Talk:Genocide definitions

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

text: '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)

text: No signature - argh! Sorry about that.  Glad to clear up the confusion. :) Christopher Powell 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thompson and Quets

message: Disputed text
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=
The relevant passages from Jones are
Adam Jones, Genocide:A Comprehensive Introduction
p.20-21'''
http://www.genocidetext.net/gaci_origins.pdf
Please discuss your objections.
Xenovatis (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Genocide scholars and legal scholars

message: 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:
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)
thread_title: Jack Nusan Porter

message: 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)
replies: text: Please explain what you mean in more detail --PBS (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing definitions and extreme western bias 

message: Colin Martin Tatz With intent to destroy: reflecting on genocide, Verso, 2003. , 9781859845509 pp. ix-xi needs checking against the article list. --PBS (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another list of definitions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  AfD at [[Definitions of Pogrom]] 

message: *insertion diff) Revision as of 19:49, 3 October 2010 Petri Krohn (+ Dovid Katz) 
*removal diff) Revision as of 23:20, 2 May 2013] :Tataral (hardly notable, not known as a scholar on genocide)
*insertion diff) Revision as of 19:22, 25 February 2014 Petri Krohn (Restored Dovid Katz) 
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)
replies: text: More than a month has gone by. So I am removing the definition. -- PBS (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dovid Katz]] 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505161753/http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 to http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2
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