Talk:Genocide definitions

Dovid Katz

• 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)

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

Is A List Appropriate?

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)

"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)

External links modified

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.

Y 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)

Crimes against humanity vs genocide

@Anythingyouwant I just wanted to start a conversation here about the recent edits. I left the last part of the sentence, but added to it, but in some ways I think I just made it worse... To be honest, I don't really support the second addition. The quote you added says some categories (but not all categories) of crimes against humanity may me similarly heinous. I agree with adding something about crimes against humanity in general, but I don't really think we need that much focus in the lead about something other than genocide (it's more than one sentence). I didn't want to just delete it though, so I'm starting a conversation instead. Why do you think the second sentence should be there, and if it does need to be there, is there a way to make it more concise? Slava570 (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Slava570, before I noticed your note here, I further edited the last sentence of the first paragraph, so it now says this:

“ From a legal perspective, crimes against humanity are distinct from genocide, but can sometimes be just as heinous, according to the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur. ”

• Novic, Elisa. The Concept of Cultural Genocide: An International Law Perspective, p. 83 (Oxford U. Press, 2016): "It is indisputable that genocide bears a special stigma, for it is aimed at the physical obliteration of human groups. However, one should not be blind to the fact that some categories of crimes against humanity may be similarly heinous and carry a similarly grave stigma" quoting "Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary General", p. 129 (2004).
  The sources seem very reliable, and the info seems very relevant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Your new version is better than what I wrote just before. I'm just not sure if another sentence about crimes against humanity is needed beyond saying how genocide differs from them. I'm not disputing that the sources are good, but I'm not sure if it adds to people's understanding to add a value judgment that is not necessarily widely shared. I won't challenge it anymore though... Slava570 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The Darfur Commission indicated that crimes against humanity occurred there, but not genocide, and wanted to clarify why. So they clarified that genocide isn't defined as the only heinous atrocity. Thanks for allowing this principle to be briefly summarized here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I've rethought it this morning. I think this was a good addition now that will help readers understand the concepts, so thank for adding it.... Slava570 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We need to move most of the content from the lede to the body, as presently the majority of what the lede covers is not mentioned in the body. The overview of the points can of course be retained in the lede, but we need it in the body first and foremost. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the article body covering some stuff that had only been covered in the first paragraph of the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Moving last paragraph of lead

I'm not sure the last paragraph of the lead adds much, so I suggest moving it down to the themes section. The last paragraph of the lead also relies heavily on the opinions of Ernesto Verdeja and Kurt Mundorff, to whom those opinions are attributed in the text of that paragraph, so that's an undue weight issue as well. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)