Talk:Genocide

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

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Miraclepine (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that many genocide perpetrators fear that they would otherwise suffer a similar fate as they inflict on their victims?
  • ALT1: ... that many perpetrators adopt ideologies justifying genocide after they begin to kill?
  • ALT2: ... that the United States and Soviet Union worked to ensure their own policies were excluded from the definition of genocide?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Trade Union Council of Transcarpathian Ukraine

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

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

• Comment: ALT2 needs a rewrite for clarification. Does "write their own policies out of the definition" mean that their policies were by definition genocidal, or does it mean something else? Roast (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
  • They wrote the definition of genocide, and ensured that they would not be considered guilty. (t · c) buIdhe 03:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
• Doing... --GRuban (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - debatable, see below
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - debatable
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Impressive article, and clearly vital to our encyclopedia. Unfortunately it's such an important and controversial topic that the exact phrasing of every sentence is A Big Deal, so I'm going to have to nitpick. I was most impressed by ALT2, so that's where I focused ... and, I'm afraid, it's not a sufficient summary of the source in either the hook or the article. The hook says "the United States and Soviet Union...", the article says "powerful countries (both Western powers and the Soviet Union)..." which could be similar enough (as the US was undisputably the most powerful Western country) but the source that this is cited to, p21-22, specifically says "it was not only the major powers...". The source then goes on to list the powers that worked to weaken the definition of genocide: "The Canadian and Swedish delegations... the South African delegation... the Brazilian delegation ... the UK and French delegations... Washington ...". That is not a list that can be summarized as "powerful Western powers"; in both WW2 and the Cold War Sweden was specifically neutral, Brazil was debatable, and the power of both of them and South Africa was quite limited. Implying that only the US and Soviet Union, or even that only the major powers, worked to water down the definition of genocide is incorrect. This is fixable, but needs fixing.

I would also suggest adding a sentence giving specifics as to what part of the definition of genocide the US thought would make them vulnerable (namely Jim Crow and lynchings); there is a single link to We Charge Genocide hidden behind the word "countercharges" (arguably a WP:SURPRISE violation), but otherwise I can't see it in our article. But that is comprehensiveness, which is not a DYK requirement. The above bit goes to neutrality, which is. GRuban (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• In both the article and the hook, we are trying to sum up complicated diplomatic negotiations in one sentence. It would be obviously UNDUE to mention every country's position in this article and the hook, which is why they are phrased the way they are—there is no implication that other states didn't take similar positions. (Although in other cases it wasn't necessarily that diplomats believed that they would be vulnerable to a charge of genocide were the definition not kept narrow). (t · c) buIdhe 17:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

While I understand the restrictions on detailing country by country, the current phrasing actively contradicts the source's "not only major powers" statement. I think rephrasing is required at the least, or even a sentence of clarification is worth its space. Maybe something like "... third world countries with a history of colonialism"? If it's explained in the article in more detail I could accept the hook, but right now both imply it was the US/SU.--GRuban (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, the source doesn't say that any of the other countries you mention secured changes to the wording, which is what the article sentence said. I have tweaked the wording a bit to more closely match the source, but I think the article made the same distinction that the source does—as the previous sentence mentions states' concerns, which were more widespread than influence on the final version. I'm also not sure where you're getting "... third world countries with a history of colonialism" from. (t · c) buIdhe 19:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I can buy that. However I now looked further and we've got an article on the source, Douglas Irvin-Erickson, and it's a one-liner saying he's an assistant professor, which is quite a lot to hang such a powerful statement as "the United States, United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union conspired..." on. Not that I don't believe it, mind you, that is exactly the sort of Orwellian things they did in the early Cold War ("we have always been at war with Eastasia") but still, powerful claims call for powerful sourcing. Do we have a second source besides one assistant professor? --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

If not, I'll accept the first hook. I don't think it's nearly as hooky, but since it's not nearly as specific I'll accept its sourcing. --GRuban (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's the accepted viewpoint in the field that powerful countries from both Cold War blocs were working to undermine the genocide convention while posturing as being against genocide, for example, it's the thesis of Anton Weiss-Wendt's book The Soviet Union and the Gutting of the UN Genocide Convention, which despite its title blames the US almost as much. That's exactly what the hook says. (t · c) buIdhe 18:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Quote a sentence or two from that book, with page numbers, that says that here, and add that as a citation to the relevant place in the article and I will accept it; it is a better hook. --GRuban (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

As it says on the last page of the book, "The Genocide Convention bears the stamp of approval by Stalin, who made micromanaging a staple of Soviet policymaking.... Representatives of quite a few other UN member states unintentionally admitted to the political agenda behind their vote on certain provisions of the Genocide Convention in 1948. To give just one example, the State Department did not regard forcible transfer of minori- ties as an act of genocide, because the United States had previously cosigned the Yalta and Potsdam agreements providing for expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. Further dark shadows would appear if anyone attempted to compare the official statements to archival records." (t · c) buIdhe 15:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

ALT2. --GRuban (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Buidhe, GRuban, and Viriditas: The article is undergoing a GAR and an RfC, apparently, so pulled from prep and on hold until that concludes. HurricaneZeta^C 04:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• With the GAR ongoing and unresolved (it does not appear that the issues have been addressed), the RfC currently taking place, and the nomination already long past DYKTIMEOUT, this is now marked for closure. Normally I would have let this run per the "nominations under discussion should not be timed out" guideline, but given the nature of the subject, as well as DYKN's severe PEIS issues, I am invoking IAR in this case. If the issues are resolved, perhaps it can be renominated, also per IAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

mutilation and crime against humanity

@K7V Your edit said "Genocide, similar to other crimes against humanity, is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil" This makes genocide a subset of crimes against humanity, but these are actually two different things. The article this links to lists 11 specific crimes against humanity, and genocide is not one of them. It is separate. Also, for example, the UN definition says "In contrast with genocide, crimes against humanity do not need to target a specific group." See here: . And doesn't it make more sense to say that only genocide is widely considered to be the epitome of human evil? Doesn't the word epitome imply the one, single thing that is most evil of all?

As far as mutilation... what do other people think? One of the acts in the convention is "Causing serious bodily harm." Mutilation would fall under that, but is it too specific for the lead? The word is only used one other time in the article, as a subset of sexual violence. We also discussed adding cultural genocide to this list, so will all these additions end up making it too wordy? Slava570 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion, but removed 'mutilation'. In theory, mass mutilation might be considered genocidal, but so might any and all forms of violence towards a group. So I concur, it's too specific and doesn't exemplify a distinct kind of genocide and is potentially misleading.

Personally, I think 'forced sterilization' is too specific and previous/more generic wording about 'preventing reproduction among the group' is more clearly targetting the group, rather than the member. Pincrete (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would be fine with changing that too. I'm wondering, do you have any thoughts about including cultural genocide? If so, do you think it's ok to tack it on to the end of this sentence, or does it need a fourth sentence? Slava570 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Genocide#Is_this_ready_for_proposing_as_an_RfC?

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

A human group?

The previous 'definitional' discussion was so long and tortuous that I was at the time reluctant to point out that "a human group', whilst the best generic description to accommodate all the various definitions of the 'target' group, was nonetheless very vague. A family is a human group, as is a cycle club or a football team or the inhabitants of a building, street or village. I'm going to attempt in the next few days to qualify what is/was/has been meant by the phrase. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

As a participant of the tortuous discussion (and possibly the cause), I just wanted to say I agree with you on this. I just added "racial" to the list though... Slava570 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My only reason for omitting was brevity, 'ethnic' and 'racial' are near-synonyms and I wasn't claiming it to be a quote.Pincrete (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully at least one other editor will respond. I personally think racial and ethnic are different enough to be listed separately and it's only one extra word... I took it back out for now. Slava570 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I took the attitude that even though the words 'race' and 'ethnicity' are often used in distinct ways, 'ethnicity' ordinarily covered 'race', (if someone disparaged B Obama because of his ethnicity, it would be understood to mean because he was Black, if they questioned his nationality or religion, they would be challenging other distinct characteristics). However I'm not going to quibble over the addition. I was consciously avoiding referring to UNGC, because although it is the best known definition with that 4-part formula, it isn't the only one, but the recent addition referring to the HMGC doesn't imply that it is. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your point that it shouldn't mention the Convention there since the lead is meant to encompass a broader range of definitions. Also I think it should say "ethnic" and not "ethnical" for the same reason. Slava570 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ι didn't say it shouldn't reference the UNGC, merely that I had consciously avoided doing so in order to avoid the need for further explanation. The only reason for the anachronistic 'ethnical' is because it is the term used in the UNGC definition, so if we refernce UNGC, we have to accurately use their terminology, but if no UNGC, no need for that form (also IMO, no need for 'racial'. 'Race' typically applies to broader categories than 'ethnicity' but I can't think of any real world situation in which a group has been targetted because of their 'race', which could not equally be described as because of their 'ethnicity'. But I'm not going to object if others think the term necessary.) Pincrete (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)