Talk:Genocides in history: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:45, 19 November 2020 editFuhghettaboutit (talk \| contribs)85,115 edits →"Euthanasia" problem use in article: typo← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:46, 19 November 2020 edit undoFuhghettaboutit (talk \| contribs)85,115 edits →"Euthanasia" problem use in article: fixNext edit →
Line 117:		Line 117:

	::In any case, I strongly reject that it is a non-neutral edit. My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". I would welcome others' views and comments. ] (]) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)		::In any case, I strongly reject that it is a non-neutral edit. My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". I would welcome others' views and comments. ] (]) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
	:I too find it utterly jarring to see the use of "euthanasia" as it is employed here, exactly as described above – divorced from context, it reads as indicated: like it's vernacular definition; a reference to humane death, applied ~~top~~ those for whom it is a mercy, which in ''this context couldn't be more non-neutral''. It reads like something a nazi apologist might write. Don't get me wrong – I don't for a moment believe that is what's going on here in any way, shape or form, but that's ''the result'', given the nature of the subject, and we should not minimize how bad it really does sound. That is whay why that context absolutely needs to be either provided, if the word is to remain in use, or a term needs to be used that doesn't read like this, but can stand on its own without context, that very well may be beyomnd thew scope of an article that provides only summary entries. If any form of "euthenasia" is to remain, then, it needs some device to impart that context, such as scare quotes and linking to involuntary euthenasia, but I think "mass murder" suits fine, because it needs no context to pull it back from an unintended meaning.--] (]) 05:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)		:I too find it utterly jarring to see the use of "euthanasia" as it is employed here, exactly as described above – divorced from context, it reads as indicated: like it's vernacular definition; a reference to humane death, applied to those for whom it is a mercy, which in ''this context couldn't be more non-neutral''. It reads like something a nazi apologist might write. Don't get me wrong – I don't for a moment believe that is what's going on here in any way, shape or form – but that's ''the result'', given the nature of the subject, and we should not minimize how bad it really does sound. That is whay why that context absolutely needs to be either provided, if the word is to remain in use, or a term needs to be used that doesn't read like this, but can stand on its own without context, that very well may be beyomnd thew scope of an article that provides only summary entries. If any form of "euthenasia" is to remain, then, it needs some device to impart that context, such as scare quotes and linking to involuntary euthenasia, but I think "mass murder" suits fine, because it needs no context to pull it back from an unintended meaning.--] (]) 05:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:46, 19 November 2020

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Genocides in history, editor behavior, or any other off-topic discussion not related to article improvement. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Genocides in history, editor behavior, or any other off-topic discussion not related to article improvement at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2005. The result of the discussion was kept.

Map needed

It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Formatting and linking

I have cleaned up this article again because it seems that a bunch of my edits were incorrectly reverted. Here are my edits:

Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, for quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics.
remove date links
remove repeated links (e.g., "genocide") and links to plain English words per WP:REPEATLINK (e.g., nation, disease)
remove boldface per WP:BOLDFACE
spell out acronyms (like PKK) on first use per WP:MOS
use a person's first and last name the first time he/she is mentioned (Tito, Obote, Mao)

Ground Zero (talk) 29 November 2010

Can I edit andcontribute to this this source

Can I edit this source? I really want to contribute to this wikipage.

Edit "Argentina"

At the moment it is stated that the "CPPCG does not include the elimination of political groups (because that group was removed at the behest of Stalin) ". While this maybe should just show the opinion of Judge Carlos Rozanski, it does not represent the more diverse historical facts. Actually, several states opposed the deletion of "political groups" from the convention and the finally successful attempt was led by Iran, Uruguay, and Egypt. Therefore, I think, that the Stalin part should be removed and the discussion of whose fault it is that "political groups" are not part of the Convention should be transferred to the Convention-article.

References

LeBlanc, Lawrence J. (1988). "The United Nations Genocide Convention and Political Groups: Should the United States Propose an Amendment?". Yale Journal of International Law. 13 (2): 277.

Massacres

This article indeed has many examples of people murdering other people, but massacres of dissidents or rebels is not genocide, nor is people dying it introduced diseases unless such massacres or introduction of disease were intentional acts to exterminate a people. Are we deliberately watering down the definition of genocide for some nefarious means? 120.22.17.10 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a loaded and political question. High above us, humble Wikipedians to decide. If we find a couple of RSes which say smth is a genocide, we construct an argument here, taking POV amd DUE etc. into account. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Zezen (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned: Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter.

Two American colloquialisms for that are semigenocide, semiholocaust due to:

not enough data
not enough deaths
not a single criminal side
not enough international acceptance of the facts

or some of the above. {{subst:xsign:18:40, 9 July 2020‎ 2a02:587:410e:ca26:206c:5769:e396:a34f}}

They may be colloquialisms to you, but I've never heard them before, and neither has Google. , , so I don;t think they'd be of much use to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Euthanasia" problem use in article

Use of the term 'euthanasia' here is not appropriate.

Extended content
It is defined as: Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. (My emphasis) Nowhere in that Misplaced Pages article can you find a sense of the word where it could be used appropriately to describe Nazi or similar crimes. Indeed, the Nazi program is discussed there specifically, and categorically stated as euphemistic.

Extended content

It is defined as:

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. (My emphasis)

Nowhere in that Misplaced Pages article can you find a sense of the word where it could be used appropriately to describe Nazi or similar crimes. Indeed, the Nazi program is discussed there specifically, and categorically stated as euphemistic.

In modern terms, the use of "euthanasia" in the context of Action T4 is seen to be a euphemism to disguise a program of genocide, in which people were killed on the grounds of "disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values".

Mentions of it appear in the above-linked Aktion T4 article in inverted commas, e.g. "euthanasia campaign".

Extended content
By including it in this article, within a single sentence that lists "mistreatment of Soviet POWs" "crimes against ethnic Poles" "persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses" "the killing of Romani" "and other crimes committed against ethnic, sexual, and political minorities" and yet "euthanasia of mentally and physically disabled Germans" you create confusion. The contrast of terms is discordant, grotesquely so. And, most importantly, reduces clarity. Perhaps I did not select the most apposite replacement term, but I fail to see why my well-intentioned, and I believe, thoughtful, edit should be so summarily reverted by @The Banner: with no explanation whatsoever. Talk about a warm welcome! If someone has a better term, I'd be grateful if you put it into the sentence instead, but please, please, don't leave it as euthanasia, unmarked!122.105.187.37 (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Response to reversion rationale As you point out, it was the “official”(!) term used by Nazis, and often still used in discussing it. It is therefore completely in order to mention the word in WP articles that deal with Nazi atrocities.(I would point out, as an aside, that the Nazis likely had “official” labels, also, for the other atrocities in this same list, but there they are, shown simply and straightforwardly as I noted: ”killing”, “crimes”, etc. The mere fact of them having an official term, does not preclude the plainer, direct term from being neutral!) Perhaps because I referred to the well-understood modern definition, you imagined I was saying it must never be used in connection with Nazi actions. That is not it at all. My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". (Indeed, as criminal as these acts were, in one sense they did not misuse the term for that time: Prior to the 1940s, "euthanasia" was more generally understood to refer only to painless killing, which I understand Nazis purported to do in these cases.) I accept that I may be wrong. I believe in the consensus approach. Perhaps others will chime in with their view. However, I believe you did not really address any of the actual points I raised, (only what you imagined I was saying. I apologise if my statements were not clear.) 122.105.187.37 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Finally, I took the instruction in the editorial advice, “The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless” to heart. I thought it was rather uncontroversial, but, hey, you live and learn! You’re never safe from being surprised when you can find someone who argues that using the “official" term of the Nazis, despite there being a more factual label available, is the only way to be neutral. All the best to you, anyway, @The Banner:.

Extended content

By including it in this article, within a single sentence that lists

"mistreatment of Soviet POWs"

"crimes against ethnic Poles"

"persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses"

"the killing of Romani"

"and other crimes committed against ethnic, sexual, and political minorities"

and yet

"euthanasia of mentally and physically disabled Germans"

you create confusion. The contrast of terms is discordant, grotesquely so. And, most importantly, reduces clarity.

Perhaps I did not select the most apposite replacement term, but I fail to see why my well-intentioned, and I believe, thoughtful, edit should be so summarily reverted by @The Banner: with no explanation whatsoever. Talk about a warm welcome!

If someone has a better term, I'd be grateful if you put it into the sentence instead, but please, please, don't leave it as euthanasia, unmarked!122.105.187.37 (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to reversion rationale As you point out, it was the “official”(!) term used by Nazis, and often still used in discussing it. It is therefore completely in order to mention the word in WP articles that deal with Nazi atrocities.(I would point out, as an aside, that the Nazis likely had “official” labels, also, for the other atrocities in this same list, but there they are, shown simply and straightforwardly as I noted: ”killing”, “crimes”, etc. The mere fact of them having an official term, does not preclude the plainer, direct term from being neutral!) Perhaps because I referred to the well-understood modern definition, you imagined I was saying it must never be used in connection with Nazi actions. That is not it at all.

My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". (Indeed, as criminal as these acts were, in one sense they did not misuse the term for that time: Prior to the 1940s, "euthanasia" was more generally understood to refer only to painless killing, which I understand Nazis purported to do in these cases.)

I accept that I may be wrong. I believe in the consensus approach. Perhaps others will chime in with their view. However, I believe you did not really address any of the actual points I raised, (only what you imagined I was saying. I apologise if my statements were not clear.) 122.105.187.37 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, I took the instruction in the editorial advice, “The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless” to heart. I thought it was rather uncontroversial, but, hey, you live and learn! You’re never safe from being surprised when you can find someone who argues that using the “official" term of the Nazis, despite there being a more factual label available, is the only way to be neutral.

All the best to you, anyway, @The Banner:.

While informally we may discuss the Nazi "euthanasia" program, with full understanding that we are speaking of an atrocity, it is unencyclopedic to use it here in this way. A person seeking understanding of Nazi genocide should not need to parse that, read between the lines, or contextualise.

Reversion rationale - I have reverted your non-neutral edit. It is true that the Germans misused the term euthanasia, but it is the official term in many cases. See for example Aktion T4. The Banner talk 15:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral to remove "euthanasia"?

Your reply suggests the Nazi term is the only way to be non-POV (!), while saying nothing about how it may be confusing to the reader, as I contend.

People commonly use and understand euthanasia as in the definition above.

When people are all on the same page, or there is a fuller discussion around the issue, and Nazi use of the term euthanasia is contextualised, then referring to this mass murder program as “euthanasia" is not problematic.

When it appears in a list of contemporaneous, associated crimes that contrast starkly with the blunt labels assigned them, as here, then that has the potential to obscure clarity.

I was surprised to be directed to the Aktion T4 page, as it was evidence from that article that I used to support my change. The opening reads: "Aktion T4 was a postwar name for mass murder by involuntary euthanasia in Nazi Germany". Note here, as I mentioned in my earlier discussion, “euthanasia" appears in that article, but is perfectly clearly contextualised as mass murder, even if involuntary "euthanasia". As mentioned above, several WP articles use the word, but signal its dubious use by putting "-" around it, or other markers of non-standard usage. A similar understanding of the relevance and connotation of the terms is not present in, (and would not really be suitable for) the brief overview in Genocides in history article.

In any case, I strongly reject that it is a non-neutral edit. My edit (and talk page discussion) was nothing to do with the fact that the Germans misused the term "euthanasia". I would welcome others' views and comments. 122.105.187.37 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I too find it utterly jarring to see the use of "euthanasia" as it is employed here, exactly as described above – divorced from context, it reads as indicated: like it's vernacular definition; a reference to humane death, applied to those for whom it is a mercy, which in this context couldn't be more non-neutral. It reads like something a nazi apologist might write. Don't get me wrong – I don't for a moment believe that is what's going on here in any way, shape or form – but that's the result, given the nature of the subject, and we should not minimize how bad it really does sound. That is whay why that context absolutely needs to be either provided, if the word is to remain in use, or a term needs to be used that doesn't read like this, but can stand on its own without context, that very well may be beyomnd thew scope of an article that provides only summary entries. If any form of "euthenasia" is to remain, then, it needs some device to impart that context, such as scare quotes and linking to involuntary euthenasia, but I think "mass murder" suits fine, because it needs no context to pull it back from an unintended meaning.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories: