Talk:Genocide/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Previous discussions of this topic can be found here:

Talk:Genocide/Archive 2
Talk:Genocide/Archive 3

Cleaned up this Talk page

Hi folks,

We previously had the entire article content (out of date) cut-and-pasted at the top of this Talk page, for no real reason I could determine, and it made this page very hard to use. I removed it. I skimmed through looking for embedded actual comments in the article content and it didn't seem to me like anybody had entered any that way, but it's possible I might have missed something. If I have deleted anybody's comments, it was not intentional.

I also added headings and fixed heading levels so that the table of contents for the Talk page now works and is even somewhat useful. I did the best I could to think up neutral headings where there weren't any before. Hope it all helps. Bsktcase 20:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cat: Military Doctrine??

Since when is genocide a military doctrine? There doesn't have to be any war for genocides to happen. The military isn't necessarily even involved with the whole business (although historically, it has been in most cases).

Genocide vs. Ethnocide

I removed Jehovah's Witnesses from the piece on the Holocaust. Yes, they were targeted as a group and 5,000 Witnesses died. However, they did not constitute an ethnic group, and unlike any other group persecuted by the Nazis, all they had to do was to sign a form stating that they renounce their beliefs and they would be freed from the concentration camps. The vast majority did not, although a handful did. In other words, they were not targeted as an ethnic group for extermination. Once again, the definition is important. Danny

But they surely constituted a religious group, and as such a cultural group? Also, murder is not required for genocide, just the intent to destroy a specific group by whatever means. This would fit the definition then. AxelBoldt 00:48 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
I think a distinction should be made here between genocide and cultural genocide. And yes, genocide is killing. Danny
Anthropologists distinguish between "genocide" (killing people) and "ethnocide" (killing a culture). But frankly, I am not sure how much weight this article ought to give to this anthropological distinction (which Danny seems to share). Article II of the UN's Convention on Punishment and Prevention of Genocide (UN GOAR Res. 260A (III) 9) defines genecide as not only "killing members of a group;" it includes causing "serious ... mental harm," and "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (which is not murder but which does cut off the transmission of culture). So according to international law, genocide is not just killing. Slrubenstein

You are basing this purely off the fact that they refused to renounce their beliefs? That is TERRIBLE! I am a Christian, and even if it meant being killed I would hope that I would NEVER renounce my beliefs. Just because they had the oppurtunity to renounce them and be freed does not mean that was the correct choice. Sometimes personal and moral belifs are more important than even life itself.


Genocide vs. ethnic cleansing (Highland Clearances)

I removed

English Genocide in Scotland
Genocide in the Highland Clearances:
The Highland Clearances occurred when the Jacobite rebellion failed in the 18th Century, and the traditional Clan system in Scotland subsequently broke up.
English landlords, in partnership with ex-clan chiefs, 'encouraged', sometimes forcibly, the population to move off the land, which was then given over to sheep farming. The people were accommodated in poor crofts or small farms in coastal areas where the farming or fishing could not sustain the communities, or directly put on emigration ships. Together with a failure of the potato crop in the early 19th Century, this policy resulted in starvation, deaths, and a secondary clearance, when Scots either migrated voluntarily or were forcibly evicted, many to emigrate, to join the British army, or to join the growing urban cities in Lowland Scotland. In many areas there were small and large scale massacres and violence towards the indigenous people.
In modern times this would be known as Ethnic Cleansing, or genocide.

I do not think this is NPOV and submit if this is genocide then every "restructuring" or revolution for economic reasons is genocide. There is no doubt that the Clearances were inhuman and despicable. From my understanding the crofters were cleared off the land to make room for sheep, as they were more profitable. It was not an English conspiracy against Scots, but an example of greed winning over compassion. The landlords were not all English and the so-called "clan chiefs" and Scottish landlords were as venal as their English counterparts. As for it being "ethnic cleansing" - that is also unsupported. Tiles 01:02, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Tiles for pointing out the NPOV tendencies of what I had written. I have rewritten it, and cut it back, providing a reference also, hope this seems ok now. TonyClarke 15:33, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Much more NPOV. I've been re-reading Prebble, Highland Clearances and have amended your note to reflect the gap between the Battle of Culloden and the introduction of the Cheviot sheep to the glens. I'm more inclined to your idea that ethnic cleansing was at work. Tiles 04:55, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Distant history

I'm not too happy about including things that happened a long time ago under the heading of "genocide". Humanity's moral standards have been changing (improving?) all the time - e.g. at the time of the Greeks, slavery was widely accepted. So I think it's a mistake to apply today's standards in many historical cases.

E.g. take the case of listing some of the heinous things done by the European settlers, in the wars between the settlers and Native Americans, as genocide. Sounds like a good case to some, no doubt - but then go back and look at the definition of genocide and you see:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

and you suddenly realize that i) the definition doesn't require success, merely intent to destroy .. in part, and ii) in that case, all of those I listed can equally be applied against Native Americans for their acts against European settlers. (It was 'e' that first caught my eye, as that's something that was reported as happening in a number of cases.)

So if people are trying to joust for the moral high ground, this isn't the way to do it. In this case, I think the self-evident facts (Native Americans are a small minority in most parts of North American, and most of the land is now owned by later immigrants and their descendants) speak for themselves, and the argument about who was and wasn't committing genocide just take people down into a rathole that's a source of anything but enlightenment.

So, I would be really wary of listing any cases that happened before this century. Attempting to wipe out the "other guys" was a common thing in warfare in the past, not the extraordinary event it is today. Noel 17:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Err, what? Are you attempting to argue that Native people attempted genocide against the European settlers? I think that's bollocks. Acts of aggression do not constitute genocide. Systematic policies of extermination, ethnic transfer and cultural destruction do. I can't see how you can possibly argue that the term could be applied in both directions. Graft 18:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hey, I'm merely quoting from the definition. Are you saying Europeean settlers weren't on occasion targetted simply because of their membership in an "ethnical, racial .. group"? According to the definition in the article (which says, again, intent to destroy .. in part), then that counts.
But you seem to be missing my real point, which is not that the European settlers didn't trash the Native Americans (they did), but that it's better to focus on the facts of what happened, and not argue about which labels apply.
If that's problematic here, which I'm using as an example, imagine what's going to happen when people start trying to apply this label in the Middle East..... Noel 18:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
PS: Here's a hard, bright line we should (IMO) follow. Don't list anything here as genocide unless an appropriate international court has found that that is what has happened. Otherwise we're simply going to be forever hassling about whether target group X's case counts as genocide, or just "ethnic cleansing", or whatever the next stage down is. Noel 18:47, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's simply impossible because there were case of genocide before there was international court to judge this cases. But I mostly agree with you. I think we should list fact that are compliant with legal definition of genocide.
Ericd 13:18, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree there are recent cases that really would qualify as genocide, but which an appropriate international court hasn't ruled to be such, and it does seem wrong to leave them out.
On the other hand, think about the can of worms that could open: how far back do you go before you stop? 1900? 1850? 1800? Etc, etc. Pretty soon you're so far back you're in a different moral climate altogether. E.g., to use a somewhat silly example, does what the Romans did to Carthage count as genocide?
That's why I proposed the standard I did. It may not be perfect, or even very good, but it does have the advantage of being a very simple, clear, easy test. Noel 17:31, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It's not impossible that the Roman comitted genocide in Carthage. It also clear that the original plan of the Romans was not to exterminate the inhabitans but to get rid of the city. I've recently read an article about the possible existence of prehistoric genocides. I have added the Albigensian Crusade because even at the time they were some moral repprobation reported.
Ericd 17:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some anecdotal comments on the idea that genocide can only be defined as such if it was brought before an international court: In 1919, Britain pressured the Ottoman government to try former Ottoman officials for war crimes, including the indiscriminate slaughter of about 1 million Armenians--a clear case of genocide. Unfortunately, the acts of genocide were lumped together with the mistreatment of British POWs during WWI. There was a nationalist backlash in Turkey, then in the throes of a revolution, and Ataturk's troops took a group of British prisoners hostage, offering to exchange them for the imprisoned Ottoman leaders. Britain succumbed and there was no prosecution for participating in the Armenian genocide (see Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals by Gary Bass, pp. 106-107). Obviously, this does not eliminate the charge of genocide. It simply proves that in this instance, realpolitik took priority. In other words, apart the standard critique that war crime tribunals are really instances of "victor's justice" (not a critique that I necessarily adhere to, BTW), there are external factors that can and will influence their outcomes. That being the case, the presence (or lack thereof) of such tribunals should not be used to define whether a particular act was genocide or not. Danny 23:31, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say that genocide can only be defined as such if it was brought before an international court. In fact, I explicitly said there are recent cases that really would qualify as genocide, but which an appropriate international court hasn't ruled to be such.
My suggestion simply was that when it comes to listing genocide events in the article, then to avoid getting into endless debates over whether historical event X counts as genocide or not, that we use the "an international court said it was" standard.
Sure, if you decide to skip that, and instead look at each case yourself, then some cases will be pretty clear cut - but others won't be. I can just see the endless debates over whether event Y was genocide, ethnic cleansing, "ordinary" war crimes, or whatever (including "a reasonable policy response".
In other words, when the Israeli and Palestinian sides show up and start editing and counter-editing the list to claim that what A is doing to B is genocide, I'm going to leave it to you to referee. Noel 02:42, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
No ways! Looking at the scathing attacks whites in South-Africa gets in the historic context for Apartheid and conveniently forgetting why Americans (the European ones, why do people not refer to white americans as European Americans as in African American?) do not have the political "problems" of an indigenous majority population is ridiculous! White South-Africans despite apartheid can be proud that their ancestors did not resort to the barbarous acts of their White American counterparts! Renier Maritz

Redundant pages

Why is there a page entitled Genocide and another entitled Genocides? Rickyrab 22:33, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why no article on the mass murder of Muslims?

There is an article on Persecution of Christians, Anti-Semitism and on Homophobia, but what about the killing of Muslims? Worldwide, millions of Muslims have been murdered in the past few decades, by people such as Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, etc? RK 00:39, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

The National Islamic Front in Sudan has killed largely Christians and animists, but also hundreds of thousands of Muslims, especially among the Beja, Fur, Massaleit, Tama, and Nuba peoples. Its militias have also taken Muslim slaves.
The Armed Islamic Group in Algeria has murdered more than 100,000 Muslims in the last decade. In Chechnya, another 100,000 people, one-10th of the population, has been killed and almost half the population is displaced. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies killed thousands of Shia. In Mauritania, tens of thousand of Muslims are held as slaves. Tens of thousands more died in the Kashmir conflict and in the civil wars in Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone. Thousands more have died in Nigeria and Indonesia. The Burmese junta drove out more than a quarter million of its Rohingya Muslims in the early 1990s. In India last year some 2,000 Muslims were slaughtered in Gujarat, some disemboweled or burned alive while police stood by or joined in.
Yet these events are passed over in silence, even within much of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of many of these atrocities sit in the UN condemning events in the West Bank.
World silence over slain Muslims - from Boston.Com

I have copied the above to: Persecution of Muslims. Modify it please. wshun 05:51, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: LibertarianAnarchist's edits

First off, I don't see the basis for removing the Gujarat riots, other than perhaps the small scale. I also don't know what was "factually inaccurate" about the information there. But as for the new material, nothing in the "Poland" entry refers to a genocide at all; it's merely a condemnation of that country, with perhaps some allusion to the Nazi genocide already listed. Plus, it's horribly POV, and says "considered by Jews" instead of "... by some Jews". I'd like some justification for this change, otherwise I'm tempted to just revert it. -- VV 01:29, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following hyper-BS:

Poland is considered by Jews to be the country where the degree of anti-semitism is the highest in the world. Even during Hitler's purge of Jews, the level of hatred of jews among the common people was higher in Poland than anywhere else. See Anti-Semitism in Poland. Despite the efforts of human rights organizations, it has been difficult to change the thinking of the public.

First of all, this is an article about genocide, not common perceptions of Jews among Poles today. "Considered by Jews"? What the f... does that mean? I am Jewish, yet I do not consider it such. Did they take some poll among Jews that I missed? Also, "Despite the efforts of human rights organizations" (which?) "it has been difficult to change the thinking of the public" (evidence?). The staement is absolutely meaningless. Even if it had been difficult, as is claimed, does that mean there has been no success? Now, for the person that actually added this drivel, I advise them to do a bit of research and write an article about Jan Karski or ZEGOTA. a very annoyed Danny

To Danny


I am sorry about the incomplete information. I intended to use it as a stub and post the information about the genocide of Jedwabne's jews by the Polish, but you seem to have updated it before I could fish out suitable links.

On Gujarat, it was not a genocide, it was rioting in the same sense as the riots in Los Angeles and Cincinnatti.

Please follow the contributions of use Boud and you will find that he has been posting stuff which is nothing but Communist propaganda all over the place. I feel frustrated because my aim is to focus on dissemination of information. For some strange reason he seems to hate India and has gone around Wikipedia posting inflammatory stuff. Even when it is pointed out, he won't behave and he comes up with "X alleges... Y alleges..." which is nothing but POV.

I do have data from my Jewish friends from Belarus and Ukraine who told me about the perception of Poles being the #1 anti-semites, but hey, if you feel it is a POV, just point it out to me. I am fair-minded. I'd like to see a high quality encyclopedia.

It is definitely POV. As for Jedwabne--and I don't mean to diss Eliach--it is also somewhat controversial as to what exactly happened. Kielce would be a better example, but I would classify that more as a pogrom than as genocide. Similarly, would Kishinev (1903) be considered "genocide"? One has to be very careful here and use a specific, universally accepted definition, lest this entire page deteriorate into an account of hyperbolic charges by rival ethnicities, no matter how brutal the end results may have been. As for Gujarat, I know absolutely nothing about it, so I can't really give an opinion one way or the other. Danny 10:44, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

New version of Poland entry

Once again, I am tempted to just revert, but want to hear what others say. This does not seem to reach the level of a genocide, and the writing is ridiculous: "by the Polish people" (!). And as Danny mentions, what even happened is controversial. I really feel this is out of place here. -- VV 05:48, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd say just remove it, too small to be a genocide by most definitions. Maybe there is a more relevant page where both sides of this event or a NPOV version of this (if it exists) can be written. Maximus Rex 06:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, the scale of both Kielce and Jedwabne seems to small when compare to other examples. Both could be included as pogroms (which they were) or political assassinations (as both were apparently inspired due to political reasons), but genocide they were not. Moreover, the common belief that the Poles=anti-semites should not be included in the wikipedia as it's not a fact but a stereotype (I'm a Polish Jew myself). NPOV is the key here.

Halibutt 15:20, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Soviet Union

This is moved to talk. It was questioned by communst propaganda. Soviet Union

Ukrainians - Claims of 5 million civilians starved to death for refusing to cooperate with "collective farming" rules.
Some argue that genocide took the form of man-made famines in 1932-33, particularly in Ukraine. Collectivization led to a drop in the already low productivity of Russian farming, which did not regain the NEP level until 1940, or allowing for the further disasters of World War II, 1950. These statistics, and the actual existence of these famines is debated though. Some argue that the famines were generally a hoax. That collectivization was not responsible for millions of deaths and the actual number of people who died of starvation was much lower and due to other causes. The 1932 dust bowl crisis which occurred not only in the USA, but also in India and the USSR, is commonly cited as one explanation.
It is POV. The only NPOV is information about the dispute and what exactly is disputed.
some people argue the jewish holocaust never happened, and those who say that are (rightly so) criticized. Yet when the favorite project of left wing intellectuals (the Soviet Union) commits genocide then denial becomes acceptable, even fashionable. -- 23:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish minority in Soviet Union,Crimean Tatars, Don Cossacks, Chechens, Volga Germans, Kalmyks, Meskhetians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Orthodox priests

Some have claimed that Stalin was planning a purge of elite Jews following the so-called "Doctor's Plot". These claims, though well publicized, have never been proven.
It was planned genocid.
Note: Many historians dismiss reports of Soviet genocide, as in Ukraine, as anti-soviet propaganda. Some historians have argued that the millions of civilian killings done by the Soviet government should not be called "genocide" since the motivation for the murders is outside of the legal definition of genocide. No ethnic groups or classes, they argue, were targeted in particular. Sometimes the term politicide is instead used to describe targeted Soviet killings of particular ideological and political groups.
many of the historians who dismiss reports of Soviet genocide as anti-Soviet propaganda are left wing intellectuals who cannot accept criticism of the left wing communist ideology, they also reject the significant similarities between communism and fascism. -- 23:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
ALL of the people who object to examining the data on its merits ALWAYS accuse those who choose to do so (whatever their motivation, even if it is a search for the truth of the matter) of being 'left-wing-intellectuals sympathizing with the Soviet Union'. This practise(I've never seen an exception) is more than a little POV, at least in the realm of Wikipedic practises, and in a broader sense, it strikes me as interesting that the language used is *always* typically far-right, anti-intillectual, and almost never deigns to present data. (except the one discredited far-right British Intelligence Operative who promulgated the theory that the Great Depression's effects in the Ukraine (similar, if not identical to its effects in the rest of the world's breadbaskets) were part of a plot by the Soviets). I'm certainly not a 'Soviet sympathizer', and it almost pains me to say that *I can't* find a basis for this other than as an early Cold-War false-flag intelligence operation. I can accept that this conspiracy theory will probably never die, but it's odd to me that it continues to be a subject of debate in a place like Wikipedia, where so many people are committed to actually researching, rather than regurgitating right-wing propaganda. If the Soviets did it, then they did it, and yes, we know they were bad. If they *didn't*, and if the evidence suggests that, it becomes little more than an exercise of whimsy and a tarring of legitimate researchers to claim that everyone who wants to examine the issue is somehow a holdout communist, and, incidentally, not even the actual far-left considers the Soviet Union its 'favourite project'. This is an straw man held and used *exclusively* by the right, and the quicker people here who do this recognize that, the better off we will all be, particularly those of us interested in the facts.

"they also reject the significant similarities between communism and fascism" Do they really? Or did you just invent the connection and then accuse them of rejecting something you made up? I'm amazed that this kind of thing exists here. You seem to believe that more people than you and your wackjobs believe that these two are the same system, when an indepth study of them would reveal, as it does for the bulk of reasonable right and centre-right researchers, that the systems are equally prevertible. I, whether I am Stalin or Hitler, can take any system, well-meaning or despotic, and turn it to my advantage. Using this as a tool to accuse any governing body that doesn't cut its economy completely free of protectionist policy, and any person who doesn't believe that a free-market necessarily, as a concept, naturally results in an ideal society of being 'communist' is. . . well, needless to say, more than a little reactionary, dualistic, and not to go too far, it's implicitly false.

I am perfectly capable, as, you'll find are the members of this nebulous group that you made up, of understanding the similarities between Stalin's rule and Mao's and Hitler's, and recognizing them as Totalitarian and Depotic. They are. End of that debate. Correlation does not imply causation, however. It is just as realistic, using your logic, to favourably compare Corporate America to Mussolini's Corporatism and Hitler's Naziism. I do not do that however, because they're *not* the same thing. They share certain things in common, but they are distinctly different in practise and in ideology. Marxism and Stalinism are similarly distinct. Both Capitalism and Communism have been used by evil people as the source and support of totalitarian governments, it DOES NOT FOLLOW that they both, in every case, lead there. STUDY them. EXPLORE THEM.

Fight over the definition

Some people use genocide to include government suppression of political opposition: like Stalin starving to death the Ukrainian kulaks, or Mao killing between 20 million and 60 million Chineses.

Others say that politics has nothing to do with "genocide" and keep reverting the article to suppress any mention of the connection. Some of these contributors insist that "the dictionary proves we are right". Ironically, the last time this argument was inserted into the article, the dictionary cited specifically mentioned "political groups" in the definition. So what's up?

Are contributors engaging in censorship, or did they just read the definition hastily?

Let's not fight over words. Some people use genocide in a political context; others scrupulously avoid using it that way. Wikipedia should report the FACT that both usages exist. It should even report that certain groups or countries oppose the Political Usage of the term; and even try to say WHY they oppose it, if possible. --Uncle Ed 16:23, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe that this battle with Ed over definition has been going on for a year and half. Perhaps Ed you could summarize your previous comments since some of them seem to contradict each other. Rmhermen 22:10, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

The only contradiction I'm aware of is the assertion that leaving out political killings is closer to the Merriam-Webster definition, which specifically includes political killings. I wonder if the text of the article should point out this contradiction.

I'm not asserting anything. I'm only reporting that college professors who have published books are saying things. This is the same as the global warming thing.

One of us, perhaps, has a fundamental disagreement with NPOV. (It's just barely possible that it's an honest misunderstanding, but that doesn't seem likely does it?) --Uncle Ed 16:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, you will note that the last time I edited anything in regard to the definition of genocide or comment on that subject on the talk page was October 22 of 2002. Certainly not an edit war. Your comment from Aug of that year begins: "Okay, the popular usage is mistaken," and you will note that you added the international definition to the article (although I restored it when you briefly started a separate page about the definition of genocide). So you can see how I confused your position. Perhaps as when you worked through global warming, you could add some sources which use it in your fashion. By the way, I have only one problem with the current version (15:57, Feb 12, 2004). I would like something more authoritative than Merriam-Webster. Rmhermen 17:07, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your conciliatory and decidedly non-inflammatory note. I was only kidding when I said You want a fight? You got one. Sorry for making such a fuss, RM.

Stipulating that the popular usage of genocide is wrong, i.e., that people shouldn't use it to describe political killings -- then I suggest we move most of the political mass murders from genocide to mass murder or just lump them all under the neolgism democide. You pick.

Or, if we don't need to resolve the quibble over the usage of genocide, let's revise the genocide article so that each episode is properly classified. The non-political ones should keep the "genocide" label, but the political ones as in Stalinist USSR or Maoist China should have a blurb or disclaimer that says something like:

Scholars are divided over whether to call this episode "genocide", since the motive was not to exterminate a group based on its ethnic or religious characteristics but to suppress political or economic rebellion.

I'm not proposing this specific wording -- just saying that if we don't resolve the definition thing at the top of the article, we'll have to deal with it on an episode by episode basis.

Best regards,
Uncle Ed 17:45, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[Mainly for Ed Poor:] Yes, you're right that M-W mentions "political group", but you misunderstood my original point, which was that M-W and others do not generally mention anything like what you were proposing as the extended meaning (something along the lines of government-instigated massacres of incredibly large numbers of people). Also, please note that "the massacre of a political group" is not the same thing as a "politically-inspired massacre". For example, it may well have been that the attempted genocide of the Hereros was in some sense "politically-inspired". Peak 06:21, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have been trying to follow this discussion, and I have an observation and a suggestion to make. My observation is that there are two different issues: how to define genocide, and what examples should be provided in the article. My suggestion is to deal with each of these issues in line with our NPOV policy, and the nature of an encyclopedia. Specifically, the article should provide definitions the usage of which can be documented. I'd avoid a dictionary definition personally, because wikipedia is not a dictionary and because dictionaries, like encyclopedia articles, are tertiary sources -- in effect, to use a dictionary definition would be like relying on someone else to do our work. But I know I am in the minority among Wikipedians with my attitude towards using dictionary definitions. In any event, I think there are three groups of people who talk about genocide a lot, and on whom we should rely for definitions: international and human rights jurists; journalists; and scholars who have studied genocide (primarily but not exclusively historians). I think that the contributors have been trying to do just this (so I hope I am not coming off as patronizing) -- but I think contributors have not been applying the same criterion to selecting examples of genocide. It seems to me (but maybe I am wrong) that contributors have started with a definition of genocidee and have then sought examples that the contributors think are consistent with the definition. And I think here we get into problems, because Wikipedia is not a place for original research and should not reflect the POVs of its contributors. My suggestion is to use the same criteria we use for selecting definitions: look to significant groups of people who actually use the term. In other words, rather than propose examples of genocide, present examples of what other people -- especially international and human rights jurists, journalists, and historians -- have presented as examples of genocide. For example, it is not up to us to say that the slaughter of the Herera was or was not genocide. The question is, have any "authorities" (politicians, activists, journalists, historians) called it genocide or not? If no one (from these groups) ever called it genocide, we should not use it as an example. If some have called it genocide we can present it as an example and mention who it is that considers it genocide. If there is any consensus that it is genocide, or if there has been contentious debate (NOT among wikipedians, but among politicians, etc.), we should explain that too. By the way, in light of these principles I am opposed to creating neologisms to make room for our own views, I don't think that is very wikipedic. Slrubenstein

Formatting of list of genocides

formatttttt question: we have a list on the page of genocides. I cant tell why we have chosen some of the names. Some seem to indicate the location of the genocide (France, North America), some indicate the target group (Armenia this could be location), others seem to indicate the perpetrators (German, Japanese)....shouldnt each section be named in the same manner? All location based or all target based or all prep based? OneVoice 18:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved to talk

Alleged Allies genocide during WW2

Allies during WW2: 3 to 5 million German civilians killed, 10 to 15 million expelled from their homes.

Bombing of Dresden in World War II: allied bombers dropped 3.4 kilotons of incendiaries (napalm) on Dresden, specifically targetting a civilian population (the city was packed with refugees), and creating a firestorm which killed an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 civilians.
Bombing of Hamburg: one third of the city destroyed, 60,000 to 100,000 civilian deaths.
Allied bombers attacked known refugee bunkers in many western and eastern German cities, attempting to "demoralize" the Germans.
Attacks on German refugees during the World War II evacuation and expulsion
Refugee ships in the Baltic Sea were targetted by allied war ships and submarines and sunk, no survivors were rescued and rescue ships were also sunk.

I am think, that it fits in definition of genocide. Genocide must target members of the same group. Bombing of the city, kills everybody, inlcuding the slave workers. In addition, we should put there also nuke bombing of Hiroshima. Cautious 12:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I definitely don't think the allied firebombing of Dresden (and to that extent Tokyo) is properly classified as genocide. Remember the legal definition: "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It is highly unlikely that the allied planners' intent was to kill all Germans, in whole or in part. The actions are more properly classified as war crimes.

I removed it.

Prussian Holocaust: Soviet rape and murder bands attacked East Prussia, raping and killing women and killing all men. Survivors trudged in great columns through the snow at -25°C, fleeing through the blizzards and shell fire. The German population of East Prussia was systematically eliminated.
Convoys of German refugees running for their lives from East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, eastern Brandenburg and other eastern German lands were targetted by bombers and attack airplanes.

I am not sure wether targeting refugees is a genocide. Anyway, it was invented first by Germans. I think it is rather barbarism. East Prussia holocaust is POV. There were some war crimes, but genocide? I doubt. Cautious 12:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Invented by Germans"? Caesar was first I know off (Helvetians). And surely you are not of the opinion that because Germany commited crimes they were free game for others? Re-adding with a slightly edited text. Jor 12:29, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ever heard of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians? Predated THe Holocaust. The longterm genocide of the native Americans? Also predating the Holocaust, as do many other genocides throughout history. Just because there is a tendency to mark the Holocaust as the only important genocide doesn't mean that it's true.


Million of Turk were killed by Greek & million of French were killed by German etc.... What means the reference to wasp ?
Why not adding both World War as genocide ?

Ericd 21:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian Holocaust and Genocide by Israel---1948-Present

Palestinians are dying, unjustly, that is all that need to be said to act on this issue and change the situation. They live in poverty, unable to govern themselves and build themselves up as a nation due to the extremely strong restrictions that bind them. The anger of such groups as Hamas is understandable, but their use of terrorism hides the integrity of their cause. It is also understandable that Israel takes certain measures to protect their people from terrorism, but they are now destroying a race – they are committing genocide. It is only when these humanitarian injustices of Palestinians are solved and this unrecognized Holocaust is put to an end that the true path to peace in the Middle East can begin.
Palestineans are not a race, they are semites (just like the Israelis), which makes the situation there all the more strange. -- 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This has been an issue for well over 60 years but the international community as a whole has been unable to stop it: hence "Terrorism" and "Suicide Bombers"

Please read up on the NPOV policy before making further edits. Pakaran. 01:41, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please read up on the "definiton" of Genocide, Pakaran, before reverting and censoring the truth about what is happening to the Palestinian People by the Israeli's:

and read up on the Wiki NPOV policy to allow alternative povs and criticisms. -PV

What I find disappointing is that to save even a page about the obvious genocide programs in West Papua I had to move it off-site ( ) to avoid it constantly being over-written by a re-direct by the local supremacist gang of three.


Wouldn't it be more obvious to derive the word from Latin genus? Burschik

Although that might seem logical, Raphael Lemkin, a linguist, coined the word himself, and the description of the etymology in the article matches precisely how he says he derived it. Bsktcase 23:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree

"Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clearcut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of alleged genocides should be understood in this context and not regarded as the final word on these subjects."

They are clearly established cases of genocide the Holocaust, Armenian genocide (despite Turkish denial) and Rwanda. I don't think NPOV should go as far as leaving a loophole for Holocaust deniers.

Ericd 20:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Genghis Khan and his sons

"One of the greatest alleged genocides in terms of raw numbers is the killings that occurred during the formation of the empire of Genghis Khan and his sons. It is estimated that millions of civilians were ruthlessly and systematically killed throughout many parts of Eurasia in the 13th Century." This doesn't qualify as genocide IMO. It's difficult to argue that Gengjis Kahn aimed a total extermination of the Chinese. Ericd 20:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Genocide vs. Ethnocide vs. ethnic cleansing vs. etc., part 2

There's a bunch of overlap between ethnocide and the explanation here of ethnocide vs. genocide under Related Concepts. I know this because I wrote both of them (from someone else's stubs). I Googled ethnocide and although the term is widely used and abused, the only serious, scholarly discussions of its meaning and usage did not agree with what had been stubbed. The stubbed definition didn't seem any different from either genocide or ethnic cleansing, and didn't really make sense as it was entered. So I changed it to agree with what I found online. I am pretty confident of the quality of the definition I have provided, so if anyone disagrees and wants to change it, I hope they will do so with a very coherent definition of the new meaning and solid sources cited. (I cited one.)

The whole purpose of the Related Concepts section seems to be to discuss different terms that people try to either use interchangeably with, or equate to, genocide, and to describe what each term has in common with genocide and how it differs. Hard to do that without also giving at least basic definitions, so at the moment there's some redundancy between this section and the articles for each term. I don't know whether the section should be farmed out to each related term and then reduced here to a list of wikified links, or if this section is fine as-is. Bsktcase 05:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do we still need NPOV?

Now that the highly contentious list of alleged historical genocides has been moved to Genocides in history (hallelujah!), does this article still need the NPOV flag? Bsktcase 05:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have removed the NPOV flag from this article. (Note: the chief culprit for NPOVage has been moved even further, from Genocides in history to Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine.) Of course anyone else who still has NPOV concerns about this article can always put the flag back. —Bsktcase 18:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know why NPOV is still disputed? Also, the "stages of genocide" seem a bit out of place for an encyclopedia article. Any thoughts? --SamOdio

Efforts to prevent genocide

If someone can do a better job describing the stages and prevention of genocide, that'd be great. Humus sapiensTalk 10:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The website this list was taken from appears to leave off one of the most important steps of genocide - to disarm the targeted population. Most of the proposed solutions are violations of freedom of speech and freedom of association (in the US anyway) and are assuming that it's not the government that is perpetrating the genocide.

no original research

I have removed this from the article:

Opponents of government massacres often insist that the word's usage should include such massacres, even if international law has a narrower scope. These advocates complain that a narrower definition may be seen as exculpating the totalitarian governments that, they claim, killed over 100 million of their own citizens during the 20th century.
Others insist that the word should be used only in the accepted sense in international law, which limits the scope to "national, ethnical, racial or religious" groups, even if this excludes some massacres. These advocates claim that their preferred usage is closer to the word's literal meaning and to the primary meanings found in dictionaries. However, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [2] definition reads as follows: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".

The way it is written, it looks like "original research." It is also terribly vague (who are these opponents and what massacres are they talking about? Who are these others?) If someone can provide veriviable sources, with citations, and specify what the research actually shows, it can be rewritten and put back in the article. Slrubenstein 02:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)



[1] Figures from controversial book by R. J. Rummel, "Death by Government".
[2] Figure from Encyclopædia Britannica

It looks like the notes refer to deleted or moved text. mikka (t) 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Prosecution of Genocide

I removed the following sentance: "Except when dealing with countries which ratified with the above-noted reservations, genocide is dealt with as an international matter, by the UN, and can never be treated as an internal affair of a country."

I did this because the statement is false. In fact, any state can prosecute genocide (and other international crimes) at any time. Both the ICTY and ICTR have forwarded cases to domestic courts and the ICC has only secondary jurisdiction; that is, can only assume jurisdiction if a state is unable or unwilling to act.

The replacement: "Due to its gravity, genocide can be prosecuted by any state at any time under its universal jurisdiction. International criminal courts and tribunals function primarily because the states involved are incapable or unwilling to prosecute crimes of this magnitude themselves."

Section on Sex Crimes as Genocide

Jurisprudence emerging from the international criminal tribunals make it clear that rape and other sex crimes (so-called "gendered crimes") can constitute genocide. If someone does add this, please be sure to discuss genocidal rape not only in the context of reproductive consequences, but also the social and cultural effects on women as a gender (as opposed to baby-machines) in various societies.

Mao's Genocide

I'm not so sure that the famine that occured under Mao can be called a genocide. It was a result of poor economic planning, not a desire by Mao to rid the world of Chinese people. Descendall 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. But even though it is unlikely that Mao actually intended to reduce the size of his own people (and his own ethnic group), we should still keep mention of it in the article. Not only because of the exceptionally large number of people killed - not through warfare or disease, by rather through deliberately induced mass-starvation (as a tool of political control, and not from mere ignorance on Mao's part) - but also as a way to define the limits of the concept of genocide through a short discussion of border-line cases which may or may not fall into this category. For this same reason, I have reinserted mention of the effects of Mongolian and European imperialism. I think the article merits mention of what can and cannot constitute genocide, with a conclusion that that defining distinguishing feature of genocide is that it involves systematic organization and definable groups of people as well as deliberation and intent. (Wow, this is sounding more and more like law school :v} ) I also think that someone should elaborate on arguments for and against applying the term genocide to deaths through warfare (including war crimes) and mass-sterilization and induced starvations or destruction of sources of food or livelihood. Points to ponder: Is mass rape genocide if reproduction and thus survival of the victimized group of people is not disrupted? What is the technical or legal definition? Who might use the term more figuratively or broadly?

--Big Adamsky 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


This limitation was, however, explicitly rejected by the first formal definition of genocide under the Geneva Convention.

Which GC which article? -- PBS 23:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

historians and sociologists

In my recent reorganisation I left in the following:

Some historians and sociologists when discussing genocide include actions against such groups. Most generally, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a social identity.

But the first sentence is a weasel worded sentence there needs to be a source and the name of some well known historians and sociologists who include political and social groups.

The second sentence is a defintion and needs to be sourced. If it is not sourced soon then it ought to be removed. --PBS 17:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Stages of genocide chart

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

I agree that the chart should not be deleted, I would quibble with most of the points, for example People are divided into "us and them". implies that US and THEM is a manufactured phenomenon. My experience of living in several countries is that all people do this naturally because if helps reinforce their own group identity. For example Woody Allen's well known (and far from unique) dislike for all things L.A. reinforces his like for N.Y.. I would also argue with allmost all of the "Preventive measures" whichabout genocide as much as genocide watch. if anything, there should be a section about the "Causes of genocide" and white-washing asf., but for now, i don't think genocide watch's analysis/propaganda and subsequent criticism deserves an entire section. Bob A 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
To wander off topic here - I don’t wish to tout this particular group, but reading their stuff I get the impression that they don’t care much whose fault it is, whether the state or the people, the Left or the Right, or which political system is more evil than another. They seem more interested in measures to prevent potential genocides from growing to the stage where drastic intervention would be needed, and give examples of some that didn’t happen with the help of negotiation and other relief. That would not be a bad slant to work into the rest of the article.
Laying blame, picking the victims from the perpetrators is not useful but is part of the problem. In fact we are all a part of both groups. Better said by Simone Weil: Meggar 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that barbarism be considered as a permanent and universal human characteristic that becomes more or less pronounced according to the play of circumstances. - Simone Weil

Genocide in history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circassian genocide

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

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

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

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

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

Worst Genocides

Sept. 27: I just noticed this: "The worst genocide in history is deemed to have been committed during the Islamic invasion of India from the 11th century onwards. More than 80 Million Hindus and Buddhists were killed during those 700 years of invasion. Also millions were forcibly converted to Islam, thousands were enslaved and taken back to Central Asia and Arabia. "

The source for this highly dubious claim? Another Wikipedia article! There is not a single reputable historian of genocide who would agree with that statement. And this happens to be a classic case of using the passive voice to confuse people: "is deemed to have been"... by whom??!! This is truly outlandish, and, placed so prominently in the article, only serves to fan the flames of anti-Muslim prejudice.

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

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

What do others think? Mostlyharmless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of Genocide's exclusion of Politicide


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


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

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

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

Suggested Addition(s):

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

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

Glad to see that there is another person dipping their toes into the wiki water :-) Have you created an account yet. If so you can sign you posts to the talk page with ~~~~ which will expand into name and date.
What you can not see on the page because I hid them as HTML comments is
Much debate about genocide revolves around the proper definition of the word "genocide". The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in this legal definition has been criticized. By whom? This needs a source Some historians and sociologists when discussing genocide include actions against such groups. Most generally, genocide is the deliberate destruction of a social identity. All this section needs a source!
What you are suggesting should be added to this paragraph. But this paragraph does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability test "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." This paragrah needs a rewrite with source to justify the statments. Perhapse you could make it you first project and include Politicide. :-)
BTW The deliberate murder of tens of millions have since 1945 comes under crimes against humanity (but who would enforce it is another thing) and are coverd by the term (but not treaty law) autogenocide.
--PBS 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

citing sources

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, the German genocide of the Herero tribe is most often cited as the first genocide of the 20th century, and whether a specific word is used to describe an event is not conclusive as to whether it is genocide or not (notwithstanding that I would like to broaden the very legal scope of this article, I might do it when I have more time on my hands). --Cybbe 18:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that "the Herero tribe is most often cited as the first genocide of the 20th century." I just did a Google search for "first genocide of the 20th century" Herero, and compared it to the search, "first genocide of the 20th century" Armenian. The results were not even close; the Armenian search had 200 times the number of hits as the Herero search. It's ironic that this section is about citing sources; a poignant example that making claims without backing them up certainly has its pitfalls. Leon7 06:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


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

Legally speaking, no, but I do believe the United States attached a understanding when they ratified the convention to that extent, i.e. that they "understood" article 2 to mean the destruction of a "substantial part of the group". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cybbe (talkcontribs) 12:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) found that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004):
  • 8 It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisic, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”[10] The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.”[11] As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group.[12]
  • 9 The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.[13] These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion. In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”[14] This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.[15]
  • 10 This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term "in part" contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term "genocide" and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that "the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety."[16] He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that "the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale."[17] Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group.[18] In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that "the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group," this formulation being the aim of the Convention.
  • 11 Recent commentators have adhered to this view. The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that "the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group."[20] The same interpretation was adopted earlier by the 1985 report of Benjamin Whitaker, the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[21]
  • 12 The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.
The last sentence is significant and in my opinion potentially controversial, because it is a way of including things like social-economic groups which the USSR had excluded from the original drafting of the convention. It was used in this case to say that men were more important to the group identity than women and children. Also the argument used to find this massacre a genocide is probably storing up trouble for future cases:
  • 13 The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale. Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders.[23] The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.
Because first it is not accurate, the Germans treated Jews in Tunisia (Africa) as they treated Jews in every area they occupied (see Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation). Second because it was used, with the last sentence of paragraph 12, to find the killing of around 8,000 men as Genocide, even though as the judgement says in paragraph 15 "The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time". This ruling has the potential of moving the defintion of Genocide from the group that has been killed to the perpotrator. What I mean by this is that Radislav Krstic was found guilty of genocide because he kill all those men he had access to in Srebrenica which was most of the total Muslim male population he had access too. Theoretically even if Slobodan Milosevic had been found guilty of complicity in the massacre he might not have been found guilty of genocide if he could prove that he had access to more of the victim population, turning his access at Srebrenica from a substancial part of the victim population to an unsubstancial part. It turns the crime of Genocide from one of absolute, ie anyone who took part is guilty of complicity in a genocide, to one of degree based on the size of the population the purpatraor has access too. --PBS 14:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List genocides?

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

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

Responsibility To Protect

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

The protest is over the refusal of the Sudanese government to allow a 20,000-strong United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur to protect the civilian population as a war escalates between the Sudanese army - with its ruthless Janjaweed militia - and various rebel groups. Campaigners fear that Sudan will use the new offensive to impose a brutal and definitive solution.
Tomorrow has been chosen because it is the first anniversary of a revision of international law by world leaders at the United Nations which insisted that the need to protect people from atrocities must override the notion of national sovereignty.
Under the Responsibility To Protect (RTP), the UN agreed that states would share "responsibility to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner" to prevent grave atrocities like genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity "when the government of the people concerned is unwilling or unable to do so".' ...

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

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

--PBS 22:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Responsibility to Protect website of (United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a Company limited by Guarantee)
Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly [on September 17] 2005 ...

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

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

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

Genocide in America

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

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

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

There is at least one very well documented instance of the purposeful use of disease (smallpox blankets) in the intentional killing of American Indians. I think it would be helpful to remember this. Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War was the responsible party (1756-'63). Mr. Amherst was also a complete and utter racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Herero and Namaqua Genocide

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

This article is a mess

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

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

Genocide denial

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

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

Armenian Genocide

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

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

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

There was no international tribunal to try the perpetrators. Those who were tried were tried under domestic laws and as there was no such offence as genocide at that time so if they were found guilty they were found guilty of other crimes. There should not be any listing of the genocide here because it is covered in the Genocide in history and it is only an alleged genocide given that there was no guilty verdict handed down by an international tribunal. The perpetrators of the Holocaust were not found guilty of Genocide but of crimes against humanity, but they were found guilty by an international tribunal of those crimes. I think it better that only incidents where people are found guilty of Genocide are listed in this article. Those incidents before the Convention, or incidents where there was not a trial, are listed in the article Genocide in history as it stops this article being the focus of POV wars. --PBS 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Talat, Enver and Cemal all fled turkey before they could be tried under any court (though a Turkish military tribunal did try them in abstentia and find them guilty of war crimes) and all were killed ( Enver in Russia, Talat in Germany, and Cemal in Georgia) within 7 years. Just because the guilty parties fled justice (and because the Turkish tribunal is not international) does not mean these events did not occur. If the League of Nations, which had only been established only a year before Tallat’s death, had managed to apprehend these war criminals, then it surely would have found them guilty. The fact that a national court – the very nation they had controlled - found them guilty should be worth something.The Myotis 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Although the information given in the article is the academic and judicial meaning of genocide, some critics are ultimately political. Cemal Pasha found guilty by the Ottoman Empire not because of he interfered any mass killing but beause he provoked the ethnic Arabs for a rebellion movement. The other misleading point is their murders. Cemal Pasha was murdered by Armenian paralimilitary groups in Tbilisi on 22nd July 1922, Talat Pasha was killed by an Armenian named Sogomon Tehliryan in Germany in 1921 and Enver Pasha was killed in Tajikistan on the 4th of August 1922 in battlefield. (Gürer - 17.08.07)

VATG's Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkey is not the only country that doesn't accept to call the death of Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire as genocide.There are 174 countries on Earth that rejects to call it genocide. Besides, the Muslim deaths are generally ignored which were comparable in size despite there were no deportations, but simply murders by armenian gangs in Anatolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

genocide in novels

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

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

Large scale miscegenation

Would large scale miscegenation qualify as a form of genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

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