Talk:Genocide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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. Peer reviewers: Graycake.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"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)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The hatnote on this page previously read This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation). The hat note has been changed to This article is about the systematic murder or destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is also a page Genocides in history. Should we restore the original hatnote and treat this as a law article? (Talk page discussion is at the end of this section) Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A third option, the best imo, is just to remove the wording completely, retaining only the "for other uses see" part. In an earlier talk discussion, Seraphim System was using the fact that the article was tagged "This article is about the crime" as an argument that the content of this article should be about just "the crime". That was an invalid argument because Wikipedia content cannot be used as source for Wikipedia content, and, furthermore, no discussion had ever taken place deciding that the article should be about just "the crime", and no discussion at all had taken place about the content of the "about" (hatnote) tag. I have put "the crime" in inverted commas because it is not clear to me what is meant by "the crime". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Let me make it clear - Jorgic is serving a life sentence for a genocide conviction that was upheld by ECHR. The ECHR held universal jurisdiction for the crime genocide, which means any national court can try some for a genocide that was committed outside its territory. It also upheld the broad definition of genocide, in other words, under the ECHR ruling biological-physical destruction is not required. The work of legal scholars should be cited directly to them, or to a general source like Oxford Handbooks, and not represented as part of the Court's holding about an element of a crime (see WP:MOSLAW) Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

???What has this to do with this RfC or my above point? It is an off-topic comment, or have you posted the above in the wrong section by mistake. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I will summarize my understanding of the discussion with User:Iryna Harpy yesterday, which it seems you did not read before responding. On general pages, such as this one, we do not prefer to use primary sources. WP:MOSLEGAL has certain rules in place for the use of legal primary source material that is consistent with established standards in that field. Since this page does not adhere to those guidelines, we are looking into secondary sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Why would imposing a strictly legal interpretation on a widely used concept be thought an improvement? Why would restoring the 'hatnote' be synonymous with treating the subject as though it were solely-legal, this appears to be a false argument used to try to radically alter (and in this case probably distort) an article subject. What on earth has Jorgic got to do with the ostensible subject of the RfC, ie the "hatnote". WP is a general purpose ency, it is not a legal textbook whose purpose, conventions etc may be very different. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Ditto on the comments made by Tiptoe and Pincrete. This article has been about 'Genocide' broadly construed since its inception. Taking a hatnote and trying to turn it into the WP:TITLE is contrary to the subject of the article. If it is understood that a MOS:LAW compliant article should be written explicitly covering the subject of 'genocide' in criminal law, it's a separate question. The subject of this article is, however, 'Genocide', not Genocide (law). Rather than proscribe the article, how about creating a separate article where specialists are required. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Did I phrase the RfC wrong? This article is full of legal content, which is technical content, that does not adhere to guidelines. There are problems with mixing a significant amount of legal writing into non-technical articles...part of it comes from not following the MOS for this type of article and improperly applied legal citations. If this is not a law article, remove the technical law content (Discussion of cases, applying case law to elements of the crime ... ) Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I am fine with creating a specialist article. In that case, the legal content on this page should be moved, and in its place a brief and general introduction to the subject should be written, with a link to the main page. If I made a page about Descartes' theorem and then decided for no reason that it wasn't about math, and the information on the page was incorrect, that would obviously not be ok. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete I consider an accusation that I am trying to distort an article subject to be a personal attack, especially when the article content is exclusively on a technical subject, and you are trying to stop me from correcting errors that distort case law. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: No, I don't think that your wording was wrong. I also understand your intentions to be good, but the article was well sourced using third party and tertiary sources. If there are problems with some of the content, these need to be addressed by exploring and elucidating on sourcing rather than trying to squeeze the content down to fit one aspect of it. If it is understood that a MOS:LAW compliant article should be written explicitly covering the subject of 'genocide' in criminal law, it's a separate question. Firstly, you're not going to find experts in the field who are prepared to develop the article. Really. Unfortunately, asking for any experts in any field (other than medicine) is an excellent method for parring article back to a stub and grinding development to a halt. If the subject only covered genocide in criminal law, it would be another article altogether. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the law article would need to be written (in a draft space?) before removing any of the content here. I don't believe that it's standing on the toes of criminal law, rather it's just citing well sourced content. I'm not sure that there's a bright line here, but there's certainly a fine line for distinction between OR and RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've had formal legal education, I'll write the article. It's not enough for the sources to be good, they must be correctly applied to the proposition. This is part of WP:RS. I don't know if I am not being clear, but there is no POV about this - if you cite a case to an element of the crime you must cite the holding, not what we call dicta (unless you make it clear you are citing dicta with introductory signals) - if a law student reads this article, they should be able to rely on what are considered standard practices in this field. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please compare the Britannica entry on the subject. I understand what your concerns are, but this article adheres to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook." It is not written for students of law, but is a general overview for the lay person. As editors, it is our job to handle the sources and content as intelligently and neutrally as we can. This means that we don't dismiss reliable sources on the subject because it is inconvenient to our perception of what the article is or is not about. I have a very limited background in law (and certainly none in criminal law), but I'd be happy to assist in developing such an article in as far as my abilities allow me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The Britannica entry is a good guideline for this article. Law does require specialized knowledge/education, as much as Python syntax and semantics does, and it is easy to make mistakes. To help avoid this, briefs are available (even for Jorgic) - I am very concerned because currently it is not a correct statement of the law in that jurisdiction (ECHR) - if we are not going to use MOS:LAW citation what I can do is fix the wording, add a basic version of the holding without the technical details, and then cite discussion of physical-biological destruction directly to the scholars that support it (avoiding the need to use introductory signals.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

*1. Keep the current hatnote. My opinion: Per WP:Hatnote, keep the explanation simple as possible, which I think the current hatnote does. Stating 'the crime"requires prerequisite knowledge to know what is the crime, and also the article is broader than an legal crime.

*2. Do not treat this article as only a law article. My opinion: the article subject is broader than genocide law, a separate law article could be written. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

After yesterday's discussion (see below) I also think that a full discussion of the law would overburden an overview page. Certain problematic sections like "intent" could be moved or merged into the draft for the new article, and replaced with a general statement that intent is required (and save discussion of what is and is not enough for intent, mens rea/actus reus, etc. for the law page) - this page should provide a general background of the legal history, similar to the scope of the Britannica entry Iryna Harpy posted above Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the current hatnote. The article is broader than just the law aspect of genocide. We might need something like Genocide (crime) article which would detail the nuances of genocide in law, but that's a different issue. Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think there's a point to be made in favor of revising the current hatnote based on what Tiptoethrutheminefield said about Seraphim System's alleged non-sequitur re: Jorgic and the ECHR. Given there are legal definitions of genocide that are different (broader, or without overlap) than how the current hatnote defines it, and given that this article covers the crime, the hatnote will need to be more broad to encompass both concepts. It's too narrow now. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acadian genocide?

Is the with subsequent language policies to erase the french language a genocide? It seems similar to the Circassians genocide, a pre-industrial act of erasing one people's legacy from a certain land. Not to forget the boats that were to send Acadians back to France where not given care to make it safely to the other side of the Atlantic, resulting in many people drowning in sinking skips. Children were taken in some cases and sold as servants in the thirteen colonies and the caribbean islands. It also resulted in a big diaspora in Canada, France and the United States. These all seem like traits of a genocide. --24.200.142.118 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No one else seems to classify it as one, so that doesn't fit the right criteria. What happened to the Acadians was more similar to the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). With the Circassians, there was a clear attempt to kill, but with the Acadians, they were just deported. Ethnic cleansing might be the correct title. 135.23.20.146 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

As with most other things on WP, only WP:RS can establish whether something is genocide or not. There are many instances where a small number of sources say yes, while the majority say no. Acadian expulsion appears to be an instance where few or no sources say yes. It is also harder to establish in historical instances whether the word applies. But these are all matters for the Expulsions of Acadians page rather than this one. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass killing

I want to express my concern over the specific line "While mass killing is not necessary for genocide to have been committed, it has been present in all recognized genocides.", of which my edits have been repeatedly reverted. There are various problems with this particular line, and not just because of my personal preferences.

The problem is that who determines what is a "recognized genocide" in this context? Academia? Specific political organizations? Certain countries? As stated earlier in my edit summaries as well as the article itself, recognition of certain events as genocide often varies depending on the organization/government. There have been cases where certain events have been recognized by some governments as genocide of which there is scant evidence of mass killing (for example Canada and the Netherlands with the ongoing treatment of Uyghurs). There are also cases where an event has recognition as genocide by many countries/non-fringe organizations but whose recognition is not universal (ex. the Holodomor). And even cases where there's broad recognition of genocide, there are those who think otherwise (ex. the Turkish government with respect to the Armenian Genocide). In addition to the statement itself being unsourced, to say that mass killing has been present in "all recognized genocides" is highly misleading given genocides tend to have varying degrees of recognition as well as that the definition of genocide is contentious. Dankmemes2 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lemkin and the Armenian genocide...

There is no record of Lemkin learning about this genocide until he was studying at Lwow University in 1921. See Raphael Lemkin and the Concept of Genocide pp. 27, 36. It seems to be the Tehlirian trial that first gripped his interest. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:buidhe, that is irrelevant and fairly WP:OR, since it does not point to sources making your claim explicitly, but is simply you arguing that since there is no record of him having heard about the Armenian genocide prior to this event, it is necessarily what sparked his interest.

It is relatively irrelevant since your text does not say that his interest in or awareness of the Armenian genocide dates to the assassination - it says his lifelong interest in mass murder of peoples (ie ALL genocide) dates to hearing about the assassination. Lemkin's own page and every account I have read trace an interest in such 'mass murder' back to childhood, including an interest in pogroms in Russia. Most mention the Armenian genocide as being a key stage in him formulating the notion of a need for a legal framework. His own page mentions a question which he supposedly asked in response to the assassination. None of the sources on 'his' page make the clain which your text does, many explicitly refute it.

You are making a fundamental change to text which has been in place for quite a time and which is supported by numerous references on 'his' page - as wel as those used here. At present we don't have even one source, and certainly not a quote, that supports the text which you wish to substitute but many that make a much less categorical point. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that the balance of sources make the point which you want to make and to get agreement from other editors. You have not done so AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources that have due weight in this context are those that actually discuss Lemkin's life in depth, not those which just mention it in passing. YOUR preferred version of the page misleadingly states that "Lemkin's lifelong interest in the mass murder of populations was sparked by reading about the Armenian Genocide." From this one might believe that he first read about the genocide when it was occurring, which is not the case according to the source I cited. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think the long-term text tends to have implied that he had NO interest in the topic area prior to hearing about Armenia - whereas, for whatever reason, he appeared to have an interest even from childhood, of which an interest in Armenia was a stage. Your compromise is VERY good IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I became interested in genocide, because it happened so many times. It happened to the Armenians and after the Armenians, Hitler took action. - Raphael Lemkin https://www.quotemaster.org/q87207ab51734dbb2ae74923672e930d8 2003:E8:5F02:9A54:7022:A6E4:77A1:D4EA (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What does that prove? It can be read that Armenia was what sparked his interest OR that he is citing an example of the "many times" which led up to Hitler. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Dersim rebellion has an RFC

Dersim rebellion has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --TataofTata (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"in part" and "action to destroy"

The first sentence now is: "Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part". I don't think that "in part" can be correct. If it were, then if someone tries to kill one member of a group, given that each member of a group is *part* of that group, this attempted murder is genocide. Even an attempted suicide would count as a genocide. So I think this needs to be cleared up. Moreover, "action to destroy" is a little confusing. "Action of destroying" or simply "destruction" is clearer. I suggest this revision: "Genocide is the attempted destruction of a people, usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group." I think "attempted" conveys well enough that the action needs to be deliberate/intentional. I recognize that this proposed definition introduces the opposite problem: if someone attempts to kill all *other* members of his group, then that is surely genocide even though there is one part of the group (himself) that he did not intend to kill. However, I think the proposed definition should be preferred to the current one, as it has fewer imperfections. Omphaloscope talk 23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I now see that the article clarifies that "part" is usually taken to mean "substantial part". So I suggest: Genocide is the attempted destruction of a people– usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group–in whole or in large part." Omphaloscope talk 23:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've revised the opening sentence, removing the clause about parts and wholes. I think that is a nuance that the reader can discover as he or she reads the article. There are many nuances in how the term is used (e.g., there is disagreement over how to define the term, and disagreement over whether a genocide needs to be officially declared as such in order to be one), but I think we don't need to get into those details in the opening sentence. What is needed, I think, is a clear sentence that orients readers appropriately without bogging them down in details. Omphaloscope talk 01:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your objections to the original lead definition are understandable, but I feel like you've erased the distinction between genocide and attempted genocide for no reason. "Attempt to Commit Genocide" is listed separately in the UN Genocide convention from genocide. I would propose the following alteration: "Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people, usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group." Retroflexivity (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hm, just thinking about this... The Nazis didn't succeed in destroying the Jewish people (so they didn't intentionally destroy that people), but they did commit the crime of genocide, right? The UN definition defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." So, even by that definition, one doesn't need to destroy a people in order to commit genocide. However, if genocide is defined as 'the destruction of a people' then one would have to carry out this action (i.e. the destruction, the destroying, the total elimination of a people) in order to qualify as committing genocide, no? Perhaps the U.N. itself made this mistake? I suppose this article shouldn't attempt to resolve this philosophical-legal issue. (Continuing to think out loud: It is possible that 'committing genocide' is like 'crossing the ocean' or 'drawing a circle' in that it is something one can be doing even if one does not complete the action. But it would be strange to say "the Nazis were committing genocide, though they did not finish; they did not succeed in committing genocide.") Omphaloscope talk 01:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a good account of various proposed definitions here: Genocide definitions. Some people think genocide is the actual destruction of people, others that it is the attempt to destroy. I think this article should perhaps mention both definitions without taking a side. Omphaloscope talk 01:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

U.N. definition in the lead

I think the quotation of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention in the lead is misleading (I was personally misled by it): the statement "the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such' " appears to suggest that intent is the only deciding factor and the nature of the act is insignificant or irrelevant. The remainder of the second paragraph enumerates the U.N.'s listed acts of genocide, but only says that genocide "includes" them, as opposed to stating that they are an essential part of the definition. The full U.N. definition is given in the "International Law" section.

Lemkin, who was closely involved with writhing the Genocide Convention, elsewhere described genocide as a large process not limited to the individual acts. However, the U.N. convention does not espouse this view, so we shouldn't quote it as though it does. I plan on changing the text to the following:

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". These five acts were killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

References

- Retroflexivity (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• "forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group" Wouldn't this definition include the recruiting practices of the Janissaries ?:
  "Janissaries began as elite corps made up through the devşirme system of child levy, by which Albanians, Armenians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Croats, Greeks, and Serbs were taken, levied, subjected to circumcision and conversion to Islam, and incorporated into the Ottoman army." Dimadick (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This is tangential: I'm just trying to make the quote right, not figure out exactly what acts might or might not fall under the Genocide Convention. That being said, it would hinge on whether the practice of procuring children was taken with the intent of destroying those ethnic/national groups mentioned. I'm not an expert on Ottoman history; it's possible that there are already publications on this question. That being said, I would be surprised if that were a major factor; my lay impression of Ottoman history is that they just wanted loyal soldiers.
    I messed with your formatting a little, I hope you don't mind. --Retroflexivity (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've researched this a little, in an article called "Are There Any Children for Sale?": Genocide and the Transfer of Armenian Children (1915-1922) in the Journal of Human Rights, on page 288 at the bottom it says that at the Greek delegation to writing the genocide convention specifically made reference to the devshirme; the Turkish delegation objected (as context, it is worth mentioning previous conflicts).
    In an essay titled "Children and Genocide" by Panayiotis Diamadis in "Genocide Perspectives IV", he says on page 318
    "Over the lifetime of the Ottoman Empire (almost six centuries), the devshirme played a major role in reversing the demographic face of Anatolia. During this period, the territory went from being almost exclusively Christian in population in the 1000s, to having an Islamic majority by the 1800s. While the intent of the Ottoman Court may not have been intentionally genocidal in the Convention’s sense, the effect of policies and practices such as the devshirme was definitely genocidal."
    Diamadis explicitly says that population control was "arguably the most important" function of devshirme, and the description ranging from page 315 to 318 paints a very genocidal picture. Diamadis at one point cites an interview with Artak Shakaryan, who wrote a book called "'Blood levy' in the Ottoman Empire: the case of Devshirme", which I can't track down a copy of. On page 93 of "Empire, Colony, Genocide", John Docker provides some more commentary on this issue and indicates that the American Jewish Historical Society has relevant documents on Lemkin's opinions on this issue. Another good book is "Controversies in The Field of Genocide Studies" with a relevant section called "Controversies Around Governmental and Parliamentary Recognition of the Armenian, Hellenic, and Assyrian Genocides". I'm getting pretty tired of researching this, so if you're still interested in whether devshirme was genocide, and under what definitions it was, you're probably going to have to pick this one up for yourself. I should mention in conclusion that I'm not confident that Diamadis definitively established his stated findings, and I would be a little surprised if your typical scholar of Ottoman history thought of devshirme as genocide. --Retroflexivity (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Bengal famine

When reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historiography, the topic of genocide comes to one's mind. Of course, history is always written by the winners, so Churchill could never be discredited for it during the Cold War, but that was then. Today, "more recent analyses often stress political factors", just as they should. So, shouldn't the Bengal famine also be in the "Part of a series on Genocide"-list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiodeugenio (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)