Portal talk:Genocide

More Information to come

This Genocide portal was created by Carom at the request of EricSRodrigues154 on April 16, 2007 in the afternoon hours in EST. I will be adding information on "Genocide" in the next few days.

I urge you all to assist Carom and I in our quest to make this portal a success. Thank you.

--EricSRodrigues154 01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the effort you guys put into this portal. However, to be frank, I find this laurel-wreath kind of logo inappropriate. Looks like some kind of Alternative-Olympic-Games logo to me. Do we really need a logo at all? Claude Lanzmann said, the Shoah defies representation. While you may argue with generalisations like that (in my book: too apodictic), I do find that in this case he is right. The logo should be removed. Thanks for your work, again!

--Axel, Dresden, Germany, 24 August 2007

NPOV

Not fully sure how to edit a portal yet.

• The list of genocides was a POV list most (all?) of them were not subject to an international enquiry.
• Democide is not genocide.
• The tone of the section on the alledged Armenian genocide imples it was a genocide and that Turkey is wrong to dispute it.

--PBS 08:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, it looks like the content of that component was simply a transclusion of the category tree for Category:Genocide. It's become standard practice in portals to simply transclude the category trees into the portal space without any addition or subtraction, although I make no claim about whether or not this is a valid position to take in this case. Also: if you want to add, remove content, it's best to edit the subpage, rather than remove an entire component. I re-added the category component to the portal, although I blanked the subpage, pending discussion about whether or not it is best to follow standard practice in this case.

You are, so far as I am aware, correct in your second point.

On your third point, it's a touchy subject,a nd I think the best thing to do is to, as briefly as possible (this is a portal, after all), present the event itself, significant opinions that it was genocide, and significant opinions that it was not genocide, wiithout making any judgement of the opinions themselves. Carom 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On the of subject of a genocide portal displaying the genocide category as a list is I think unacceptable. It is far to open to non neutral points of view because it is black and white with no shades of grey. With non-contentious portals like Portal:Rugby Union category listing is not usually an issue. But when people go around adding things like the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities (one I found in its history quickly -- but there a lots of other articles which get placed into this category, like the Bombing of Dresden in World War II and Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) then I do not think that a list that is so open to abuse and frequently is should be listed here. One, because the list can often be wrong (in the sense of listing incidents which most experts do not consider to be genocides) and two, because it will encourage the muppets to add more unsuitable articles to the category.

On the Armenian genocide issue the wording of the Reuters article is far superior to the current words, eg current Wikipedia "has been dismantled and postponed because Turkey raised objections to the Armenian genocide being mentioned." Note this wording does not even say "alleged genocide" compare that with the Reuters' words "after Turkish objections to a mention of the killing of Armenians in Turkey during World War One". The whole construction of the Reuters article carries a far better NPOV--PBS 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW the list I was taling about was in this window Genocide/Genocide lists not the category listing which was another issue. --PBS 18:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what was going on in the "lists" component - that area is generally used to give links to related lists, rather than transcluding information directly - in this case, I would expect links to things like List of Nazi-German extermination camps, List of genocides by number of victims and so on. (Neither of which exist, obviously).

I have no problem constructing a dedicated category tree for use in the portal. If you don't mind, add the categories you think are useful/acceptable to Portal:Genocide/Categories, and we'll go from there.

And feel free to modify the wording in the subpage for the Armenian Genocide.

I should also point out that portals usually don't involve the creation of new material - they simply display work that has been created elsewhere. If articles on the wiki are deficient in some regard, that will be reflected in the portal, as portal editors usually crib the text directly from the articles (usually from the lead), rather than writing new text for use in the portal. It's obviously not problematic to clean up the text being used to adhere to wikipedia policies, but, for the most part, portals use what already exists. Carom 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this issue is far too sensitive for a portal, because of the editorial time it will take to keep it NPOV. Keeping the Genocides and Genocides in history half way mainstream encyclopaedic articles takes up a lot of time and the GiH is still a long way from NPOV, accurate and encyclopaedic. --PBS 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I second PBS in the belief that this subject is too problematic and potentially POV for a portal. The selected article I saw here was transcluded with the POV tag still on it! Too many articles linked from here are under dispute, and I fail to see how a portal can keep abreast of the shifting POV's on these articles. I suggest seeking further opinions before putting too much work into this, because I have a feeling it might get hit by Miscellany for deletion.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a POV-magnet.--cj | talk 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions to your self for example, "on the alledged Armenian genocide imples it was a genocide and that Turkey is wrong to dispute it." the Armenian Genocide was a genocide or else why would it be called that on Wikipedia? please abide by the rules see WP:WTA for the "alleged". The majority of scholars and historians agree it was a genocide and enough evidence is present the only thing stopping it from being called a genocide is Turkeys strong suppression of information. I am sure no one wants to debate this here right now so I will make it simple the information is fine, no where it implies that Turkey is wrong to dispute it, the text comes from a neutral website and third party source. I am really sorry that you deny the genocide, but that is your personal opinion with all due respect keep it in inside unless your willing to go for a heavy debate. Ashkani 09:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above see the Reuters article, it is written with a far better NPOV. The current wording is not of the Wikipedia article assumes that is was a genocide. As the word did not exist at the time no one was tried for Genocide and unlike the Holocaust a seizable minority dispute that it was a genocide, as their views are clearly respected by the UN (hence their willingness to address Turkey's concerns), and so should Wikipedia, as a major Wikipedia Policy is WP:NPOV. For this reason I am restoring the NPOV template until such times at these issues are addressed by alterations to the text. --PBS 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have copy edited the article added citations and removed what I thought was the non NPOV --PBS 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty excited and pleased that this became a portal but it seems to be a problem since some people feel its biased. There are tons of articles on wikipedia that people feel lack neutrality but they're still here. Just because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and some other Iranians think the Holocaust never happened doesn't mean we can't have a Holocaust page with the death tolls and all. Can you really appease everybody? No.

PBS, you seem to think that this crimes need to be subject to international inquiry, your right, not many have been, but it doesn't mean the information presented is wrong or invalid. Amerihay 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

From my talk page:

I have reverted back to articles 9 & 10. They are related to genocide. The relationship between 'genocide' and an 'internment camp' is that both seperate and discriminate against people simply because of who they identify themselves as- ie. Jewish, Japanese, Armenian, Communists, etc. THe difference between the two is that a genocide results from killing people based upon those catagories. Essentially, an 'internment camp'/'concentration camp' are often precursers to genocide - ie. the actual killing of people based upon identified catagories. Over the weekend I am going to clean up the articles a bit, though, to clarify that relationship a bit more. In part, the purpose of the two articles was to provide information on the differences/simularities between a concentration camp and an internment camp. --user:EricSRodrigues154 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In Portal:Genocide/Selected article Internment camps and concentration camps are not directly related to Genocide. If one include those why not churches which were used in the Rwandan Genocide? Internment camps and Concentration camps have been used frequently by the British without them being used for genocide. For example longkesh, operated by Britain under her municipal laws was not a precursors to genocide. Internment is a legitimate exercise under international law, as regulated in GCIV. As I said in the history of the edit "Concentration camps and internment not directly related to genocide".

I also strongly object to you (EricSRodrigues154) removing the POV from the top of the Portal:Genocide/Genocide news subpage without first discussing it in the previous section. With so many subpages to watch I am coming to the conclusion that this portal is POV honey trap and should be deleted. --PBS 07:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst Genocides

Links: I changed the links page, the "Worst Genocides" link was incorrect because many of the atrocities listed don't fit the definition of genocide. I added links to the Yale genocide studies program and the Institute for genocide studies. I also edited the quotes page (I did this yesterday because the quotes were from people such as Jon Corzine, which is totally bizarre). I changed the quotes to more appropriate people and cleaned the markups a bit. DuckyBaby2 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Which edit did you make to change "Worst Genocides" link I can not find it? On Portal:Genocide/Quote I have reverted to the last version by PBS see WP:V because "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". --PBS 19:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "worst genocide" link because it was completely wrong, many supposed "genocides" on the list didn't even begin to meet the legal or rational definitions of genocide. DuckyBaby2 04:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

From which page did you remove the "worst genocide" link? --PBS 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I also sources the quotes, the poem "First They Came" was written previously to the construction of the holocaust museum, so saying it came from there sourced to the author is a sort of ridiculous DuckyBaby2 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The given references are not adequate please see WP:CITE. --PBS 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

IAGS recognizes the Pontic Greek, Anatolian Greek, and Assyrian Genocides

On December 16th, 2007, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, with a consensus of more than 80%, passed a resolution recognizing the Pontic Greek, Anatolian Greek, and Assyrian Genocides, perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire between 1914 and 1923. A press release by IAGS with the full text of the resolution is here. The supporting documentation for the resolution is here. The relevant WP articles have been updated with the resolution itself. Supporting documentation may need to also be included. NikoSilver 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Genocide portal image

From the history of Portal:Genocide/Intro

07:20, 4 May 2009 Izzedine (an outrage that someone has created an emblem for Genocide)

Please explain why you think that an image is an "emblem for Genocide" and not just eye candy for the portal. --PBS (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Selected Biography

Currently, there is only one entry on the selected biography page of the genocide portal. I would like to add eight additional notable scholars in the field, with the hopes of people adding more as appropriate. It appears that the current format is just a cut and paste from Dr. Stanton's wikipedia page. It seems to me that this is not the format discussed in the templates outline, which would favour a more summarized approach with a direct link to the wikipedia page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Selected_biography . Is it appropriate for me to rework this section? I am a new user to wikipedia and do not want to step on anyone's toes.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Solgress (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You might find the list of names at Genocide definitions useful. -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The logo is in incredibly poor taste.

Hello, I just stumbled across this portal, and I found the logo to be in incredibly poor taste. In my opinion, a laurel wreath around a capital G with a nice underline is so completely out of touch with a topic like this, I find it disgusting. Can we really not find a more neutral logo, in fact, no logo (the default puzzle piece) is better than this. I don't know the way forward but before bringing it up at ANI or removing it myself I thought I posted this section here. Mvbaron (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron Would a clip art picture of the Auschwitz concentration camp be better? It is immediately identifiable with the subject matter and carries the somber overtones entailed. Alternatively, a skull would also seem proper given the connotations and immediately apparent symbolic meaning. I would like to propose both of these as alternatives to the current logo. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I forgot this thread. This has been resolved: the old logo was removed and replaced with the default portal logo. Between the two proposals you made, I don’t have a preference really. I’m also not involved with this portal at all, so I don’t think I’ll be of much help here. Mvbaron (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)