Jump to content

Talk:Genocide definitions

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

Thompson and Quets

[edit]

Daedalus71, when you made this change why did you remove the entry for Thompson and Quets? --PBS 06:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed as if the entry for Thompson and Quets was cited to a 1987 mimeo and flagged "needs verification". In my own bibliography of definitions of genocide I have a quotation by the same authors, cited to a 1990 book on Columbia Universtiy Press, so I deleted the older quotation and added the newer one. However, now that you've asked, I'm trying to double-check the citation I added and I can't seem to find the book in question. I'll follow up on this shortly. Christopher Powell 16:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I've sorted it. The 1987 citation is indeed to a mimeo; the existence of this mimeo is independently confirmed by its being cited in Current Sociology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 113-126, March 1990. However, this mimeo is very difficult to find. I think that it is quoted by Chalk and Jonassohn in their 1990 book, although I'm not sure. In my earlier edit I replaced this quotation with one from their 1990 article in Volume 12 of the periodical Research in social movements, conflict, and change, but I provided inaccurate citation information; I've now corrected this. The later quotation has the advantage of being much easier to find for anyone who wants to look it up for themselves - middling-size libraries carry the periodical in question, but even the University of Toronto library doesn't seem to have a copy of the mimeo. However, the earlier definition is a bit fuller and more detailed. I'm not averse to including both, really, except for considerations of balance. Christopher Powell 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two different quotations by Thompson and Quets in the article before your edits, you have replaced the earlier one with one by Tony Barta. You then changed the citation on the second one are you sure that the new citation for the remaining quote is correct as it was the earlier one? (The one you removed that had a citation that was was flagged as needing checking, not the second one). --PBS 09:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Originally' (ie before I started intervening) there was only one Thompson and Quets quotation; I added a second before removing the first, so there could have been two only for the space of a few days, I think. The sequence of my interventions was: (1) not noticing the 1987 quotation, I added the 1990 quotation but incorrectly cited it, giving the title as that of the 1987 mimeo but giving the date as 1990. (2) I noticed the 1987 quotation and decided to remove it on the grounds that it is less easily verifiable than the 1990 quotation (although this may not be accurate; I suspect it is quoted in a more widely published source, since I've seen it before and I'm pretty sure I've never seen the mimeo). (3) I realized that I'd given incorrect citation information for the 1990 quotation, and fixed it. I'm quite confident that I've now cited the 1990 quotation accurately. The net effect of my changes has been to substitute one quotation by these authors for another, later quotation in the same vein by them. Do you think I should put the first one back in? Christopher Powell 00:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! you added the second one without signing in so it it was an IP address in the history -- hence my confusion. I am not fussed whether the first one is put back in or not so lets go with you judgement and not put it back :-) --PBS 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No signature - argh! Sorry about that. Glad to clear up the confusion. :) Christopher Powell 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Disputed text

Additionally the majority of genocide scholars consider that group destruction must involve mass killing, i.e. physical destruction. There is a considerable number who don't hold this view however there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the destruction criterion.

The relevant passage from ECHR I assume you are aware of since it was you who pointed it to me.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=1448788&skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=63590&highlight=

36. The applicant is the first person to be convicted of genocide by German courts under Article 220a since the incorporation of that Article into the Criminal Code. At the time when the applicant committed his acts in 1992, a majority of scholars took the view that genocidal “intent to destroy a group” under Article 220a of the Criminal Code had to be aimed at the physical-biological destruction of the protected group (see, for example, A. Eser, in Schönke / Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 24th edition, Munich 1991, Article 220a, §§ 4-5 with further references). However, a considerable number of scholars were of the opinion that the notion of destruction of a group as such, in its literal meaning, was wider than a physical-biological extermination and also encompassed the destruction of a group as a social unit (see, in particular, H.-H. Jescheck, Die internationale Genocidium-Konvention vom 9. Dezember 1948 und die Lehre vom Völkerstrafrecht, ZStW 66 (1954), p. 213; and B. Jähnke, in Leipziger Kommentar, Strafgesetzbuch, 10th edition, Berlin, New York 1989, Article 220a, §§ 4, 8, 13).

The relevant passages from Jones are

Adam Jones, Genocide:A Comprehensive Introduction p.20-21 http://www.genocidetext.net/gaci_origins.pdf

Regardless of the strategy chosen, a consensus exists that genocide is “committed

with intent to destroy” (UN Convention), is “structural and systematic” (Horowitz), “deliberate [and] organized” (Wallimann and Dobkowski), “sustained” (Harff ), and “a series of purposeful actions” (Fein; see also Thompson and Quets). Porter and Horowitz stress the additional role of the state bureaucracy. Crucially, there is growing agreement that group “destruction” must involve mass killing and physical liquidation (see, e.g., Fein [1994], Charny, Horowitz, Katz/Jones). But to repeat: this is not a feature of either Raphael Lemkin’s original formulations or of the UN Convention. In both of these definitions, mass killing is only one of a panoply of strategies available to génocidaires; the emphasis is on the destruction of the group “as such,” not necessarily the physical annihilation of its

members.

Please discuss your objections.

Xenovatis (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this:

Additionally the majority of genocide scholars (ECHR Jorgic v. Germany, citing A. Eser, in Schönke / Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 24th edition, Munich 1991, Article 220a, §§ 4-5, judgement of 12 July 2007) consider that group destruction must involve mass killing, i.e. physical destruction. There is a considerable number who don't hold this view (ECHR Jorgic v. Germany, citing H.-H. Jescheck, Die internationale Genocidium-Konvention vom 9. Dezember 1948 und die Lehre vom Völkerstrafrecht, ZStW 66 (1954), p. 213; and B. Jähnke, in Leipziger Kommentar, Strafgesetzbuch, 10th edition, Berlin,

New York 1989, Article 220a, §§ 4, 8, 13, judgement of 12 July 2007), however there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.(Adam Jones p.21)

Because there are some problems with it that need sorting out. First a format issue, Xenovatis citations should go after punctuation in this article. Now to the substance the ECHR cites "legal scholars" not "genocide scholars". Further the ECHR was referring to legal scholars as was before the ICTY and ICJ judgements. Many more (most?) would take the ICJ judgement into account as one all ways does with case law. to see what problems genocide scholars have when the walk into the legal area see this article: "When people kill a people", The New York Times, March 28, 1982. by Telford Taylor! So one can not combine the ECHR and Jones into one sentence as the are talking about two different groups of writes. --PBS (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW to see this distinction please see ECHR paragraph 47 immediately before it is a section heading "vi. Interpretation by legal writers" which makes it clear they are talking about legal scholars not scholars in general. --PBS (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine I understand your point. So it needs to be made clear thaat the ECHR is reffering to legal scholars. Once that is made is clear are there any other issues from your side? Because Jones also writes that there is "growing agreement" that physical destruction is necessary to label an event genocide and he is reffering to academic scholars. I have included the same text in the main genocide article as well and will amend it appropriately once we agree on a wording here. Also could you give an example of what you mean on the formating issue? I am guessing you mean the commas, but just to make sure. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia there are two/three opinions on where to place ref tags for citations, before punctuation, after punctuation or a bit of both, but what the two main camps are agreed upon that the article should be internally consistent. As this article uses after punctuation, new additions should adhere to that standard. --PBS (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legal scholars before the ICTY and ICJ judgements circa 1992 -- the time that Nikola Jorgic committed his crimes. --PBS (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't include the legal scholars since saying before 1992 could be read as implying that there was a change afterwards which I'm not sure is true.Xenovatis (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I have now done is left the Jones's observation in here, but linked the text of CPPCG to a new section in the article genocide called Intent to destroy and to an older section called In part as they are CCPPCG specific --PBS (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Nusan Porter

[edit]

I have reverted the following edit Revision as of 19:37, 19 January 2008 by 207.69.140.35 because there is no easy way to verify it the text removed is:

I have since added "cultural and intellectual aspects of genocide", again echoing Lemkin, that the destruction of a people or tribe physically also entails its destruction culturally and conversely, if and when you destroy a group's culture, you will eventually destroy it physically as a people."---Jack Nusan Porter, Jan. 20, 2008, personal comment, but also see the forward by Antony Polonsky and preface and introduction to my latest book "The Genocidal Mind", Lanham. MD and London: University Press of America, 2006, pp. vii-xxi and 1-28.

because it was added by an IP has not been verified. If someone can verify it then we can re-introduce it in a slightly amended version. --PBS (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing definitions and extreme western bias

[edit]

Why are all of the definitions from Western tradition? It seems a bit insulting to ignore the philosophical/legal traditions and writings of the rest of the world.Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean in more detail --PBS (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly, we have 23 definitions here (OK, some are multiples from the same philosopher), but as near as I can tell, all of the defintions are by western "philosophers", or whatever. I do not see one single oriental, african, etc. comment on the subject. While it would be a nice enrichment to include the writings of the confucian scholars, islamic theorists, indian teachers of the past, that is a level of sophism we don't need for this article.

However, we have totally left out the musings of Mao Zedong, Stalin, Ramon Magsaysay, Crazy Horse, Ghadaffi, "the Shah", etc. etc. etc. While not all may have addressed this subject, surely, with 85% of the world being "non western" SOMEONE must have written on the subject.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the UN said "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity" but the word is new as the term was not coined until the 1940s. So I do not see how there can be a genocide definition before the word was first coined. I have no idea on the background of most of the scholars here, but if there are any scholarly definition missing from the list that can be backed up by reliable sources then by all means add them providing they are specific definitions of genocide and not a synthesis of published material which advances a position --PBS (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters if the word was "coined" last week. The concept goes back thousands of years and every literate culture of which I am personally aware has had it thinkers who addressed little questions like "what is right and wrong", "is victory the only criteria", "what is truth", etc. The West is NOT unique in this characteristic, either historically or current (Zedong, Hirohito, Mugabe, Gandhi, etc.).Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of definitions

[edit]

Colin Martin Tatz With intent to destroy: reflecting on genocide, Verso, 2003. ISBN 1859845509, 9781859845509 pp. ix-xi needs checking against the article list. --PBS (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD at Definitions of Pogrom

[edit]

Hi everyone, we'd be grateful for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dovid Katz

[edit]

What is the evidence that Dovid Katz is a recognised expert in this field for example can anyone provide use of his research by any third party mentioned in this list? -- PBS (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month has gone by. So I am removing the definition. -- PBS (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is A List Appropriate?

[edit]

It's unusual to see just a listing of quotes in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what value it adds - the introduction points out there are a number of different definitions, and controversy over how to define it. Of course all these definitions need to be referenced, but what value is added by simply listing them? I'm not convinced any is. Of course, if someone wanted to pick out the key differences between them and discuss them, that would be worthwhile, but, as it is, it doesn't look right.

I wouldn't want to just delete them all without talking about it first, but I'd be interested to know thoughts.82.19.19.227 (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from"
  • The quotations are cited. There is no reason to delete any of them without discussing the proposed deletions without discussing them here on this talk page.
  • The list is useful because, those who have only a passing interest in genocide usually do not realise that when they read a paper by an academic that academic may be working from a totally different definition form that used by the International courts.
  • We have an article called Genocide which fulfils that role to a limited degree, this is just a detailed sub-article to that main article (see Wikipedia:Subpages).
  • It is not possible to "pick out the key differences between them and discuss them" unless there is a reliable third party source which has done this. If you know of such papers then please summarise them and include citations to them.
-- PBS (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitions would indicate modern European nations are being genocided?

[edit]

Using the definitions found here, would indicate that Europe is slowly being genocided by some other non-European peoples? How come this is never mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.50.36 (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide_definitions&oldid=1258127081"