DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Genocide

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Good articleGenocide has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 25, 2025Good article nomineeListed

Views of the site of a massacre by the Islamic State and mass grave of Ezidis in Shingal (Sinjar) in summer of 2019 as field fires approach the location 01

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024

[edit]

In the body of the Wiki page there is a picture depicting Pro-Hamas supporters calling for stopping the alleged genocide in Gaza. The picture is a political statement and does not belong in an article discussing actual genocide. Moreover, the picture literally depicts genocide supporters, by transitive properties of supporting the genocidal Hamas agenda. In conclusion the picture is not only in bad taste, it is an oxymoron to include it as it is included. Orpgol (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the photo that suggests that the protestors are Pro-Hamas nor that they are in any sense genocide supporters, … supporting the genocidal Hamas agenda. There may be valid reasons to excude this pic, but crudely mischaracterising the protestors doesn't make that case. Pincrete (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially the photo was included as an easy to find example of people using the term "genocide" in order to bring attention to a particular cause (in this case ending the war/genocide in Gaza). This phenomenon is discussed in sourced article text now in a different section of the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but using this photo in this context represents a political agenda rather than objective truth, and we should avoid that in a body representing factual information. Orpgol (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your points. The main reason to exclude this picture is because it serves a political agenda and does not represent an objective truth, especially in the context in which it is presented. This lowers the standards of Wikipedia. Lower on the reason to remove scale, at the bottom right corner there is a green flag that appears to be a Hamas flag. Orpgol (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: neither an uncontroversial edit request, nor one that is supported by a consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Consensus should not be needed for objective truth. Allowing a politically motivated image to stay on the article is mean to sway public opinion. If that is the declared purpose of this picture then please state as such. Orpgol (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at the bottom right corner there is a green flag that appears to be a Hamas flag Actually at the bottom right corner there is some green, which might concievably be many things, including a flag of some sort. Though personally, I find it unlikely that Hamas flags would be on display in a Northern European city without comment, but neither of us could possibly know what the green is could we?
The 'objective truth on display is that protests across the free world have taken place about Israeli action in response to the October attacks. Many of the protests and many competent commentators have recorded that 'genocide' and/or ethnic cleansing in pursuit of collective punishment is the clear and - in some instances - stated intention of Israeli actions. This is hardly some fringe PoV. Pincrete (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to press the point but most of what you say shows some bias towards a political agenda and not objective truth. Saying things like "protests have taken place..." as a justification to supporting political symbolism on Wikipedia is in poor taste. Protests have taken place supporting both sides of the conflict have they not?
Additionally, I reject the "many competent commentators..." reasoning. Until there is no clear cut proof that a genocidal agenda has been driving this conflict, I think we can rely on the evidence before us on how the conflict started (genocidal terrorist acts, hostages still in captivity) as a good marker for framing this conflict. Competent commentators have been recorded saying things that support either side of this war. Please do not devolve a source of knowledge to a politically motivated history rewriting attempt. Orpgol (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone arguing that pro-Palestinian/peace protestors are inherently pro-Hamas and that a splash of green in a photo is proof of a Hamas flag isn't in a very strong position to accuse others of bias, nor to defend 'objective truth'. Hardly anyone in English speaking/European countries can be unaware that various terms have been used in the public sphere to criticise Israel's reaction to the October attacks, including 'genocide/al'. These accusations and the counterpoint vigorous defence by local sympathisers and Israeli govt spokesmen have been nightly fare on the news programmes of the free world for much of the last year. The idea that we are condoning/endorsing one side by showing a picture of a protest is pretty far fetched IMO. You don't have to endorse the accusation to acknowledge that it has been made by parties that are far-from fringe and far from pro-Hamas. But we obviously aren't going to agree on this and it is fairly tangential to the topic of 'genocide' itself, which is the purpose of the page.Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into the points we will not agree on here, I think what I want to convince you is that the majority opinion is not necessarily the one that needs to be endorsed as you are suggesting here. Can you see a reason why, in this case, the zeitgeist opinion may be doing harm to what I referred to here as the objective truth?
All I am asking is that we do not intentionally or accidentally, endorse ANY side of this conflict where it does not make sense. That's it. Orpgol (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new observer of this fracas, there is 100% no other mention of Gaza in the article except for this picture. To me, this seems like very a weaselly way to add Gaza to the article. Either add Gaza explicitly to the article or remove the image. But what do I know? I’m not a lifer Wikipedian — like others here — who are playing games with actual events. I defer to the “expertise” of other Wiki editors in how to handle it, but in my humble opinion, the picture should be removed. --20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling protestors who want to stop the ruthless killing of civilians Pro-Hamas supporters it’s biased 2A0A:EF40:10A6:9401:594B:DFA5:B33C:2F0D (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can definately add something about Israel or Palestine, or Gaza into the article. This would be WP:DUE.

More recent instances of urbicide include the Khmer Rouge’s forced expulsions from Phnom Penh and other Cambodian cities in 1975 (see Chapter 7); Hafez al-Assad’s assault on the rebellious Syrian city of Hama in 1982 (“The Hama Solution”)117 and the merciless bombardment of rebel cities and neighborhoods by his son, Bashir, in today’s ongoing civil war; the siege of Sarajevo, Bosnia, 1992– 1996 (see Chapter 8); the Russian pulverizing of Grozny, Chechnya, in 1994–1995 (Chapter 5); and repeated Israeli air and artillery assaults on densely populated urban areas of the Gaza Strip.

So bombing of Gaza could be used as an example in Genocide#Criticism_of_the_concept_of_genocide_and_alternatives, which mentions urbicide, as opposed to the current image. Bogazicili (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can also add Gaza genocide into Genocide#Prosecutions, as an ongoing case (South Africa's genocide case against Israel). Bogazicili (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also address the issue of the image currently in place in the article and how can it be best addressed to address WP:DUE issues. But again, not my battle; I think Wikipedia editors for currently occurring issues are very biased even if they claim they aren’t. They always fall for manipulation. So please, do your best. --22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with this, actually. If we're going to elaborate on something here, it should be the concept of democide, which has gotten a lot more coverage than urbicide. Democide, specifically, was coined because many of the largest scale incidents of human-caused mass death do not fit under the umbrella of genocide (for example, Moses points out the Great Leap Forward with many millions of deaths, compared to ~100,000 in Gaza) Putting emphasis on the Gaza genocide in text seems like recentism to me—it's quite possible another photo would illustrate the intended concept (i.e. using the word "genocide" to attract attention to a cause) more effectively. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the low article size, there is space for multiple examples.
In the Great Leap Forward: If approximately 23 million people out of a total population of 650 million people died during the Great Chinese Famine, the percentage would be 3.5%
For Gaza, 100k represents something closer to 5% of the population. So it'd be more destructive, on a relative scale. Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source says 100k have been killed? The Hamas Ministry themselves say less than 45k. That's 1.9% of 2.3 Million (this is not counting soldiers, although the country does not include deaths by starvation or other medical deaths)
102k have been estimated to have been wounded, but that's not the same thing. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. [1]
About 8% is much higher than Great Leap Forward. Bogazicili (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Lancet piece you are quoting is a letter; not peer reviewed research. It is constantly being reference as a source of authority when it is basically a carefully crafted letter. It is rarely — if ever — referred to as a letter; most all references to it just say “from the Lancet” as if that means something. It is not objective research. As far as the dead in Gaza goes, as of literally right now it is 43,374 according to Al Jazeera which get’s it’s numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry. [2] --Giacomo1968 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number you quoted is direct deaths. The Lancet letter includes indirect deaths. The ratio of indirect deaths to direct deaths ranges from 2.3 to 15.7 in page 40 of this source Bogazicili (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The Lancet letter includes indirect deaths.” Indirect deaths are implied deaths. Meaning they are still alive now. It should not be used as a statement of fact as you have. But you do you, Bogazicili. You know exactly how facts work and exactly what can be shoehorned into Wikipedia; so again… You do you!
This whole convo is about the WP:DUE of the Gaza protestor image; there is no valid reason for it to be there unless one wants to weasel in the Gaza deaths into an article about genocide. But I dare not delete that image because I know how edit wars and revert wars happen and I am not walking into that. The fact that image being used in this article is very problematic but you won’t act. Why? I can only deduce why you and other editors would want that image to stay.
I’ve said my peace; good luck to you. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be consistent with the Gaza genocide article, which makes it clear that there is a consensus among scholars and (relevant) international organizations that Israel is committing acts of genocide in Gaza. Individual Wikipedia editors engaging in original research is missing the point. That's not how inclusion/exclusion in an article is decided. It's not for us as editors to involve our personal opinions as to whether there is genocide in Gaza or not.
As noted in the article, genocide recognition is an important part of the issue of genocide, and the image, which depicts people calling for recognition of a genocide, is illustrative of something that is described directly in the article. I don't see how an image illustrating people protesting for recognition of one of the most prominent (and ongoing) genocides of the 21st century is somehow undue in an article about genocide. Especially when there is no other image in the article that depicts people protesting for genocide recognition. JasonMacker (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi calls for the genocide of white people in 1952

[edit]

"I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace, and wiping out inter-racial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. "'Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory. We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world. Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark peoples"

- Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80R01731R003000180037-4.pdf Asiygrame (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you’ll believe anything. It’s a hoax. Our Race Will Rule Undisputed Over The World. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Complicity in genocide into Genocide

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that this article is currently a stub that needs expanding upon. However, there is no consensus on whether to merge the article with Genocide. I find there to be equal support/oppose !votes in this discussion, with neither side making a significantly stronger argument than the other. Those who oppose say that the topic is notable and distinct enough to be a separate and expanded article, while those who support a merge argue that the topic is too short as it stands and would require heavy expansion to warrant an article. Gramix13 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

stub article fgnievinski (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, notable topic, should be expanded not merged (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly distinct topic, stubs are fine, especially ones w 8 scholarly citations, it's the crap/embarrassing articles that make good merge candidates based on quality Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 132.147.197.111 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think that they work better as separate pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, small stub articles with only a couple of lines are unnecessary and should be merged when there is a more appropriate and comprehensive article that the two lines can be added to. Finestat (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion, it is a notable subject, but the page needs to be expanded drastically to be on the mainspace. Similar to Genocidal intent. Goku from bd (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Support, obviously, in spite of the merge tag, no editor works with the Complicity article and the way it is now, it is barely even a section. (However, if editors would start expanding the Complicity article, I would change my mind.) Lova Falk (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
This little article doesn't even explain what Complicity in genocide is. It only states that it's forbidden. I think it should be merged, and if the topic is not expanded a lot, it can be separated again later. HelgeStenstrom (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, As presently written, it is barely a section. If expanded very dramatically, it could have its own page, but not at present. It doesn't make sense to have 'complicity' on its own. Pincrete (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as said above it is a very short article and so it would make more sense to merge into this article than keep a stub that doesn't explain much beyond that it is illegal. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it's a notable topic. It should be expanded ~~~ Greensminded24 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Neutrality of the article

[edit]

Kowal2701, regarding your ping [3], I think the article still has neutrality issues as outlined here: Talk:Genocide/Archive_9#Article_Neutrality

I will be busy with other articles for some time. Other people can take the lead with further RfC's if necessary. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the literature so will defer to others, but I think of those proposed changes
  • forced labour/slavery and starvation don't seem to be contested and can be added back? I suggest an {{efn}} where we briefly discuss the different PoVs on biological warfare, obv weighed to prevalence in sources (it seems strange to give such weight to settler genocides in the history section but not methods)
  • on examples in the history section, I'm now not sure it's necessary as it'd become coat-racky or a time sink w people wanting to include their favourite genocide. The hatnote to List of genocides serves the reader well enough imo
Kowal2701 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources are available in Wikipedia library.
The genocide methods of native people seem completely ignored:
According to Adam Jones, genocidal methods of native people in Americas included the following:
  • Genocidal massacres
  • Biological warfare, using pathogens (especially smallpox and plague) to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance
  • Spreading of disease via the 'reduction' of Indians to densely crowded and unhygienic settlements
  • Slavery and forced/indentured labor, especially, though not exclusively, in Latin America, in conditions often rivaling those of Nazi concentration camps
  • Mass population removals to barren 'reservations,' sometimes involving death marches en route, and generally leading to widespread mortality and population collapse upon arrival
  • Deliberate starvation and famine, exacerbated by destruction and occupation of the native land base and food resources
  • Forced education of indigenous children in White-run schools ...p. 138
There is not much about this in Genocide#Methods section.
In history section, settler colonialism in countries like US and Australia seem mostly ignored. The text rather says "—particularly the settlement of Europeans outside of Europe—". Settler colonial genocides happened after establishment of US, for example.
Racism also played a role in these settler colonial genocides, but this is completely ignored in history section.
As such, the issue is not just lack of examples in History section, but misleading or incomplete information.
For role of racism in settler colonial genocides, and role of independent states or settler colonies (not just "settlement of Europeans outside of Europe") see sources and quotes in: Talk:Genocide/Archive_9#Incomplete_information_in_history_section
I am going to add the POV tag again then. It'd be great if someone else can work on the issues or proceed with another RfC. Otherwise, I can return in a future date. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what others say, but I can't find anything explicitly on methods of genocide. The 2010 Oxford Handbook summarises Lemkin's views as (emphasis mine)

Political techniques refer to the cessation of self‐government and local rule, and their replacement by that of the occupier. ‘Every reminder of former national character was obliterated.’
Social techniques entail attacking the intelligentsia, ‘because this group largely provides the national leadership and organizes resistance against Nazification.’ The point of such attacks is to ‘weaken the national, spiritual resources’.
Cultural techniques ban the use of native language in education, and inculcate youth with propaganda.
Economic techniques shift economic resources from the occupied to the occupier. Peoples the Germans regarded as of ‘related blood’, like those of Luxembourg and Alsace‐Lorraine, were given incentives to recognize this kinship. There were also disincentives: ‘If they do not take advantage of this “opportunity” their properties are taken from them and given to others who are eager to promote Germanism.’
Biological techniques decrease the birth rate of occupied people. ‘Thus in incorporated Poland marriages between Poles are forbidden without special permission of the Governor…of the district; the latter, as a matter of principle, does not permit marriages between Poles.’
Physical techniques mean the rationing of food, endangering of health, and mass killing in order to accomplish the ‘physical debilitation and even annihilation of national groups in occupied countries’.
Religious techniques try to disrupt the national and religious influences of the occupied people. In Luxembourg, the method entailed enrolling children in ‘pro‐Nazi youth organizations’ so as to loosen the grip of Roman Catholic culture. Alternatively, in Poland, where no such assimilation was possible, the Germans conducted ‘the systematic pillage and destruction of church property and persecution of the clergy,’ in order to ‘destroy the religious leadership of the Polish nation’.
Moral techniques are policies ‘to weaken the spiritual resistance of the national group’. This technique of moral debasement entails diverting the ‘mental energy of the group’ from ‘moral and national thinking’ to ‘base instincts’. The aim is that ‘the desire for cheap individual pleasure be substituted for the desire for collective feelings and ideals based upon a higher morality.’ Lemkin mentioned the encouragement of pornography and alcoholism in Poland as an example.

And yet there's nothing about this in the article, although the source doesn't comment on whether these receive support from contemporary scholars and I can't find anything on techniques of genocide either Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a summary of the above quote Kowal2701 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have insufficient methods for genocide of natives. My previous edit was from an overview WP:Secondary source [4] (Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction). There are no sourcing issues.
From Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples:

  • This particular issue, the comparison to The Holocaust, has been raised by others, as well, with American historian David Stannard pointing to The Holocaust's prominent position in the public eye compared to the global ignorance of atrocities in the Americas.

  • Canadian political scientist Adam Jones has said that the historical revisionism has been so thorough that in some cases, the Americas have been depicted as unpopulated before European colonization.

  • Since the 1830s, British colonists in Australia have tried to justify the disappearance of indigenous peoples by blaming disease and displacement

What's the issue with this edit [5] again, why was it rejected?

In genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation.[1]

Bogazicili (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biological warfare seems too disputed for wiki voice and Jones is one secondary source. IIRC our previous discussion agreed that there was scholarly consensus for one case of biological warfare, Fort Pitt, whether it was widely used is disputed so may not be due, but a note summarising the POVs is a good compromise imo Kowal2701 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a solution if it's concise. Or we can just drop "using plague and smallpox as biological weapons"
But excluding examples of genocide of indigenous people in Americas in methods section is indefensible, given there are other examples in the text. Bogazicili (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few articles that may be of use are:
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That genocide is a process, not an event is a major omission in Methods section. I'll rewrite parts of it when I have more time. Bogazicili (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jones 2023, p. 138.

Content removal

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1320919642 Plasticwonder I am curious how you came to the conclusion this is Synth? Did you check out the cited section in the source? In any event, the assertion is not controversial. Even the genocide convention definition does not require deaths. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and restored it for now after double checking the source (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why Lemkin's views were removed from Methods [6]? There isn’t really an introductory sentence there now Kowal2701 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genocide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 06:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Considering that it's a complex topic and holidays are just around the corner, this might take me a few weeks. But I'll try to complete this by the end of the year. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Some preliminary comments for now, before I dive in deeper.

  1. What is the reliability of EJIL: Talk!? I don't have doubts about the reliability of other sources - books appear to be from reputable publishers, journals are peer-reviewed, while TC and TG are reputable news organisations.
  2. Optional nitpick: some publishers are wikilinked, some are not. If you plan on taking this to FAC (which would be great), you should make this consistent throughout the article.
    1. Another nitpick - use {{sfnm}} where applicable.
  3. There are too many images.

I'll continue once the first and third comments get resolved. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start from the body and then come back to the lede to check whether everything is properly sourced. After finishing the article, I'll take another look to see if there is any missing context. If you want to reply, please do it under each bullet point. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, these are mostly nitpicks as I was not able to find any major issues within these two sections. The article reads well so far. I'll continue the review in a few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why was {{Genocide}} removed from the article?
  • "In contrast to earlier researchers who took for granted the idea that liberal and democratic societies were less likely to commit genocide, revisionists associated with the International Network of Genocide Scholars emphasized how Western ideas led to genocide" what about non-Western ideas? Do Japanese war crimes fall under the genocide criteria? Japan during that time was neither liberal and democratic.
    • I think this is a misunderstanding—INGOS researchers aren't arguing that non-Western states don't commit genocide, but that ideas that originated in the West (such as nationalism and the modern state) are associated with a disproportionate number of genocides—including in non-Western societies—and that liberal and democratic societies sometimes commit genocide. Is there a rephrase that it would make it more clear? (t · c) buIdhe 16:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay got it. No, you don't have to rephrase it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "political and social groups were also excluded from the Genocide Convention" why?
  • Genocide justification is wikilinked several times.
  • The Notes section is blank, suggest removing it altogether.

Will continue in a few days. The next section is Perpetrators. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Wounded Knee Massacre considered to be genocide? If not, maybe we could find a replacement image?
    • The picture was mainly included because of an editor who was very vocal and convinced that myself and others were deliberately omitting anti-indigenous genocides in the United States. I'm not sure I would describe it, by itself, as an act of genocide but there are some sources that argue so, eg.:[7][8][9] An alternative might be this.
  • elites in what sense? the political ones?
    • Sources don't specify, I think the meaning is pretty general.
  • what does Great Fire of Smyrna.jpg picture? Maybe you could clarify it in the caption, like heow you did for the image above.
    • done
  • what is the purpose of File:Ezidi Peshmerga soldiers at their base in the Sinjar Mountains, under the command of Qasim Shesho 02.jpg?
    • Added to illustrate how victims of genocide (in this case Yazidis) organize militia to fight against the perpetrators.

From a quick skim over the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we mention in the lede that there are multiple definitions of a genocide and then list the one that is agreed up on the most?
    • The first sentence is a stab at the latter. Previous versions of the lead spend most of it detailing various definitions of genocide, but that seemed excessive. The current version, in my opinion, alludes to multiple definitions, but perhaps this could be made more explicit without expanding the length too much.
  • Is it correct to label the Soviet Union as an empire?
    • Surely the Soviet Union didn't see itself as an imperial power, but there are 82,900 results for "Soviet empire" on Google Scholar, about equal to those for "American empire", so...
      • Seems like also we have an article on that - Soviet empire. Nevertheless, I'll make sure to spotcheck this.
  • I've also noticed that the article tends to be critical of the Genocide Convention and that there seems to be an emphasis on colonialism. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
    • both of the books written about the Genocide Convention that I'm aware of (besides purely legal commentaries) are quite critical[10][11] and a quick look at any book that purports to be a world history of genocide shows that most genocides mentioned there are the result of imperialism and/or colonialism.
      • Okay thanks.
  • Why is the author of the MIT Faculty Newsletter listed as Lewis, David when in the article it says that it's Balakrishnan Rajagopal?
    • Must have been a citer glitch, now fixed.

I'm going to perform a spotcheck in a few days, so the review will be completed before the end of the year. I'd say that the article is in a good condition now and that it will be in an even better condition once these minor issues get resolved. If you plan on nominating this later for FAC, my recommendation would be to get it through PR first to get feedback from a couple of editors on whether the article is comprehensive enough and neutral enough for FAC. I plan on revising Far-right politics in Serbia first and I then plan on putting it up for a PR before nominating it for FAC - during the PR I would appreciate feedback and if it is okay with you, could I ping you then to review the article as you seem to have expertise in similar concepts to far-right politics? Cheers and happy holidays. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

[edit]

This table checks 20 passages from throughout the article (9.8% of 204 total passages). These passages contain 23 inline citations (8.7% of 263 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide between 1941 and 1943.
4 a Irvin-Erickson 2023, p. 7. Good
5 a Kiernan 2023, p. 2. Good
He saw genocide as an inherently colonial process, and in his later writings he analyzed what he described as the colonial genocides occurring within European colonies as well as the Soviet and Nazi empires.
6 c Irvin-Erickson 2023, p. 14. Good The source does not refer to either the Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as empires, therefore I'd suggest this to be changed to their WP:COMMONNAME names (Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, respectively). The rest of the sentence checks out.
But that wouldn't be accurate, since most of Nazi violence (including, for example, the murder of many of Lemkin's relatives) was carried out outside the borders of Germany. As the source points out, this was "part of this history of European colonial empires". (t · c) buIdhe 19:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this go through. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally omitted was the forced migration of populations—which had been carried out by the Soviet Union and its allies, condoned by the Western powers, against millions of Germans from central and Eastern Europe.
24 Weiss-Wendt 2017, pp. 267–268, 283. Good I don't have access to this source.
It's on TWL; I'd quote it here but the relevant passage is too long not to worry about copyright. (t · c) buIdhe 19:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Intent is the most difficult aspect for prosecutors to prove;
34 Kiernan, Madley & Taylor 2023, pp. 4, 9. Good
35 Ochab & Alton 2022, pp. 28, 30. Good
Authorities have been reluctant to prosecute the perpetrators of many genocides, although non-judicial commissions of inquiry have also been created by some states.
45 a Stone 2013, p. 150. Good
In contrast to earlier researchers who took for granted the idea that liberal and democratic societies were less likely to commit genocide, revisionists associated with the International Network of Genocide Scholars emphasized how Western ideas led to genocide.
54 Kiernan et al. 2023, pp. 23–24. Good
Some scholars and activists use the Genocide Convention definition.
19 b Irvin-Erickson 2023, p. 22. Good
Alternative terms have been coined to describe processes left outside narrower definitions of genocide. Ethnic cleansing—the forced expulsion of a population from a given territory—has achieved widespread currency, although many scholars recognize that it frequently overlaps with genocide, even where Lemkin's definition is not used.
79 Shaw 2015, Chapter 5. Good
Most genocides are not associated with extreme political ideologies such as Nazism.
95 Maynard 2022, p. 97. Good
A large proportion of genocides occurred under the course of imperial expansion and power consolidation.
100 Lemos, Taylor & Kiernan 2023, p. 49. Good
Another debate concerns whether genocide is caused by aberrant political ideology, or if there is in fact a great deal of continuity between genocidal and ordinary political ideologies.
111 Maynard 2022, p. 95. Good
The military is often the leading perpetrator as soldiers are already armed, trained to use deadly force, and required to obey orders.
129 Pruitt 2021, p. 90. Good
Destruction of the environments where they live has been argued to be a form of genocide of indigenous peoples.
148 ejiltalk.org Good
The combination of killing of men and sexual violence against women is often intended to disrupt reproduction of the targeted group.
149 b Basso 2024, p. 33. "stemming from heteronormativity, select perpetrators believe they can biologically and culturally destroy groups by disrupting a group’s natural reproductive cycle via the extermination of men, the rape of women, and the destruction of social institutions" Good
It encompasses attacks against the victims' language, religion, cultural heritage, political and intellectual leaders, and traditional lifestyle,
152 c Tiemessen 2023, p. 15. Good
160 b Basso 2024, "Cultural Destruction". Good
Researcher Gregory H. Stanton found that calling crimes genocide rather than something else, such as ethnic cleansing, increased the chance of effective intervention.
175 Ochab & Alton 2022, p. 43. Good
imperial rule could lead to genocide if resistance emerged.
191 Häussler, Stucki & Veracini 2022, p. 220. Good
The Cold War included the perpetration of mass killings by both communist and anti-communist states, although these atrocities usually targeted political and social groups, therefore not meeting the legal definition of genocide.
198 Naimark 2017, pp. 86, 104, 143. Good
Genocide does not only affect victim and perpetrator groups, but seeks to reshape an entire society and also involves those who observed a genocide or benefited from it.
208 Spencer 2025, pp. 257–258. Good
Studies of genocide survivors have examined rates of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and post-traumatic growth. While some have found negative effects, others find no association with genocide survival.
210 Lindert et al. 2019, p. 2. Good

@Buidhe: Okay... the conclusion: the article is in a good shape and meets the GA criteria. I'll go ahead and promote it once the last two books get downloaded. Cheers and happy holidays, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Buidhe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 271 past nominations.

(t · c) buIdhe 21:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

the top definition of genocide

[edit]

I put in the UN definition of genocide at the top. Someone deleted that definition. Their reasoning was that the UN definition should not be privileged over other definitions. That is fine, but then the definition should also not contradict the UN definition. Not including "intent" in the definintion directly contradicts a definition that says "intent" is an integral part. If there is another valid definition, maybe it should be put alongside the UN definition. Slava570 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We've already rescued the lead from a version that has excessive coverage of definitions at the expense of other aspects. However, I disagree that not mentioning intent in the opening sentence means that we're disfavoring definitions that mention intent. The Un definition has other non-negotiable aspects, for example, it relies on a list of 5 necessary elements, which aren't mentioned in your version. Ultimately that definition is too complex to be covered succinctly in the first sentence of the article, even disregarding the pov issues. Mentioning intent would suggest that Wikipedia is endorsing the conclusion that a specific intent is necessary for genocide, when the opposing view is far from fringe in reliable sources. We are not allowed to take a side on that issue. (t · c) buIdhe 19:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other five elements do not all have to be true. There is no overlap between any of them. For example 1 is "Killing members of the group" and 5 is "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." These have nothing to do with each other, and they both don't have to be true for something to be considered genocide. But intent IS essential in this definition no matter what. In any case I changed the lead to reflect that it is the legal definition, added that there are other scholarly definitions, and linked to the Wikipedia page on genocide definitions. I think it is still short, and no longer privileges the UN definition. Slava570 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding. According to the UN Convention, at least one of these 5 methods has to be used. If another method is used to intentionally destroy an ethnic racial etc. group, it's not legally genocide. Furthermore, your latest version gives undue weight to law, whereas this article is about all aspects of genocide including history, sociology, etc. where the legal definition is often not used. (t · c) buIdhe 20:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed. I just deleted "through targeted violence." The definition of "destruction of a people" is intended to cover at least one of the five elements, which is one of the two preconditions. "Intent" covers the second precondition. I disagree that this version gives undue weight to law. It says "some scholarly definitions do not include..." This gives those scholarly definition their due weight, as there are some scholarly definitions that also DO include intent. However I also added another clause about a "popular understanding," now giving weight to three different categories of thinking around this, while still remaining short. Slava570 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reviewing Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples#Scholarly debate for one example of definition(s) and legal debate. Moxy🍁 21:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at this page, including the two other legal frameworks that are used there to define genocide legally: The Rome Statute and Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and war Crimes Act. Both of these legal definitions are nearly identical to the UN definition, and both include intent. Unless you can find a legal definition that does not include intent, then the previous version is still valid. Slava570 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On a page of this nature you're simply going to have to propose any changes here in the talk page first (especially once you have been reverted). On this page "You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours" as per Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Everyone will assume good faith and that you're not aware of this although it's listed above on this talk page. Let's get you to propose changes here and see how we can work forward. Don't get blocked before you can make suggestions. Moxy🍁 21:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did not know about the revert rule. Sorry about that. Slava570 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry for dominating this thread before. I'll post one last comment for now, and hopefully others will contribute.
1. Can someone please explain how the top definition is different from war? In a hypothetical war between "People A" and "People B" aren't both sides commiting genocide according to this definition, since they are using targeted violence to destroy a people?
2. Given that several people have admitted this definition is problematic, no one has said it is very good, and I think it is completely inadequate, can it be erased for now until a new short-form definition is worked out in the talk section (with or without a placeholder that says see genocide definitions for more info).
3. It appears that there is near consensus in the field of international law around the definition of genocide. However there are a variety of defnitions in national law. Can the last line of the second paragraph be changed to say: "While there is near consensus on the definition of genocide in the field of international law, it remains contested...in national law, etc..." with this reference, which gives a very good overview: [12] Slava570 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In theory, the definition of war is that the war aims are limited up to defeating an enemy state, but do not extend to destroying a people. In practice, there is noted to be a lot of overlap between war and genocide. If the war actually ends up destroying a people, it will be labeled as a genocide by many sources, for example many examples of colonial wars have been reinterpreted in this way.
  2. I will support changing it when a better alternative is proposed. in general, we don't use placeholders in mainspace.
  3. There is very little coverage of national laws on genocide in reliable sources, so this would likely be UNDUE to cover in the lead.
(t · c) buIdhe 14:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The UN source does say that the popular understanding of genocide is broader than the legal definition, but this is contradicted by other sources. The article currently gives examples where the opposite is true. (t · c) buIdhe 21:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then why not just delete the clause about popular understanding? Without that clause, it could still give the legal defition (and as per previous comment, the UN Convention, the Rome Statute, and the Canadian law are nearly identical) and it would say there are some scholarly definitions that don't include intent. That doesn't unduly privilege legal definitions because it says both legal and scholarly definitions exist. Slava570 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we help our readers understand a little bit better right off the bat. Why don't we have something simple with a link in the lead.... something like ....Genocide is defined by various scholarly and legal definitions. Source Have, Wichert; Boender, Barbara (2025-10-01). The Holocaust and Other Genocides: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-04-079735-8.. Moxy🍁 22:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is very helpful to readers because it says nothing about what such definitions are and how they differ. That's why I started with a basic definition with the commonalities of most/all genocide definitions and included more information in the article body. (t · c) buIdhe 22:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The problem with this is that it implies that there are various legal definitions, when even the second line of the definitions page says "almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to..." so in reality it looks like there is near consensus around a legal definition, and a spectrum of scholarly definitions. This problem also should be fixed on the genocide definitions page, which also implies multiple legal definitions. I think it makes more sense to say something like "Genocide is defined legally as the destruction of a people with intent to destroy. However, there are various scholarly definitions..." Slava570 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many legal definitions vary from the UN convention one. (t · c) buIdhe 22:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
can you give an example of one that does not include intent? I just tried to look this up and found yet another one that does include intent: the US Justice department. Slava570 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the definition of the words surrounding the intent. Was/is the intent to destroy or to assimilate and or aid from a historical point of view [13]. As time has passed the intent of genocide has evolved in legal cases, thus is not solely based/ implemented by countries on the UN definition alone [14]. Moxy🍁 23:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went into your first link. The article links here for a more extended discussion of this exact issue: [15] There is a section here that expands on on the intent requirement. First, it says "tribunals unevenly apply the specific intent requirement." This doesn't change the definition to include intent. It goes on to say "Proving specific intent may be a challenge for Indigenous peoples," so I get why this matters. It then says "there appears to be movement away from a strict specific intent requirement." But again, however you define intent, the definition still includes intent in some form. Later a court said "intent can be inferred." Still doesn't change the definition, even if "looser." Bottom line: I still see no legal definition that does not include some form of intent. I need some time to look at your second link. Slava570 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I looked through every instance of the word intent in the second article. It talks about three different types of intent and that the convention did not specify which one should be used. It says that some courts have used a more lenient definition of intent. But regardless, some version of "intent" is involved. They also argue for a "knowledge-based interpretation of the convention," which means "committing a prohibited act with the knowledge that it would further a genocidal plan should be sufficient to prove intent." As you can see, intent is still part of this definition. This discussion of what is intent should go on the Genocidal intent page, but on this page, we should still say that the legal definition of genocide involves intent because so far, I have seen no legal definition that fully discards this. The word intent could then link to the genocidal intent page. Slava570 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article already says this. It's just not WP:DUE in the very first sentence in the article. (t · c) buIdhe 02:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is warranted in the very first sentence, as it is one of only TWO requirements that is essential to the legal definition of genocide (a mental element--intent, and a physical element--one of five methods), and so far by the looks of it, this point is unanimous or near unanimous. No source provided so far has contradicted this. Slava570 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The legal definitions are more likely to use intent, because that's a criminal law category. Non legal definitions are less likely to use it. (t · c) buIdhe 00:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why I think it is important to include that legal definitions include intent, while other definitions may vary. But so far, it looks like the legal definitions are not just more likely, but unanimous or near unanimous, as per my comment above. Slava570 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We've already rescued the lead from a version that has excessive coverage of definitions at the expense of other aspects. As a long-term 'watcher', I can't help feeling that we've passed the point that "the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater". I'm not necessarily endorsing Slava570's specific addition, but IMO the current opening sentence has reached the point that it fails to convey anything very meaningful or specific . There is a failure to include "in whole or in part", as well as the failure to include 'intent' (which are linked elements, partial destruction of a group qualifies as genocide precisely because it is part of a bigger intent). IMO, the ordinary reader would not recognise the most notable examples of genocide as being covered by the present defining sentence. AFAIK, no definition omits 'intent' (apart from the legal definition in Mozambique according to a source above provided by buidhe), and AFAIK, no definition requires the total destruction of the group, which the present opening sentence strongly implies. Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source linked only covers national legal definitions—which overall have received so little coverage in RS that they are a poor determinant of WP:DUE.
Based on my survey of scholarly definitions, a majority don't explicitly mention "intent". And most don't mention the Convention wording "in whole or in part", or anything that would cover the same meaning.
(FYI "partial destruction of a group qualifies as genocide precisely because it is part of a bigger intent"—this is not true even from a legal standpoint, the enacted intention to exterminate a group in part is still considered genocide).
I'm not entirely happy with the wording as it stands but I think it would increase bias to hew too closely to the Convention definition. This article is not genocide (crime). (t · c) buIdhe 14:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Legal definitions on this can only be international or national, as it seems unlikely that any jurisdiction smaller than that has a plausible reason to weigh in. So if national legal definitions are a poor determinant of WP:DUE, then the international definition is the only one that should have any bearing. I don't know what source is being referred to but this source confirms that while there have been several changes to the international definition by individual countries (mostly expanding the number of protected categories) only one does away with "intent," and that is Mozambique. [16] So if all international legal definitions plus all national legal definitions minus one include intent, that sounds like consensus, not bias. And while scholarly sources may or may not include intent, I find it implausible that they would completely ignore the accepted legal definitions. They still have to justify why their definition departs from the legal definition. Can you give an example of a scholarly source that does not include intent, but also does not justify its reasoning for this against the widely accepted legal definition? Slava570 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to admit that the little I know about this topic has come from having been a long term watcher, and having in the past followed many of the sources used (which tended to focus on the legal definition). In so far as I was/am aware of distinct 'scholarly' definitions, they tended to want to broaden the 'victim group' to include social classes, political groups,etc (eg Stalin's, Mao's Pol Pot's victims, who were not persecuted for their 'genos' as such )- sometimes even sexual orientation (eg gay Nazi victims). To the extent that I'm aware of any disagreement about 'intent', it tends to hinge on the difficulty of establishing it. Proving intent is notoriously difficult and I think some scholars consider it unnecessary - having perpetrated the destructive acts is sufficient for them. If I'm substantially wrong about any of these points, please correct me and give me another 'take' on how scholars differ from lawyers as to what defines the topic.
My concern is that our present defining sentence (the destruction of a people through targeted violence), not only fails to differentiate between war and genocide (as Slava570 says), but also, to the extent that it says anything very specific, what it says is ambiguous. 'Destruction' ordinarily means 'complete destruction', not 'substantial damage to'. The Jewish race was not destroyed in the holocaust, the Armenian 'nation' was not destroyed there, ditto Tutsi, Cambodians, Gazans etc etc. With the exception of historically fairly distant groups, 'the people' survived, even if very large numbers of people didn't.
Next, of a people, fails to accommodate the scholars who think that the term should include social class/political alignment etc. etc. While my own personal prejudice tends to be that those people should use other terms (politicide, demicide etc), nonetheless there is a significant number of scholars who don't accept 'genos' as the defining boundary (ethnicity wasn't the primary factor in Cambodia). How we should allow for those broader definitions, I'm not sure.
Lastly, "targeted violence", while the word 'targeted' does imply 'intentional' (or at least excludes 'accidental'), are ALL the elements customarily called genocide covered by 'violence'. Killing, forcibly sterilising, taking away the young and many other acts are inherently violent, but would turning off the water supply or, simply by neglect perhaps, creating a dangerously unhealthy environment be seen as 'violent'? Would it be understood as such? If it isn't 'intent', is it the manner (violent) or the outcome (substantial death or damage) which is seen as defining genocide?
I realise that finding common denominators in a sea of distinct legal and scholarly definitions and rendering them clearly is problematic (and could be so difficult that we need to find an alternative strategy). My concern is that the moment, the reader might be best to largely ignore the opening sentence, but read the rest, just to find out what genocide is. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is an oversimplification. Not all of the scholarly definitions are quoted in the genocide definitions article, and those that exist differ from the legal definition in various ways. See Genocide#Definitions.
  2. I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the wording here, but most scholarly definitions use the word "destruction" and are silent on the "whole or part" aspect. I'm also skeptical that readers would assume we mean "total destruction".
  3. Where the victim group is broadened, it's often because political/social groups etc. are considered "a people"—per this article, "Lemkin's definition of nation was sufficiently broad to apply to nearly any type of human collectivity, even one based on a trivial characteristic." (the cited source goes into more detail) Im not sure why you're bringing up the Cambodian genocide because in that example it's argued that Cambodians (as "a people") were the target.
  4. The commonality between genocide definitions is that most of them require it is somewhat selective in its targets, even when intent (a mental aspect that is often not of interest to scholars) is not mentioned. There may be a better way to word this.
Do you have an alternative suggestion that doesn't just repeat one or another definition but attempts to find the commonalities between them? We could also go with "Genocide is a type of large-scale, group-selective violence animated by a logic of group destruction"[1] but while that is more precise it seems excessively jargony. (t · c) buIdhe 15:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very brief reply, I agree that that readers would probably not assume we mean "total destruction", but think they probably wouldn't know what to think. I certainly don't think that "a people" is likely to be understood as encompassing those with a particular political alignment or from a particular social class. Other ordinary terms like 'group' are more easily understood in that fashion. Was it not the case that specific groups within Cambodian society were the target, while other smaller specific groups were the perpetrators and Cambodians were not targetted 'as such' (the perps would have been targetting themselves). I cited it as a 'non-genos/people' example, little thinking that 'a people' had become so flexible that it simply meant 'people'.
I don't have a clear alternative, I'm still trying to understand the problem, but your 'jargony' alternative seems to 'cover more of the bases' than what we have now, though I agree that the phrasing is a bit inpenetrable. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Buidhe that the main difference between war and genocide lies in different "aims" and that the "aim" of genocide, unlike war, "extends to destroying a people" and genocide is "animated by a logic of group destruction." In common parlance, an "aim" is not really different from a goal, an objective, or INTENT. How do you prove what someone's aims are? How do you prove what someone is "animated by?" The same exact way that you prove what someone's INTENT is. Having an "aim to destroy" is not different from having an "intent to destroy."
I also agree with Pincrete that we may need to find an alternative strategy for the opening, rather than a neat short-form definition. If we cannot come up with a well worded definition that is not misleading, then why not just delete this line altogether and make readers read a bit further into the article to get the basic definition?
Lastly, if you don't want to include national legal definitions in the fourth sentence, that's fine with me. I honestly don't see the harm in adding two extra words to a list of fields ("national law"), but again, it's fine. What does matter to me, though, is that there is a blatant falsehood in the last line of the second paragraph, which says that the definition is contested in international law. It should say there is consensus or near-consensus in international law, while the definition is contested in history, sociology and related fields. Slava570 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"intent to destroy" is a specific legal concept. The other terms don't imply the possibility of knowing a specific person's thoughts. Furthermore, while there isn't a disagreement over how the Genocide Convention is worded, there is significant debate in the field of international law over what it means. And while I don't object to a restructure to avoid a first sentence definition along the lines of what you are proposing, it falls afoul of MOS:FIRST. (t · c) buIdhe 20:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slava that it could be clearer at the end of para 2 that whilst legal definitions are not significantly disputed (national variations are largely local 'tweaks' of the UNGC definition), scholarly fields do have their own definitions (it would be desirable but possibly too problematic to state briefly how they differ. Scope? Emphasis on intentionality?).
When I suggested finding an alternative strategy, is what something along the lines of starting with one clear definition (UNGC being one obvious candidate), then immediately qualifying that it is disputed by ABC groups on XYZ grounds. The present para 2 might be rejigged to achieve that.
I 'take on board' that "intent to destroy" is a specific legal concept, (presumably covering the necessary conscious element - mens rae??), but does that matter here, its broad meaning is clear in ordinary English? At least we can use a synonymic phrase if we want to avoid the legal 'baggage'. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with User:Pincrete's alternative strategy. However, I think it will take a while to agree on the specifics of it. While working towards that, I think we can make an immediate change that would improve the lead, and which appears to have agreement from User:Buidhe, User:Pincrete and myself. As User:Buidhe said above: The "aim" of genocide "extend[s] to destroying a people." Therefore, unless there is someone else who objects, I propose this for the lead:
"Genocide is the destruction of a people, in whole or in part, through targeted violence, with the aim to destroy."
There was discussion above about what readers will think the word destruction really means. Adding "in whole or in part" will take away the guessing game, since there also appears to be agreement that destruction refers to either total or partial destruction.
Finally, I agree with User:Pincrete that "legal definitions are not significantly disputed." While there may be disputes in the interpretation of particular words or phrases within these definitions, there is little to no dispute regarding the definition itself. The current phrasing ("Its definition remains contested...[in] international law...") is misleading. Therefore, I propose this change:
Its definition is not significantly disputed in international law, but remains contested by scholars and institutions across history, sociology and related fields. Slava570 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed first sentence basically copies what we already say about the Genocide Convention definition later on in the lead. IMO this goes too far in following not only the meaning, but the exact wording of the legal definition (where most scholarly definitions differ).
Another issue with the second part of your proposal is that it fails MOS:LEAD and WP:VER. We currently have a bunch of content in the body covering dispute on this exact matter, and the definition of genocide is one of the main points currently being argued about in the Rohingya genocide case and Gaza genocide case. (t · c) buIdhe 15:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the content of your own citations. The first citation says the main point of contention is whether Gambia has jurisdiction in the Myanmar case. No mention of disputing the definition of genocide or intent. The other two pages also have ZERO mention of disputing the definition of genocide or intent, with one page mentioning that intent is difficult to prove.
What we are faced with here is a gatekeeping individual (Buidhe) acting in bad faith. First he said the "aim to destroy" IS a part of the definition of genocide, arguing that "aim" is distinct from "intent." I then proposed a definition using aim, IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIM (if it were up to me, I would use the word intent) and yet he still vetoed this new definition and offered no alternative. And now he is inventing an argument which is nowhere to be found in his own citations. This is clear BAD FAITH.
If we are unable to find a workable solution two the two issues I raised, then this article must be downgraded from "good." Not only is this article biased against the field of international law, there is a refusal to even write a definition that acknowledges a range of definitions, opting instead to focus on one definition, which is upheld by only a portion of scholars (my guess is a minority, but according to Buidhe, a majority). I also maintain that the sentence that says that the definition of genocide is contested in international law is FALSE, and no one has offered any source to actually contradict this.
Finally, until the issues can be fixed, a note should be added to the top of this article that says "there are multiple problems with this article." At least three editors now (including Buidhe) have said the first sentence is problematic. Slava570 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
there is a refusal to even write a definition that acknowledges a range of definitions This is my objection to your proposals. If you have an idea for a different intro sentence that actually does this, I am interested to hear it.
I don't appreciate the bad faith accusations, you should either strike them or take them up at an appropriate noticeboard.
If you actually read the source you will note that it mentions the dispute over the interpretation of the GC, although most news articles don't go into detail on this point, there is more information here.
If you think the article should be downgraded the right place is wp:GAR (t · c) buIdhe 16:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, before doing any more work on this, buidhe, you would allow an opening that includes a range of definitions, yes? Can this opening be two sentences or does it have to be a single sentence to satisfy you?
If it can be two sentences, isn't this exactly what the Pincrete method does? Here is Pincrete's proposal:
"starting with one clear definition (UNGC being one obvious candidate), then immediately qualifying that it is disputed by ABC groups on XYZ grounds. The present para 2 might be rejigged to achieve that."
If we can do this, would you accept it, buidhe?
I will look into how to strike messages or use the appropriate noticeboard in the future, if necessary. Slava570 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no, because it emphasizes some definitions over others and would likely give undue weight to definitional disputes in the lead. (t · c) buIdhe 06:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you said you were "interested to hear" "a definition that acknowledges a range of definitions." Please clarify what this means. Otherwise you are sending us on a wild goose chase to satisfy your requirement, and you are going to say no to it regardless. If true, that would be another example of BAD FAITH. Slava570 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Attempted copyedit

[edit]

Attempted a copyedit based on a request to the copyeditors guild. Rather than discuss my changes, one editor decided to revert everything I did. This article is full of vague hot quotes by obscure academics that do nothing to advance reader understanding, among many other flaws. I do not edit war, so I will spend my time elsewhere. Oh well. Best wishes to all. Lfstevens (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were not a "copyedit". When you axe entire paragraphs and sections in the name of "copyediting" you are making a misleading edit summary. When you change the meaning without checking the sources, you are most likely harming text-source integrity. (t · c) buIdhe 16:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with buidhe, removing entire sections, such as the one on definitions as you did is not c/e. I would also like to ask how changing how to prove the required intent has been difficult for courts to resolve. to how to prove the required intent has befuddled courts. is good c/e? Befuddled? Really? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]