Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Gladiator

2008-02-24T01:17:30Z

JOwen: cat.

A '''Gladiator''' was a combatant in [[ancient Rome]] who fought, often to the death, for sport and as a game for those who watched, and did not profit from it. It came from the Roman word ''gladius'' or short sword, the weapon that was used in regular army combat. Gladiators themselves could fight with a number of different weapons, and having varying weapons often made the games more 'exciting'.

Gladiator contests were common through most of the time of Rome, spanning a time period of hundreds of years. The Roman [[Colosseum]] had many gladiator contests, some of them quite ingenious Some games were quite costly. Many were sponsored by the state or paid for by rich individuals. Games could be held in honor of someone who died or for important events, like a military victory.

Gladiators were usually prisoners of war or slaves. Highly successful gladiators could be known to earn their freedom.

One of the most famous gladiators was [[Spartacus]], not because of his fighting in the arena, but because of the slave revolt he led during the later [[Roman Republic]] that took more than a year to put down.

It took over a century, from [[Constantine]] in 325 to [[Valentinian III]] in 438 for the games to be terminated.

==External links==
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=pqSdA92CAOMC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=early+christians+condemned+the+gladiatorial+games+and+military+service&source=web&ots=SrD-8fY4YK&sig=JYonQ_2sB71fzltBpFs7HR_rhdo#PPA119,M1 Sport in Ancient Times]

[[Category:Roman Empire]]
[[Category:Professions]]

User talk:HMayo

2008-02-24T01:16:32Z

JOwen: New page: {{welcome}} --~~~

{{welcome}}

--[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Soldier

2008-02-24T01:16:07Z

JOwen: cat. + small expansion - peacekeeping, etc.

A [[Soldier]] is a member of an [[army]], who engages in military action/operations, and profits from it.

[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Politician

2008-02-24T01:14:49Z

JOwen: cat.

A '''politician''' is one who participates in [[politics]], and profits from it.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Lawyer

2008-02-24T01:13:57Z

JOwen: cat.

[[Image:BenitoJuarez.jpg|right|Benito Juarez, a lawyer-turned-politician]]
'''Lawyer''' a person learned in the law; as an attorney, advocate, [[counsel]] or [[solicitor]]; a person licensed to practice [[law]], and profit from it. (Black's Law Dictionary). It was [[Rome]] who developed a class of specialists who were learned in the law, known as jurisconsults (''iuris consulti'').

::''A person, who through a regular program of study, is learned in legal matters and has been licensed to practice his or her profession. Any qualified person who prosecutes or defends causes in courts of record or other judicial tribunals, or who renders legal advice or assistance in relation to any matter.''

Lawyer as Advocate is one that pleads in another's behalf; an intercessor.

::''To support or defend by argument; to recommend publicly. An individual who presents or argues another's case; one who gives legal advice and pleads the cause of another before a court or tribunal; a counselor. A person admitted to the practice of law who advises clients of their legal rights and argues their cases in court.'' <ref> [http://www.answers.com/topic/advocate?cat=biz-fin Law Encyclopedia] West's Encyclopedia of American Law, published by Thomson Gale. </ref>

In most countries, the [[government]] exercise control over official lawyers in order to ensure a steady supply of loyal judges and bureaucrats of the [[Ministry of Justice]]. Common lawyers have traditionally regulated themselves (voluntary associations), despite nominal state control.

::''A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns'' Mario Puzo (b. 1920), U.S. novelist. <ref> [http://www.enotes.com/famous-quotes/a-lawyer-with-his-briefcase-can-steal-more-than-a Famous Quotes] eNotes.com, Inc. </ref>

== See also ==
*[[Solicitor General]]
*[[Attorney]]
*[[Maximilien de Robespierre]]
*[[Attorney general]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.lectlaw.com/ref.html Lectric Law Library] REFERENCE ROOM.
*[http://encyclo.findlaw.com/ Read the Encyclopedia of Law and Economics Online] ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW & ECONOMICS.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Writer

2008-02-24T01:13:08Z

JOwen:

[[Image:CNarnia.jpg|right|140px]]
A '''writer''' is someone who writes things, like an [[author]] or [[journalist]], and profits from it.

Writing used to requires an physical instrument to write with and an physical object to write on, but in the [[internet]] age, writing has changed to have a large electronic component to its nature.

[[Category:Writing]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Professions]]

Scientist

2008-02-24T01:12:44Z

JOwen: cat.

A scientist is someone who practices science, and profits from it.

The invention of the word ''scientist'' is often credited to [[William Whewell]] (1794-1866), who was himself a scientist as well as a moral philosopher and Anglican priest. In 1858, he wrote:

:As we cannot use ''physician'' for a cultivator of physics, I have referred to him as a ''Physicist.''
:We need very much[sic] a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a ''Scientist.'' Thus we might say that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.<ref>Whewell, William (1858), ''Novum Organon Renovatum: Being the second part of the philosophy of the inductive sciences,'' J. W. Parker and Son, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22881657&id=xYMKAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA14-PA338&lpg=RA14-PA338&dq=%22william+whewell%22+scientist p. 338]</ref>

Prior to this, scientists were usually called "natural philosophers" or "natural historians." (The oldest scientific journal in the world, established in 1665, is entitled ''Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.'' Among its early numbers are letters from Leeuwenhoek describing his discovery of microorganisms).

Many scientists have held a belief in God or been devout Christians ([[Isaac Newton]]<ref> http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html</ref> or monk Gregor Mendel<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/pm/Gregor_Mendel.html</ref>). Modern science is considered by some adherents of traditional [[Christianity]] to be ungodly, as it attempts to explain phenomena without reference to God. A 1998 study indicates that among U. S. scientists belief in God has declined between 1914 and 1998, with 7% believing, 72.2% disbelieving, and 20.8% professing doubt or agnosticism.<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:science]]
[[Category:Professions]]

User talk:HBCarter

2008-02-24T01:11:43Z

JOwen: New page: {{welcome}} --~~~

{{welcome}}
--[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Writer

2008-02-24T01:11:20Z

JOwen:

Abortionist

2008-02-24T01:09:51Z

JOwen: I don't see why 'abortionist' shouldn't have the medicine category ...

An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits) from [[abortion]].

[[category:medicine]]

File talk:Wikipedia religion.png

2008-02-23T22:57:21Z

JOwen:

Er ... not really. This only shows the people who ''advertise'' their religion via userbox; more people register on wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newusers_per_day.svg ''every day''] than the total 3687 listed here. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]
:Well then maybe... religious Wikipedians are pressured into not advertising their religion on a predominantly [[atheist|secular]] website. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:57, 23 February 2008 (EST)
::In which case the graph would still be wrong. Nice try though :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::As an aside, could the author reupload this picture without the legend? Since there's only one data series it's not necessary, and just adds a lot of extra white space. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:01, 23 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yeah, I just used the categories of those that declared their religion. It's still an extremely large number, either way you look at it. [[User:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]] ([[User talk:Wahrheit|talk]]) 17:31, 23 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Fairly [[Deceit|intellectually dishonest]], though - the number of unaccounted-for users numbers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 6.5 million], and we thus can make no accurate, verifiable, or encyclopedic statements about them based on this evidence. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]
:::::I tried to upload one without the whitespace but it was "protected". The whitespace free version is [[:Image:Wikipedia religion 2.png|here]]. [[User:Wahrheit|Wahrheit]] ([[User talk:Wahrheit|talk]]) 17:34, 23 February 2008 (EST)

File talk:Wikipedia religion.png

2008-02-23T21:43:43Z

JOwen: New page: Er ... not really. This only shows the people who ''advertise'' their religion via userbox; more people register on wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newusers_per_day.svg ''eve...

User talk:Testingtesting

2008-02-04T23:37:03Z

JOwen: New page: {{welcome}} 1, 2, 3. --~~~

{{welcome}}

1, 2, 3. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Talk:Suharto

2008-01-27T22:02:05Z

JOwen: New page: Will someone please explain to me how Suharto was a liberal? --~~~

Will someone please explain to me how Suharto was a liberal? --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Talk:Evangelical Christians

2008-01-06T21:18:20Z

JOwen:

Are you suggesting that deceit can advance Christianity? I hope not! [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:No. But thank you for pointing out how badly worded that was. Hope it is better now. Godspeed [[User:ArthurDent|ArthurDent]] 18:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Evangelical Christians do not censor others, in contrast to the censorship demanded by [[evangelical atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:06, 6 January 2008 (EST)

::Whether atheists ask for any censorship is a different fact altogether. There was no mention of censorship in the definition any way. This is ideological suppression. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:09, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Undoing citation needs ==
Those statements need citation. Many atheists have superior knowledge of bible compared to Christians. Also Christianity and democracy are not related. Christianity has been traditionally imperialistic. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:05, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: Perhaps some atheists do have good knowledge of the [[Bible]]. But on average, evangelicals spend more time reading and studying it, and thus knowing it, than other groups, including atheists. Poll the atheists here and see when the last time they read or heard passages in the Bible was. It won't be as recent as when evangelicals have.

: Your second point is absurd. Even atheists and liberals admit that democracy is intrinsically related, both historically and logically, to Protestant Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Further, democracy and Christianity have been intrinsically related for all of American history; "as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on..."-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:20, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:: That is absolutely not true. The origin of democracy can be traced even before Christianity. Democracy started in ancient Greek philosophy. It was initially classified by [[Plato]]. Ancient forms of democracy was even prevalent in Ancient Indian civilisation,again before the advent of Christianity. Modern democracies like British democracy came due to the ruthless actions of the king, nothing to do with Christianity. Democracy is a secular institution. Can you provide citations regarding any of the above claims? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:33, 6 January 2008 (EST).
Maybe democracy in the abstract is secular, but democracy as applied by Americans is most certainly Christian!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)

America? Why should you mention America? There are Evangelical Christians all over the world. Even that statement about is not true. Do you think that other belief groups like atheists are less democratic?--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:48, 6 January 2008 (EST)

: JBuscombe, this is silly. Historically democracy never succeeded without Christianity, primarily in the founding of America and then it spread to Europe and then India. Other belief systems do not have democratic traditions. Atheistic communism is markedly NOT democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:17, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::The Swedish seem to do quite well. Also, at evangelical sites (not this one) I always seemed to get shouted down by evangelicals for bringing up too much analysis of the original Koine Greek, making the first point somewhat dubious. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Carbonic acid

2008-01-02T02:33:42Z

JOwen:

Carbonic acid is [[carbon dioxide]] dissolved in water, forming a [[weak acid]] with formula H2CO3. Its pH under normal concentration is 5.65.

It is the main component in naturally occurring [[acid rain]].

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Carbonic acid

2008-01-02T02:33:30Z

JOwen: New page: Carbonic acid is carbon dioxide dissolved in water, forming a weak acid with formula H2CO3. Its pH under normal concentration is 5.65. It is the main compone...

Cave

2008-01-02T02:30:34Z

JOwen: New page: A cave is an air- or water- filled void beneath the ground, where there is insufficient rock to prevent (but not inhibit, or many cavers would lack challenges) human access. They can ...

A cave is an air- or water- filled void beneath the ground, where there is insufficient rock to prevent (but not inhibit, or many [[caver]]s would lack challenges) human access.

They can be formed by

*acidic rainwater, often weak [[carbonic acid]], eroding away large of rocks such as [[limestone]].
*[[lava]] cooling and solidifying - either in bubbles, or when the crust of a lava flow solidifies, while the still-liquid lava underneath moves on.
*[[waves]] - on coasts, waves can pound out caves in cliffs.

[[Category:Geography]]

Freshwater

2008-01-02T02:24:06Z

JOwen:

'''Freshwater''' is a term used to describe bodies of [[water]] that do not contain large amounts of salt such as oceans. An example of a freshwater region is a [[lake]].

When salt water mixes with freshwater, it forms brackish water.

[[Category:Water]]

Talk:School prayer

2008-01-02T02:22:51Z

JOwen: another thought

== Is it not secular? ==

Andy,

Is it not a secular culture keeping government and religion apart? Not an atheistic culture as you claim.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: "Secular" means public, and reflects public beliefs, as in saying the Pledge of Allegiance, reciting a prayer during the beginning of a congressional session, or swearing in a new president through use of a [[Bible]]. Public schools are more properly described as [[atheistic]], where religion is affirmatively censored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: Also how would you feel if you are forced to sit through a Muslim prayer led by the teacher every day? Now, do you get the point? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: There is a prohibition on prayer in [[public school]], and it is deceitful to pretend otherwise. The prayers that start legislative sessions through the [[United States]] cannot be said to start the schoolday or a class in [[public school]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Are you happy for your child to be forced to sit through an islamic prayer led by a Muslim teacher every day? --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:35, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: 5 times a day, actually. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 14:39, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Not necessarily - the dawn, sunset, and dusk ones would probably not be during the school day, unless one was boarding/homeschooling. Also, in an avowedly liberal school over here in the UK, I can pray whenever I want, so long as it doesn't disrupt teaching. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Talk:School prayer

2008-01-02T02:21:29Z

JOwen:

Travelling Salesman Problem

2007-12-28T20:35:58Z

JOwen: New page: The Travelling Salesman Problem is a problem that seeks to find the shortest way of getting through a network, starting from any point, visiting every other point, in the shortest ...

The [[Travelling Salesman Problem]] is a problem that seeks to find the shortest way of getting through a [[network]], starting from any point, visiting every other point, in the shortest time. It is commonly modelled as a network of [[arc]]s and [[node]]s.

It is a common example of an [[algorithm]] that has to be solved [[heuristic]]ally; while it is possible to solve it with brute force, by trying every single route and finding the shortest, this is impractical, since the number of routes increases [[factorial]]ly; while a 3-node network has only 6 routes, a 10-node one has 3,628,800.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Heuristic

2007-12-28T20:28:46Z

JOwen:

The Merriam-Webster Online [[Dictionary]] states the following regarding the word '''heuristic''': "involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/heuristic</ref>

Heuristic algorithms and processes are ones which, although they might not come up with the optimal solution, demonstrably result in a fairly good/accurate one.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:education]]
[[category:psychology]]

User talk:Dolittle

2007-12-28T20:22:59Z

JOwen: New page: {{welcome|Dr Doolittle}} Oh, you're here as well? Quick tip - I don't think that the anti-religious stuff will go down that well here. Jes' sayin'. --~~~

{{welcome|Dr Doolittle}}

Oh, you're here as well? Quick tip - I don't think that the anti-religious stuff will go down that well here. Jes' sayin'. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Consumerism

2007-12-28T17:10:59Z

JOwen:

'''Consumerism''' is when the consumption of [[goods]] and [[services]] in a culture increases to an extent beyond what people need; the suffix '-ism' denotes the observation that many critics make that consumer society often functions as a quasi-[[religious]] experience, providing comfort and a goal in life.
[[category:economics]]

User talk:User1601

2007-12-28T17:07:58Z

JOwen:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:00, 28 December 2007 (EST)}}

Just be careful. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:00, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Just wanted to drop by to congratulate you at your work on the talk page! Even if your arguments aren't taken onboard, at least you've made people think. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Genocide

2007-12-12T18:56:47Z

JOwen: But that's simply not genocide. You are claiming that it is mass-murder; while all genocides are mass murder, not all mass-murder is genocide.

'''Genocide''' involves the calculated targeting and killing of a specific ethnic group, or any huge deliberate killing of civilians carried out as a consequence of government policy. The word "genocide" was coined by Rafael Lemkin in his 1944 book ''Axis Rule in Occupied Europe'' to describe the mass killings of European Jews by the Nazi regime. (See Samantha Power, ''A Problem From Hell.'')

==20th century genocides==

20th century examples include:

*1916-1917: The Ottoman and Turkish genocide of the [[Armenia]]ns
*1932-1933: The Soviet genocide of the Ukrainians ([[Holodomor]])
*1939-1945: The Nazi [[Holocaust]]
*1975 - 1978: The Killing Fields in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge
*1995: Hutu genocide of the Tutsi population in [[Rwanda]]<ref>http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/</ref>

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to ''Le Monde'' and more than 100 million people according to ''The Black Book of Communism''.

==International conventions==

In 1948, The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide":

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Despite this lip service the United Nations has failed to recognize the events in the [[Darfur]] region of [[Sudan]] as genocide. [[Amnesty International]], and the [[African Union]] likewise only acknowledge the "tragedy" in Darfur but refuse to characterize the situation as genocide. Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) director Jean-Hervé Bradol called the term genocide "inappropriate" and its deputy emergency director Dr. Mercedes Taty said, ''"I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict." ''{{fact}}

The European Union and the United States government both officially recognize Darfur as genocide.

The term applies mostly to mass killings since the beginning of the 20th century, although throughout history there have been many cases of bloodshed like this. Even in the Bible, there was the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God instructed them "...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." ([[Deuteronomy]] 20:16).

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

2007-12-12T17:52:24Z

JOwen: will expand later, when I have a little more time.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was a document published by the [[International Criminal Court]], and came into force in April 2002. It sets out a legal definition for [[genocide]], and a framework for its [[prosecution]].

==Full text==
[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court The full text of the Rome Statute]

Talk:Genocide

2007-12-12T17:43:38Z

JOwen: /* Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia */

Genocide can refer to the killing of cultural, political, or religious groups too. Thanks. [http://library.thinkquest.org/13915/gather/glossary.htm] --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: I thought that that was referred to as ethnocide. Still, it usually ends up the same, though. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::Deleted phrase
:::''but has yet to take any concrete steps to resolve.''
::What is is this supposed to mean, is the US govt supposed to bring vicitms back from the grave in order to "resolve" a genocide? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Word of caution==
I would caution against over reliance upon citations to the United Nations as being some sort of authoritve or definitive source on this subject; this may have the unintended consequence of nobody taking an issue of such vital importance as serious at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Definitions and editorialisation ==

1. It was not an attempt to define genocide, it was one of mant possible definitions of the term. For others, see Chalk and Johnasson, Kuper, etc. 2. Removed editorialisation re: MSF.They are beyond any doubt a humanitarian group. One may question their politics and their methodology, but that does not make them any less humanitarian.

The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that '''Arabs''' are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any sources to document your claims? Read Alex de Waal's book on the subject, as well as maybe the article in the most recent issue of the Atlantic Monthly to get a sense of the role of racial identity in the Darfur situation. Are you aware that the victims -the Darfurians - are Muslims? The binary of African and Arab, besides being a part of the legacy of colonialism, is a simplistic way of understanding a conflict with deep political, economic and yes, to a certain degree, ethnic roots. But to just say "it's because Arabs are doing the killing" does no justice to what's actually going on. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 11:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::It is the structure of the article that causes the concern: we have two sentence Introductory parargraph followed by this statement,
:::''The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide"''
::This is clearly problematic. It creates the unfounded and baseless assertion for an unenlightened student that the Untied Nations is some sort of supra-national authority. It is pure propagandizing. There is no problem discussing the UN's role in its various paper resolutions over the years somewhere within the article, but not preseting it as authoritve of definitive. I would suggest either immediately expanding the article with some substance, or temporarily removing these references to the United Nations until such a time the undue weight is no longer a problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== History ==

I am a little puzzled on why this site wishes to start in the 20th century, rather than reveal atrocities of the earlier periods, e.g. 19th century, Medieval and Ancient periods.
: By all means add older examples then. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 11:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::My definition as to what communism is all about is the Berlin Wall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:26, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

== EDIT == This article has a '''VERY'''..ah, ignorant point of view on Communism. "Communism killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to Le Monde and more than 100 million people according to the Black Book of Communism." Communism itself has nothing to do with this. In theory, communism is strongly considered the BEST form of government. However, because humans are naturally greedy, someone WILL sieze power, and corrupt that which is pure. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many other dictators and their cohorts brought about the death of millions of people. To assume Communism as a political means of governments killed these people is absurd and an injustice.
[[User:Magtheridon|Magtheridon]] 22:10, 30 July 2007 (EDT) == END EDIT ==

:Put new section edits at the bottom please... A system may be great in theory, but if practical application with the human condition causes a warped volatile mixture, then we must report what occurs from it, not its theory. From its conception until it was put into practice starry eyed intellectuals could talk of the great things to come, but we have seen the reality, and it isn't nearly as pleasant. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:46, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::User:Magtheridon has been blocked and I was going to revert his comments. We don't need this kind of trolling. He's a Stalinist holocaust denier, appologist for [[mass murder]], and accuses ''us'' of injustice. We don't need to listen to a warped, sick, mind like this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

*Good work with this Rob. I second your thoughts. We do not need anyone trolling like this, and if they really are that ignorant, they have nothing of value to offer this project. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ -- ₮К]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:13, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== the worst genocides ==

i don´t think we should compare genocides here. for the armenian people, the genocide commited by the young turks was the most horrible, for the jews it was the holocaust. we should explain what a genocide is and we should give some examples. thank you [[User:Toolsyoucantrust|Toolsyoucantrust]] 06:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:When they talk about the worst, they are talking numerically. It's not that some deaths have a different weight than others, it's just that some people killed many more. Stalin is considered to be the biggest mass murderer in history, eliminating about 20 million people. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::if you´re talking about the number of victims, i don´t even know, if you´re right. as far as i remember, there were more chinese killed or starving under [[Mao Zedong ]] than under stalin. but if you compare for example the quota/percentage of the killed people, probably rwanda was worse, the holocaust sure was and the armenian genocide also was worse. if one and a half million of a two-million-people are killed, this is probably ''worse''. if almost every jew in germany is killed (about 6 million out of ???) , this is probably ''worse'' than killing 20 million chinese out of 500 million. i don´t like top-ten-lists too much, but if you want compare, you should write: chinese genocides: xx million victims, stalin/russian genocides: xxmillion victims. [[User:Toolsyoucantrust|Toolsyoucantrust]] 15:32, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Rwanda ==

I would agree that the Rwanda killings of 1994 constituted genocide. I'm not too familiar with the other two contested ones, though. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)
:I second Dan's opinion - Dan you beat me to saying it! (And I also second not being too sure about the other ones)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:31, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Bosnia, Rwanda, and Cambodia==

These events are unquestionably genocide, and I'm unclear as to why they were removed. [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/world/europe/27hague.html Here] is a link which demonstrates that the International Court of Justice has officially declared the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995 as genocide. +

The Khmer Rouge murdered between 1.5 and 2 million people in the Killing Fields of Cambodia in an effort to purify the Khmer race. The Cambodian government now maintains a museum which serves partially as a remembrance to the dead, called the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.

In Rwanda, over 800,000 Tutsis were killed over a 3 month period by the dominant Hutu government. [http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/ This] site gives a complete analysis of events from start to finish. There's also an excellent book called "Left to Tell" by Immaculee Illibagiza who describes how she survived the genocide partially by hiding in a bathroom with 6 other women for weeks. I'm putting these three back on the page with these links as references. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:34, 11 December 2007 (EST)

:I've got to remove the Bosnian reference as genocide. The definition given in the article versus that of the World Court aren't the same, and, as I'm sure you know, we have a tendency to be a bit skeptical of those bodies (I.E. -- Their verdict alone does not make it true genocide). The key is government sponsored, whereas in the link that you provided it specifically says the government was not to blame. Quite honestly that is an atrocity, not a genocide. Genocide is a large scale systematic effort to eliminate another group. The definition of genocide has been watered down, but it appears Andy wishes to uphold a higher standard -- and personally I am in agreement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 12 December 2007 (EST)

So, Learntogether, you disagree with the [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court|legal definition of genocide]]? It's not a 'watering down', it's a way of recognising, both legally and generally those who've been victims of attempts to destroy all members of their ethnic group, and haven't been seen as worth news or academic coverage - just because people don't get them doesn't mean that they haven't been victims. --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Genocide

2007-12-12T17:39:21Z

JOwen: Even if you consider this an act of mass murder, survivor's is being hyperbolic by describing it as a genocide; see the definition later in the article. Some other changes, too.

'''Genocide''' involves the calculated targeting and killing of a specific ethnic group, or any huge deliberate killing of civilians with a certain national/ethnic identity, carried out as a consequence of governmental, military, or even private (the Rwandan genocide would be an example of this) policy or goals. The word "genocide" was coined by Rafael Lemkin in his 1944 book ''Axis Rule in Occupied Europe'' to describe the mass killings of European Jews by the Nazi regime. <ref>A Problem From Hell, Samantha Power.</ref>

==20th century genocides==

20th century examples include:

*1916-1917: The Ottoman and Turkish genocide of the [[Armenia]]ns
*1932-1933: The Soviet genocide of the Ukrainians ([[Holodomor]])
*1939-1945: The Nazi [[Holocaust]]
*1975 - 1978: The Killing Fields in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge
*1995: Hutu genocide of the Tutsi population in [[Rwanda]]<ref>http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/</ref>

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century, according to ''Le Monde'' and more than 100 million people according to ''The Black Book of Communism''.

==International conventions==

In 1948, The United Nations Genocide Convention defined "genocide":

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Despite this lip service the United Nations has failed to recognize the events in the [[Darfur]] region of [[Sudan]] as genocide. [[Amnesty International]], and the [[African Union]] likewise only acknowledge the "tragedy" in Darfur but refuse to characterize the situation as genocide. Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) director Jean-Hervé Bradol called the term genocide "inappropriate" and its deputy emergency director Dr. Mercedes Taty said, ''"I don't think that we should be using the word 'genocide' to describe this conflict." ''{{fact}}

The European Union and the United States government both officially recognize Darfur as genocide.

The term applies mostly to mass killings since the beginning of the 20th century, although throughout history there have been many cases of bloodshed like this. Even in the Bible, there was the Israelite conquest of Canaan, where God instructed them "...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." ([[Deuteronomy]] 20:16).

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Genocide]]

Debate:Ten or Two Commandments?

2007-12-09T02:31:23Z

JOwen: I'll get this right eventually! Sorry, people.

{{debate}}

'''Ten or Two Commandments?''' We often hear a lot of debate in [[America]] about whether the [[Ten Commandments]] should be displayed in schools and places of law; it's often seen, especially here, to be a key factor to the 'conservative/liberal' dividing line whether they should or should not. Why is it that we give priority to the Ten, while there are two which are more important?

Matthew 22:36-40 says:

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 [[Jesus]] replied: " 'Love the Lord your [[God]] with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the [[Law]] and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Liberals might not agree with the display of the first one, but isn't the second, the [[golden rule|golden commandment]], universal and powerful enough to be acceptable by both conservatives and liberals?

Sorry that I made my first article a debate, but it's an interesting subject that I was discussing with my priest earlier today, and I was interested to hear your thoughts.

[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Talk:Debate:Ten or Two Commandments?

2007-12-09T02:30:25Z

JOwen:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:27, 8 December 2007 (EST)}}
:Er ... would this be the wrong page? Although I welcome debate too :)! --[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Debate:Ten or Two Commandments?

2007-12-09T02:23:43Z

JOwen: whoops, wikilink error

We often hear a lot of debate in America about whether the [[Ten Commandments]] should be displayed in schools and places of law; it's often seen, especially here, to be a key factor to the 'conservative/liberal' dividing line whether they should or should not. Why is it that we give priority to the Ten, while there are two which are more important?

Matthew 22:36-40 says:

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Liberals might not agree with the display of the first one, but isn't the second, the [[golden rule|golden commandment]], universal and powerful enough to be acceptable by both conservatives and liberals?

Sorry that I made my first article a debate, but it's an interesting subject that I was discussing with my priest earlier today, and I was interested to hear your thoughts.

[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

Debate:Ten or Two Commandments?

2007-12-09T02:23:04Z

JOwen: Sorry to make my first page a debate one, but it's an interesting topic :).

We often hear a lot of debate in America about whether the [[Ten Commandments]] should be displayed in schools and places of law; it's often seen, especially here, to be a key factor to the 'conservative/liberal' dividing line whether they should or should not. Why is it that we give priority to the Ten, while there are two which are more important?

Matthew 22:36-40 says:

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Liberals might not agree with the display of the first one, but isn't the second, the [[golden commandment]], universal and powerful enough to be acceptable by both conservatives and liberals?

Sorry that I made my first article a debate, but it's an interesting subject that I was discussing with my priest earlier today, and I was interested to hear your thoughts.

[[User:JOwen|JOwen]]

User:JOwen

2007-12-09T02:19:48Z

JOwen: New page: I'm a student in the UK - Christian, too, although I'm not sure that that's important, I'll try and keep myself dispassionate during editing (in my opinion, which I believe I share with th...

I'm a student in the UK - Christian, too, although I'm not sure that that's important, I'll try and keep myself dispassionate during editing (in my opinion, which I believe I share with this website, they should match up :)!).