Lifestyle
Technopedia Center
PMB University Brochure
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
S1 Informatics S1 Information Systems S1 Information Technology S1 Computer Engineering S1 Electrical Engineering S1 Civil Engineering

faculty of Economics and Business
S1 Management S1 Accountancy

Faculty of Letters and Educational Sciences
S1 English literature S1 English language education S1 Mathematics education S1 Sports Education
teknopedia

Flag Counter
  2. World Encyclopedia
  3. Talk:Genocide - Wikipedia
Talk:Genocide - Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGenocide has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 25, 2025Good article nomineeListed

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

Proposed merge of Complicity in genocide into Genocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that this article is currently a stub that needs expanding upon. However, there is no consensus on whether to merge the article with Genocide. I find there to be equal support/oppose !votes in this discussion, with neither side making a significantly stronger argument than the other. Those who oppose say that the topic is notable and distinct enough to be a separate and expanded article, while those who support a merge argue that the topic is too short as it stands and would require heavy expansion to warrant an article. Gramix13 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

stub article fgnievinski (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, notable topic, should be expanded not merged (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly distinct topic, stubs are fine, especially ones w 8 scholarly citations, it's the crap/embarrassing articles that make good merge candidates based on quality Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 132.147.197.111 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think that they work better as separate pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, small stub articles with only a couple of lines are unnecessary and should be merged when there is a more appropriate and comprehensive article that the two lines can be added to. Finestat (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion, it is a notable subject, but the page needs to be expanded drastically to be on the mainspace. Similar to Genocidal intent. Goku from bd (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Support, obviously, in spite of the merge tag, no editor works with the Complicity article and the way it is now, it is barely even a section. (However, if editors would start expanding the Complicity article, I would change my mind.) Lova Falk (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
This little article doesn't even explain what Complicity in genocide is. It only states that it's forbidden. I think it should be merged, and if the topic is not expanded a lot, it can be separated again later. HelgeStenstrom (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, As presently written, it is barely a section. If expanded very dramatically, it could have its own page, but not at present. It doesn't make sense to have 'complicity' on its own. Pincrete (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as said above it is a very short article and so it would make more sense to merge into this article than keep a stub that doesn't explain much beyond that it is illegal. GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- it's a notable topic. It should be expanded ~~~ Greensminded24 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality of the article

Kowal2701, regarding your ping [1], I think the article still has neutrality issues as outlined here: Talk:Genocide/Archive_9#Article_Neutrality

I will be busy with other articles for some time. Other people can take the lead with further RfC's if necessary. Bogazicili (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the literature so will defer to others, but I think of those proposed changes
  • forced labour/slavery and starvation don't seem to be contested and can be added back? I suggest an {{efn}} where we briefly discuss the different PoVs on biological warfare, obv weighed to prevalence in sources (it seems strange to give such weight to settler genocides in the history section but not methods)
  • on examples in the history section, I'm now not sure it's necessary as it'd become coat-racky or a time sink w people wanting to include their favourite genocide. The hatnote to List of genocides serves the reader well enough imo
Kowal2701 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the sources are available in Wikipedia library.
The genocide methods of native people seem completely ignored:
According to Adam Jones, genocidal methods of native people in Americas included the following:
  • Genocidal massacres
  • Biological warfare, using pathogens (especially smallpox and plague) to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance
  • Spreading of disease via the 'reduction' of Indians to densely crowded and unhygienic settlements
  • Slavery and forced/indentured labor, especially, though not exclusively, in Latin America, in conditions often rivaling those of Nazi concentration camps
  • Mass population removals to barren 'reservations,' sometimes involving death marches en route, and generally leading to widespread mortality and population collapse upon arrival
  • Deliberate starvation and famine, exacerbated by destruction and occupation of the native land base and food resources
  • Forced education of indigenous children in White-run schools ...p. 138
There is not much about this in Genocide#Methods section.
In history section, settler colonialism in countries like US and Australia seem mostly ignored. The text rather says "—particularly the settlement of Europeans outside of Europe—". Settler colonial genocides happened after establishment of US, for example.
Racism also played a role in these settler colonial genocides, but this is completely ignored in history section.
As such, the issue is not just lack of examples in History section, but misleading or incomplete information.
For role of racism in settler colonial genocides, and role of independent states or settler colonies (not just "settlement of Europeans outside of Europe") see sources and quotes in: Talk:Genocide/Archive_9#Incomplete_information_in_history_section
I am going to add the POV tag again then. It'd be great if someone else can work on the issues or proceed with another RfC. Otherwise, I can return in a future date. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what others say, but I can't find anything explicitly on methods of genocide. The 2010 Oxford Handbook summarises Lemkin's views as (emphasis mine)

Political techniques refer to the cessation of self‐government and local rule, and their replacement by that of the occupier. ‘Every reminder of former national character was obliterated.’
Social techniques entail attacking the intelligentsia, ‘because this group largely provides the national leadership and organizes resistance against Nazification.’ The point of such attacks is to ‘weaken the national, spiritual resources’.
Cultural techniques ban the use of native language in education, and inculcate youth with propaganda.
Economic techniques shift economic resources from the occupied to the occupier. Peoples the Germans regarded as of ‘related blood’, like those of Luxembourg and Alsace‐Lorraine, were given incentives to recognize this kinship. There were also disincentives: ‘If they do not take advantage of this “opportunity” their properties are taken from them and given to others who are eager to promote Germanism.’
Biological techniques decrease the birth rate of occupied people. ‘Thus in incorporated Poland marriages between Poles are forbidden without special permission of the Governor…of the district; the latter, as a matter of principle, does not permit marriages between Poles.’
Physical techniques mean the rationing of food, endangering of health, and mass killing in order to accomplish the ‘physical debilitation and even annihilation of national groups in occupied countries’.
Religious techniques try to disrupt the national and religious influences of the occupied people. In Luxembourg, the method entailed enrolling children in ‘pro‐Nazi youth organizations’ so as to loosen the grip of Roman Catholic culture. Alternatively, in Poland, where no such assimilation was possible, the Germans conducted ‘the systematic pillage and destruction of church property and persecution of the clergy,’ in order to ‘destroy the religious leadership of the Polish nation’.
Moral techniques are policies ‘to weaken the spiritual resistance of the national group’. This technique of moral debasement entails diverting the ‘mental energy of the group’ from ‘moral and national thinking’ to ‘base instincts’. The aim is that ‘the desire for cheap individual pleasure be substituted for the desire for collective feelings and ideals based upon a higher morality.’ Lemkin mentioned the encouragement of pornography and alcoholism in Poland as an example.

And yet there's nothing about this in the article, although the source doesn't comment on whether these receive support from contemporary scholars and I can't find anything on techniques of genocide either Kowal2701 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a summary of the above quote Kowal2701 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have insufficient methods for genocide of natives. My previous edit was from an overview WP:Secondary source [2] (Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction). There are no sourcing issues.
From Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples:

  • This particular issue, the comparison to The Holocaust, has been raised by others, as well, with American historian David Stannard pointing to The Holocaust's prominent position in the public eye compared to the global ignorance of atrocities in the Americas.

  • Canadian political scientist Adam Jones has said that the historical revisionism has been so thorough that in some cases, the Americas have been depicted as unpopulated before European colonization.

  • Since the 1830s, British colonists in Australia have tried to justify the disappearance of indigenous peoples by blaming disease and displacement

What's the issue with this edit [3] again, why was it rejected?

In genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation.[1]

Bogazicili (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biological warfare seems too disputed for wiki voice and Jones is one secondary source. IIRC our previous discussion agreed that there was scholarly consensus for one case of biological warfare, Fort Pitt, whether it was widely used is disputed so may not be due, but a note summarising the POVs is a good compromise imo Kowal2701 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a solution if it's concise. Or we can just drop "using plague and smallpox as biological weapons"
But excluding examples of genocide of indigenous people in Americas in methods section is indefensible, given there are other examples in the text. Bogazicili (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few articles that may be of use are:
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That genocide is a process, not an event is a major omission in Methods section. I'll rewrite parts of it when I have more time. Bogazicili (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jones 2023, p. 138.

Content removal

https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1320919642 Plasticwonder I am curious how you came to the conclusion this is Synth? Did you check out the cited section in the source? In any event, the assertion is not controversial. Even the genocide convention definition does not require deaths. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and restored it for now after double checking the source (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why Lemkin's views were removed from Methods [4]? There isn’t really an introductory sentence there now Kowal2701 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genocide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 06:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Considering that it's a complex topic and holidays are just around the corner, this might take me a few weeks. But I'll try to complete this by the end of the year. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some preliminary comments for now, before I dive in deeper.

  1. What is the reliability of EJIL: Talk!? I don't have doubts about the reliability of other sources - books appear to be from reputable publishers, journals are peer-reviewed, while TC and TG are reputable news organisations.
  2. Optional nitpick: some publishers are wikilinked, some are not. If you plan on taking this to FAC (which would be great), you should make this consistent throughout the article.
    1. Another nitpick - use {{sfnm}} where applicable.
  3. There are too many images.

I'll continue once the first and third comments get resolved. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start from the body and then come back to the lede to check whether everything is properly sourced. After finishing the article, I'll take another look to see if there is any missing context. If you want to reply, please do it under each bullet point. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, these are mostly nitpicks as I was not able to find any major issues within these two sections. The article reads well so far. I'll continue the review in a few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why was {{Genocide}} removed from the article?
  • "In contrast to earlier researchers who took for granted the idea that liberal and democratic societies were less likely to commit genocide, revisionists associated with the International Network of Genocide Scholars emphasized how Western ideas led to genocide" what about non-Western ideas? Do Japanese war crimes fall under the genocide criteria? Japan during that time was neither liberal and democratic.
    • I think this is a misunderstanding—INGOS researchers aren't arguing that non-Western states don't commit genocide, but that ideas that originated in the West (such as nationalism and the modern state) are associated with a disproportionate number of genocides—including in non-Western societies—and that liberal and democratic societies sometimes commit genocide. Is there a rephrase that it would make it more clear? (t · c) buIdhe 16:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay got it. No, you don't have to rephrase it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "political and social groups were also excluded from the Genocide Convention" why?
  • Genocide justification is wikilinked several times.
  • The Notes section is blank, suggest removing it altogether.

Will continue in a few days. The next section is Perpetrators. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Wounded Knee Massacre considered to be genocide? If not, maybe we could find a replacement image?
    • The picture was mainly included because of an editor who was very vocal and convinced that myself and others were deliberately omitting anti-indigenous genocides in the United States. I'm not sure I would describe it, by itself, as an act of genocide but there are some sources that argue so, eg.:[5][6][7] An alternative might be this.
  • elites in what sense? the political ones?
    • Sources don't specify, I think the meaning is pretty general.
  • what does Great Fire of Smyrna.jpg picture? Maybe you could clarify it in the caption, like heow you did for the image above.
    • done
  • what is the purpose of File:Ezidi Peshmerga soldiers at their base in the Sinjar Mountains, under the command of Qasim Shesho 02.jpg?
    • Added to illustrate how victims of genocide (in this case Yazidis) organize militia to fight against the perpetrators.

From a quick skim over the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we mention in the lede that there are multiple definitions of a genocide and then list the one that is agreed up on the most?
    • The first sentence is a stab at the latter. Previous versions of the lead spend most of it detailing various definitions of genocide, but that seemed excessive. The current version, in my opinion, alludes to multiple definitions, but perhaps this could be made more explicit without expanding the length too much.
  • Is it correct to label the Soviet Union as an empire?
    • Surely the Soviet Union didn't see itself as an imperial power, but there are 82,900 results for "Soviet empire" on Google Scholar, about equal to those for "American empire", so...
      • Seems like also we have an article on that - Soviet empire. Nevertheless, I'll make sure to spotcheck this.
  • I've also noticed that the article tends to be critical of the Genocide Convention and that there seems to be an emphasis on colonialism. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
    • both of the books written about the Genocide Convention that I'm aware of (besides purely legal commentaries) are quite critical[8][9] and a quick look at any book that purports to be a world history of genocide shows that most genocides mentioned there are the result of imperialism and/or colonialism.
      • Okay thanks.
  • Why is the author of the MIT Faculty Newsletter listed as Lewis, David when in the article it says that it's Balakrishnan Rajagopal?
    • Must have been a citer glitch, now fixed.

I'm going to perform a spotcheck in a few days, so the review will be completed before the end of the year. I'd say that the article is in a good condition now and that it will be in an even better condition once these minor issues get resolved. If you plan on nominating this later for FAC, my recommendation would be to get it through PR first to get feedback from a couple of editors on whether the article is comprehensive enough and neutral enough for FAC. I plan on revising Far-right politics in Serbia first and I then plan on putting it up for a PR before nominating it for FAC - during the PR I would appreciate feedback and if it is okay with you, could I ping you then to review the article as you seem to have expertise in similar concepts to far-right politics? Cheers and happy holidays. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

This table checks 20 passages from throughout the article (9.8% of 204 total passages). These passages contain 23 inline citations (8.7% of 263 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference # Letter Source Archive Status Notes
Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide between 1941 and 1943.
4 a Irvin-Erickson 2023, p. 7. Good
5 a Kiernan 2023, p. 2. Good
He saw genocide as an inherently colonial process, and in his later writings he analyzed what he described as the colonial genocides occurring within European colonies as well as the Soviet and Nazi empires.
6 c Irvin-Erickson 2023, p. 14. Good The source does not refer to either the Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as empires, therefore I'd suggest this to be changed to their WP:COMMONNAME names (Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, respectively). The rest of the sentence checks out.
But that wouldn't be accurate, since most of Nazi violence (including, for example, the murder of many of Lemkin's relatives) was carried out outside the borders of Germany. As the source points out, this was "part of this history of European colonial empires". (t · c) buIdhe 19:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this go through. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally omitted was the forced migration of populations—which had been carried out by the Soviet Union and its allies, condoned by the Western powers, against millions of Germans from central and Eastern Europe.
24 Weiss-Wendt 2017, pp. 267–268, 283. Good I don't have access to this source.
It's on TWL; I'd quote it here but the relevant passage is too long not to worry about copyright. (t · c) buIdhe 19:09, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Intent is the most difficult aspect for prosecutors to prove;
34 Kiernan, Madley & Taylor 2023, pp. 4, 9. Good
35 Ochab & Alton 2022, pp. 28, 30. Good
Authorities have been reluctant to prosecute the perpetrators of many genocides, although non-judicial commissions of inquiry have also been created by some states.
45 a Stone 2013, p. 150. Good
In contrast to earlier researchers who took for granted the idea that liberal and democratic societies were less likely to commit genocide, revisionists associated with the International Network of Genocide Scholars emphasized how Western ideas led to genocide.
54 Kiernan et al. 2023, pp. 23–24. Good
Some scholars and activists use the Genocide Convention definition.
19 b Irvin-Erickson 2023, p. 22. Good
Alternative terms have been coined to describe processes left outside narrower definitions of genocide. Ethnic cleansing—the forced expulsion of a population from a given territory—has achieved widespread currency, although many scholars recognize that it frequently overlaps with genocide, even where Lemkin's definition is not used.
79 Shaw 2015, Chapter 5. Good
Most genocides are not associated with extreme political ideologies such as Nazism.
95 Maynard 2022, p. 97. Good
A large proportion of genocides occurred under the course of imperial expansion and power consolidation.
100 Lemos, Taylor & Kiernan 2023, p. 49. Good
Another debate concerns whether genocide is caused by aberrant political ideology, or if there is in fact a great deal of continuity between genocidal and ordinary political ideologies.
111 Maynard 2022, p. 95. Good
The military is often the leading perpetrator as soldiers are already armed, trained to use deadly force, and required to obey orders.
129 Pruitt 2021, p. 90. Good
Destruction of the environments where they live has been argued to be a form of genocide of indigenous peoples.
148 ejiltalk.org Good
The combination of killing of men and sexual violence against women is often intended to disrupt reproduction of the targeted group.
149 b Basso 2024, p. 33. "stemming from heteronormativity, select perpetrators believe they can biologically and culturally destroy groups by disrupting a group’s natural reproductive cycle via the extermination of men, the rape of women, and the destruction of social institutions" Good
It encompasses attacks against the victims' language, religion, cultural heritage, political and intellectual leaders, and traditional lifestyle,
152 c Tiemessen 2023, p. 15. Good
160 b Basso 2024, "Cultural Destruction". Good
Researcher Gregory H. Stanton found that calling crimes genocide rather than something else, such as ethnic cleansing, increased the chance of effective intervention.
175 Ochab & Alton 2022, p. 43. Good
imperial rule could lead to genocide if resistance emerged.
191 Häussler, Stucki & Veracini 2022, p. 220. Good
The Cold War included the perpetration of mass killings by both communist and anti-communist states, although these atrocities usually targeted political and social groups, therefore not meeting the legal definition of genocide.
198 Naimark 2017, pp. 86, 104, 143. Good
Genocide does not only affect victim and perpetrator groups, but seeks to reshape an entire society and also involves those who observed a genocide or benefited from it.
208 Spencer 2025, pp. 257–258. Good
Studies of genocide survivors have examined rates of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and post-traumatic growth. While some have found negative effects, others find no association with genocide survival.
210 Lindert et al. 2019, p. 2. Good

@Buidhe: Okay... the conclusion: the article is in a good shape and meets the GA criteria. I'll go ahead and promote it once the last two books get downloaded. Cheers and happy holidays, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(
)
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).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - debatable
  • Interesting: Yes
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
ALT2. --GRuban (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the top definition of genocide

I put in the UN definition of genocide at the top. Someone deleted that definition. Their reasoning was that the UN definition should not be privileged over other definitions. That is fine, but then the definition should also not contradict the UN definition. Not including "intent" in the definintion directly contradicts a definition that says "intent" is an integral part. If there is another valid definition, maybe it should be put alongside the UN definition. Slava570 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We've already rescued the lead from a version that has excessive coverage of definitions at the expense of other aspects. However, I disagree that not mentioning intent in the opening sentence means that we're disfavoring definitions that mention intent. The Un definition has other non-negotiable aspects, for example, it relies on a list of 5 necessary elements, which aren't mentioned in your version. Ultimately that definition is too complex to be covered succinctly in the first sentence of the article, even disregarding the pov issues. Mentioning intent would suggest that Wikipedia is endorsing the conclusion that a specific intent is necessary for genocide, when the opposing view is far from fringe in reliable sources. We are not allowed to take a side on that issue. (t · c) buIdhe 19:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other five elements do not all have to be true. There is no overlap between any of them. For example 1 is "Killing members of the group" and 5 is "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." These have nothing to do with each other, and they both don't have to be true for something to be considered genocide. But intent IS essential in this definition no matter what. In any case I changed the lead to reflect that it is the legal definition, added that there are other scholarly definitions, and linked to the Wikipedia page on genocide definitions. I think it is still short, and no longer privileges the UN definition. Slava570 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding. According to the UN Convention, at least one of these 5 methods has to be used. If another method is used to intentionally destroy an ethnic racial etc. group, it's not legally genocide. Furthermore, your latest version gives undue weight to law, whereas this article is about all aspects of genocide including history, sociology, etc. where the legal definition is often not used. (t · c) buIdhe 20:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed. I just deleted "through targeted violence." The definition of "destruction of a people" is intended to cover at least one of the five elements, which is one of the two preconditions. "Intent" covers the second precondition. I disagree that this version gives undue weight to law. It says "some scholarly definitions do not include..." This gives those scholarly definition their due weight, as there are some scholarly definitions that also DO include intent. However I also added another clause about a "popular understanding," now giving weight to three different categories of thinking around this, while still remaining short. Slava570 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reviewing Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples#Scholarly debate for one example of definition(s) and legal debate. Moxy🍁 21:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at this page, including the two other legal frameworks that are used there to define genocide legally: The Rome Statute and Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and war Crimes Act. Both of these legal definitions are nearly identical to the UN definition, and both include intent. Unless you can find a legal definition that does not include intent, then the previous version is still valid. Slava570 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On a page of this nature you're simply going to have to propose any changes here in the talk page first (especially once you have been reverted). On this page "You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours" as per Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Everyone will assume good faith and that you're not aware of this although it's listed above on this talk page. Let's get you to propose changes here and see how we can work forward. Don't get blocked before you can make suggestions. Moxy🍁 21:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did not know about the revert rule. Sorry about that. Slava570 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry for dominating this thread before. I'll post one last comment for now, and hopefully others will contribute.
1. Can someone please explain how the top definition is different from war? In a hypothetical war between "People A" and "People B" aren't both sides commiting genocide according to this definition, since they are using targeted violence to destroy a people?
2. Given that several people have admitted this definition is problematic, no one has said it is very good, and I think it is completely inadequate, can it be erased for now until a new short-form definition is worked out in the talk section (with or without a placeholder that says see genocide definitions for more info).
3. It appears that there is near consensus in the field of international law around the definition of genocide. However there are a variety of defnitions in national law. Can the last line of the second paragraph be changed to say: "While there is near consensus on the definition of genocide in the field of international law, it remains contested...in national law, etc..." with this reference, which gives a very good overview: [10] Slava570 (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In theory, the definition of war is that the war aims are limited up to defeating an enemy state, but do not extend to destroying a people. In practice, there is noted to be a lot of overlap between war and genocide. If the war actually ends up destroying a people, it will be labeled as a genocide by many sources, for example many examples of colonial wars have been reinterpreted in this way.
  2. I will support changing it when a better alternative is proposed. in general, we don't use placeholders in mainspace.
  3. There is very little coverage of national laws on genocide in reliable sources, so this would likely be UNDUE to cover in the lead.
(t · c) buIdhe 14:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The UN source does say that the popular understanding of genocide is broader than the legal definition, but this is contradicted by other sources. The article currently gives examples where the opposite is true. (t · c) buIdhe 21:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then why not just delete the clause about popular understanding? Without that clause, it could still give the legal defition (and as per previous comment, the UN Convention, the Rome Statute, and the Canadian law are nearly identical) and it would say there are some scholarly definitions that don't include intent. That doesn't unduly privilege legal definitions because it says both legal and scholarly definitions exist. Slava570 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we help our readers understand a little bit better right off the bat. Why don't we have something simple with a link in the lead.... something like ....Genocide is defined by various scholarly and legal definitions. Source Have, Wichert; Boender, Barbara (2025-10-01). The Holocaust and Other Genocides: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-04-079735-8.. Moxy🍁 22:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is very helpful to readers because it says nothing about what such definitions are and how they differ. That's why I started with a basic definition with the commonalities of most/all genocide definitions and included more information in the article body. (t · c) buIdhe 22:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The problem with this is that it implies that there are various legal definitions, when even the second line of the definitions page says "almost all international bodies of law officially adjudicate the crime of genocide pursuant to..." so in reality it looks like there is near consensus around a legal definition, and a spectrum of scholarly definitions. This problem also should be fixed on the genocide definitions page, which also implies multiple legal definitions. I think it makes more sense to say something like "Genocide is defined legally as the destruction of a people with intent to destroy. However, there are various scholarly definitions..." Slava570 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many legal definitions vary from the UN convention one. (t · c) buIdhe 22:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
can you give an example of one that does not include intent? I just tried to look this up and found yet another one that does include intent: the US Justice department. Slava570 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the definition of the words surrounding the intent. Was/is the intent to destroy or to assimilate and or aid from a historical point of view [11]. As time has passed the intent of genocide has evolved in legal cases, thus is not solely based/ implemented by countries on the UN definition alone [12]. Moxy🍁 23:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I went into your first link. The article links here for a more extended discussion of this exact issue: [13] There is a section here that expands on on the intent requirement. First, it says "tribunals unevenly apply the specific intent requirement." This doesn't change the definition to include intent. It goes on to say "Proving specific intent may be a challenge for Indigenous peoples," so I get why this matters. It then says "there appears to be movement away from a strict specific intent requirement." But again, however you define intent, the definition still includes intent in some form. Later a court said "intent can be inferred." Still doesn't change the definition, even if "looser." Bottom line: I still see no legal definition that does not include some form of intent. I need some time to look at your second link. Slava570 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I looked through every instance of the word intent in the second article. It talks about three different types of intent and that the convention did not specify which one should be used. It says that some courts have used a more lenient definition of intent. But regardless, some version of "intent" is involved. They also argue for a "knowledge-based interpretation of the convention," which means "committing a prohibited act with the knowledge that it would further a genocidal plan should be sufficient to prove intent." As you can see, intent is still part of this definition. This discussion of what is intent should go on the Genocidal intent page, but on this page, we should still say that the legal definition of genocide involves intent because so far, I have seen no legal definition that fully discards this. The word intent could then link to the genocidal intent page. Slava570 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article already says this. It's just not WP:DUE in the very first sentence in the article. (t · c) buIdhe 02:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is warranted in the very first sentence, as it is one of only TWO requirements that is essential to the legal definition of genocide (a mental element--intent, and a physical element--one of five methods), and so far by the looks of it, this point is unanimous or near unanimous. No source provided so far has contradicted this. Slava570 (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The legal definitions are more likely to use intent, because that's a criminal law category. Non legal definitions are less likely to use it. (t · c) buIdhe 00:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why I think it is important to include that legal definitions include intent, while other definitions may vary. But so far, it looks like the legal definitions are not just more likely, but unanimous or near unanimous, as per my comment above. Slava570 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We've already rescued the lead from a version that has excessive coverage of definitions at the expense of other aspects. As a long-term 'watcher', I can't help feeling that we've passed the point that "the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater". I'm not necessarily endorsing Slava570's specific addition, but IMO the current opening sentence has reached the point that it fails to convey anything very meaningful or specific . There is a failure to include "in whole or in part", as well as the failure to include 'intent' (which are linked elements, partial destruction of a group qualifies as genocide precisely because it is part of a bigger intent). IMO, the ordinary reader would not recognise the most notable examples of genocide as being covered by the present defining sentence. AFAIK, no definition omits 'intent' (apart from the legal definition in Mozambique according to a source above provided by buidhe), and AFAIK, no definition requires the total destruction of the group, which the present opening sentence strongly implies. Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source linked only covers national legal definitions—which overall have received so little coverage in RS that they are a poor determinant of WP:DUE.
Based on my survey of scholarly definitions, a majority don't explicitly mention "intent". And most don't mention the Convention wording "in whole or in part", or anything that would cover the same meaning.
(FYI "partial destruction of a group qualifies as genocide precisely because it is part of a bigger intent"—this is not true even from a legal standpoint, the enacted intention to exterminate a group in part is still considered genocide).
I'm not entirely happy with the wording as it stands but I think it would increase bias to hew too closely to the Convention definition. This article is not genocide (crime). (t · c) buIdhe 14:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Legal definitions on this can only be international or national, as it seems unlikely that any jurisdiction smaller than that has a plausible reason to weigh in. So if national legal definitions are a poor determinant of WP:DUE, then the international definition is the only one that should have any bearing. I don't know what source is being referred to but this source confirms that while there have been several changes to the international definition by individual countries (mostly expanding the number of protected categories) only one does away with "intent," and that is Mozambique. [14] So if all international legal definitions plus all national legal definitions minus one include intent, that sounds like consensus, not bias. And while scholarly sources may or may not include intent, I find it implausible that they would completely ignore the accepted legal definitions. They still have to justify why their definition departs from the legal definition. Can you give an example of a scholarly source that does not include intent, but also does not justify its reasoning for this against the widely accepted legal definition? Slava570 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to admit that the little I know about this topic has come from having been a long term watcher, and having in the past followed many of the sources used (which tended to focus on the legal definition). In so far as I was/am aware of distinct 'scholarly' definitions, they tended to want to broaden the 'victim group' to include social classes, political groups,etc (eg Stalin's, Mao's Pol Pot's victims, who were not persecuted for their 'genos' as such )- sometimes even sexual orientation (eg gay Nazi victims). To the extent that I'm aware of any disagreement about 'intent', it tends to hinge on the difficulty of establishing it. Proving intent is notoriously difficult and I think some scholars consider it unnecessary - having perpetrated the destructive acts is sufficient for them. If I'm substantially wrong about any of these points, please correct me and give me another 'take' on how scholars differ from lawyers as to what defines the topic.
My concern is that our present defining sentence (the destruction of a people through targeted violence), not only fails to differentiate between war and genocide (as Slava570 says), but also, to the extent that it says anything very specific, what it says is ambiguous. 'Destruction' ordinarily means 'complete destruction', not 'substantial damage to'. The Jewish race was not destroyed in the holocaust, the Armenian 'nation' was not destroyed there, ditto Tutsi, Cambodians, Gazans etc etc. With the exception of historically fairly distant groups, 'the people' survived, even if very large numbers of people didn't.
Next, of a people, fails to accommodate the scholars who think that the term should include social class/political alignment etc. etc. While my own personal prejudice tends to be that those people should use other terms (politicide, demicide etc), nonetheless there is a significant number of scholars who don't accept 'genos' as the defining boundary (ethnicity wasn't the primary factor in Cambodia). How we should allow for those broader definitions, I'm not sure.
Lastly, "targeted violence", while the word 'targeted' does imply 'intentional' (or at least excludes 'accidental'), are ALL the elements customarily called genocide covered by 'violence'. Killing, forcibly sterilising, taking away the young and many other acts are inherently violent, but would turning off the water supply or, simply by neglect perhaps, creating a dangerously unhealthy environment be seen as 'violent'? Would it be understood as such? If it isn't 'intent', is it the manner (violent) or the outcome (substantial death or damage) which is seen as defining genocide?
I realise that finding common denominators in a sea of distinct legal and scholarly definitions and rendering them clearly is problematic (and could be so difficult that we need to find an alternative strategy). My concern is that the moment, the reader might be best to largely ignore the opening sentence, but read the rest, just to find out what genocide is. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This is an oversimplification. Not all of the scholarly definitions are quoted in the genocide definitions article, and those that exist differ from the legal definition in various ways. See Genocide#Definitions.
  2. I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the wording here, but most scholarly definitions use the word "destruction" and are silent on the "whole or part" aspect. I'm also skeptical that readers would assume we mean "total destruction".
  3. Where the victim group is broadened, it's often because political/social groups etc. are considered "a people"—per this article, "Lemkin's definition of nation was sufficiently broad to apply to nearly any type of human collectivity, even one based on a trivial characteristic." (the cited source goes into more detail) Im not sure why you're bringing up the Cambodian genocide because in that example it's argued that Cambodians (as "a people") were the target.
  4. The commonality between genocide definitions is that most of them require it is somewhat selective in its targets, even when intent (a mental aspect that is often not of interest to scholars) is not mentioned. There may be a better way to word this.
Do you have an alternative suggestion that doesn't just repeat one or another definition but attempts to find the commonalities between them? We could also go with "Genocide is a type of large-scale, group-selective violence animated by a logic of group destruction"[1] but while that is more precise it seems excessively jargony. (t · c) buIdhe 15:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very brief reply, I agree that that readers would probably not assume we mean "total destruction", but think they probably wouldn't know what to think. I certainly don't think that "a people" is likely to be understood as encompassing those with a particular political alignment or from a particular social class. Other ordinary terms like 'group' are more easily understood in that fashion. Was it not the case that specific groups within Cambodian society were the target, while other smaller specific groups were the perpetrators and Cambodians were not targetted 'as such' (the perps would have been targetting themselves). I cited it as a 'non-genos/people' example, little thinking that 'a people' had become so flexible that it simply meant 'people'.
I don't have a clear alternative, I'm still trying to understand the problem, but your 'jargony' alternative seems to 'cover more of the bases' than what we have now, though I agree that the phrasing is a bit inpenetrable. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Buidhe that the main difference between war and genocide lies in different "aims" and that the "aim" of genocide, unlike war, "extends to destroying a people" and genocide is "animated by a logic of group destruction." In common parlance, an "aim" is not really different from a goal, an objective, or INTENT. How do you prove what someone's aims are? How do you prove what someone is "animated by?" The same exact way that you prove what someone's INTENT is. Having an "aim to destroy" is not different from having an "intent to destroy."
I also agree with Pincrete that we may need to find an alternative strategy for the opening, rather than a neat short-form definition. If we cannot come up with a well worded definition that is not misleading, then why not just delete this line altogether and make readers read a bit further into the article to get the basic definition?
Lastly, if you don't want to include national legal definitions in the fourth sentence, that's fine with me. I honestly don't see the harm in adding two extra words to a list of fields ("national law"), but again, it's fine. What does matter to me, though, is that there is a blatant falsehood in the last line of the second paragraph, which says that the definition is contested in international law. It should say there is consensus or near-consensus in international law, while the definition is contested in history, sociology and related fields. Slava570 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"intent to destroy" is a specific legal concept. The other terms don't imply the possibility of knowing a specific person's thoughts. Furthermore, while there isn't a disagreement over how the Genocide Convention is worded, there is significant debate in the field of international law over what it means. And while I don't object to a restructure to avoid a first sentence definition along the lines of what you are proposing, it falls afoul of MOS:FIRST. (t · c) buIdhe 20:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slava that it could be clearer at the end of para 2 that whilst legal definitions are not significantly disputed (national variations are largely local 'tweaks' of the UNGC definition), scholarly fields do have their own definitions (it would be desirable but possibly too problematic to state briefly how they differ. Scope? Emphasis on intentionality?).
When I suggested finding an alternative strategy, is what something along the lines of starting with one clear definition (UNGC being one obvious candidate), then immediately qualifying that it is disputed by ABC groups on XYZ grounds. The present para 2 might be rejigged to achieve that.
I 'take on board' that "intent to destroy" is a specific legal concept, (presumably covering the necessary conscious element - mens rae??), but does that matter here, its broad meaning is clear in ordinary English? At least we can use a synonymic phrase if we want to avoid the legal 'baggage'. Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with User:Pincrete's alternative strategy. However, I think it will take a while to agree on the specifics of it. While working towards that, I think we can make an immediate change that would improve the lead, and which appears to have agreement from User:Buidhe, User:Pincrete and myself. As User:Buidhe said above: The "aim" of genocide "extend[s] to destroying a people." Therefore, unless there is someone else who objects, I propose this for the lead:
"Genocide is the destruction of a people, in whole or in part, through targeted violence, with the aim to destroy."
There was discussion above about what readers will think the word destruction really means. Adding "in whole or in part" will take away the guessing game, since there also appears to be agreement that destruction refers to either total or partial destruction.
Finally, I agree with User:Pincrete that "legal definitions are not significantly disputed." While there may be disputes in the interpretation of particular words or phrases within these definitions, there is little to no dispute regarding the definition itself. The current phrasing ("Its definition remains contested...[in] international law...") is misleading. Therefore, I propose this change:
Its definition is not significantly disputed in international law, but remains contested by scholars and institutions across history, sociology and related fields. Slava570 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed first sentence basically copies what we already say about the Genocide Convention definition later on in the lead. IMO this goes too far in following not only the meaning, but the exact wording of the legal definition (where most scholarly definitions differ).
Another issue with the second part of your proposal is that it fails MOS:LEAD and WP:VER. We currently have a bunch of content in the body covering dispute on this exact matter, and the definition of genocide is one of the main points currently being argued about in the Rohingya genocide case and Gaza genocide case. (t · c) buIdhe 15:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the content of your own citations. The first citation says the main point of contention is whether Gambia has jurisdiction in the Myanmar case. No mention of disputing the definition of genocide or intent. The other two pages also have ZERO mention of disputing the definition of genocide or intent, with one page mentioning that intent is difficult to prove.
What we are faced with here is a gatekeeping individual (Buidhe) acting in bad faith. First he said the "aim to destroy" IS a part of the definition of genocide, arguing that "aim" is distinct from "intent." I then proposed a definition using aim, IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIM (if it were up to me, I would use the word intent) and yet he still vetoed this new definition and offered no alternative. And now he is inventing an argument which is nowhere to be found in his own citations. This is clear BAD FAITH.
If we are unable to find a workable solution two the two issues I raised, then this article must be downgraded from "good." Not only is this article biased against the field of international law, there is a refusal to even write a definition that acknowledges a range of definitions, opting instead to focus on one definition, which is upheld by only a portion of scholars (my guess is a minority, but according to Buidhe, a majority). I also maintain that the sentence that says that the definition of genocide is contested in international law is FALSE, and no one has offered any source to actually contradict this.
Finally, until the issues can be fixed, a note should be added to the top of this article that says "there are multiple problems with this article." At least three editors now (including Buidhe) have said the first sentence is problematic. Slava570 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
there is a refusal to even write a definition that acknowledges a range of definitions This is my objection to your proposals. If you have an idea for a different intro sentence that actually does this, I am interested to hear it.
I don't appreciate the bad faith accusations, you should either strike them or take them up at an appropriate noticeboard.
If you actually read the source you will note that it mentions the dispute over the interpretation of the GC, although most news articles don't go into detail on this point, there is more information here.
If you think the article should be downgraded the right place is wp:GAR (t · c) buIdhe 16:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, before doing any more work on this, buidhe, you would allow an opening that includes a range of definitions, yes? Can this opening be two sentences or does it have to be a single sentence to satisfy you?
If it can be two sentences, isn't this exactly what the Pincrete method does? Here is Pincrete's proposal:
"starting with one clear definition (UNGC being one obvious candidate), then immediately qualifying that it is disputed by ABC groups on XYZ grounds. The present para 2 might be rejigged to achieve that."
If we can do this, would you accept it, buidhe?
I will look into how to strike messages or use the appropriate noticeboard in the future, if necessary. Slava570 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no, because it emphasizes some definitions over others and would likely give undue weight to definitional disputes in the lead. (t · c) buIdhe 06:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you said you were "interested to hear" "a definition that acknowledges a range of definitions." Please clarify what this means. Otherwise you are sending us on a wild goose chase to satisfy your requirement, and you are going to say no to it regardless. If true, that would be another example of BAD FAITH. Slava570 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Attempted copyedit

Attempted a copyedit based on a request to the copyeditors guild. Rather than discuss my changes, one editor decided to revert everything I did. This article is full of vague hot quotes by obscure academics that do nothing to advance reader understanding, among many other flaws. I do not edit war, so I will spend my time elsewhere. Oh well. Best wishes to all. Lfstevens (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were not a "copyedit". When you axe entire paragraphs and sections in the name of "copyediting" you are making a misleading edit summary. When you change the meaning without checking the sources, you are most likely harming text-source integrity. (t · c) buIdhe 16:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with buidhe, removing entire sections, such as the one on definitions as you did is not c/e. I would also like to ask how changing how to prove the required intent has been difficult for courts to resolve. to how to prove the required intent has befuddled courts. is good c/e? Befuddled? Really? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on top definition of genocide

Should the lead definition include a mention of intent to destroy (or aim to destroy) Slava570 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least three editors have attempted in a good faith manner to amend the first sentence of the article. All efforts have been blocked by a single editor, buidhe.
In addition to these three editors, buidhe has also admitted that the first sentence is not good, saying “I'm not entirely happy with the wording as it stands.”
A number of accommodations to buidhe have been attempted. For example, buidhe argued above that the “aim [of genocide] extend[s] to destroying a people.” He later clarified that there is a distinction between “aim” and “intent.” I agree with the latter. While I prefer it to say “intent” since that is the word used in the international law definition and in all national legal systems except Madagascar, as a compromise, I suggested adding “aim to destroy” to the first line. He blocked this and offered no alternative solution, as well as no explanation for how he can say genocide does include “aim to destroy” and yet this cannot be added to the first line.
“Intent to destroy” is an integral part of the international law definition in all its iterations, though there are debates on the definition of “intent,” with some definitions being looser. Buidhe then claimed there is debate in the field of international law, offering three citations that made no actual mention of this. When this was brought to his attention, he offered a fourth link to the Wikipedia Library. This is not acceptable evidence of these supposed “debates” in international law. In reality there is consensus or near consensus in international law (and this contradicts the fourth sentence of the lead, which we also were not allowed to change).
Two editors (myself and one other) also argued for writing a lead that says that while the international law definition includes intent, a portion of scholars do not include intent in their definition. Buidhe said that if we can find such a solution, “[he is] interested to hear it.” But when presented with this possibility, he rejected it. Slava570 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC it is premature to start a RfC on this matter when it would be more productive to brainstorm alternative wording that would be acceptable to a consensus of editors and follow appropriate policies. It's not just me that objected, Moxy also did.
Also oppose because it does not match the body sections on the definition of genocide. Most of the article is not focused on the legal aspect, and most scholarly definitions don't include this wording. So, it would be UNDUE to put a phrase that has a specific legal meaning and almost exclusively appears in legal context in the first sentence. (t · c) buIdhe 23:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, based on Adam Jone's assessment in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (p.31-32, 3rd ed. unfortunately my library does not have the 4th ed).

    Regardless of the strategy chosen, a consensus exists that genocide is “committed with intent to destroy” (UN Convention), is “structural and systematic” (Horowitz), “deliberate [and] organized” (Wallimann and Dobkowski), and “a series of purposeful actions” (Fein; see also Thompson and Quets). Porter and Horowitz stress the additional role of the state bureaucracy.

    The following paragraph starts:

    There is something of a consensus that group “destruction” must involve physical liquidation, generally in the form of mass killing (see, e.g., Robinson, Fein [1993], Charny, Horowitz, Katz/Jones, Bloxham).

ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... are you suggesting that the first sentence of the article should contain all these phrases?
This source actually suggests the opposite of what you say: none of the definitions Jones quotes (except the convention) include intent.
In our database of definitions at genocide definitions, which if anything is skewed to more conventional definitions of genocide, only 11 out of 42 (including legal definitions, about 26%) mention intent and only 2 out of 42 (the convention and one other) mention "intent to destroy". That's under 5%.
I think the conclusion we should draw is actually the opposite: most scholars writing on this topic prefer to use other words to define genocide. (t · c) buIdhe 03:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting the first sentence should contain something along the lines of that, at the very least mentioning "intentional", "deliberate", or "purposeful". I am fine with not using the exact phrase "intent to destroy", as long as the intentionality part is mentioned. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As you're probably aware, there is a debate in legal interpretation (and even more so the non-legal scholarly field) about whether actions committed by the perpetrator with knowledge that it will lead to the destruction of a people (in part or full) counts as genocide even when the motivation may differ. Do you think that placing so much emphasis on "intentional", "deliberate", or "purposeful" would make readers conclude that such actions are not genocide, thus taking sides in a dispute? (t · c) buIdhe 04:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant here that there is "debate in legal interpretations." There is consensus on the legal definition, as the above source confirms. There is next to no legal question in existence in which the interpretation of a definition is not under debate. The entire field is centered around debating interpretations of the wording of laws. But for the lead, we should be interested first and foremost in a basic DEFINITION or even a reasonable range of definitions as our starting point.
Buiddhe's comment about the genocide definitions page is directly contradicted by the first line of the second paragraph of that page, which says "This and other definitions are generally regarded by the majority of genocide scholars to have an "intent to destroy" as a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide" This quote has an additional source after it. Notice the word "majority."
Buiddhe's 26% percent figure above is misleading. "Not mentioning intent" is not the same thing as being opposed to a definition that includes intent. You may be falsely labeling abstentions on this issue as opposition.
Finally, buiddhe's comment above saying that the body of the article is not focused on law, but rather scholarly debates highlights a problem with this article. The article is not called "Genocide in Academia." It is called "Genocide," which means that every relevant field should have space in this article. After working out a lead that gives due space to the legal field, we should continue to update the rest of the article to ensure that scholarly concepts are not overweighted and legal concepts underweighted. Slava570 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point. Even if you only accept the validity of the legal definition, we would be misleading readers by using language that has a different meaning in technical usage from how readers are likely to interpret it. There is space in the body to cover such nuance but not in the lead. Besides if most definitions provably don't mention intent it could be that those who claim this is a consensus are simply outdated or wrong. (t · c) buIdhe 16:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put, @Slava570. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, the words that are consistently used per the data you presented are "intent" and "intent to destroy". Do you propose that we arbitrarily choose a definition from one of the 42? signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me we don't need to arbitrarily choose one of the definitions, but we could decide which elements of all of the definitions are essential and assemble our own definition based on that.
There are five or six recurring elements of the definitions, and a couple seem to be "doubling up" with the same meaning. An honest question is whether this is really true re: below.
1. Does "targeted" convey the same information as "as such/as a collectivity/because of their group membership?"
2. I think destruction is required, but does that already cover "violence?" There seems to be disagreement around the word violence but not destruction. Do we need the word violence at all? (again, honest question. If yes, then yes)
If we only need one word from each of the two items above, it allows us a more manageable first sentences such as: Genocide is...
A. the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of [group(s)], as such/as a collectivity.
B. targeted destruction, in whole or in part, of [group(s)], with intent to destroy.
(the group name also still has to be worked out, whether that's a people, an ethnic group, a human group, or a short list, etc.)
Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should Wikipedia:Use our own words to summarize the sources and the rest of the article. In fact, I think that summarizing the main themes would be better than choosing one, because choosing one gives WP:UNDUE attention to that one.
About your questions:
1) "Targeted" probably does convey the same information.
2) All destruction is violent, if you have a broad conception of violence.
A) Maybe "such as an ethnic group" would be better than "such as a collectivity" (which appears to be a different thing).
B) "destruction...with intent to destroy" is redundant.
As for the "groups" problem, "a social group, such as an ethnic group" would probably set people on the right track. The problem with "a social group" is that it could include a dinner club, but "such as an ethnic group" should clarify the appropriate/intended meaning, without excluding any groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I really don't think there's a solution to the redundancy problem in item B, so we can forget about that one for now. Let's also forget about collectivity.
I really prefer "targeted" to "as such," but if we end up with "as such" I think that's not the worst problem in the world.
There's also another possibility, which is to use two adjectives in a row, like this:
C. the intentional, targeted destruction, in whole or in part, of [group(s)].
For the record, I prefer "human group" or "protected group." I don't love "social group such as an ethnic group" because for whatever reason, it doesn't sound "serious" enough for an opening sentence for a topic like this. I realize this is probably not a legitimate criticism. Either way, the "groups problem" is not a deal breaker for me in any way, so I'd rather just let other people decide.
I also just want to say that I'm not sure we're going to find a perfect solution at this moment, whether through a plain definition like this or through an alternate strategy along the lines of what was suggested by Pincrete. The current opening sentence is not acceptable, in my opinion. I will be 99% satisfied if we could just add the single word intent or intentional in any way, shape or form. I just hope that if we are unable to find a really great solution that makes everyone happy, that this doesn't stop us from making minor temporary fixes while continuing to make more improvements later... Slava570 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that social group sounds like a group that hosts social events (e.g., a dinner club).
I am also not fond of the "as such" language. I think that "because of their membership in the group" would be clearer. I particularly worry about "as such" being difficult for young people, English language learners, and people using machine translation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm on board with that. I guess that means we are left with:
Genocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of [group(s)] because of their membership in that/the/such group.
Hopefully others will agree as well. Slava570 (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the intentional destruction … of [group(s)] because of their membership in … that group? Groups belonging to groups? You'd have to add something like "with individuals being targetted" between 'groups' and 'because' for it to make sense ie "Genocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a [group], with individuals being targetted because of their membership of that group. "
I agree that 'a human group' more accurately reflects the broader definition favoured by scholars than 'a people', which covers tribal/national/ethnic groups, but pretty much precludes political or social groups IMO. 'Social group' I agree sounds trivial, 'societal group' would be a possibility, but 'a human group' works best for me. We could always add a footnote to it giving more info. Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we feel like a term in the first sentence needs an explanatory footnote, we're probably screwing up by not choosing clear enough words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, let's not do footnotes. From skimming three more sources (which I'll report on later) I have some more thoughts on "as such." The thing about "with individuals being targeted" is that while individuals may also be targeted, what makes genocide genocide is that the group itself is targeted. Individuals are stripped of their individuality and not targeted as individuals, but as group members. This is precisely how genocide differs from things like mass murder.
The group is also targeted in other ways, such as destruction of language, institutions, the relations between individuals, social cohesion is destroyed, etc. See cultural genocide.
I'm proposing this:
"Genocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a [group], as a group."
"As a group" is a stand-in for "as such." It's not just language learners that don't understand "as such," but also many educated native speakers. And eventually anyone who reads further on about genocide will inevitably come across the "as such" language. the beauty of "as a group" is that it can teach people what "as such" really means, so that when they come across it later, they will also understand it. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of individuals was simply a reaction to Genocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of [group(s)] because of their membership in that/the/such group which imples that groups are members of groups! It would need qualifying in some way to make sense. Pincrete (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm with you 100% that the previous sentence was not logical, so you corrected that. I'm just thinking now that we should try to avoid the word individual altogether. Do you not like the formula of "as a group?" Also, I would love to get every part of this sentence exactly right, but if it's not possible, I'm happy to just go with your sentence, and figure out how to fix the second part later... Slava570 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Members (of the group)" would avoid the term 'individuals'. of a [group], as a group." I find vague and potentially misleading (implying that they all have to be destroyed at the same time, rather than that they are destroyed because they are in the group) Pincrete (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Members of the group" doesn't solve the problem. This is the second unifying factor of all the definitions AFAI can tell. Not destruction of members of the group, but destruction of the group itself (or the group "as such"). This distinction is what makes genocide different from other things. Slava570 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "the group itself" would work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that works outside of the construction above (not members of the group but the group itself). It seems to me we are left with three choices, and each has a flaw. We should think about which flaw is least bad rather than trying to find the perfect sentence. Slava570 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think for that option, it would be clearer to say something like "not the individual members of the group personally, but the group itself".
This conversation is pretty sprawling. Do you think you could put together the three options in a new ===subsection===, so we can compare them a little more easily? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My own concern is simply that the lead, and specifically the opening sentence, should give the reader some grasp of what genocide is (as distinct from war, cruel neglicence, mass-murder, persecution etc) and/or what the key definitional disagreements are. IMO the present opening sentence fails to do that, and in certain respects is actively misleading. Specific definitions may not use 'intent to destroy', but synonyms for 'intentionality' or 'fore-knowledge of outcome' are fairly explicit in almost all genocide definitionss AFAI can see. The definitions article includes this: Scholarly definitions vary, but there are three common themes: 'the violence or other action taken should be deliberate, organized, sustained, and large-scale', atrocities are selective for a distinguishable group, and 'the perpetrator takes steps to prevent the group from surviving or reproducing in a given territory'. How we do it and where we draw it from I don't know, but simply finding reasons to avoid the challenge of a reasonably coherent definition, or summary of the definitional differences, is a counsel of despair IMO.Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - or near equivalent. e.g. GENOCIDE is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. per Britannica and Merriam-Webster. The ‘intent’ aspect seems part of the WP:COMMONNAME and prominent in this article so suitable to mention at top per guide WP:LEAD. I think the focus on academic speech is incorrect unless that limitation is explicitly said - the WP:WEIGHT is not limited to only academic sources. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the first sentence is meant to summarise the various definitions given in the article, and the scholarship section doesn’t say anything about intent. The scholarly discussion around intent should be added to the article first. Atm the first sentence seems inaccurate and novel, it shouldn’t attempt to only include the overlapping aspects; the bits disagreed upon still need to be included and the POVs presented. The first sentence should be something like The definition of genocide is contested; the legal definition is…; scholars' views vary, but agree that…, and then the second paragraph goes into the context around the Genocide Convention (which offsets the weight given by having the legal def most prominent) Kowal2701 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to your suggestion was presented to buidhe, and he blocked that as well. However, genocide is not substantially contested in the legal field (at least not with respect to the inclusion of intent). Would you accept a lead that said something like: "The legal definition of genocide is [include intent or variation of it], but scholars' views vary [in xyz way]"? Slava570 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd give disproportionate weight to the legal one, the first clause in my proposal was intended to not lead readers down the path of thinking the legal one was the 'main' one. Wikipedia articles are based on sources rather than what is common or accepted practice in the real world, and it inevitably skews a bit to those whose jobs are publishing sources. I do think your proposal is an improvement on the current sentence, but wait and see what Buidhe says, he knows what he's talking about Kowal2701 (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but the issue is that your proposal makes it look like the legal definition is contested, when in reality it is not in any substantial way (and not regarding intent). Would you accept a reversed order, putting scholars first, like this: While scholarly definitions of genocide vary, the legal definition of genocide is [intent]. The next sentence could go into how scholarly views vary. Slava570 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that looks good Kowal2701 (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123, Buidhe, and Pincrete:, thoughts on the above proposal? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated above, to say that the legal definition of genocide is not contested is incorrect and currently contradicted by the article body, because people don't agree on what it means (particularly the intent aspect).
Also, I am not sure that it is actually benefitting our readers to jump into the controversy about the definition right away before talking about any other aspect of genocide. I have misgivings that the lead would end up focusing on this to the exclusion of the rest of the article's content. (t · c) buIdhe 07:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, idk how else we could be NPOV without presenting the POVs. Not a fan of the first sentence as it may give readers a false impression. I guess something like Though definitions vary, genocide is generally defined as the ... would be too amateurish? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the definitions vary so much that this variation needs to be identified in the first sentence of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to pick on our current first sentence, only recognising physical violence is very disputed in scholarship, as Buidhe has talked about below, eg. Spanish genocides against the Taino and Guanches largely resulted from creating deadly conditions (and in the Namibian genocide) Kowal2701 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Our current first sentence isn't limited to physical violence. In fact, the words physical violence don't appear anywhere in the article. However, Taíno genocide says that the genocide involved "slavery, massacres and other violent treatment", which sounds like "physical violence" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Our current first sentence isn't limited to physical violence. "targetted violence" (our first sentence), certainly implies physical violence. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From a POV of moral/ethical Nonviolence (e.g., someone who teaches Nonviolent Communication), I don't think that "violence" or "targeted violence" would be assumed to be only or necessarily physical violence. Emotional and psychological abuse are also forms of violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Errrr emotional or psychological violence towards an entire people??? To the extent that is even possible,(eg punitive racial laws) it would require the threat of physical punishment to enforce it and would almost certainly be called 'persecution' or 'discrimination' rather than 'genocide'. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that emotional abuse or psychological abuse requires the threat of physical/corporal punishment. I agree that when this is directed at a group, we tend to call it persecution or discrimination, but scholars looking at genocide as a process seem to see that persecution and discrimination as part of the genocidal process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, if we are talking about the UNGC (legal) definition, 'intent to destroy' is the defining factor rather than the means employed,(incarceration, mass slaughter, extreme pressure, whatever) or even the outcome (technically speaking no one needs to be killed). I have still not succeeded in establishing a coherent single unifying characteristic of the scholarly definitions, beyond generalities about 'groups' being more flexibly defined and intent not needing to be established or proven to the same extent. Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of proving intent in law is to establish guilt or innocence in a specific instance, and a case cannot go forward without establishing intent. But scholars can still move forward even if they cannot prove this point. It's not that intent is not a unifying part of their definitions, but that they can set it aside while discussing other aspects of history, or they can show intent in a more roundabout way that might not be accepted in a court of law (inferences based on outcomes). I think I've shown through reviewing 27 sources so far (plus the ones named by others) that intent is a unifying feature of all or nearly all of their definitions.
Scholars are also not necessarily more flexible than the law. This is a biased view that gives too much weight to a minority of scholars. We have seen that a minority of scholarly definitions are more strictly defined than the legal definition. And all the scholars that use the word purpose and most who use intent are using an identical or nearly identical standard as in law. The more flexible definitions are likewise a minority. Slava570 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can I inquire about the technically speaking no one needs to be killed point? Most crimes require completion of a crime for the crime for them to be charged; otherwise, it is considered an "attempt" -- some crimes, like attempted murder, or conspiracy to commit burglary don't require completion of the crime, though often some other act (like the act of agreeing to engage in the conspiracy) stands in for the relevant moment the crime has occurred. Is it really the case that a genocide can occur in which no one has been killed? Coining (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the acts of genocide under the convention don't include killing at all, such as "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" and "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." This is why it's important that the definition say the group itself is killed, which often but not always includes individuals being killed. Individuals may also be forced to take on a new group identity without being killed. The group no longer exists but the DNA of the individual is still passed along to the next generation. In the case of transatlantic slavery (although I think about two million people died in the crossing) the intent was not to kill people, but to keep them alive to be enslaved. Rather, the intent was to destroy their cultures through imposition of a new language, culture, forced adoption of Christianity, etc. Slava570 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Examples like transferring of children are very helpful. Thank you. The earlier examples of incarceration and extreme pressure were a bit more amorphous. I'm not aware of too many genocide scholars considering, for example, the Spanish Inquisition to be a genocide as a result of the process of forced conversions. Coining (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, forced conversions is probably more gray area. Destruction of religious institutions (as part of a list of other institutions) is discussed in an article on Indigenous people in North America. Slava570 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Coining regarding Can I inquire about the technically speaking no one needs to be killed point? Most crimes require completion of a crime for the crime for them to be charged, as Slava says the UNGC (legal) definition contains some provisions. such as child transfer or creating conditions in which 'renewal' of the group is prevented that don't involve actual killing. In practice however no prosecution has ever occurred in which there was not mass killing, so 'ethnic mass murder' remains the layperson's understanding of the term and prosecuted instances have all involved substantial killing.
But scholars and others have used the term to refer to instances in which (AFA we know) no one has even died, let alone been killed. Currently, the treatment of Uyghurs by China, is treated by many govts and by many scholars as being a genocide (and the WP article was for a long time called the Uyghur genocide).
In the case of the Uyghurs, it is fairly well established that there has been widespread incarceration, indoctrination and persecution, possibly forced abortion, forced sterilisation or contraception of the Uyghur women, but as far as anyone knows, no one has actually died. So, in scholarly circles, non-mortal genocide isn't just an abstract concept. Pincrete (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your implicit acknowledgement that Wikipedia isn't being consistent on this point, because, the article mentioned, while it might have for a long time called the Uyghur genocide is now called Persecution of Uyghurs in China.
I think though that an important point is being lost by somewhat skipping over the second sentence in my statement above, the point about completion of the crime, which is important for distinguishing the crime from the attempt to commit the crime. (Which is not to say that attempt to commit genocide shouldn't be denounced; it should be; it's just a different than genocide itself.) Below, in this conversation, you wrote that proposed text is problematic given that "implies that the group needs to be actually destroyed, rather than that being the ultimate aim/intent of the actions" - and though I think you and @Slava570 (above) have appropriately explained that it's not inherently necessary to have killed people, the oppose of that is not that mere intent is enough to have committed the crime of genocide. Some sort of actual destruction, whether by killing, transferring of children on a permanent basis, or otherwise, needs to have occurred. In this sense, it's not different from the notion that someone intending to commit theft, and even attempting to commit theft, unless they complete the theft, has not actually committed the crime of theft. Coining (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intentionally implying anything about the 'naming' of what is happening to the Uyghurs. The re-naming was as a result of COMMONNAME issues rather than anything else. The point of that example was a case of - what many scholars govts and orgs recognise as - genocide that doesn't involve any known deaths. That isn't a legally recognised genocide though.
I take your point that in the real world of prosecuted genocides, abstract intent, is not sufficient. My point was though that intent to destroy is the main defining feature, not the degree to which destruction is actually accomplished. In (I believe) the case of Srebrenica, a ruling was made that the part of the racial group destroyed had to be 'significant'. This excludes trivially small numbers of people, but doesn't represent a clear defined number or percentage, but it also doesn't alter the central defining consideration of 'intent to destroy', rather than 'number killed'. AFAIK, no one has ever been charged with attempted genocide.
Referring to genocide as a 'crime', rather than as a historic phenomenon only works to a degree. While some notable modern instances of genocide have resulted in charges/prosecutions, historically many more have never, and will never do so. It is a bit pointless/rhetorical to refer to the wiping out of indigenous peoples in the Americas and Australasia as 'crimes', especially when the wiping out happened over a significant number of generations and involved countless individual acts and 'perpetrators. These events are widely referred to as genocides though, even if only rhetorically as 'crimes'. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point was though that intent to destroy is the main defining feature, not the degree to which destruction is actually accomplished. Those two elements are not opposites. Presumably many people believe that both intent and a significant destruction are important to identifying genocide. Coining (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
to say that the legal definition of genocide is not contested is incorrect AFAIK, the legal definition is fixed, almost universally, far more so than for other crimes. I acknowledge that there may be many who argue about what the definition should be, often seeking to widen the scope and/or lessen the 'proving intentionality' element, but no one disagrees avout what the actual legal definition is. Also, as with other laws, there is occasional disagreement about how the law should be interpreted, but that isn't a disagreement about definition. Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said multiple times—what the convention means is at issue in multiple ongoing legal cases, particularly the "intent" requirement and how it can be proven. Everyone in this thread is arguing that these are fundamental aspects of the definition, so I do not think it's accurate to say the definition is not disputed. There is not agreement on this matter either among courts, scholars or states. (t · c) buIdhe 07:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in this thread is arguing that these are fundamental aspects of the definition If everyone is arguing that these ARE fundamental aspects of the definition, but only one person is arguing that they ARE NOT, that hardly qualifies a real dispute. Even if it's true that there are ongoing legal cases where one side is arguing to get rid of the intent requirement (I haven't yet seen evidence of this) but the page can be updated once a judge makes a ruling to change the legal definition. Among scholars, we've seen a small minority of our sample, 10-20%, that either don't require intent or it's unclear whether they do. I plan on going through the final 6 sources in the next couple weeks to confirm. If anyone can help, I would also appreciate that. As far as states not being in agreement, of all states, only Madagascar does not recognize intent, as has been said before. We don't need to consider an idiosyncratic definition if it is not in line with any others. Slava570 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The legal definition following the various scholar views is acceptable as well. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lead definition should include an "intent to destroy (or aim to destroy)" as "genocide" is a crime with a legal definition. This definition was defined in international law at the Genocide Convention and is still used today by the ICJ. Guz13 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support some indication early in lead that intent or aim is generally included in legal definitions and often included (though contested) in scholarly definitions. (The formulation “While scholarly definitions of genocide vary, the legal definition of genocide is [wording relating to intent].” proposed above works for me.)
It may be that the body needs editing first and the lead can follow. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The formulation of "While scholarly definitions...the legal definition..." suggests that there is a significant contrast between scholarly and legal definitions, and I'm not convinced that's true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Crudely speaking, scholarly definitions are broader and looser than the legal one. Scholars often include social, as well as, 'ethnic' groups (eg political groupings, social class, sexual orientation etc, sometimes any definable group) and they place less emphasis on proving intent/premeditation than do judges. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance that we have a source that WP:Directly supports this? I'd love to say something like "Genocide is ____. There are varying definitions, with legal definitions generally being narrower than scholarly definitions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Four Schools of Thought on the Relationship Between War and Genocide (2020) is probably a good example of scholarship varying. O'Brien 2020 says

A divide exists in academic debate about the definition of genocide. 90 Legal scholars tend to apply the Genocide Convention definition strictly, employing case law interpretations, but not straying from the confines of the legal definition, in particular the listed targeted groups and the focus on physical destruction. Scholars in other disciplines, such as sociology, political science or anthropology, often take a broader perspective on genocide. 91 This broader perspective includes the crucial concept that genocide is a process, not an event, 92 and therefore includes conduct beyond killing. Behind this is the theory that the killing part of genocide cannot occur without the preparatory behaviour, including the dehumanisation of the targeted group. 93 For example, Fein presented genocide within the scope of the Holocaust with five stages: definition (of specific victims), stripping (of social roles, claims for respect, material goods and legal rights), segregation (enforced compulsory wearing of the yellow star creating stigma of Jews), isolation (requiring Jews to reside in designated dwellings), and concentration (ghettoization). 94 These stages preceded the intensive mass killing of the Holocaust.

An example of broader definitions is found in Feierstein’s work. He has referred to genocide as ‘a specific technology of power for destroying and reorganizing social relations’, noting that it ‘is impossible to commit genocide without first building models of identity and Otherness’. 95 Card describes genocide as ‘social death’, distinct from killing large numbers of people through, for example, terrorism or war. 96 This is not to say, of course, that non-legal scholars ignore the physical or biological destruction aspect of genocide; as Snow notes, scholars ‘often frame genocide in terms of biological death and body counts’. 97 Yet there is a greater propensity to acknowledge the significant role of culture as part of genocide. 98

Scholars taking a non-legal approach believe that lawyers and jurists should take a broader approach to the interpretation of genocide, as it is a ‘far more complex phenomena’ then ‘violent deaths and direct murder’. 99 The legal approach is certainly subject to significant conceptual constraints, but likewise so are other disciplines; with these constraints leading to exclusion of some mass atrocities by some scholars (or by courts) as ‘genocide’. 100 For example, this challenge has been faced with regards to Cambodia, with scholars divided as to whether genocide was committed against the Khmer people, and the eccc confirming that genocide was committed against minority groups, but no charges brought for genocide against the Khmer.

Kowal2701 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of scholars conceiving of genocide as a "broader" and "more complex" "process" rather than an isolated criminal action/event feels like a good way to approach this distinction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although O'Brien doesn’t mention genocide scholars for some reason Kowal2701 (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea to me as well. Important to note that the "broader perspective" that is "often" taken does not seem to relate to the issue of intent. In fact, Feierstein's definition on the genocide definitions page is "Genocide should be defined in broad and general terms as the execution of a large-scale and systematic plan with the intention of destroying a human group as such in whole or in part." So as long as this "broadening" definition is not framed as if it involves doing away with the intent requirement (unless we find other evidence to that effect) I agree with it. I don't see a scholar named Card on the definitions page. (and sorry I haven't figured out how to make the quote green yet...) Slava570 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Xt is one way to make text green. There's no requirement to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the lead definition of genocide should include intent to destroy. The definition initially presented after WW2 to put a name to what happened after the Holocaust is the deliberate, systematic, and intentional destruction in whole or in part of an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group. Therefore, "intent" is a key component of this. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some form of "intent" should be used (aim, intent, purposeful, etc.), as per Slava570's list. As "intent" seems most common out of those, I would choose that word. LordCollaboration (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, for the reasons mentioned above in Pincrete's comment. Whether the exact word used is "intentional" or something else that conveys the state of mind of the perpetrator, the current 10-word opening sentence is insufficient. I'd be surprised if someone can point to an accidental, negligent, or reckless genocide that is generally accepted as a genocide. Coining (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and No, yes to the extent that however the topic is described, it should be clear that an inadvertent or wholly accidental genocide would be as logically impossible as an accidental murder, even if the specific term 'intent is not used. No in part for the reasons given by Kowal2701 above the first sentence is meant to summarise the various definitions given in the article, and the scholarship section doesn’t say anything about intent. Although I respect Slava570's reasons for opening this RfC, I think it is asking too limited a question. A better question would be "how do we summarise the topic of genocide", which more specifically equates to "how do we concisely and coherently present the various definitions of genocide" (broadly Lemkin's definition which led to the 1948 UNGC 'legal' definition, and subsequent scholarly definitions which modify the scope and many other aspects of the original). I agree with Kowal2701 that Atm the first sentence seems inaccurate and novel. Possible solutions IMO would include dealing with the various definitions chronolgically, possibly not in a single sentence or paragraph, or Kowal2701's proposal that the definition shouldn’t attempt to only include the overlapping aspects; the bits disagreed upon still need to be included and the POVs presented. or similar. Pincrete (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC) ¬ ¬ PS. I recommend this summary of some of the differences between legal and other definitions of genocide which was left by Kowal2701 and also can be read at "Four Schools of Thought on the Relationship Between War and Genocide" above.[reply]
  • No per Buidhe and WP:WEIGHT. Intention is not so relevant as actions. Sahib-e-Qiran 19:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. A quick look at the discourse in reliable sources around Gaza, for a recent example, shows that if we look not only at sources proposing definitions but at those asking the question "is X genocide?", which are much more numerous than the former, it is clear that intent is considered important.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

It's claimed above that most definitions of genocide require intent, purpose, or deliberation. But the genocide definitions page shows that this might not be correct. Of the definitions mentioned 11/42 mention intent (about 26%), 3 mention purposeful, and 5 mention deliberate /deliberately. That's objectively a minority of total definitions. (t · c) buIdhe 16:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the definitions. You are right that, as your superficial word search revealed, 11 expressly mention the word "intent." But almost all others point to intent in some way. I counted only four defiitions that do not include intent.
As you can see, of all the above definitions, a grand total of four can be said to not include intent in some form. Slava570 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What's incorrect is the assertion that all of these are synonymous with "intent". How can you explain that the majority of authors reject the wording in the convention and instead often prefer words that are not associated with a specific legal meaning and/or unknowable individual state of mind (i.e. intent) and instead point to the political dimensions of genocide? (t · c) buIdhe 02:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to attempt to explain why these sources choose the wording they do, but two points about words that are not associated wit unknowable individual state of mind (i.e. intent) and instead point to the political dimensions of genocide?. Firstly isn't assessing individual state of mind (i.e. intent) what historians and others do habitually (as well as judges and juries). Julius Caeser is believed to have invaded Britain for X reason. The historians aren't making these assessments by communing with the souls of the dead, but by examining and considering the sum total of the available evidence. Judges and juries do much the same, albeit wanting more explicit evidence.
Secondly, instead point to the political dimensions of genocide? why is there any contradiction between the specific aim of a certain policy (in this instance genocidal persecution) and the broader political purpose of that policy (strengthening the sense of nationhood among the perpetrators/ making the govt more popular/ eliminating opposition/ acquiring resources?). If, as you say, sources include political purpose as a significant factor, that would be an argument for including that element in the definition, not for excluding the 'deliberate' (ie intentional) aspect.
Lastly, on a related matter, I don't think that we are obliged to treat all definitions as equally valid. I don't know how to apply WP:WEIGHT, to this instance, but to treat the (nearly universally adopted) legal definition as simply another definition is not neutral or helpful IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although individual genocides are studied by historians, most research on genocide in general is done by social scientists with a corresponding focus on group rather than individual forces.
I would also agree not all definitions deserve equal weight, although on that note I'm puzzled why the focus on one particular definition that "virtually all scholars believe it is deeply flawed". What I fear is that editors who are not as familiar with the literature would favor more stereotypical or outdated conceptions of genocide. "Evil Guy makes up his mind to commit genocide and convinces others to carry out his plans" is the picture that is suggested by a focus on crime and words associated with genocide as a crime, but it has been largely disproven by more recent research. (For example I'm not aware of any genocide where the majority of scholars agree there was prior planning). (t · c) buIdhe 02:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I can momentarily approach this from an opposite direction, the notion of an "accidental genocide" is as oxymoronic as an "accidental murder". Debates around the Holdomor and the Irish potato famine focus on precisely the question of to what extent these were natural disasters (excacerbated by govt neglect) and to what extent the disasters provided opportunity for govts to rid themselves of troublesome, or unvalued social elements (intentional destruction).
I'm not aware of any genocide where the majority of scholars agree there was prior planning. Have they never heard about Wannsee? The Holocaust is one instance in which a huge paper trail exists of planning, commissioning, maintaining and testing various means of extermination. I believe in Rwanda there was also extensive evidence of planning, ditto many of the more notable recent instances.
I acknowledge that in many historical instances (the Americas, Australasia), there simply isn't going to be evidence of planned, coordinated actions, because there probably wasn't any (outside of local acts). I presume they base their assessment on patterns of extreme neglectful behaviour, rather than on 'smoking guns'.
I'm not wedded to any specific definition, but (if no coherent 'summary' definition is possible), laying out a broadly accepted one (whether the legal one or a dictionary one) and then recording the main points of dispute surrounding it, seems to me more informative than what we have at present. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Wannsee conference occurred in 1942, while the Holocaust is generally agreed to have started about the same time as Operation Barbarossa, in June 1941. The theory that Hitler planned the final solution before mid- to late 1941 (as killings were already well underway) does not have much support anymore, due to lack of evidence. And as for Rwanda, this is one of the claims that the ICTR prosecution made and was unable to prove. Later historians have had no more luck. Most genocides that are canonically recognized as such didn't start with one evil mastermind, they started with a political crisis and some local leaders taking matters into their own hands, then escalated from there. And as you point out, there isn't necessarily evidence of actions coordinated by anyone.
I think I already outlined my objections to the "intent" language, which isn't to suggest that genocide is accidental but it is usually incidental from the perspective of the perpetrators. For example with the Holodomor the no position is that no one has found any evidence of intent to eliminate the Ukranian people, and it's far more plausible that the soviet government's actual goal was something else (obtaining food for industrial workers). If we argue that foreknowledge could equal intent, we are using the word in a technical sense that's misleading to readers. (t · c) buIdhe 03:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It depends of course what one means by Holocaust. The persecution and killing of 'undesirables' predates WWII itself and is seen by many as the 'entree'. I have heard it argued that the killing of Armenians 'gave the green light' for the Nazis, Wannsee set in motion the form of the Holocaust as state policy. Pincrete (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The writer cited above, David Moshman, is primarily a psychologist, not a genocide scholar. Out of roughly 100 articles on his Google scholar page, around 5 had to do with genocide. This random article from 2008 has 10 citations. This is exactly the type of source that should not be given equal WP:WEIGHT to the UN Convention, which is the basis of all international law.
But even if it is true that almost all scholars think the UN definition is deeply flawed (I don't buy this until more evidence is presented), that is IRRELEVANT. We are not writing original research WP:NOR to correct flaws in the accepted definition(s). It may be that there is no definition that is not flawed in some way. We are trying to convey the main definitions in use in all relevant fields, to the best of our ability. The international law definition must be part of that in some way, shape or form.
The lack of knowledge of Wannsee and others is embarrassing, but also IRRELEVANT. We are not trying to add planning to the definition, but intent or another word such as aim or deliberate, etc. Planning points to intent, but it is not the same thing. Circumstantial evidence has been used to prove intent, and in some jurisdictions, intent can be inferred. But it is always a part of the definition in law (with the single exception of Madagascar discussed earlier). Slava570 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
update of the statistics gleaned from the genocide definitions page and proposal. While this is obviously not an exhaustive survey of scholarly opinion, and it doesn’t take into account WP:WEIGHT, I think it will still be useful to us. I’m removing all legal definitions from this new count, so this is a survey of scholarly definitions only. I’m also removing duplicates, as some scholars are listed more than once.
Total number of unique scholars included in this count: 30
Total number of scholars where the mens rea is not clear without further review of the sources: 3
Total number of scholars that DO NOT include mens rea in the given definition: 3 (this is down from 4 above, as it turns out one of the four was Harff, who was listed twice. The second time she is listed, she uses “intended to destroy” so she was removed from this section.)
Total number of scholars that DO include mens rea in some form in their definition: 24
Broken down as follows:
intent/intended/intentional: 10
deliberate: 3
purpose/purposive/purposeful: 4
other (including planned, aim, objective, desirable, etc.): 7
Counting the ones where I was unsure, the final tally for this list is: 80% mens rea/10% no mens rea/10% I’m unsure
Removing the unsure category, using 27 as the total, the split is 24 to 3, or 89% mens rea/11% no mens rea.
This statistic combined with at least one source given above (which says there is scholarly consensus that intent is part of the definition) as well as the source on the genocide definitions page, which says a majority of scholars include intent to destroy, shows at minimum that a very large majority of scholars use some form of mens rea in their definition.
I also want to point out: In addition to the 3 previous editors who wanted to include intent in the definition, we now have 2 more editors that said YES here, and 1 more editor that opposed at first, but changed to YES, provided that the lead follows a particular format. There is only 1 editor who is opposed. There was a second editor who objected earlier, but they have not responded in a long time. Their points were rebutted, and we have no idea if their views have changed, so we should not assume either way unless they weigh in again. If we are doing a straw poll, that is SIX Yes votes to ONE against. And reminder, even the one who is opposed admitted that the current definition is not great.
I don’t know what else we are waiting for. I propose a version of this as our lead:
While scholarly definitions of genocide vary, the legal definition of genocide is the intentional destruction of a human group as such. A majority of scholars include a mens rea (or mental) element in their definition, such as intent (references), being deliberate (references), purposeful (references), or other variations (references). A minority of scholars do not consider mens rea in their definitions (references). Slava570 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs usually go on for about a month (30 days) until being closed by an uninvolved editor Kowal2701 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry about that. I'm still fairly new to this.... Slava570 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, RFCs are supposed to go on for as long as they need to, whether that's one week or ten. But the RFC bot will remove the tag from the top after 30 days, because things are almost always settled by that point, and sometimes people just forget to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mens rea is a legal term, most of the scholarly definitions eschew the legal language. So this entire analysis is mistaken. (t · c) buIdhe 03:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyers use the specific term 'Mens rea' for the 'conscious intent' element of any crime. Slava570 was trying to show, imo effectively, that although a variety of terms are used by scholarly sources, they almost all include the element of conscious/deliberate/purposive/purposeful/planned, etc.. They are not burdened by the same restraints as judges and juries, but clearly the idea of an 'accidental genocide' is absurd. Scholars may eschew the legal language and we are free to do so, but not required to do so (depending on which is clearer and/or better sourced)
Our present opening sentence (the destruction of a people through targeted violence) already implies< intent (targeted violence is inherently intentional), but is not very specific about it. Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with using mens rea or not, but if not, the next most precise option is to say intentional for both legal and scholarly definitions. To the vast majority of readers, intentional is a synonym for deliberate, purposeful, etc. Not using a word such as intentional would be a misrepresentation of their views. Slava570 (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another statistics update regarding the scholarly sources on the genocide definitions page. Reminder: in the previous update, out of 30 unique scholars, 6 either did not have any form of mens rea in their definition or I wasn't sure. This time, I'll lump all six together. I was able to resolve 3 out of the 6. I could not find 3 sources on my own, so I've requested them from Wikipedia and hope to have one final update soon.
1. There was a mistake on the definitions page, which I’ve now fixed. Huttenbach’s 1988 definition was reversed with Fein’s 1988 definition. Fein’s 1988 definition does not discuss intent, but she is listed twice, and the second time, she uses purposeful action. Huttenbach was in the no category before. It now shows that he also uses purposeful action.
2. Barta was in the unclear category before. He says that genocide is primarily a relation of destruction rather than a policy. Here is a relevant quote from his article, “Relations of Genocide: Land and Lives in the Colonization of Australia”: “I will not, I hope, beg the question of how relationships might be expressive of intentions; I expect to construe intentions from action (and inaction) and from words as well. But I will assume of actions that they imply relationships, and entail consequences, which people do not always envisage clearly. Genocide, strictly, cannot be a crime of unintended consequences; we expect it to be acknowledged in consciousness. In real historical relationships, however, unintended consequences are legion, and it is from the consequences, as well as the often muddled consciousness, that we have to deduce the real nature of the relationship.” He wants to place less emphasis on intent and more emphasis on outcomes and historical processes, but he also does not dispense with mens rea entirely from his definition.
3. Üngör was also in the unclear category before. I looked at the reference, and the word deliberate was in the second sentence.
That leaves us for now with a minimum of 27/30 scholars or 90% as including some form or mens rea, whether that is very loose, like Barta, or very strict, like all the scholars who say purposeful (the strictest way to define intent). Slava570 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, about these "non-intent" definitions: Imagine that an uncontacted people is having an important celebration. All of them are gathered together in one place. A large airplane unexpectedly crashes in the middle of the celebration. Everyone on board and on the ground dies. The pilots (and the company they worked for) were unaware of the group's existence and of the celebration; moreover, they wanted to arrive safely home.
The culture is wiped out, but there was no intent to harm anyone, or even the knowledge that it was possible to harm them. Are there scholars that say this is genocide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't know what genocide scholars would say in response to this contrived scenario, I can say that factually there is discussion of situations that don't involve intent. If you actually want to explore the literature this is a book about genocide by several scholars. The book's editor writes that "civilian-driven violence" in the genocide of indigenous people could occur "in both calculated and unintentional ways". surely some genocide scholars would reject that the latter is genocide, but the reverse is not a fringe view. (t · c) buIdhe 06:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a copy of that online, but a slightly earlier book ISBN 9781782387398 by the same editor says "the definition of genocide that I use is more stringent than that of the United Nations Convention on Genocide (UNCG), the one applicable in international law. The definition used in this introduction and the next chapter is that genocide is ‘the intentional physical destruction of a social group in its entirety or the intentional annihilation of such a significant part of the group that it is no longer able to reproduce itself biologically or culturally’." Except for noting that Raphael Lemkin had a very broad notion of genocide that is functionally indistinguishable from a definition of Settler colonialism, the book requires intent – not necessarily an intent to kill people directly, but an intent to destroy part or all of the culture. In this model, pushing hunter-gatherers off their traditional lands and into farming could be genocidal, but accidentally killing them all in an unintentional plane crash would not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to open the preview function in the link that buidhe provided. I would just add that footnote 31 uses, word-for-word, the same defintion you quoted from the earlier book ("intentional physical destruction...intentional annihilation... etc) Slava570 (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read about this subject, the more I'm starting to think that the word "intent" is used in a variety of contradictory ways, and that many of them actually opposite of the plain English meaning that readers are likely to assume it means. For example, in that same book people are talking about a form of structural intent that isn't held by any particular person. Nobody has been able to prove premeditation of genocide, so it's more like manslaughter than murder. As at least one source pointed out, knowledge-based standard of intent is similar to involuntary manslaughter in many jurisdictions—which is considered a non-intentional crime. (t · c) buIdhe 07:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. Your argument is that even though 80-90% of scholarly sources on the genocide definitions page say some form of "intent," what they ACTUALLY meant was the opposite of intent? This sounds like original research. You are welcome to write an article on how these scholars all mean the opposite of what they say. A good starting point for you is George Orwell. Slava570 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Legal systems have a complex notion of "intent", and one of the notions encompasses the unintended outcome of intended actions. For example, a business might deliberately take an action (e.g., to manufacture chemicals in a certain way, to fly a certain route). They might discover later that their choice had harmful consequences (e.g., the equipment wasn't as good at protecting employees as they believed, the flight path had worse weather than expected), and now they are dealing with consequences of their choice (e.g., their employees are sick, the plane has crashed).
They intended to take the action (i.e., to produce the chemicals or fly that route), and the unwanted consequence wouldn't have happened but for their intended action (e.g., because the employees wouldn't have been employed, or the flight wouldn't have been flown).
On the criminal side, a common example is two men having a brief dispute in a bar. One shoves the other and walks away. He later finds out that his shove made the guy fall down, and when the other guy fell down, he happened to hit his head, which happened to crack his skull, which happened to kill him. It's not a freak accident, but it is an unexpected outcome. This is manslaughter (when you killed the person but killing the person wasn't your goal). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that intent may have more than one definition, although it is not accurate to say that intent ever means the opposite of intent. In fact, in a source provided by Moxy above [15], it talks about three different types of intent that are relevant to the discussion of genocide: "The type of intent required (e.g., dolus specialis, dolus eventualis, general, or knowledge-based) is not stated [in the UN Convention]." But next to none of the scholars we have seen eschew intent entirely as part of their definition (regardless of how stringent their definition of intent). And when it comes to legal jurisdictions, only Madagascar eschews intent entirely. International law, plus all other national legal systems DO include intent in their defintion.
Now if there is nuance regarding the definition of intent, that should go in the genocidal intent page. My goal in opening this discussion here is not to define intent, but to define genocide, which clearly does include intent in some form.
I hope we are coming to the end of this discussion soon, as there continues to be only one person AFAI can tell that is arguing against including intent, and from my perspective the arguments are becoming more and more unhinged. Is there a way we can do some kind of vote on this? Slava570 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia's early days, editors used quick straw polls to see how much progress they were making on resolving a dispute. For example, someone might post "What about putting _____ in the article? Could everyone agree that was an improvement?" Then people would say yes or no, and if there were several polls in the same dispute, you could see whether we were making progress vs being just as divided as before. We haven't used that explicit approach in a long time; instead, we rely more on interpreting the flow of a conversation.
I think that the lead sentence from 250 edits ago ("Genocide is violence that targets individuals because of their membership of a group and aims at the destruction of a people") is slightly better than the current one ("Genocide is the destruction of a people through targeted violence"), but I don't love either of them. For example, genocide is the destruction rather than the violence, and the victims could be targeted collectively rather than individually.
Perhaps I might combine the two by saying something like "Genocide is the intentional destruction of an ethnic group through violence against people because of their membership of that group". And then I might address the elephant in the room by adding something like "What constitutes genocidal intent, violence, an ethnic group, cultural destruction, and other key concepts varies" as the second sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like your idea, but I have a suggested amendment and a comment. I would say "ethnic group" does not encompass all the groups that should be included. A more recent edit used "human groups" or another option is "social group."
It seems to me that the part that says "because of their membership of that group" is replaced in many definitions by "as such." "As such" is more difficult to understand for an average reader, though, and to be honest, I'm doubting as to whether I'm even interpreting correctly... This article says [16] "66 countries have omitted the term “as such” from their domestic definition. This suggests that even though it has a potentially crucial function highlighting the importance of motive, in practice most countries disregard its relevance." So I wonder if it is preferable to say "as such" becuase it's shorter, or your clause "because of their membership" becuase it's more plain, or whether we should leave it out and let this be implied.
I have a counterproposal for your "elephant in the room." The last sentence of the second paragraph of the article says "[Genocide's] definition is contested by..." We replace this with a variation of your list: "What constitutes genocidal intent, a protected group, [other categories] remains contested...." Slava570 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example of a non-ethnic group that might have been a victim of genocide? I wouldn't expect victimization of women, children, elderly people, poor people, royalty, etc. (all typical non-ethnic groups of people) to be discussed in terms of genocide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The main other groups in the Convention definition are national, racial and religious groups. Also though, in the same link I posted re: "as such," they talk about the fact that Uruguay has included political, gender, sexual orientation, syndical groups, etc. Even though this is the exception, it speaks to the need for a broader category. Slava570 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The line between national, racial, and ethnic groups is blurry at best, and sometimes religious groups are also considered an ethnic group (very obviously for Ethnoreligious groups). I suggested that change because a people redirects to Ethnicity.
The Uruguayan legal definition, described by that source as "idiosyncratic", sounds like it is redefining genocide as martyrdom. Syndical groups are anti-capitalist revolutionary labor unions. Their members are not "a people", and they do not have "a culture". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally on board re: Uruguay. The opening line doesn't need to reflect "idiosyncratic" definitions.
I don't really agree though about the other groups. A national group can encompass several races, ethnicities, or religions, and that group may be targeted because of group membership. Likewise, a race may encompass several ethnicities, religions. Same with religion...
Is there a negative to using "human groups" other than the fact that it sounds a bit awkward?
Also, for me, it is most important to add intent or intentional to the opening line, so if this becomes a barrier, I actually don't really mind if it says ethnicity, at least for now. Slava570 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example of a non-ethnic group that might have been a victim of genocide? In the case of the Cambodian genocide, the principal defining factor of the target group was class, rather than ethnicity. One of the biggest differences between lawyers and scholars is that (on the whole) scholars want a broader definition (to include political groups, social classes, regional groups, sometimes almost any definable human group - what others might term politicide or democide), whereas the law restricts to the (admittedly fuzzy) term 'a people', which is usually seen as an ethnic, or occasionally religious group. Ultimately 'a people' are such if they see themselves, or are seen as, such. Pincrete (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would "cultural groups" be a fair summary, and sufficiently flexible to describe both ethnicity (as narrowly understood) and also less common things like social class? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to give a non-answer or be difficult. I think this is a topic where things that seem like tiny differences can have massive implications in the real world. While it looks like all these group names are nearly identical, I wonder how they are interpreted in various courts or by scholars. Would some people argue that cultural group doesn't cover national group, for instance? I would prefer someone else to speak to this. It seems to me that human group and social group are more all-encompassing, but I don't know whether that actually matters. And this is not a deal-breaker for me. If this ends up being a sticking point, I'm fine with whatever ends up being chosen by you and others. Slava570 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Human group is a red link; presumably it means the same as group of people, which redirects to a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. Social group is a blue link.
I suspect that both of these terms are too broad. According to the first sentence of Social group, a single nuclear family or a small sports team would count as "a social group".
What we have now is "a people", and A people redirects to Ethnicity. We are basically saying "ethnic group" right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect victimization of women, children, elderly people, poor people, royalty, … to be discussed in terms of genocide. At Srebrenica of course, only the men and adolescent boys were actually killed, elderly men, women and children were 'bussed out' and, in some instances the women were sexually mistreated. This was legally recognised as genocide despite some commentators having reservations about only the men being murdered and it being confined to a specific locale.
We are basically saying "ethnic group" right now Yes and we shouldn't be, except when referring to Lemkin's or the legal (UNGC) definitions. 'A human group' may be vague, but it more accurately reflects scholarly sources and can always be qualified.
I reluctantly came to the conclusion that a single unified definition is unobtainable because however you identify the variables, (defining an abstract target group … the degree of intentionality or purpose and proof of such required … the kinds and degrees of persecution necessary to qualify, which ordinarily, but not necessarily, include killing of a significant number), you arrive at an unsatisfactory result and consequently a two-pronged, or multi-pronged approach was necessary in which we advance several broad kinds of definition, incuding the legal one and attempt to summarise how they differ. Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that I wouldn't expect victimization of women, children, and elderly people to be discussed in terms of genocide, I meant that nobody says that femicide or geronticide is a form of genocide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this scenario is contrived, "civilian-driven violence" in the genocide of indigenous people could occur "in both calculated and unintentional ways" merely shows that accidental/unforseen events happen alongside intentional ones. Smallpox (and other diseeases) killed numerous people during the holocaust and was a wholly unintentional consequence of otherwise intentional acts, such is probably the norm. What the source does not say is that " genocide of anyone occurs in wholly unintentional ways". Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that part of the debate in the field is whether unknowingly triggering a Virgin-soil epidemic should count as genocide. Hernando de Soto marched with pigs from Florida to Texas; the pigs spread Salmonella enterica and other germs every place they went. Is that genocide? If de Soto's unintentional spread of deadly diseases while in pursuit of overseas wealth is genocide, then why isn't the Black Death, which was caused by the unintentional spread of a deadly disease while in pursuit of overseas wealth also genocide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What you're missing is that while most perpetrators don't seek to spread disease as a means of genocide, they are all creating the conditions in which disease runs rampant (overcrowding, malnutrition, weakening people via forced labor, etc.) Unlike the Black Death, this is "intentional" in that they knew or could have known the consequences, although not intentional in the plain English meaning. (t · c) buIdhe 07:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Black Death is "intentional" in the weak sense that even in pre-germ-theory days, people knew that some diseases were contagious, and sailors knew that disease outbreaks sometimes followed an unlucky ship from port to port. If you don't want to risk spreading disease, you shouldn't travel, full stop. All travelers therefore have some "intention" of risking the spread of disease. But this is "intent" at the level of "if you use a car at all, you might cause a car wreck", not at the level of deliberately causing a wreck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the Black Death, this is "intentional" in that they knew or could have known the consequences, although not intentional in the plain English meaning. The 'could/should/probably did know the consequence' criteria is quite prominent in scholarly evaluations of historical genocides, and is a significant difference with the legal definition, in which conscious intent must be proven, rather than be deduced from the balance of evidence. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of legal scholars arguing that the GC should be interpreted in this way as well, as is discussed in the article. (t · c) buIdhe 13:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, Pincrete. I think this gets to the heart of what we are really debating here. From what I can see, it's not that scholars and legal experts believe that intent is not part of the defintion. It's that there is disagreement over whether intent must be proven explicitly or whether it can be inferred. This source discussed earlier [17] says, "Some [tribunals] have required direct evidence of specific intent, while others have inferred it from the totality of the circumstances, focusing on the political and social context."
I did a word search in the article for "inferred" or "deduced" and found no instances. I think it would be a good idea to go through the article with an eye towards this. Slava570 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me. The legal concept of intent requires legally admissible evidence of intent. Scholars can (and some seem to) ignore or reject the "legally admissible evidence" standard and still require that it not be a true accident. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of sources on Scholar that make this distinction, this one looks good Kowal2701 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to access the link until I have 500 edits. Would you mind telling me what this says here? Slava570 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Slava570, I've sent an email Kowal2701 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sending this article. After skimming it, here are my main takeaways: first and foremost intent is always part of the definition in international law, even for those who advocate the least stringent application of intent. Intent in some cases can be inferred by showing a pattern of behavior within a genocidal context, or other ways.
There was a question about whether the word deliberate meant premeditation, which is a higher standard. When using this word in international law, they do not mean premeditation. It is mainly just a synonym for intent. In common parlance though, deliberate can be perceived as more stringent than intentional because deliberate implies deliberation.
There are several types of intent, with dolus specialis being the most stringent.
Purpose and purposeful action refers to dolus specialis. The article states: "Despite its drawbacks, the purpose-based approach remains the prevailing paradigm in the praxis of international criminal law."
The least stringent paradigm is the knowledge-based approach. Intent is still included in the definition here. The idea from what I gather is that a collectivity can be divided into leaders and foot soldiers. A foot soldier can be found guilty of genocide if they committed one of the five acts of genocide with only the knowledge of a genocidal plan (not intent personally). But the genocidal plan had to be developed with intent to destroy. This is easier to prove because intent can be limited to a smaller part of the collective, rather than proving that the person who committed the genocidal act had intent.
Bottom line: This summary is obviously missing a lot of finer points of the article. Basically, though, concepts related to intent are contested in international law, but the simple fact of intent being integral to the definition of genocide is never contested in international law. Slava570 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely wrong about the knowledge based approach as you would realize if you read the article and its sources. (t · c) buIdhe 07:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a different source with 167 citations explaining the knowledge based approach, in case someone believes I didn't understand the previous article or something. [18]
They start by saying that "The prevailing view in the case-law interprets the respective ‘intent to destroy’ requirement as a special or specific intent (dolus specialis)" so it's important to note that the knowledge-based approach is a minority view within international law. Next: "Thus, the purpose-based intent should be upheld only with regard to the top- and mid-level perpetrators, whereas for the low-level perpetrators knowledge of the genocidal context should suffice." Slava570 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Why do we seem to be assuming that all definitions have equal weight?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I would think that they won't, as surely there's some scholar who has given a definition that everyone else rejects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, our present defining/opening sentence is "Genocide is the destruction of a people through targeted violence". I keep meaning to ask you where this comes from. Is it a summary of the main definitions on the list page or those used in this article? Or is it a specific sourced definition in its own right? Is seems to me that we are going round in circles in the RfC and discussion, so it would be helpful to know how we got here. As I've previously said, I find the present text vague, to a degree misleading and partially wrong, and thus generally unhelpful to the uninitiated reader, but I won't repeat my objections now.Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

as I think I said before, it follows the common aspects between most definitions. (t · c) buIdhe 13:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, I must have missed this somehow. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is harsh, but I don't think we need to worry about buidhe's opinion anymore. We now have two additional editors who have given their support, partially qualified or not, so by my count that makes eight versus one. I agree we don't need to keep going in circles. Can we move ahead to the implementation phase?
I will recap a couple things. Buidhe himself agreed that "aim to destroy" was part of the definition of genocide. Then he blocked this from being added. We attempted to make accomodations to his perspective. He blocked all of them. The last straw for me was when he thought a source supported his perspective, and it was pointed out that the source said the opposite of what he thought. Instead of saying, oops my mistake, he said, I am correct anyways because often when scholars say intent they actually mean the opposite of intent. Given these bad faith arguments, and given that he does not even have one other editor who agrees with his position, with now eight editors supporting the addition of intent, if buidhe attempts to revert any new edits to the lead, I will move to the next step, whether that is arbitration or something else, and look into how to get him banned from editing this page.
Having said that, I wonder if we can split up the editing into two phases. For phase 1, can we simply add the single word "intentional" to the lead as it is, and change the ridiculous word "ethnical" in the next paragraph to "ethnic?" For phase 2, we can continue hammering out the exact wording we want and implement more changes within the next week or two. Slava570 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to worry about buidhe's opinion anymore., I would be extremely reluctant to follow that route/logic. I happily acknowledge that nearly all the 'donkey work' of much of the present article has been done by Buidhe, and don't look upon this as any kind of 'contest', or that he is acting in bad faith, even though I disagree with him on how best to present the topic. I also don't think that the present level of RfC input proves anything very much (30 days is usually looked on as a minimum for an RfC).
The word "ethnical" is contained in the original UNGC definition and is a quote. We could 'bracket' the 'al' ending for clarity if really needed, as this form of the word has passed out of use, but we cannot alter a direct quote. Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for clearing up "ethnical." I'm fine with leaving that then.
I'm not looking at this as a contest, either, but making arguments in good faith is a requirement. That includes not agreeing to something and then going back on that agreement without explanation or without any alternative solution, leaving us unable to move forward. If it comes to it, I'll take up these allegations in a more appropriate mannter.
Sounds good. Let's just wait the 30 days then. Slava570 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Finalizing the Lead (Remaining Options)

Genocide is...

I. the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of [group], as such.

II. the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of [group]—not the individual members of the group personally, but the group itself.

III. the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of [group]. While individual members of the group are nearly always targeted for destruction, genocide occurs when the group itself is intentionally destroyed.

Remaining options for [group] are human group and societal group. (sorry if I missed one) Slava570 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can fix the signature, I don't know what I did there... I'm actually really warming up to either option II or III. While they're not as concise as our previous options, I think an average English speaker would actually come away with a fairly accurate understanding of the term, which is probably the most important thing here... Slava570 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You just forgot to sign the comment. No big deal. I made it use the ordinary formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I currently prefer II, with III in a distant second place. I don't feel like the second sentence in III is clear. I would prefer something like "The method for committing genocide typically involves killing or otherwise harming members of the group individually, but genocide is technically about destroying the group itself, rather than about the harm done to each individual."
Both human group and societal group are okay (not great, but equally acceptable). I think that the [group] concept would benefit from an example. This could be in a subsequent sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just work with II then...
What do you think about: "targeting not necessarily individual members of the group, but the group itself."
If we do end up doing a two-sentence version, I think it's mostly workable, but I strongly object to the word "technically" because that implies it's not a real distinction or that it doesn't matter... Slava570 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of these basically echo the UN convention and therefore don't succeed at covering the wide range of definitions that exist. (t · c) buIdhe 15:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not helpful at this point to repeat this assertion without evidence. We have reviewed 27/30 scholarly definitions on the genocide definitions page so far. Add to that several additional scholars (including one scholar that you added yourself, whose definition was more stringent than the UN definition) and the recent Brittanica quotes. Unless you have a specific scholar with a specific quote you can add, your statement is just plain false, as far as I'm concerned. The main difference among scholars, as far as I can tell, centers around the definition of groups. "Human groups" allows for that wide range. Slava570 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You have been ignoring everything I say so I don't see the point of engaging further. I have given up hope for the article still meeting theGA criteria when you are done with it. But most definitions don't mention "in whole or in part", and insofar as they mention intent/deliberateness, they use a variety of language and mean completely different things depending on who you ask. (t · c) buIdhe 20:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re:genocide occurs when the group itself is intentionally destroyed in III. Why not simplify to "genocide occurs when the group itself is targetted". Why I don't like the prresent proposed text is, firstly it implies that the group needs to be actually destroyed, rather than that being the ultimate aim/intent of the actions and, secondly, having established intentionality in the opening words, I don't think it needs to be repeated. The point being made surely is that it isn't actually the extent of harm done, nor the means employed (harming/killing individual members) that defines genocide, rather the aim of making the group itself non-viable, which is the defining feature.

Nearly always targetted for destruction, could more succinctly, and possible less problematically, become "ordinarily targetted for destruction".

I still think 'human group' the clearest offering, even if the meaning needs clarifying in some fashion (the clarification could also be an opportunity to record the 'core' differnces between the specific UNGC (legal) definition 'a people' and scholarly use).

I also think that other editors need to comment on these proposals.Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, after this, I'll wait for others to weigh in. I have a new proposal now though based on the above, which I think helps resolve your critiques.
Genocide is the intentional destruction of a human group; while individual members of the group are ordinarily targeted, genocide occurs when the group itself is destroyed, in whole or in part. [next sentence expands on “human group.”]
I think if we use a semicolon rather than a period, it signals that the definition is not yet complete after the first clause. Slava570 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete, I think there is an element of "actual destruction" of the group required. Consider Dylann Roof. He wanted to start a race war, so he killed some Black people. But killing one out of every 5.4 million Black people in the US makes him a mass murderer, not a genocider, despite having genocidal intent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the quotes below says that genocide is generally understood to be committed by governments. But agree with your point Kowal2701 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is an element of "actual destruction" of the group again, as usual we need to make a distinction between legal and 'scholarly' use (I inc govt and organisations). I believe I am correct that early in the judicial hearings of the Srebrenica genocide case(s), the court ruled that the 'in whole or in part' of the legal definition, the 'part' destroyed had to be 'substantial'. So yes, in legal cases effectively a significant number of people needed to have been killed as a prerequisite for the court even hearing the case. But the final judgement rested on the 'intent to destroy' having been proven, not the number or % of the people killed. A German court has made a similar ruling. So legally, intent to destroy the racial group, rather than having killed/harmed X members of that group is the defining feature. Otherwise Srebrenica would have been mass murder or a war crime.
In the case of the Uyghurs in China however, which is widely recognised by scholars and govts as being genocide (but not any court), while significant cruelty & persecution has taken place, nobody has actually died AFA we know. I presume that the scholars and govts are basing their judgement on the underlying intent to destroy the group, rather than specifically the amount of harm done to that group, but yes actual harm has been done, (even if no killing) not merely evil intent.
I appreciate that we are all (inc me) giving each other illustrative examples for helpful reasons of what is/isn't genocide, but working from examples in the non-legal sense, apart from being WP:OR, is never going to get us to an acceptable definition IMO that embraces the varying definitions.
I've been watching this page for about 10 years I think (for most of that time it dealt only with Lemkin's and the legal definitions), and can stiil think of anomalies in what is/isn't generally considered genocide by courts and/or by others. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is an element of "actual destruction" of the group Sorry, just given more thought to this. Short answer is 'yes'. Whether in legal or scholarly use, some non-trivial actual harm needs to have been done to the group.
If we analogise with the crime of rape, lascivious thoughts are not sufficient to prosecute someone for attempted rape. Evidence needs to be provided as to what actions were taken, but again, the key defining feature is the 'end goal' of those actions, rather than the acts themselves, which might be described as 'indecent assault' or in some other way if a criminal 'end goal' is not established.
It is totally WP:OR of course, but in many senses, all genocides are 'attempted genocide', since, with the exception of a small number of historical instances, no ethnic or social group has ever been wholly destroyed.
I don't know how useful any of this is in concocting a definition, beyond recording that 'bad deeds' may be a prerequisite, but 'intent to destroy' remains the defining feature. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is useful in that we could easily add the word "significant" or "substantial" to the definition without overburdening the sentence. And this would not be WP:OR because from what I am seeing, this is the scholarly consensus, and whether or not it was explicitly added to the law in the Srebrenica case, it is clear given what a massive undertaking it is just to bring a case against a leader of a sovereign state. So I think it's safe to say that in the law and for scholars, "partial destruction" never means "a small amount of destruction" and the destruction had to have been consummated in the real world. "Attempted genocide" is criminalized separately under the Convention.
I think the wording of "genocide occurs when the group itself is [significantly/substantially] destroyed, in whole or in part" also already implies actual destruction without needing to use the word actual. Another option is "in whole or significant part." Slava570 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like the significant/substantial suggestion, but I don't think that's quite the right place for it. (Destroyed is destroyed; you can't have a group be insignificantly destroyed, so it's meaningless to say that it was significantly destroyed.) Maybe "either in whole, or at least a substantial part"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you guys even bother to read the article that more knowledgeable people spent a lot of time researching and writing, and which the lead is supposed to follow (not vice versa)? All these questions are already answered there. "partial destruction" never means "a small amount of destruction" Could hardly be more wrong. There is no agreement on this point. (t · c) buIdhe 20:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source and a quote that says a small amount of destruction can be called genocide. Please stop bad faith personal attacks. Slava570 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, I've read at least most of the article now, and I still don't see anything that suggests "a small amount of destruction" (affecting a few people but having no effect on the group's/culture's overall viability) is ever called genocide. Even when all the other conditions are obviously fulfilled, killing one in a million ____ people just doesn't have any practical effect that could be called "destruction of the group" with a straight face. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also see nothing in the article suggesting any scholar believes "a small amount of destruction" constitutes genocide. There is a sentence that says "The legal system has also struggled with how much of a group can be targeted before triggering the Genocide Convention." There are three sources, of which I was only able to look at one. [19] This source is entirely about debates on this issue BEFORE the convention was ratified. The debate here, from what I can tell, was between a large amount of destruction and a very large amount of destruction.
I looked at a second source that is cited numerous times in the article [20]. It says "As for scale this ranges from Steven Katz's targeting of a victim group 'in its totality' and Semelin's 'total eradication' to phrasing such as 'a substantial portion (Harff and Gurr) to 'in whole or in large part' (Walliman and Dobkowski). Irving Louis Horowitz emphasizes the absolute dimension of 'mass' murder for which 'genocide is a synonym.' Some scholars maintain a respectful silence on the issue, though the element of mass or 'substantial' casualties seems implicit..." Slava570 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What is "small", or "substantial"?
While I'm not aware of any one who considers Dylan roofs actions to be a genocide, various international courts have determined that killing well under 1% of a group's population can be genocide (as in Srebrenica). the same courts rejected that a broader bosnian genocide occurred.
I think it's best to say that there is little if any agreement on this issue. (t · c) buIdhe 01:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer something along the lines of Slava's previous proposal here. Britannica says genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.

Kowal2701 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the target groups to "ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race" is effectively echoing the UNGC 'legal' definition. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2026

Fernández, Fernando M. (2018). Genocidio y otros crímenes atroces. Caracas: Editorial LIVROSCA. ISBN: 978-980-378-185-9 Mamacita19 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 🍅 fx (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Purposive versus knowledge based intent

I did a good faith edit to clarify the difference between purpose and knowledge based intent. I included two sources. This is not buidhe's fiefdom. I added two sources. If they were not cited properly, then please fix the citation, but do not delete my correct edit. Here are the two sources. Both say that the purposive approach is the prevailing approach and the knowledge based approach is not. [21] [22] Slava570 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sunting pranala
url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url url
Pusat Layanan

UNIVERSITAS TEKNOKRAT INDONESIA | ASEAN's Best Private University
Jl. ZA. Pagar Alam No.9 -11, Labuhan Ratu, Kec. Kedaton, Kota Bandar Lampung, Lampung 35132
Phone: (0721) 702022
Email: pmb@teknokrat.ac.id