was Kurdish is indeed irrelevant without reliable sources saying it is relevant. That's policy - WP:VERIFY etc. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assyrians have been attacked in the middle east by either Turkish, Kurdish or Arab generals or tribes for the most part, so I do not find it irrelevant, as there is a documented anti-assyrian animosity of these groups. Just ask any Assyrian human rights organization really. This source [2] says Bakr Sidqi is also accused of having tried to set up a Kurdish state in the north of Iraq, which would include the Kurds of Iran . Even your source notes that he was accused of Anti-arabism because he was Kurdish. This source [3] says he promoted kurds and turkomans until they were 90 percent, ...but [despite Bakr] Iraq could hardly be transformed into a kurdish or turkish state. Also your source is just one opinion. There could be others.
The article correctly states that the work on defining this term was prompted by the simele massacre. There was no other image of this, but should be added for illustration which is normal procedure. The image is attributed to Simele massacre. Please discuss if other image(s) on this massacre should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.128.42 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term genocide was coined in response the Armenian Genocide ?

This sentence seems dubious "The term genocide was coined in response the Armenian Genocide", the OED gives the origin of the term as 1940's. The first source says "..when Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the 1915 annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide". Taking 29 years to coin a term hardly qualifies as 'a response', neither is citing the 'Armenian Genocide' as an example, the same as coining the term as 'a response' I know the sources refer to attempts by Lemkin to get 'crimes against groups', recognised before 1944, but if no published use of the term existed before 1944, the term simply did not exist before then.

Another source used states explicitly "in the course of his monumental study Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, the late Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide - from the Greek genos (race or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing) - to describe the deliberate destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. The concept was catching, and in December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution recognizing genocide as a crime under international law … … Axis Rule in Occupied Europe doesn't sound much like 'the Armenian Genocide'! Pincrete (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that struck me as being a change in contravention to WP:NOR. The history and background of Lemkin's interests are WP:OFFTOPIC for the scope of this article (and can be argued out on his bio, or on the definitions of genocide article), but the only matter of concern here is that it was coined by him, then adopted by the UN. No, the Axis Rule was certainly not the recognition of the term on the strength of a genocide which took place over 20 years earlier. To draw such a conclusion is WP:SYNTH and should be omitted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that perhaps the best course of action here is for any editor who has the time (not me at the moment, I'm afraid) to read Axis Rule in Occupied Europe and to see what Lemkin said therein about the origin of the term. Specifically, did he describe its coinage as being (akin to) a response to the Armenian genocide, or not? If so, then this should be cited in the article. If not, then that part of the article should perhaps be rewritten appropriately. zazpot (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually came here precisely to clarify when/how the term was coined and was a bit surprised by the claim and agree that it is SYNTH. I wasn't sufficiently certain of the true picture to make the edit myself at that time. I also agree that precisely how Lemkin evolved his views over many years is a detail for the biog page. 'Armenia' is an example of the newly coined term, one of a number I believe in his book, but the term was not coined as 'a response' to Armenia. Unless there were an absolutely unequivocal statement from Lemkin that it was such a response, we have to go with what 2ndary sources are saying, which is that it was an example.
I'm prepared to try and make the edit, however what I'm a bit unsure of at present is where Nazi racial policies in occupied Europe, and specifically the holocaust fit into the 'coinage' narrative, (ie were these the primary subject of Lemkin's book, which the book title suggests, were they also examples, if not how did they fit into Lemkin's account?). Alternatively we could simply avoid characterising ANY relationship between Lemkin's coinage and these events/policies. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clarify this. It is important that Lemkin's motivation to dedicate his whole life to working against mass murder is mentionned. Power makes it clear that he was motivated by his observation of the Holocaust as well. Philippe Sands book gives even more reference to this. I have tried to reduce the books to those most directly related to Lemkin's motivation. Joel Mc (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC) p. 77 in "Axis Rule.." is but one example of the influence of Nazi mass murders on him. Joel Mc (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little doubt that what you say is true about Lemkin's 'life work', which went beyond 'physical' destruction of peoples, to encompass intentional 'cultural' destruction. However that kind of detail probably belongs on 'his' article, and the book article. What is relevant here is the meaning and genesis of the term, expressed accurately and succinctly. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but, to be clear, I would not agree to "simply avoid characterising ANY relationship between Lemkin's coinage and these events/policies." Joel Mc (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A significant part of Lemkin's book, the part mainly concerned with genocide, is here. Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I had made it clear above that I would not agree not to link Lemkin's motivation for work on genocide. I have returned the Armenians and added the Nazis. Joel Mc (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joel Mc, I don't object to your edits on first look, since they relate to Lemkin's lifelong interests (which are RS'd ), rather than to coinage of the term, which is much more blurred, but which is clearly in a book about Nazi policies. A detail is that other mass murders, apart from 'Armenian', were also referred to by Lemkin in that book. I hope we agree about the context of coinage, but that no specific event(s) led solely, directly to the coinage. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unhappy about the wording of the lead, which still implies that the word was coined to describe Armenian killings. Can we agree that the word was coined in a book describing Nazi practices/policies in occupied Europe (many of these events and practices have since acquired their own terms, such as Holocaust, but Lemkin does not use these terms nor identify/classify the specific events in the way that they have been classified post-WWII).
Lemkin's book cites examples from history including 'Armenia', other 'Ottoman' massacres, Tsarist and E. European pogroms etc..
Lemkin had a lifelong interest in crimes against peoples, which he himself attributes to learning about the Armenian killings as a young man in the late 1920's, an interest which he pursued through other mass actions against peoples.
I believe all three of these is true and RS'd, what I don't accept is that the word was coined specifically to describe 'Armenia', nor indeed any specific event(s), though the strongest contender would have to be 'Nazi crimes'. Pincrete (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem in changing the second para in the lede, how about: "The term genocide was coined in response to mass murder of populations in the 20th century, ranging from that of the Armenians beginning in 1915 and to the mass murders in Nazi controlled Europe.” Added info for background: Lemkin referred to the Armenian issue with respect to creating the concept later referred as genocide in talks and lectures he gave at and around Duke University, 1941-2 in North Carolina. (Sands, Philippe (2016). East West Street : on the origins of "Genocide" and "Crimes Against Humanity”. Chapter 72) He also referred to the Armenian events in his article in the American Scholar (Volume 15, no. 2 (April 1946), p. 227-230) Joel Mc (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a simpler suggestion, but it's late now and my brain hurts! On a side-note, I found several other articles claiming/implying that those incidents solely prompted coinage of the term! Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
92slim please read (and join) this discussion. Sources do not state that Lemkin 'coined the term in response' to any single event, and you can't equate Lemkin's use of 'Nazi war crimes in Europe' with the Holocaust, since he is referring to many war crimes OTHER than even the broader use of 'Holocaust' (ie including Roma etc). Lemkin is clear that what was being done to the Jews and to Poles, Russians and other E. Europeans was more brutal than what was happening in W. Europe, but the book is about ALL 'crimes against peoples' in occupied Europe and the term was coined in a book about those crimes. Lemkin did become interested in the subject initially because of hearing about Armenia, and he does cite Armenia (and several other examples) as 'classic examples' but he coined the term nearly twenty years after first becoming interested in what happened in Armenia and in a different context. Let's find a way to represent all this clearly and succinctly. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
92slim can't join the discussion due to being blocked. But I agree with you. El_C 22:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Genocide

We plan to add to the already existing article on Genocide. We plan to add a section about Native American genocide. In this section we will discuss how genocide has been carried out against these indigenous people for hundreds of years in North America. This topic will span from early American History to modern day issues. The sources listed below are the ones we will use to build our writing.

Andersen, Chris, and Jean M. O'Brien. Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies, edited by Chris Andersen, and Jean M. O'Brien, Taylor and Francis, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/lib/UAZ/detail.action?docID=4771878. Lindsay, Brendan C.. Murder State, edited by Brendan C. Lindsay, UNP - Nebraska, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy4.library.arizona.edu/lib/UAZ/detail.action?docID=915522.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Magliari, Michael F. "Ethnic Cleansing And The Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America." H-Net Reviews In The Humanities & Social Sciences (2016): 1-6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120624336&site=ehost-liveCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

HIXSON, WALTER L. "Policing The Past: Indian Removal And Genocide Studies." Western Historical Quarterly 47.4 (2016): 439-443. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=119107668&site=ehost-liveCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Melançon, Jérôme. "Colonial Genocide In Indigenous North America." Canadian Journal Of Sociology 41.4 (2016): 565-568. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=120553784&site=ehost-liveCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).] (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Laurennoble (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Atrocities Against Native Americans” United to End Genocide. 2016. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. http://endgenocide.org/learn/past-genocides/native-americans

Ostler, Jeffrey. “Genocide and American Indian History. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Web. 14 Feb 2017. http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3

Mbrennan8 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there is already an article at Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples. It may be more appropriate to add and improve the section at that article, with a brief mention here and link to the fuller article using the Template:See also, in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE weight. Happy Editing! meamemg (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mbrennan8, I agree with Meamemg, in general I would say that there is already too much detail on this article about individual instances, which pretty much all have their own articles. The effect of specific instances occupying too much 'space' is that the overall article becomes unreadably long. Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this article. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the introductory and UN definitions

Unless I've been missing something, historical campaigns of genocide clearly target political and social groups, such as the Left, communists, socialists and trades unionists (the latter being potentially apolitical and therefore social). In Cambodia and China professionals were targeted, another social group. Groups have also clearly been subject to genocide because of their sexual inclinations. This is touched upon in the current definitions by the phrase 'or in part' (with reference to the genocide of peoples) but no overt mention of genocide of political and social groups is made, despite its clear historical importance. This seems in line with traditional conservative prohibition on discussion of sex, religion and politics, on the grounds that such discussions can become inflammatory. But religious groups are overtly mentioned, and there is no consistent ban on these topics elsewhere in Wikipedia guidelines or indeed UN literature. Why does it matter to me suddenly now? Because I have suddenly become consciously aware of the possibility of historical trend towards genocide towards myself and my own political and social groups in my own life/lifetime. I have suddenly become aware of this in the course of preparing a legal case, and suddenly feel let down and disappointed to find that standard definitions of genocide fail to overtly record its clear politico-social aspect. This makes the claim to be a possible victim of genocide sound potentially less plausible in a court of law. But realistically, it shouldn't do, should it, and I and others like myself shouldn't suffer because of UN or Wikipedian squeamishness - Amen? Traditionally, the victim groups I refer to have perhaps done less than our share, overtly, in our group identity role, in terms of reversing trends towards genocide - this was, in my case at least, linked to not knowing what to do or say or when. But let's hope this initial Talk section post marks a break in that trend.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5.150.92.174, the standard defintion (genos), and UN legal definition both imply a national or ethnic group. There are other terms for targetting groups according to their politics or some other factor. Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence is correct, apart from the grammar (missing initial capital letter). But the existing UN and Wikipedia definitions, as I have already stated, already acknowledge the validity of the use of the term 'genocide' for sub-groups of a people. In fact, when you think about it, genocide generally applies to sub-groups of a people, except in those exceptional instances where whole peoples are wiped out (e.g., the original 'Teutons,' who bequeathed their name to the race of that name). Your second sentence is unevidenced, which is perhaps a good thing, because any attempt to evidence it would expose the inferiority of your argument to the status quo (i.e., the existing UN and Wikipedia definitions of genocide, which acknowledge that the targetting of sub-groups of a people can be sufficiently widespread and extreme to constitute genocide).
Additionally, 5.150.92.174, while your comment is politely constructed, it is original research. Please read WP:SOAP. This is an article talk page, not a forum. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is POV and implausible to state that my comment is 'politely constructed' - implausible because construction is a relatively neutral process of bringing together statements which, in themselves, might or might not be polite; POV because there appears to be a lobby which considers it most impolite and offensive to question old-fashioned definitions around genocide, a lobby which you yourself ultimately defer to. As to your assertions re original research/WP:SOAP, the conflict between genocide traditionalists (= partial deniers, effectively) and those who wish to broaden definitions to recognise terrible but politically awkward realities is, by now an old one. It is simply inaccurate, inadequate and dishonest to pretend that it's new whenever it appears. The conflict over definitions should at least be documented, in the interests of accuracy. There should be no place here for genocide deniers, who, unless I am mistaken, always are, in fact, 'partial genocide deniers' when you look at it.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide&oldid=770494626"