Morphogenic virusEdit

Section 31's morphogenic virus would be classed as genocide as well wouldn't it? -- Excelsior 21:04, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it would be, as it was an attempt to exterminate all changelings. --From Andoria with Love 21:06, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Jewish population?Edit

Was it actually mentioned that the Nazis in "Storm Front" successfully erradicated the Jewish population? I don't recall that being mentioned. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:31, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Watch the newsreel for Storm Front Part II. Hitler pledged to eradicate the Jews from America the way he did in Europe. -Li Nguyen


Why is the Klingon extermination of the tribbles listed? Isn't the term genocide usually used for the extermination of people, rather than animals? — Silly Dan 03:33, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I never noticed that before. You're right, the tribbles were supposed to be space rabbits after all. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 03:44, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Removed note Edit

I am removing the following:

As tribbles are not sentient, I do not think their extermination qualifies as "genocide". The opening sentence of the article makes this clear:

"Genocide is the destruction of a people's social identity based on their race or species."

Tribbles just don't seem to qualify to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Minos? Edit

Does this truly qualify as a "genocide"? True, they were wiped out, but no one was TRYING to do so...the EchoPappa simply did it because they didn't get it shut down in time.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that is not genocide, that is extinction, self induced. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Archer & Genocide Edit

I'm inclined to agree with the person who removed that paragraph- what was done in that situation was not genocide, as Archer was not trying to eradicate that race, it was a natural occurance. 31dot 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which completely fits the second definition we have in this article:
  • Deliberately forcing them to live under conditions that cause them to die e.g. depriving them of food, imposing forced labor on them designed to kill them by exhaustion.
Allowing people to die by natural occurrence when you had another option. If depriving them of food is genocide, depriving them of a medicine that could save them is all the more. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I admit to not having viewed the episode recently, just reading the summary here, but was it a foregone conclusion that they would die? They had already met other warp-capable species- perhaps another one would help them, or they would find a cure themselves. 31dot 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Phlox made very clear that they were allowing them to die in favor of the other intelligent species on the planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll give this one last try. :-) Maybe it's the way it's worded which bothers me....Archer isn't going to stay there and impede all efforts to help these people, he just isn't going to play God and do it himself. Wouldn't he have to do this in order to be Genocide? OK, Im done, really. :) 31dot 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The language of the article says denying them food is genocide. He is denying them medicine. That seems clear cut to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with OuroborosCobra. Not only are Archer and Phlox actively witholding the cure Phlox developed, but Archer is not even allowing them access to technology that would allow them to seek help elsewhere. Genocide by Omission is no less genocide than that by COmission.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me weigh in here since I am the one who did the edits. The 'example' must be looked at in the context of what a genocide is: the deliberate attempt to kill a people. Yes, Archer and Phlox denied them the means to get help, which led to their deaths. But they did not target them for destruction, the same as, say, Hitler intended to destroy Europe's Jewish population. If there is no deliberate intent, or, to use a legal term, malice aforethought, to destroy the people, then it is not genocide even though the people die. The deaths of these people were simply an unfortunate result of the decision that Archer and Phlox had to make, a decision that was without malice. They were not killers; they respected life; had they been able to save the people without giving them warp drive, which Archer genuinely felt was a bad thing to do (the Prime Directive in principle), he would have done so. To label this as a genocide is akin to labeling Jean-Luc Picard a drug dealer for refusing to intervene and stop the Brekkians from continuing to supply the Ornarans with felicium (TNG: "Symbiosis"), a decision he made according to the Prime Directive.
Watching... listening... 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Then you need to change the article definition, because it does not match what you claim a genocide is. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It most certainly does, and I do not "claim" anything. I got the definition from Wikipedia and the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In fact, according to those conventions, I need to change the second point, for it says:
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Was Archer and Phlox' decision calculated to destroy these people?
Watching... listening... 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of "calculated". Phlox intentionally took an action he knew would result in the death of one species, and the survival of another. That seems pretty damn mathematical to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I quote from MA's episode summary, as of this date and time.
Phlox explains that the "disease" is actually an inherent flaw in Valakian DNA; they've reached an evolutionary dead end.
This says that evolution killed them. Not Phlox. This disease was caused by their own DNA flaw. No amount of cure could have thus eradicated the disease; it would have killed them evenntually. Look, I am getting tired of this debate. This is a Wiki, and inherently, there will be opposing opinions on things. If you and the Captain feel so strongly that it should be there, then leave it I will remove the {{pna}}. But according to the definition coupled with the episode summary says, it technically cannot be called genocide. The facts, as I see them, back up that position. Let us move on. This discussion has gotten very long. I MOVE TO CLOSE.
Watching... listening... 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"The Star Trek franchise hits a low, where we see the captain and the doctor conspire to wipe out an entire race of people based on nonsense. It doesn't matter how much you might love the padding disguised as character development, the fact is, our "heroes" decide to wipe out an entire race for pseudoscientific reasons, that your DNA shows the direction you're meant to evolve. Phlox is no different than advocates of eugenics in the twentieth century, who likewise employed twisted science to support their positions, that they're operating with the best of intentions as they go about their dark business. That this seems to be the only negative review on the internet just goes to show people are completely ignorant of evolution or have bought into the religion of the Prime Directive so much that they would murder ten million babies and call it moral."
- Sfdebris, check this out , you may feel differently then.

--Paopuhead2picklehead 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardassian Occupation Edit

Are there any canon source that Cardassians wanted to exterminate the Bajorans instead of using them as slaves? 19:09, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Gallitep labor camp, which was explicitly referred to as "genocide" in "Duet".– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Two questions Edit

  1. Would the Tal Shiar/Obsidian Order's attempt to destroy the Founders' homeworld during the Battle of the Omarion Nebula qualify as an attempted "multi-genocide"? It's unclear (to me) whether they were trying to eradicate the Founders and all of the Dominion's member species or simply deliver a crippling blow/killing the Changelings and messing up the Jem'Hadar. (Sorry if this is explained elsewhere; I checked but couldn't find a definitive answer.) If nothing else, does it (i.e., the attack) deserve a mention?
  2. Should we separate the lists of attempted genocides and actual ones? (It seems there's both a qualitative and quantitative difference; e.g., the Cardassian's attempt to kill the Bajorans vis-à-vis the successful genocide of the Cravic and Pralor by their APUs.) Cepstrum (talk) 19:13, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion on the subject is that 1) the Tal Shiar/Obsidian Order's attack on the Founders should be mentioned here as it was an attempted genocide of a species and 2) I think if there is sufficient information to warrant two lists or sections, then yeah they could be separated, otherwise, just write all examples together in chronological order. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:52, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

destruction of Veridian IVEdit

Would not the destruction of Veridian IV by Soran and the Duras sisters count as genocide-nbc777

Yes, I suppose it might. Feel free to add such a reference. 31dot (talk) 10:32, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.