Talk:Genocide

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, sorry about that. I'm still fairly new to this.... Slava570 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries Kowal2701 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 , 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)

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)

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 "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

There are lots of sources on Scholar that make this distinction, this one looks good Kowal2701 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Slava570, I've sent an email Kowal2701 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Comments

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

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)

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)

as I think I said before, it follows the common aspects between most definitions. (t · c) buIdhe 13:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou, I must have missed this somehow. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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. 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 . 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)

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)

I don't think there is agreement on a specific numeric quantity, but I think there is agreement that a trivially small amount of damage to a group isn't genocide.

I don't think that relying on courts, which are looking at disparate circumstances and a totality of facts that may extend well beyond the number of deaths, is the right way to go about it. For one thing, from the POV of the court system, nothing is a crime (or a copyvio, for that matter) until the judge rules it to be one. You may have heard this one before:

Three baseball umpires are talking about their profession and the difficulty of making accurate calls in borderline cases. One says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as they are." The next feels a little professional humility is in order and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, and I call them as I see them." The third thinks for a moment and says: "Some are strikes, and some are balls, but they ain't nothing until I call them."

In the legal system, nothing is genocide until the judge calls it, and the judge's ruling makes it so. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks the judge called genocide on something that seems "small" to them or didn't call genocide on something that seems "big" to them; the ruling is dispositive.

Outside the legal system, scholars are free to craft their own definitions. I've seen none that say events, which taken collectively have no significant effect on the group's existence/cohesion/survival, are still genocide. There seem, however, to be conversations in the scholarly literature that talk about whether genocide requires large or very large damage to the group. Many scholars say that displacing a whole group can be genocide (e.g., Trail of Tears); none say that displacing a single person is genocide. I don't think the Wikipedia article should "stay silent" on this fact, because there appears to be pretty substantial agreement that the damage to the group must be substantial. The only think that there is disagreement over is whether a given set of events should be considered large enough – not over whether "large enough" is required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse quite a number of the arguments made by Buidhe above. particularly What is "small", or "substantial"? … I think it's best to say that there is little if any agreement on this issue.

May I suggest a way out of this impasse (and perhaps several others) could be, we start with a brief, but broad introductory sentence, (eg "genocide occurs when a human group is targetted in such a way as to lead towards the destruction of that group.) Then we refer to various 'variables' that happen typically/commonly/often. In this instance that would be something like; "While typically substantial numbers/a substantial part of the targetted group are harmed or killed, there is little agreement about how large and even whether etc …"

We could deal with several of the 'variables' in a similar fashion (including how the 'human group' have been and are defined).

We would in this way end up with a 3 or 4 sentence opening para, which IMO, would cover the spirit, if not the letter, of MOS guidelines and not give undue prominence to the legal or any other specific definition. Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion about whether _____ was "small", but I've seen no sources saying that if it was "small", then it's still genocide. Have you?

The point isn't "well, you have to put it through the mathematical formula in my article, and if the result is greater than 17 points, then it's objectively proven to have the amount of destruction to qualify as genocide".

The point isn't even whether anyone agrees on how much "small" is.

The point is that everyone agrees that genocide is never "small".

I realize some editors struggle with relative concepts, but "small" is like other relative concepts, such as "warm": It's a real concept, even if different people have different ideas about whether today's weather should be called "warm". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The point is that everyone agrees that genocide is never "small". No it isn't the point and no they don't agree in any meaningful sense, for the obvious reason that they don't agree how small 'small' is. How is it more informative than recording there is little if any agreement on this issue? Granted, they may all agree to not call it 'small' (or call it large?) but can't agree how big 'small' (or large) is. Pincrete (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we are moving into the realm of speculative fiction here. As the article itself states, Genocide is often called the "crime of crimes." The idea that some scholars would call it "small" is simply absurd, and not supported by Katz, Semelin, Harff, Gurr, Walliman, Dobkowski, Horowitz or Jones (who also noted that even for those who are silent on the issue, non-smallness is implicit.)

they don't agree how small 'small' is. that is completely irrelevant. We are not trying to define the word small. We are trying to define the word genocide, and scholars all agree: it is not small.

I think there's just nothing else to say about this unless you can find an actual scholar that supports this ridiculous idea and show us what language they use.

Your proposal for the first sentence is very bad and we are now moving further away from the will of the vast majority of editors who have said we need to include intent or intentional in the first line. It is basically no different than the terrible first line we have currently. The word intent/intentional is non-negotiable at this point. I think we should go back to our previous options and work from there. Slava570 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The RFC is not completed yet, and probably will not be closed for at least another 10 days. I agree that is the likely outcome, but until it is wrapped up, we should avoid editing that part. Regarding "small", I do agree with you. That should be in the lead, and just like "intent", we can go over what scholars mean by that and how they differ in the body. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Slava570 I'm not sure who this is addressed to. Perhaps you could clarify that. If mainly to me, perhaps you would care to re-read my posts since in parts you seem to have taken me to be saying the polar opposite of what I actually say. The idea of describing genocide as EITHER 'small' OR 'not small' are BOTH almost equally ridiculous IMO. The first is something that no one would ever say, the second is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Either use would be sub-simple Wikipedia. Buidhe's remark that "there is little if any agreement on this issue" may need amending, but it seems to be a better starting point about the issue, and is more informative than vague assertions about necessary 'bigness'. It may have the additional benefit of being confirmed by the article itself and (seemingly) by sources.

I understood that both you and others (inc me) were not wedded to the specific term 'intent', so long as intentionality were clear in some fashion. You now declare that the specific term is 'non-negotiable'. Even if you 'jump the gun' about the RfC outcome, it takes us no nearer to a clear, concise, reasonably comprehensive definitional opening sentence(s), which I thought was the underlying problem, rather than the presence or absence of any particular word.

The heading of this section is Finalizing the Lead (Remaining Options). While its content may be a fruitful, free-flowing discussion (the spirit in which I have contributed), what it definitely ISN'T is meaningfully any kind of 'finalization' nor have the options been pared down in any consensus based/citation based or agreed fashion to a small number of 'options that remain'. Nor have we IMO even identified yet what the problems are in a fashion that most (if not all) of us (and the sources) can agree on. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm so confused right now. Truly. I just don't understand how this can be possible that we are reading the same sentence in such opposite manners. In my view, "there is little if any agreement on this issue" is the exact OPPOSITE of what the sources above show. We have not seen evidence of a single source that DISAGREES; every single source so far AGREES that genocide cannot be small. OBVIOUSLY, we are not going to use a silly term like small in the lead sentence. This whole discussion is about whether we should add the word "significant" or "substantial."

I don't know how we got to this point when it seemed like we were making progress. I'm sorry if I did something to turn you against me, but we need to focus on the issues here. I think it would be most helpful to go back to the basics... Rather than full sentences, how about if we first decide what elements we want?

1. Intent/intentional (Yes, I am now wedded to intent. I see no advantage to using synonyms like deliberate/purposeful. Unlike other concepts, like "as such," I see no alternative ways of phrasing that still communicate intent.)

2. Total or significant (partial) destruction (if we absolutely must not use the word significant or substantial, it's not a dealbreaker for me, but I think it would help convey the accurate views of all or nearly all scholars)

3. a human group

4. "as such" or the idea that the group itself is targeted, rather than many individuals. I think targeted basically conveys this on its own, but the more I think about this, the more I think targeted is not quite enough and it would be better to expand on it at least a little, or even to write a separate sentence just to explain this more tricky part. But if we get stuck with just "targeted" I could still live with that.

Did I miss anything? Slava570 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, Did I miss anything?. Mainly the 'means' (from transfer of the young, through controlling the essentials of survival or reproduction up to actual mass killing) and which are typically or necessarily employed. Obviously this must be concise, but it isn't genocide unless things are actually done against the target group.

I presume by 'a human group' you mean defining the kind and scope of the group. How the 'target group' has been/is specified in legal and other definitions,

Every single source may agree that the extent of destruction cannot be trivial (small) and need not be total, but AFAIK, they don't agree on what that actually means. That is what I endorse about there being little if any agreement on this issue. If we really have to use a vague term like "substantial" (and if that is supported by the non-legal definitions), then so be it, but why not record that there is disagreement about the extent of destruction required? That is true even within the legal context. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

About the means. In reality I think we're not really talking about "means," at least not in the sense of machetes or gas chambers. We are really talking about outcomes, the result, the destruction consummated in the real world. For me this is mainly already covered under destruction.

The two most important elements here are intent and destruction. Intent is the mens rea, destruction is the actus reus. Destruction unifies both the legal and scholarly definitions, and allows for variation in subcategories of destruction, if that makes sense.

I'm open to alternatives to human groups, but I thought that was what you preferred.

It doesn't matter if there is disagreement about what "substantial" means. We don't have to define substantial. Readers can use the dictionary for that. We are just passing along to readers that this forms a part of nearly all scholarly definitions. I think this falls under Wikieditor662's letter F: WP:UNDUE plays an important part here. WP:LEAD states Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. Slava570 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that saying "there is no agreement about the minimum amount of destruction required" would be misleading. There appears to be quite a lot of agreement: it has to be large enough to affect the group.

To give an analogy: Mass murder, in some times/places/definitions, requires a minimum of three murders. In other definitions, it requires a minimum of four murders.

It would be wrong to say "There is no agreement about the amount of deaths for mass murder". There is, in fact, quite a lot of agreement: One, ten, 15, 20, 50, 100 – all the definitions agree on whether these numbers of victims is/isn't mass murder. The disagreement is ultimately very small: there is a difference of opinion about whether three victims is mass murder. For that one number, there is disagreement. But for all the other numbers, there is full agreement. People might disagree over whether "three" or "four" is the minimum, but they all agree that "one" isn't mass murder.

The size-of-genocide question is very similar. For most situations, there is widespread agreement: it (the sum total of all means used to destroy the group, whether that be killing people, sterilization, kidnapping children, suppression of language, religion, culture, etc – whatever means are used is) has to be "big"; it cannot be "small". People might disagree over whether "three" or "four" (arbitrary units; whatever the equivalent would be for the various means employed) is the minimum, but they all agree that "one" definitely isn't genocide and that "10" definitely is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, they all agree that "one" definitely isn't genocide and that "10" definitely is They actually agree that neither of these numbers would be genocide. Even 10,000 dead isn't a number that would necessarily be universally agreed on (Srebrenica was approaching 9,000 dead and required a ruling to even be heard by the court). Our article says: "The legal system has also struggled with how much of a group can be targeted before triggering the Genocide Convention", That's just within a legal context, I don't know about the broader use.

Of course I understand that a simple number or % beyond which either anyone or everyone thinks it is genocide isn't possible, but if I came upon an article saying that "a substantial/ significant part of the group had to be harmed/ destroyed for an event to qualify as genocide". I would be tagging substantial^{[clarification needed]} significant^{[not specific enough to verify]}.

Much more informative IMO is to acknowledge that: there is no universal agreement as to the extent of harm that needs to be done,(to qualify as genocide) but it is generally held that there must be sufficient harm as to damage the viability of the group (or somesuch).

Of course this doesn't supply a simple numerical 'formula' for establishing if any specific event qualifies as genocide (because none exists), but it does at least hint at the reasoning that would be employed to make that assessment. If I remember the judgement correctly, it was precisely that logic that led to the ruling at Srebrenica, which wasn't a simple numerical judgement and only applied to that specific event. Pincrete (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

The Holocaust is universally recognized as a genocide (meaning without a single dissenting voice AFAIK) and it resulted in the death of 66% of European Jews. So anything 66% and up is beyond the shadow of a doubt considered "significant" to all scholars. The real threshold for what is nearly universally accepted as genocide is much lower than that. But the idea that it matters whether the lowest threshold is 5% according to one scholar or 17.27% according to another scholar is a bit irrelevant. There can never possibly be a set percentage figure for what constitutes "significant." Instead scholars have to look at the totally of facts on a case by case basis and decide if it is significant. But we have seen that there is widespread consensus among scholars that the destruction must be significant, and we can convey that information to readers.

AFAIK This is also not a debate that any scholars are meaningfully engaging in outside the bounds of a particular real-world case (what is the precise percentage of destruction that constitutes "significant") so it's just not WP:DUE. We have limited real estate in the lead and defining "significant" would just be a huge waste of space imo. Sorry. Slava570 (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete, are analogies hard for you? If they are, I can try to avoid them. I specified that the numbers I used in that analogy were "arbitrary units". They're not a number of deaths or anything else; they are a way of talking about the concept of a relative amount, meaning a situation in which the number itself doesn't matter so much as the fact that one is bigger and the other is smaller.

As for you finding "substantial" and "significant" unclear or unverifiable, the fact is that when the reliable source uses the exact words "substantial" or "significant", or near synonyms, then that is trivial to verify. Your suggestion of "sufficient harm" (which I would also accept) is equally vague, and would also equally be equally verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No analogies aren't hard for me, I just don't find these particular analogies very helpful, not talking about the extent of harm done in relative terms (before an event is recognised as genocide). I'm sure I'm as capable as the next person of missing the point though. So, if so, apologies.

I recognised that the sufficient harm as to damage the viability of the group (or somesuch) is still numerically vague, but it does at least hint at the reasoning that would be employed to make an assessment that genocide had/had not occurred.

I know it's not our job to simply correct 'common misconceptions', but I know from editing on related pages that two such misconceptions are that genocide necessarily involves killing (in practice, in law, yes, in scholarship and in theory, no) and that genocide necessarily involves a certain number of dead (1=murder, 5=mass murder, X=massacre, X++=genocide), when of course the reality is more subtle and complex. Which is why judges get driven around in Rolls Royces and Bentleys, while the rest of us have to drive ourselves in Fords and Fiats! Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

But the more we go down this path, the more it becomes a thought exercise rather than being grounded in actual scholarly sources. I'm not sure there is scholarly agreement on what it means to damage the viability of the group. Does this mean total viability or partial viability? Does it mean temporary non-viability or permanent? And do the sources actually say this? So now we'll need to qualify the word viability.

We don't need to concretely define every single gray area of every word we use. Eventually it becomes a minor point. We can just use a word that scholars would all agree is correct without defining it for them. Slava570 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Slava, about the means. In reality I think we're not really talking about "means," Perhaps the word 'means' is unhelpful. Clearer might be 'acts'. Of course we cannot cover all the grisly methods comprehensively, but giving examples of types of acts by which the 'destruction of the group' is affected, clarifies (transfer of the young, controlling the essentials of survival or reproduction, mass killing), ditto saying that killings typically, but not necessarily occur.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to employ legal-ese, but it isn't 'destruction of the group' which is the 'guity act'. It's forcing abortion/contraception, or starving, or exterminating them. Destruction of the group is the goal, and (to a greater or lesser extent) the result. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that acts is the best term here. I think it would not be humanly possible to comprehensively list all the acts (the five legal acts, plus a range of additional acts accepted by a some scholars) in a concise lead. I also don't think it makes sense to list a few examples and leave out others because why wouldn't each have equal weight? It makes more sense to define them as a whole somehow. The basic idea that an "act" is committed. Otherwise, a concise summary. All I can think of would be something like "lethal or non-lethal acts."

I also think if we start adding all of these now five elements in a single sentence, we're setting ourselves up for certain failure. I think it probably can't be done without making the sentence so dense and long as to be practically unreadable. I can envision a scenario where the first three elements are in the first sentence, and the second sentence combines [acts] with [as such], something along the lines of "genocide occurs when [concise wording around acts]... against the group itself." Would that format work for you? Slava570 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I've always thought that a single sentence would never suffice and that (in places), it might be necessary to adopt an "ordinarily/in law/etc X, but in other instances Y" approach to 2nd and subsequent sentences.

I have no objections in principle to either the "genocide occurs when a human group is targetted such as to etc" or the bolder "genocide is the intentional destruction of a human group etc" approach. Obviously we then need to expand/clarify certain points, including (in no particular order) what human group meant/means, give examples of what may be done to them (acts), clarify that the group (rather than its members) are the target, and give some indication of what the necessary scale is to qualify as genocide.

Although it hasn't been our 'modus operandi' in working towards a definitional paragraph, we should bear in mind that the lead needs to be sourcable (even if not sourced) and should summarise the article body. Pincrete (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've thought about this more, and I think you're right. We will need multiple sentences, and that's ok. In all seriousness, I think we can create a very thorough lead with about 4 sentences. I also have a new idea for the second sentence. I'm adding something we haven't discussed before, so I'm absolutely fine with taking it out, but it solves a problem of reduncancy of the word targeted and incorporates two misconceptions about genocide (killing only+individuals rather than group).

Here is what I'm thinking for the basic skeleton:

sentence 1. [intent, total/significant partial destruction, human group]

sentence 2. A common misconception is that it is the large-scale killing of many separate individuals; however, genocide occurs when one or more specific lethal or non-lethal acts target the group itself.

sentence 3. [concise list of the five legal acts and scholarly additions]

sentence 4. [more on human group]

Any additions, subtractions, changes, general thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that would work for a first paragraph.

I mostly agree with Pincrete that correcting common misconceptions isn't the main point of an encyclopedia, but encyclopedias are supposed to educate, and we fail at that if people don't learn the facts. The difference in practice is largely the difference between "One common misconception is genocide requires killing people" (not our job) and "Genocide does not necessarily require killing people; widespread forced sterilization or the removal of children from their families and culture could also effectively destroy a group over time" (our job). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the approach, of not directly correcting misconceptions, but being aware of them when framing text. The language used probably needs to be a bit more 'generic', how about:

"Whilst the killing of a substantial part of the targetted group has been a feature of all genocide prosecutions,¹ other means of harming the group, such as preventing reproduction (among the group) are sometimes recognised as genocide" ²

¹ I believe this to be true, but would welcome confirmation ( have there been unsuccessful prosecutions ?)

² The UNGC definition explicty mentions 'preventing reproduction' & most scholarly definitions do so implicitly, both also include other harmful acts. Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

It's fine with me if we don't want to directly mention misconceptions. I have a couple of respectful critiques of this proposal.

1. In my opinion, the word "substantial" or "significant" should qualify the word "destruction," not "killing." Otherwise we would need to repeat it for each of the other acts.

2. I don't think we should mention "means" at all, and should only discuss "acts." Also, I don't think we should use the word "harm" at all, only "destruction."

3. I don't think we should focus on "prosecution" because many scholars discuss genocides over the course of human history that have not been and never will be prosecuted.

4. I don't think we should say "sometimes recognized as genocide" for sterilization, etc--is that not always recognized as genocide, since it's one of the five legal acts? It may not always occur, but it is always recognized when it does occur. Scholars add other acts, but I don't think they would ever subtract this one from their definition.

In my opinion, the previous "ordinarily" clause of this sentence was better: "While individual members of the group are ordinarily targeted, genocide occurs when the group itself is destroyed." Is there a way we can use this as our starting point and add something about sterilization, reproduction, etc into this? (the "in whole or in part" part can go in the first sentence now...) Slava570 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

About 3): I agree that a focus on prosecution is inappropriate, because it suggests that genocide never occurred before the 20th century. Modern courts can't reach back in time to prosecute Genocide in the Hebrew Bible and other Genocides in history (before 1490). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Reply to both, the only reason for mentioning prosecuted cases is that in practice (ie legally) genocide has always involved a significant number of killed, but neither the legal, nor other definitions explicitly require killing. The Uyghurs being a fairly rare example of a widely recignised case in which no one has been killed AFA we know. In practice both legal and non-legal have ordinarily involved killing, so we could simply circumvent the legal/scholarly distinction and record "ordinarily killings, sometimes other means/acts"

It is the other means of harming the group which sometimes qualify. This was an attempt to give an example, but at the same time indicate that there are innumerable acts that could qualify if suitably destructive.

My only attachment to specific words like means/acts is how they work best in any particular sentence. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you're saying. I do think we need to be careful with words like sometimes. Words like this can downplay. Also you wrote "sometimes recognized." That different than "sometimes occur." I replied more below...It's getting too hard to read here... Slava570 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

So I understand our purpose should not be to correct misconceptions, but to educate people. I have a new proposal that I think makes this work.

It seems to me that if you did a survey, something like 90% of the public would say that genocide means the killing of a lot of individuals. Whatever the percentage is, it’s an extremely widespread idea, and significantly more common than any legal or scholarly definition. And it’s not just me saying it, there are many sources we could find that confirm it, and it’s even written in the article itself in the section on non-lethal means: Although the popular view conceives of genocide as involving mass killing, according to many definitions, it may occur without victims suffering physical harm.”

We don’t have to say the popular view is a misconception. What if we just say it's simply another definition that exists, without saying whether it is right or wrong? This also allows us to introduce POVs. This is the popular POV, and the scholarly and legal POVs are…

So my proposal for sentence two is:

The popular view conceives of genocide as the large-scale killing of many separate individuals, but in the scholarly and legal fields, genocide occurs when one or more specific lethal or non-lethal acts target the group itself.

I prefer “large-scale” to “mass” killing because one of the main goals of this sentence is to explain what “as such” means. “Mass killing” to me seems to lump the killings into one event, whereas I think we just want to give the idea of a high number of separate individuals. Does that make sense?

(if the conjunction “but” makes it sound like we are correcting a misconception, we can also just put a semicolon there…) And maybe the ordinarily clause can go next: ordinarily killings, but non-lethal acts include… (If we do a third sentence like this, I would prefer not to use the word “sometimes” here, but if we have to I can live with it)

We were saying earlier that Wikipedia should have a slight bias towards scholarly views, but in this proposed sentence I don’t think putting popular views first gives it more importance. I think readers will actually think scholarly and legal views are more important (even if we don’t say that explicitly). I also think it’s interesting that we lead with where scholarly and legal views coincide rather than where they differ…

This second sentence would add about 36 words to the 292, so we’d still have more wiggle room after this. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

If something is a common misconception, we can say that; it could even appear in the List of common misconceptions, which typically requires a corresponding statement in the relevant article (i.e., in Genocide). However, it's usually best not to say "This is a common misconception" directly in the lead.

What do you think of something like "Genocide occurs when one or more destructive acts target the group itself; this can include non-lethal acts harming individual members, such as forced sterilization"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds a bit less overloaded with too many adjectives in a row. I wonder if it can say "specific acts," rather than destructive acts though? And also I wonder if we can we add a couple more acts here? What do you think of this: "Genocide occurs when one or more specific acts target the group itself; this can include killing as well as non-lethal acts such as forced sterilization and the forcible transfer children to another group." If we want we can add "Many scholars consider other acts like cultural genocide, etc." Slava570 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say "...including killing people...", but otherwise I think that's fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, that works for me too... Slava570 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are you referring to "specific acts" at all? The UNGC alone AFAIK uses that term, but even then they are more 'generic' than 'specific' (ie "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" rather than 'forced sterilization' ). In most cases (I believe) non-legal definitions, insofar as they are concerned about the 'means' at all, refer to, or imply, any act(s) that damage the group. I don't see how the word 'specific' is justified or what it adds. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. I feel like if we use "any acts" it needs the second part too... Would you be ok if it said "any acts that target the existence/viability of the group itself?" Slava570 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea of "acts that target the existence/viability of the group itself", but we'd need a new first half of the sentence, because "Genocide occurs when any acts target the existence or viability of the group itself..." doesn't sound good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

What if we went back to destructive acts then? Earlier I figured we would be using destruction in the first sentence... but maybe it's not really redundant if it's a different form of the word. Would it work if it said: "occurs when one or more destructive acts target the existence/viability of the group itself" Slava570 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Changing "any" to "one or more" solves the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult here, but I feel like there's still something awkward about the way it's worded that I can't quite put my finger on. What do you think about this proposal (moving acts out of the sentence altogether to then next one):

The popular view conceives of genocide as the large-scale killing of many separate individuals, but in the scholarly and legal fields, genocide occurs when the viability/existence of the group itself is targeted. Acts of genocide include killing as well as non-lethal acts such as forced sterilization and the forcible transfer of children to another group. Slava570 (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

So I would like to propose replacing the first sentence with this paragraph:

Genocide is the total or significant partial destruction of a human group, committed intentionally. The popular view conceives of genocide as the large-scale killing of many separate individuals, but in the scholarly and legal fields, genocide occurs when the viability of the group itself is targeted. Acts of genocide include killing as well as non-lethal acts such as forced sterilization and the forcible transfer of children to another group.

This would make the lead 351 words. The next paragraph has more info on "human groups." We could easily add a sentence about scholarly additions there, and stay under 400 words. Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks good, though it needs to either be cited to specific sources, or summarise content in the body (WP:LEADCITE). I'd remove significant and separate as awkward/redundant wording. The only thing not in the body appears to be about the viability of the group. I don't think the popular view is due (esp. since it's discussed in a lead image caption), though it's obv worth mentioning mass killing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think we can remove separate for sure. I'd also be fine with removing viability too (making it "occurs when the group itself is targeted"). I don't think we should remove significant though. It's not redundant since we haven't used it anywhere else, although it is slightly awkward to have two adjectives in a row. I think it's an important idea and supported by scholars, so I'd rather leave it. I don't see a better way to mention mass killing, while communicating that that in and of itself does not constitute genocide. It also provides an important counterweight to explain the second part of the sentence, so maybe it's not that in and of itself it is due, but just as a necessary preamble to the scholarly/legal views. Slava570 (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Might be worth just adding something on viability to the body, but I’ll let others weigh in Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:06, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I just thought of this but would it work to take out the word "partial" instead? ("the significant or total destruction of...") I'm fine with it either way. About viability, we could add something to the body later, then update the lead. To me the main objective here is to explain "as such" so it works without it for now... Slava570 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess if no one else weighs in about "significant" then I'll just take it out. I think it's important, though, and supported by scholars, so hopefully someone else will say something.

What is the procedure now that the RFC is over? Should I write a post to summarize the results? Slava570 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

we can either relist it by readding the RfC tag, or list it at Wikipedia:Closure requests for an uninvolved editor to assess consensus Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It says not to list if the outcome is obvious. Do you think I need to do this? If so I'll do it now. I'm counting 13 in favor, 1 Y/N, and 2 opposed.... Slava570 (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Slava570 There appears to be hesitation to include "Many scholars consider other acts such as cultural genocide, etc." and it ended up not being included. But this is the least controversial aspect, scrolling down a bit, there is paragraph as supported by most genocide scholars, which includes both intent to destroy (whether purposive or knowledge-based), and cultural genocide and structural violence:

Although left out of the Genocide Convention, most genocide scholars believe that both cultural genocide and structural violence should be included in the definition of genocide if committed with the intent to destroy the targeted group.[72]

Because most genocides especially historical ones are classified by genocide scholars instead of judges, the scholarly consensus should clearly be used. ~2026-12992-55 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be in favor of adding cultural genocide. There was some controversy about the word violence before, but I don't really know if that has to do with this. So this would be a fourth sentence right? What would the full sentence look like? Slava570 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Slava570 Indeed, the controversy of "targetted violence" above is because at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, sociologists agreed that violence have exactly two types, physical violence and structural violence. Genocide scholars neatly adopted this, because structural violence is well-defined and does cover a wide array of categories such as political, social, cultural, economic means that were originally proposed. The fourth sentence could be "In the scholarly field, both cultural genocide and structural violence, committed intentionally, are included." ~2026-12992-55 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the lead is a summary of the article, rather than a summary of the subject per se. Effectively, this means that 'cultural' genocide can only be covered to the extent, and in the manner, that it is covered in the body. Pincrete (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

(same temp account as above here)While it is less than ideal that a genocide article quibles a lot about definitions and scope, this actually takes a lot of space in the body and scholarly sources, and the lead is already relatively restrained in a good way for me. ~2026-13057-43 (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell, cultural genocide is mentioned in the Crime section, the Definitions section (which you quoted above), and the Non-lethal means section. AFA I can tell, structural violence is only mentioned in that one place. In the quote above it also says "most genocide scholars" and there's a source for this claim.

I'm not saying the simplest solution is necessarily the best solution, but I think the simplest solution would be to add cultural genocide to the end of the third sentence rather than creating a fourth sentence. The third sentence could say: "Acts of genocide include... non-lethal acts such as forced sterilization, the forcible transfer... and cultural genocide." Thoughts? Slava570 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Slava570 That would indeed be a simple solution. If simplicity is the goal, I think the invocation of crimes against humanity in the body is quite apt, and it covers a large swath of what scholars agreed on. The new lead paragraph could be:

Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group, committed intentionally. The popular view conceives of genocide as the large-scale killing of many individuals, but in the scholarly and legal fields, genocide occurs when the group itself is targeted. Acts of genocide include killing as well as other crimes against humanity.

~2026-13057-43 (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't say I love this idea, as the term "crimes against humanity" is not immediately understood either. For me the goal is a balance between simple, easy to understand langauge and thoroughness... Slava570 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the term could be linked, or be replaced with plain "(gross) human rights violations", but I'd like to imagine if I've never heard of crimes against humanity and I see "Acts of genocide include killing as well as other crimes against humanity", I'd have the impression that crimes against humanity to be some sort of human rights violations, which is as plain English as it gets, and thorough, and I may or may not click on the link to learn more. ~2026-13140-76 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say crimes against humanity is a broader term than genocide. Not all crimes against humanity would be considered genocide. The crimes against humanity distinguishes these crimes from genocide, so I think this wording would actually confuse more than clarify... Slava570 (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The distinguishing factor is that acts of genocide would be "targetting a group" (could be added at the end of the sentence). Crimes against humanity could kill millions and not be genocide, while the Uyghur case with virtually no kills is clear-cut genocide. The acts are relatively broad, but the intent against a human group is what makes it "crime of crimes", as you and most scholars and the consensus here have said. ~2026-13140-76 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that, but it's a lot of backstory that readers aren't going to have. If someone comes to this with no prior knowledge of what genocide is, I think they're going to come away confused as to the distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity. I would support figuring out how to add in cultural genocide though, if that's what you want to do... Slava570 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you could go with something like the one you suggested at 12:51, 28 February. ~2026-13057-43 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

break

Buidhe, can I ask what your ideal first sentence/definition would be? Would it still be the current one? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any options that have been presented would be better than the current version. On the one hand we have proposals that are likely to mislead readers, an aspect that other editors seem to be ignoring, and on the other hand we have proposals that would result in devoting an inordinate amount of space to definitions in the lead. (t · c) buIdhe 22:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

What do we do for other articles that have wildly disputed definitions and complex disagreements about them? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

pinging our resident 'thought experiment' expert Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the most popular option is to over-focus on the disagreements. That could sound something like "Genocide refers to harming a group of people. There are many different definitions and there is no agreement on what constitutes genocide, harm, a group, whether accidental genocide is possible, how much harm is necessary, and many other things."

One thing that sometimes helps, but often isn't forthcoming, is for people to talk about why a particular lens appeals to them. That can help other people figure out what they're missing.

For example, as we identified above, a focus on killing people leaves out the destruction of an ethnic group via forced sterilization or assimilation. Or someone may be concerned about what's sometimes called eugenics and sometimes called prenatal genocide (the loss of a cultural group such as autistic people, trans women, gay men, etc. due to abortion). An editor might not feel comfortable disclosing this for fear of being branded anti-abortion, but there are real-world reasons to expect that if prenatal diagnoses become possible, then abortions will soon follow. For example, Down syndrome has become so rare in some areas due to prenatal screening and subsequent abortion that support programs are being dismantled, young people are less likely to know anyone with Down syndrome, and sometimes total strangers feel free to tell parents that their child should never have born. If we heard the equivalent for Jewish people, we'd find that very sinister and chilling. The situation in Iceland has been overstated (the government there reports two or three babies being born each year with Downs, but it's a small country, so fewer than 10 would normally be expected, and their percentage of 'missing' Down's babies isn't the highest in Europe), but it's likely that a Down's diagnosis results in more abortions than live births there. The relationship between eugenics and genocide isn't simple, and if you have a concern like this, then a first-sentence definition that says it's only genocide if the government is systematically killing members of an ethnic group, so parents aborting the next generation of a cultural group doesn't count, would probably feel like defining your concerns out of existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I forgot that you asked for examples of other articles. Here are some examples, off the top of my head:

Sex was eventually solved with an RFC showing strong support for treating humans like any other sexually reproducing organism, and thus the core biological definition was instituted in the lead, with a clarification that this is a matter of conventional definition: whatever portion of a species makes larger gametes is the female portion, with no exceptions. Thus we re-frame the article away from whether any given individual was correctly assigned to the male or female part of the species, but instead about which part of all members of that species is conventionally called male or female.

Abortion was solved by editors declaring miscarriages and other types of unintended pregnancy loss to be Abortion#Types and therefore in scope, but Late termination of pregnancy to be non-abortions and therefore mostly out of scope for that article. Some editors support this arrangement to blur the line in the public mind between miscarriage and voluntary induced abortion, and, having pushed their POV at the top, it is not carried through to most of the rest of the article. So this is another approach: dispense with the divisive bit in the title/early in the article, and then ignore it for the rest.

Trans woman was solved by a series of RFCs that failed to show consensus for the current first sentence and that also failed to show consensus for changing anything, so we decided not to change anything. I suppose that this is more of a deadlock than a solution.

Alternative medicine was solved by prioritizing sources with a POV that matches the typical denizen of WP:FTN and therefore declaring it to be 'medicine that doesn't work' instead of 'medicine that isn't conventional or mainstream'.

Feng shui was similarly solved by ignoring complexity and imposing a western-scientism POV (it's not superstition; it's pseudoscience!).

Gamergate was solved via drama and subsequent regret, which brought a different group of editors to the article. Given the recent drama at Gaza genocide, that might be a viable path here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess from that and from looking at main articles of entries in Category:Definitions, the convention is to reduce complexity, so going with an unattributed sentence is probably the way forward. Not happy about it though. It’s even difficult to present the POVs in the first paragraph because they require context about the Genocide Convention, and our current lead doesn’t even present scholarly POVs on the definition Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think if we added a 5th sentence somewhere after the first 2 which discussed scholarly POVs?

Another option is to add a sentence, but also to discuss scholarly POVs in all 3 of the final sentences. Scholars adding categories of acts, categories of human groups, and a sentence being a general statement on scholarly takes on intent. We could talk about a minority of scholars wanting to infer intent in destructive outcomes, etc. (I only found that 1, but there might be others in the final 3)

Also, for a new intent sentence, rather than focusing on genocide scholars, sociology scholars, etc, we could also just focus on the views of legal scholars, with a very general statement saying that a minority of legal scholars advocate a looser standard for proving intent (a nod to the knowledge-based approach), with a link to the genocidal intent page for more info. These are just ideas. I'm of course open to other ideas as long the overall paragraph doesn't get too sprawling. What do you think? Slava570 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

We probably need to be using {{efn}}s. The lead is currently 300 words, a bit below the 400 recommended at MOS:LEAD (some WP:FAs have 700 words), but it's not loads to play with. We've also got to keep content on definitions proportional to the other aspects covered in the article's body (which efns would help with). I think the current lead gets the proportion about right Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I just did a very rough draft for myself of what the five sentences would look like. It was not well written, so I don't want to share, but it was just to estimate what the word count would look like. It ended up being well under 400 words. The first two sentences as proposed above are 42 words, so if the goal is 400, that leaves around 350 for the last three sentences. If we can keep the whole thing to under 400, would that work for you? If not, I'd be ok with your suggestion as well. Slava570 (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

400 is for the whole lead, so for the current first sentence and second paragraph, something like 100-150 words would probably be good. We could just rewrite the current first sentence and then add an efn note after Its definition remains contested by scholars and institutions across international law, history, sociology and related fields which elaborated on the scholarly POVs? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The current lead is 292 words. If we take out the first ten words and replace them with the approximately 42 words above, that brings us to 324. Much of the info from the remaining sentences is already at least partially there in the current lead. If we just worked on adding whatever we think is missing, up to about 75 extra words, would that work? In that case, can we do this in stages, and just replace the first sentence with these two new sentences and figure out the rest little by little? Slava570 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's good Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)