Feedback - round 1

Kudos for taking on a massive and very sensitive subject. From your table of contents and what you have posted so far, you're really trying to touch on every facet of archives and genocide both directly (via case studies) and indirectly (discussing definitions of 'genocide' and different events worldwide) related to archives, and by discussing records specifically and repositories. This will give your final page real depth and positions your page as being an entry point for information on genocide through the topic of archives/records which is an interesting angle.

Two points I wanted to make: - In your first section, I hope to see a little more detail regarding the complexity of defining genocide. Defining an event as 'genocide' is very subject to interpretation (and is therefore itself a powerful tool) and not just contentious in the case of post-colonial states. In your section of lists and definitions be sure to address who is doing the "recognizing" and labelling of an event as genocide. These may very well already be on your 'to-do' list. - Be careful about creating a perpetrator/victim dichotomy. It sure is helpful when trying to break a subject down into categories for the purposes of something like a Wiki page but you risk entering tricky territory. I think this is easily resolved by being aware of your word choice as you keep writing, being thorough and transparent with your referencing, and providing sufficient elaboration for contentious and sensitive areas of your subject.

Looking forward to reading more!

Hi Amy, thanks for the feedback. I apologize for the late reply!

This is a sensitive, complex topic and I definitely hope to do it justice. In the first section, I plan on going into the different definitions of genocide (starting with Lemkin) and looking at the changes to the definition and why certain actions were excluded from the definition. It is subject to interpretation, and those interpretations change over time and from scholar to scholar. One of the case studies I'm using is about the Bosnian genocide, where only the Srebrenica massacre was ruled a genocide by the ICTY. In terms of the list, I will make it more clear that the events included are considered genocides by the authors of the Dictionary.

The perpetrator/victim dichotomy is something I'm aware of and still trying to navigate. I use 'survivor' in some situations but have yet to find a suitable term that does not re-victimize those impacted by genocide. I have a little more reading to do so I'm sure I'll come across something.

Thanks again for the thoughtful and constructive feedback!