Talk:Genocide Convention

message: : Because the convention required the support of the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, it excluded actions undertaken by those nations. As a result, the convention excludes from the definition of genocide the killing of members of a social class, members of a political or ideological group, and that of cultural killings.
Was there a draft with a broader definition that was rejected, or this is yet another piece of anticommunism? 
And what the heck is "cultural killings" and why would Soviets want to kill culturally (all sovietologists insist that soviets (NKVD) killed brutally :-)? mikka (t) 02:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political killings

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: The ICJ concluded that Serbia violated this Genocide Convention during the Bosnian War, in February this year. The article should have some reference to it. --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia  

message: We know when the treaty was ratified and entered effect in the United States, but when was it signed and by whom?  Which Presidents supported and opposed the treaty during the ~20 year gap between 1967 and 1986? MrZaiustalk 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: * International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 [2001] ICTY 8 (2 August 2001) (ii) "In part"
*International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 [2004] ICTY 7 (19 April 2004) A. The Definition of the Part of the Group 
* Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 5, by Avril McDonald, H. Fisher. "Developments of Genocide Law" by W.A. Shabas pp. 145-
*The permanent international criminal court: legal and policy issues, by Dominic McGoldrick, Peter J. Rowe, Eric Donnelly pp. 147-
--PBS (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In part 

message: Edward S Herman said that is a Myth.--95.114.91.61 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On a further look, I moved that text from "Parties" to "Reservations" and deleted 3 quotes from the convention which had no direct bearing on the issue of reservations and really were not otherwise contributory. Irish Melkite (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  There werent a genocide in Bosnia 

message: @‎Liesbeth98 Please discuss your problems with the article here. You can not change the article without a consensus, so the article will stay as it is. That is how Wikipedia works. Now you can state what problems you have. ok? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not adding it there. I did not put it there. If you want to edit Wikipedia you need to know the rules first, and you can't remove content without a consensus, and you can't change article without consensus. You need to discuss your problems on the talk page. --Tuvixer (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Liesbeth98 because that's what the word "genocide" was created for, the Armenian Genocide. Read the article on Genocide before making unexplained changes. --92slim (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide 

message: I don't normally go close to this subject - it is one I'd rather not touch. Obviously the rules on redirects are different from rules on article titles therefore do not have to observe neutrality. I've glimpsed that discussion has taken place to Srebrenica massacre on whether to move it to genocide (see Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Renaming the article in to Srebrenica genocide). I have not followed but my guess is that based on the wide range of scholarly disagreement on matters of whether it should be labelled "genocide" and over what really happened, the article has not been moved. As such, it would be in breach of WP:NPOV to continue to use the term indiscriminately. --OJ (TALK) 10:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no discussion here, please stop edit warring or I will have to report you. It is a genocide as stated in the ruling of the ICTY. There is no discussion, we have a court decision. end of the story. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Move the article to Srebrenica genocide and I'll self-revert. End of the story. --OJ (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not, it sits at Srebrenica massacre. --OJ (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a redirect for the Srebrenica Genocide probably because the deniers have managed to push that, but that is simply not the case because we have a ruling of the ICTY and there should be no discussion about this. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tuvixer, I have self-reverted because with my first edit having formally removed something, it counts as a revert, and I had reached four with my last because I failed to spot that my first was inside 24 hours. To that end I self-reverted and if you check my history, where I normally self-revert, I tend not to restore the version I edited. Having seen your sandbox draft for what I can only assume to be a pending report to administrators, I welcome the prospect of using noticeboards or seeking a third opinion. But I will tell you one thing, if you believe that the ICTY is some kind of all-defining truth which trumps refuting scholars to the point that we can use ICTY public statements indiscriminately without parity, then you and I will be having tough times ahead as editors. As for your suggestion that the article title is a victory for "deniers", that only goes to show you know very little about the "denial" factor. In truth, alternative views on Srebrenica are so diverse that you cannot categorise them all one way. Obviously there are those to believe the published estimate to be grossly inflated (I have no comment here) but then there are those to accept the figure but believe the incident had been allowed to take place on purpose for what was to come (I have no comment here), then there are those who simply question the findings (I have no comment here) and so forth. Then there are those who accept everything per mainstream media and western-sponsored "tribunals" and "investigations" (I have no comment here either), so they don't dispute the figure but they don't accept the term "genocide" for other reasons concerning the definition of the word. So you could say that massacre deniers and genocide deniers are two different categories. The headache for so many editors is that these "deniers" are not restricted to the Serb nation, nor to non-academic individuals from outside, but highly respected sholars and qualified persons who are not Serb (I have no comment here). --OJ (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Srebrenica 

message: Were any of the 171 Jewish high ranking officers in the WW2 German military (Generals, admirals, colonels) ever tried in a court for genocide? Were any of the 150,000 Jewish soldiers in the German military ever tried for genocide?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.119 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No one was tried for genocide based on actions taken in World War II. Genocide as a crime was not defined until the Convention was written, which was after the war. Anyone tried for actions during the war was tried for either war crimes or crimes against humanity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genocide Convention. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020233944/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Genocide Convention. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924170456/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803022821/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyjudgment/ibhy_ijudgment_20070226_frame.htm to http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyjudgment/ibhy_ijudgment_20070226_frame.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't Genocide under municipal laws be merged to this article? Editor2020 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It might work better at List of parties to the Genocide Convention. Klbrain (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Why no mention? Colonizer governments engage in genocidal acts per the convention's definition to this very day. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:4D93:1F56:3883:1B12 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous peoples of the "Americas" 

message: The current activities of the US government in support of Israel should be classified as a genocide against the Palestinian people. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2023 Gaza Palestinian Genocide 

message: Hitler brought those who experience attraction to the same sex, bisexuals and homosexuals into the concentration camps and persecuted them as a group due to an innate trait.
But due to discrimination still being so widespread trying to wipe out a group based on their orientation was excluded. This should be noted in the page as a failing of the convention since it was something that was obviously occurring and follows the typical role of genocide.
If anyone is trying to counter that being homosexual or bisexual doesn't make sense to put it under that well. Religions a choice and it's there. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It's not something that can be chosen. People choose to not believe religions all the time. NekoKey (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Orientation should have been included 

message: There needs to be a citation for the claim that this was the reason for the United States not ratifying the convention until 1988, and doing so only with reservations. It seems pretty clear to me that the actual reason was that such things as Jim Crow laws meant that the US was by the convention's own definition committing genocide. — Red XIV (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "due to traditional American suspicion of any international authority that could override US law"?