Talk:Genocide Convention

Untitled

Three different pages link here, so think a moment before reverting this move, okay? --Ed Poor

Political killings

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)

Bricker Amendment

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)

Serbia

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)

United States

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? MrZaius^talk 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In part

• 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)

There werent a genocide in Bosnia

Edward S Herman said that is a Myth.--95.114.91.61 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because he's stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.182.203 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Parties & Reservations & Immunity from Prosecution

"Provisos granting immunity from prosecution for genocide without its consent were made by Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia."

The sentence is difficult to understand and, more importantly, is inaccurate. With a single exception (the Philippines' exclusion of its Head of State), the declarations/reservations by the cited nations neither grant an absolute nor blanket immunity from prosecution (which is the tenor of the text as currently written). Instead, they require consent by the nation to prosecution of its citizenry before an international court for a charge of genocide, in several instances explicitly reserving the possibility of trying the crime in its courts. I'm replacing the quoted sentence ...

"Sixteen nations conditioned ratification, accession, or succession to the Convention on one or more declarations, reservations, or understandings that explicitly require that the nation grant consent to trial of its citizenry before an international court for the crime of genocide." Irish Melkite (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Armenian Genocide

@‎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) @Tuvixer Sure, my problem is 1) why are you are adding it there, 2) why only that particular one and not other genocides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesbeth98 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Srebrenica

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)

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)

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)

It already is. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No it's not, it sits at Srebrenica massacre. --OJ (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)