This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Intent to destroy" missing from lede – proposal to add
One of the most common misuses of term genocide in the media is ignorance or amnesia with respect to the "intent" part of the definition. The naive understanding is that, if a genocidal doesn't annihilate a group, that it somehow was "not genocide". For example, someone might believe, "Because there are Native Americans alive today, the United States did not eliminate all the Native American population, therefore the U.S.A. cannot be guilty of genocide against the Native Americans." This logic is incorrect, as the definition shows; the burden of proving genocide is to prove the intent to destroy… which is quite different than total destruction. I move that we should specifically include the word "intent" in the lede, as its a key part of the definition and is probably the most commonly misunderstood aspect of genocide among non-scholars. Objections / dissent? - Jm3 / 13:55, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
- this is now done. - Jm3 / 01:58, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
RfC
- 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.
The hatnote on this page previously read This article is about the crime. For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation). The hat note has been changed to This article is about the systematic murder or destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. There is also a page Genocides in history. Should we restore the original hatnote and treat this as a law article? (Talk page discussion is at the end of this section) Seraphim System (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- A third option, the best imo, is just to remove the wording completely, retaining only the "for other uses see" part. In an earlier talk discussion, Seraphim System was using the fact that the article was tagged "This article is about the crime" as an argument that the content of this article should be about just "the crime". That was an invalid argument because Wikipedia content cannot be used as source for Wikipedia content, and, furthermore, no discussion had ever taken place deciding that the article should be about just "the crime", and no discussion at all had taken place about the content of the "about" (hatnote) tag. I have put "the crime" in inverted commas because it is not clear to me what is meant by "the crime". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Let me make it clear - Jorgic is serving a life sentence for a genocide conviction that was upheld by ECHR. The ECHR held universal jurisdiction for the crime genocide, which means any national court can try some for a genocide that was committed outside its territory. It also upheld the broad definition of genocide, in other words, under the ECHR ruling biological-physical destruction is not required. The work of legal scholars should be cited directly to them, or to a general source like Oxford Handbooks, and not represented as part of the Court's holding about an element of a crime (see WP:MOSLAW) Seraphim System (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- ???What has this to do with this RfC or my above point? It is an off-topic comment, or have you posted the above in the wrong section by mistake. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Tiptoethrutheminefield: I will summarize my understanding of the discussion with User:Iryna Harpy yesterday, which it seems you did not read before responding. On general pages, such as this one, we do not prefer to use primary sources. WP:MOSLEGAL has certain rules in place for the use of legal primary source material that is consistent with established standards in that field. Since this page does not adhere to those guidelines, we are looking into secondary sources. Seraphim System (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- ???What has this to do with this RfC or my above point? It is an off-topic comment, or have you posted the above in the wrong section by mistake. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Let me make it clear - Jorgic is serving a life sentence for a genocide conviction that was upheld by ECHR. The ECHR held universal jurisdiction for the crime genocide, which means any national court can try some for a genocide that was committed outside its territory. It also upheld the broad definition of genocide, in other words, under the ECHR ruling biological-physical destruction is not required. The work of legal scholars should be cited directly to them, or to a general source like Oxford Handbooks, and not represented as part of the Court's holding about an element of a crime (see WP:MOSLAW) Seraphim System (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments Why would imposing a strictly legal interpretation on a widely used concept be thought an improvement? Why would restoring the 'hatnote' be synonymous with treating the subject as though it were solely-legal, this appears to be a false argument used to try to radically alter (and in this case probably distort) an article subject. What on earth has Jorgic got to do with the ostensible subject of the RfC, ie the "hatnote". WP is a general purpose ency, it is not a legal textbook whose purpose, conventions etc may be very different. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Ditto on the comments made by Tiptoe and Pincrete. This article has been about 'Genocide' broadly construed since its inception. Taking a hatnote and trying to turn it into the WP:TITLE is contrary to the subject of the article. If it is understood that a MOS:LAW compliant article should be written explicitly covering the subject of 'genocide' in criminal law, it's a separate question. The subject of this article is, however, 'Genocide', not Genocide (law). Rather than proscribe the article, how about creating a separate article where specialists are required. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Did I phrase the RfC wrong? This article is full of legal content, which is technical content, that does not adhere to guidelines. There are problems with mixing a significant amount of legal writing into non-technical articles...part of it comes from not following the MOS for this type of article and improperly applied legal citations. If this is not a law article, remove the technical law content (Discussion of cases, applying case law to elements of the crime ... ) Seraphim System (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy I am fine with creating a specialist article. In that case, the legal content on this page should be moved, and in its place a brief and general introduction to the subject should be written, with a link to the main page. If I made a page about Descartes' theorem and then decided for no reason that it wasn't about math, and the information on the page was incorrect, that would obviously not be ok. Seraphim System (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Pincrete I consider an accusation that I am trying to distort an article subject to be a personal attack, especially when the article content is exclusively on a technical subject, and you are trying to stop me from correcting errors that distort case law. Seraphim System (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: No, I don't think that your wording was wrong. I also understand your intentions to be good, but the article was well sourced using third party and tertiary sources. If there are problems with some of the content, these need to be addressed by exploring and elucidating on sourcing rather than trying to squeeze the content down to fit one aspect of it. If it is understood that a MOS:LAW compliant article should be written explicitly covering the subject of 'genocide' in criminal law, it's a separate question. Firstly, you're not going to find experts in the field who are prepared to develop the article. Really. Unfortunately, asking for any experts in any field (other than medicine) is an excellent method for parring article back to a stub and grinding development to a halt. If the subject only covered genocide in criminal law, it would be another article altogether. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and the law article would need to be written (in a draft space?) before removing any of the content here. I don't believe that it's standing on the toes of criminal law, rather it's just citing well sourced content. I'm not sure that there's a bright line here, but there's certainly a fine line for distinction between OR and RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've had formal legal education, I'll write the article. It's not enough for the sources to be good, they must be correctly applied to the proposition. This is part of WP:RS. I don't know if I am not being clear, but there is no POV about this - if you cite a case to an element of the crime you must cite the holding, not what we call dicta (unless you make it clear you are citing dicta with introductory signals) - if a law student reads this article, they should be able to rely on what are considered standard practices in this field. Seraphim System (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please compare the Britannica entry on the subject. I understand what your concerns are, but this article adheres to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook." It is not written for students of law, but is a general overview for the lay person. As editors, it is our job to handle the sources and content as intelligently and neutrally as we can. This means that we don't dismiss reliable sources on the subject because it is inconvenient to our perception of what the article is or is not about. I have a very limited background in law (and certainly none in criminal law), but I'd be happy to assist in developing such an article in as far as my abilities allow me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Britannica entry is a good guideline for this article. Law does require specialized knowledge/education, as much as Python syntax and semantics does, and it is easy to make mistakes. To help avoid this, briefs are available (even for Jorgic) - I am very concerned because currently it is not a correct statement of the law in that jurisdiction (ECHR) - if we are not going to use MOS:LAW citation what I can do is fix the wording, add a basic version of the holding without the technical details, and then cite discussion of physical-biological destruction directly to the scholars that support it (avoiding the need to use introductory signals.) Seraphim System (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please compare the Britannica entry on the subject. I understand what your concerns are, but this article adheres to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook." It is not written for students of law, but is a general overview for the lay person. As editors, it is our job to handle the sources and content as intelligently and neutrally as we can. This means that we don't dismiss reliable sources on the subject because it is inconvenient to our perception of what the article is or is not about. I have a very limited background in law (and certainly none in criminal law), but I'd be happy to assist in developing such an article in as far as my abilities allow me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've had formal legal education, I'll write the article. It's not enough for the sources to be good, they must be correctly applied to the proposition. This is part of WP:RS. I don't know if I am not being clear, but there is no POV about this - if you cite a case to an element of the crime you must cite the holding, not what we call dicta (unless you make it clear you are citing dicta with introductory signals) - if a law student reads this article, they should be able to rely on what are considered standard practices in this field. Seraphim System (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
*1. Keep the current hatnote. My opinion: Per WP:Hatnote, keep the explanation simple as possible, which I think the current hatnote does. Stating 'the crime"requires prerequisite knowledge to know what is the crime, and also the article is broader than an legal crime.
*2. Do not treat this article as only a law article. My opinion: the article subject is broader than genocide law, a separate law article could be written. CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- After yesterday's discussion (see below) I also think that a full discussion of the law would overburden an overview page. Certain problematic sections like "intent" could be moved or merged into the draft for the new article, and replaced with a general statement that intent is required (and save discussion of what is and is not enough for intent, mens rea/actus reus, etc. for the law page) - this page should provide a general background of the legal history, similar to the scope of the Britannica entry Iryna Harpy posted above Seraphim System (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep the current hatnote. The article is broader than just the law aspect of genocide. We might need something like Genocide (crime) article which would detail the nuances of genocide in law, but that's a different issue. Darwinian Ape talk 08:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think there's a point to be made in favor of revising the current hatnote based on what Tiptoethrutheminefield said about Seraphim System's alleged non-sequitur re: Jorgic and the ECHR. Given there are legal definitions of genocide that are different (broader, or without overlap) than how the current hatnote defines it, and given that this article covers the crime, the hatnote will need to be more broad to encompass both concepts. It's too narrow now. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
Jorgic
Iryna Harpy Is there a reason that the discussion on Jorgic includes everything but the Court's holding? Totally misrepresents the source, this needs to be rewritten to meet legal writing standards, or removed entirely. Misrepresenting case citations is not the way to do things. This is why one should not cite cases without legal citation, because the only thing that should be cited directly to a case is a proposition that the case supports directly (this does not include dicta.) Anything else should use proper citation signals like See and parentheticals. Wikipedia has legal writing guidelines MOS:LAW - I'm sorry you feel its POV, but I did not make up these rules " It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." There are good reasons these rules are in place, as you can see. Seraphim System (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that citing this case is problematic (even outside of your concerns) in that it uses a WP:PRIMARY (to all intents and purposes) source to extrapolate content without reliable secondary/third party sources to provide any form of analysis. As is, a further secondary source is desirable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The Court cited Schabas, I still haven't found the part they were referring to. I must have a different edition or something but I will search through it again. Seraphim System (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've found these as secondary sources for the concept of 'intent' just from a cursory search:
- Sangkul Kim (24 May 2016). A Collective Theory of Genocidal Intent. Springer. p. 181. ISBN 978-94-6265-123-4.
- Andrzej Jakubowski (2016). Cultural Rights as Collective Rights: An International Law Perspective. BRILL. p. 321-322. ISBN 978-90-04-31202-9.
- --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I've found these as secondary sources for the concept of 'intent' just from a cursory search:
- The Court cited Schabas, I still haven't found the part they were referring to. I must have a different edition or something but I will search through it again. Seraphim System (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- All good points - also Van Anraat was about intent too. Jakubowski is a little confusing because he is talking about mens rea and Jorgic, and then actus reus in Krstic - Jorgic was tried under the equivalent of (a) and (c), not (e) so we need to be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH here - ICTY also said that even if it wasn't a genocidal act it could go to intent (cited in Jorgic) - a full discussion of this will probably be too detailed for this article. There is also this from Schabas:
Many contemporary international criminal prosecutions are based upon a theory known as ‘joint criminal enterprise’. It recognizes that atrocities that qualify as international crimes, including genocide, are committed by groups and organizations, acting with a common purpose. In practice, it means that the leaders or organizers will be held responsible for the crimes committed by their associates, even those that they did not specifically intend, to the extent that these were a reasonable and foreseeable outcome of the common purpose or joint enterprise.
- Seraphim System (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- All good points - also Van Anraat was about intent too. Jakubowski is a little confusing because he is talking about mens rea and Jorgic, and then actus reus in Krstic - Jorgic was tried under the equivalent of (a) and (c), not (e) so we need to be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH here - ICTY also said that even if it wasn't a genocidal act it could go to intent (cited in Jorgic) - a full discussion of this will probably be too detailed for this article. There is also this from Schabas:
In the Jorgic v Germany judgment of 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that the German national courts’ rather broad interpretation of the genocidal intent to destroy, so as to cover the applicant’s acts committed in the course of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was consistent with the essence of that offence and could reasonably have been foreseen by the applicant at the material time (at para. 114). Notably, the ECtHR, in its judgment of July 2007, considered these issues within the context of its deliberations regarding the principle Nullapoenanullumcrimen sine lege as contained in Art. 7 (1) ECHR. Thus, the ECtHR merely held that in 1992, when the applicant had committed his offences—long before in 2001 the Krstić trial chamber expressly rejected the German Federal Constitutional Court’s broad interpretation of the intent to destroy, arguing that the offence of genocide was restricted to acts aimed at the physical or biological destruction of a group—it could have reasonably been foreseen by the perpetrator that his intent to destroy a group as a social unit might be subsumed under the crime of genocide by German courts. However, the ECtHR did not deliver a ruling on how in its opinion the ‘intent to destroy’ should be interpreted in 2007.
- from MPEPIL Seraphim System (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Killing/Murder?
A couple of recent IP edits, one of which appears to be responding to a 'reddit' discussion, are arguing about the 'a-historical' use of the term 'murder' in this article. Whilst I am generally sympathetic to using the less emotive 'killing', where there is not a clear legal reason to do otherwise, some of the changes being argued over include altering quotes, which is a definite No-No. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm predisposed to the use of 'killing' as being less emotive (and more encyclopaedic) than 'murder'. It's also far more of a standard usage of language in academic texts on the subject, but I guess that that's just my own preference. The changes certainly strike me as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by virtue of a change in the lexicology of the subject using Wikipedia as leverage for changing the language normally used by sources, so I'll register my disdain over heavy-handed revisionist techniques to make a point. There may be no legal reason to reinstate 'killing', but does it reflect RS? I'm not about to parse the WP:EUPHEMISM guideline, but the WP:COMMONSENSE application is to avoid modified language in news-style reportage. Changing every instance of 'killing' is a political statement that is not our place to make as editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505161753/http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 to http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302102009/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/331/99/PDF/N0633199.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/331/99/PDF/N0633199.pdf?OpenElement
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060428_un
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505161753/http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 to http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317105511/http://www.cambodia.gov.kh/krt/english/ to http://www.cambodia.gov.kh/krt/english/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050529082238/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/N0529273.darfureferral.eng.pdf to http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/cases/N0529273.darfureferral.eng.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614011746/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_ReportUNSC4-Darfur_English.pdf to http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_ReportUNSC4-Darfur_English.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080813022926/http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/ICC-OTP-ST20080605-ENG.pdf to http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/ICC-OTP-ST20080605-ENG.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327105217/http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/0EF62173-05ED-403A-80C8-F15EE1D25BB3.htm to http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/0EF62173-05ED-403A-80C8-F15EE1D25BB3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Genocide vs. Massacre
What is the difference between a "genocide" and a "massacre"? Are there clear-cut criterias for such terms? Thanks. 139.192.174.17 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mainly intention, with genocide the intention to 'destroy the race/people' must be present. Also massacre refers to a single event, whereas genocide can be - and often is - an extended campaign. So a number of massacres can add up to genocide. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Genocide correlates with state collapse.
State collapse is a new Wikipedia page, a comparative study of how, when and why states (Nazi Germany, Austria Hungary, imperial Russia, Yugoslavia, USSR, Iraq, Libya, Congo free state, etc) decline and collapse with disturbing regularity, seeking violence and scapegoats as they do so. If anyone has pertinent comments to add, most grateful. Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was No consensus. --evrik (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposed merge with List of genocides by death toll
There was Discussion about people adding different events and it ended with some agreeing on a merge Jack90s15 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: Genocide definitely should have its own article. Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: this is a list of genocides in history and it must be separate from the main article. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The number of generally accepted genocide is fairly small and can be easily accommodated on this page - which already discussed many of them. The present list article attracts addition of ethnic cleaning events that are not accepted as genocides by most scholars. Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: The list is short because it doesn't list any pre-modern genocides. Genocides and genocidal rape were very common during bronze age and antiquity. Oranjelo100 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well... Genocide is a modern concept, that does not apply to ancient times very well, nor do scholars of the ancient era use the label. Mass killing / enslavement of cities that refused to surrender at the end of long sieges was SOP - e.g. read Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Genocides recognized per the UN definition are few and modern.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just because term "genocide" was invented recently doesn't mean genocides didn't exist prior. Scientists use this term for much earlier events. Here is article about genocides by Proto-Indo-Europeans who wiped majority of local men in Europe and parts of South Asia. Because of this modern Europeans have mostly Middle Eastern EEF/Anatolia_N maternal ancestry, mostly paleo-Siberian ANE/EHG paternal ancestry, and speak IE languages. Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: the list of events recognised as genocide by the preponderance of sources is quite small and can be accommodated in this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose at present. If the list really was confined to the "gold standard" cases, I might be willing to support, but at present it isn't and I think that if even if much more rigourous criteria were established for inclusion - there would still be too many cases for inclusion in the main article. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: Combining this page would equate genocide with killing rather than the full range of genocidal violence and looks solely at the number of deaths rather than the intent. SeymourJustice (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your oppose vote, but am puzzled by the logic. The only instances I know of in which an event has deemed to be legally genocide (eg Srebrenica), but where killing was numerically relatively low( as a percentage of whole group, and almost exclusively male) - it is precisely because of intent, rather than numbers, that caused it to be labelled genocide. I think everyone accepts that intent, rather than total numbers or percentages, is the defining feature.Pincrete (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you look at the "genocides by death toll" page it has only one reference to intent and is otherwise just a list of magnitude. If this were to appear on the main page for genocide, it is a reasonable fear that members of the general public less familiar with the legal requirements and primacy of intent would be further led to believe genocide=killing. SeymourJustice (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with your oppose vote, but am puzzled by the logic. The only instances I know of in which an event has deemed to be legally genocide (eg Srebrenica), but where killing was numerically relatively low( as a percentage of whole group, and almost exclusively male) - it is precisely because of intent, rather than numbers, that caused it to be labelled genocide. I think everyone accepts that intent, rather than total numbers or percentages, is the defining feature.Pincrete (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: Genocide does not equal killing, genocide is much broader and with no intent, whereas killing requires a goal (why do you want to kill someone in the first place?). Hansen SebastianTalk 14:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Inserting subtlety and nuance around the non-killing acts of genocide - just added
Hello fellow Wikipedia editors,
I just made a substantive edit that primarily centered around inserting some nuance regarding the non-killing acts of genocide. This led me to 1) edit the subsections (under international law) on genocidal intent and 2) create a new subsection (also under international law) on genocidal acts as defined by the Genocide Convention.
I'm new to editing so please weigh with any comments, corrections, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeymourJustice (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- SeymourJustice, to save me checking everything, could you confirm that all of the changes you made are explicitly stated in the sources used, (ie you checked the given source in order to create the content). On first impression, some of your changes seem sound, some appear fairly questionable. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Pincrete Yes, textual support for all of these changes can be found in the source material I cited. Moving forward, would you like to outline what changes you find "questionable"? --SeymourJustice (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
% инфляции = % геноцида.
Раньше были слова "коэффициент производительности труда". Например если выращенной еды было достаточно штобы не быть голодным и в следующем году вырастить столько же - коэффициент был = 100%. Или 1. Выращщено/Затрачено = 1 (100% если в процентах, можно и в канарейках штоб красивее!/!)) .
Если вырастили не 100%, а только 92% - тогда инфляция (замедление роста). Следовательно можно "поднять цены" (ускорить ?) на 8%. При старых з/п-тах!
Можно боротьця с шпионами! Уворовыващими по 3 колоска пшеницы с каждого поля. Прямо как медьведь на овсах!! Сволочь..
Ну просто вредитель! Мирового пролетариата.. все голодают.. Волга усохла вся.. ужас! Теперь и людей жрут. Киты на нерест не зашли.. Чем заправить Мерседэц-Дец-Бац Бац! Капец .. ??
176.59.209.106 (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)