text:
Talk:Mercenary/Archive 1

Untitled
This is most definitely a dictionary entry. Shall we expand it with a list of mercenaries throughout history, or simply delete it?

 * I disagree; it's one of those topics where a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry can't help being similar. An encyclopedia should be able to answer the question "what's a mercenary?". I don't think it's a dictionary entry just because it's short: sometimes there isn't much else to say! Mswake 09:07 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Removed incorrect information....

 * enlists in the military service of a foreign government risks losing their American citizenship. An exception has been made for dual American-Israeli citizens who are required by Israeli law to serve in that nation's military.  Many countries have similar laws, so a mercenary risks losing their home nation's citizenship and becoming a "stateless person."

The Neutrality Act does not provide for the loss of citizenship. Serving in the military of another country was ground for loss of citizen under the Immigration and Naturalization Act but this was ruled unconstitutional in 1967.

The gory details are here

http://travel.state.gov/military_service.html

and there is no special exception in US law for military service or anything else for dual US-Israeli citizens.

User:Roadrunner

Changed wording for Executive Outcomes.

I don't think that anyone would seriously think that Executive Outcomes was a proxy for the current South African government. The staff of EO consisted of members of the South African Defense Forces who realized that they had no future in post-Apartheid South Africa.

User:Roadrunner

---

Who argues this....

 * The legal status of civilian contractors, particularly logistics staff and equipment technicians, serving with miltary forces is unclear. It has been argued that they are functionally mercenaries because they are assisting in active military operations even though they are not firing weapons at the enemy.  This is not a hypothetical concern.  In the United States Navy for example, the typical aircraft carrier has between 50 and 100 civilians aboard acting as technicians, manufacturer's representatives, etc.

"Swiss mercenaries were sought after during the latter half of the 15th century as "

after or during? Omegatron

--- From |Dictionary.com
 * mer·ce·nar·y   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mûrs-nr)
 * adj. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
 * Hired for service in a foreign army.

 * n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
 * One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
 * A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

The current Wiki definition
 * A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, regardless of ideological, national or political considerations.

I'm unhappy with all these definitions. Almost all soldiers receive money for service. Are all paid soldiers then mercenaries? What about non-traditional soldiers who aren't motivated solely by money?

The Wiki definition is unclear. Which is meant? "A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, and not for ideological, national, or political considerations." "A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, and may or may not have ideological, national, or political considerations."

I think the salient characteristics are "uses force" "earns money" and "is not a part of a national army". "Works, directly or indirectly, for a national government" is probably necessary to differentiate between security guards and mercenaries. But then what about a corporate "guard" who does more than passive security (e.g. recovers a captured oil rig by force)? I'll mull this over more, and may attempt a better definition soon. Input is appreciated.--M4-10 07:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Mercenary has become a pejorative term, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Historically, mercenaries are professional soldiers who will work on contract. As such, they do not necessary bear allegiance to the side they are fighting for but they are expected to fight loyally for their employer while they are employed. In the past it was common practice for countries to supplement their armed forces with mercenaries with good reputations for fighting--Hessians fought on both sides of the US Revoluntionary War.

Going even further back in history, I think of the Percy clan in England, who were famous for watching an evenly matched battle, then, once they determined to their satisfaction which side had the advantage, would join the winning side for a share of the spoils.

I would say, rhetoric aside, that what makes a mercenary is simple: a professional soldier who will become a part of an armed force on contract, without necessarily having a national or political loyalty to that nation. -- Cecropia | Talk

I am a bit unhappy with this part "These definitions exclude most contractors in Iraq working for one of the Coalition nations"

Let's face it, the only one of the six definitions which does not fit the descriptions of the "PMCs" is d) and possibly b) although this is just a matter of definition. But these Mercs are

- recruited abroad - are motivated by financial gain (they earn a lot of money, much more then soldiers in comparable positions) - not members of any armed forces

I would like to change the sentence so that it says which definitions fit and which not. Anyone opposed ?

Turrican - For the record I made the edits under 195.92.67.75 and 195.92.67.77 I did not notice that I had been logged off Philip Baird Shearer 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stover's Laws of War
I believe there is no such thing as 'Stover's Laws of War'. This was merely the last anon's vandalism, as s/he had prior to this added 'Tony's Laws of War' and subsequently changed it to 'Stover's'. I certainly couldn't find anything in Yahoo Search to that effect. Dieter Simon 01:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mercenaries torture and forbidden weapons

 * However, the fact that they are not part of a regular army and therefore are practically unaccountable for their acts means they could be used to sidestep war regulations committing acts forbidden to a soldier, like employing torture to obtain information from prisoners of war, as is suspected happened during and after the 2003 Iraq war. They are also useful for legally testing prototype weapons on live human beings in combat situations, as a soldier is forbidden to use certain kinds of weapons on a human being regardless of circumstances.

I have removed the newly inserted text (above) because it does not make sense:
 * Whether regular soldiers or mercenaries use torture on prisoners of war, the officer of the power holding the POWs would be guilty of a war crime for ordering the torture, so why bother. Also if a person is interrogating prisoners they are not mercenaries because it is not a combat role: (see Protocol I Art 47 a, b)
 * If a weapon is a prototype and built to function within the laws of war then it can be used by regular troops. This is a common phenomenon in wars where peacetime projects are speeded up to get a new weapon into service at the start of a war. Who would pay to develop a weapon forbidden by treaty and if the did why deploy it only with mercenaries? Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi. I wrote that paragraph. My reasons were these: According to press reports I read (mostly Washington Post) torture on Abu Graib was directed by government agencies (I believe it was the CIA but the FBI complained or viceversa) helped by contractors, who gave soldiers indications on "special treatment" to iraqi POWs. You are right -the official is accountable but contractors are harder to prosecute and probably more agreeable (soldiers at Abu Graib seemed to enjoy it, however). You have a point about combat roles. I was wondering what happens if the POWs are "captured" by contractors.

 * Can you give an example of a soldier captured by contractors in combat? Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I was thinking of a fake capture by contractors as a way to sidestep regulations. Asereje 06:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding weapons, they can be used by anyone in all kinds of situations, not just soldiers in war. Bush´s government has made a point terrorists aren´t an army nor a nation so everything goes (e.g. Guantanamo prison). Israel has killed palestinian leaders with missiles fired from helicopters, and there was at least one internationally publicized incident where israeli soldiers tied a palestinian child (also a fighter, I think) to the front of their car as a human shield. So a weapon doesn´t have to follow the rules of war to be developed, and a soldier doesn´t have to follow the rules of war to use it when fighting terrorists. And to be honest, the US government almost never follows treaties even if it bothered to sign them in the first place. Mercenaries (or contractors) are harder to prosecute and their actions harder to trace since they aren´t part of the army. That paragrah came from an article I read (I believe it was in Soldier of Fortune which on further investigation isn´t that reliable) where a contractor tested a new type of bullet that crossed solid objects (walls) but exploded when touching softer ones (human flesh). According to that, a contractor used that bullet on an iraqi, blowing part of his leg with a single shot. The officer was mad because he thought he was a soldier, but as a contractor he got away with it. Perhaps it was a hoax, but in any case using a merc avoids public relations headaches and allows for denial. I don´t know what´s an official to do if he sees a friendly contractor breaking the rules of war. I believe a paragraph that covers this aspects should appear in the article. Contractors are, in my opinion, too similar to mercenaries. And while interrogation isn´t combat, is part of a modern war. Thanks. Asereje 18:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything does not go see: unlawful combatant, the court is still out on that one. The USA takes its treaty obligations very seriously (my word is my bond). For example the whole point of US government Stress and duress used outside US sovereign territory, is to stay within the letter of the treaty definitions on torture, for which most international lawyers use the ECHR sensory deprivation as inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 16 of the UN torture treaty states Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment So if the US government authorises the use of Stress and duress outside US jurisdiction then it has not broken the letter of its treaty obligations even if it has ridden a coach and horses through its moral obligations under the treaty.

Secondly to be mercenary a contractor would have to fulfil the criteria in GC Protocol I. A police action is not conflict as defined under international law. Of course a weapon does not have to follow the rules of war. For example many police forces use hollow nosed bulets explicitly forbidden under the laws of war (Starting with the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight and made universal by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). But if they were used by a mercenary, the mercenary would be committing (another war) crime and should be prosecuted as such. This would be true even if the friendly power does not believe them to be a mercenary. If the person is a civilian contractor and they break the laws of war then they are also guilty of a war crime and can be prosecuted by their own side. If it is not an armed conflict then they are by definition not a mercenary so it would not belong in this article. If a mercenary's action was sanctioned or ordered by a superior, then that person can also be prosecuted. If one looks at any NATO country they have a complicated set of laws to cover these contingencies in both military and civilian codes of law. So mercenarys are not useful for legally testing prototype weapons on live human beings in combat situations. Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record the USA has not signed Protocol I so I an not sure what the USA uses domestically for the definition of a mercenary. As the article says the Protocol I is the easiest way to keep this article focused and coherent. If you know what the USA legal system defines as mercenary then that could be an interesting addition to this article. But I do not think it would help this article if everything which the popular press calls a "mercenary action" is included in the article as it would destroy the cohesion and internal logic of the article. Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I see your point and agree. I didn't mean to force the definition of contractor into mercenary, my point was more on the grounds that being a contractor doesn't mean war rules and so on will be followed. Thanks. Asereje 06:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contradictor and Bounty Hunter

 * ''There are exceptions to the rule, however, when there are ideological mercenaries, so-called Contradictors. They fight for whatever is the best cause.

What is a "Contradictor"?

Would they be defined under the Geneva conventions "Protocol I" as a mercenary? A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

 * Another kind of mercenary would be a bounty hunter'', who enlists to a government's or invidual's mission to undertake someone, dead or alive. This sub-kind of mercenary was popularized in Western-movies.

A bounty hunter is not another kind of mercenary because they are not usually employed in an "armed conflict" as defined by the laws of war. Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A contradictor is a sort of mercenary who fights for "free", if you can only convince them it is in their best interest to do. In other words: They are ideologists. If the cause is good/evil enough for them then they will join forces - And not necessarily foreign ones.

It is mostly under the definition of the Geneva conventions, although I doubt the "private gain" part. Nevertheless, they are generally considered to be mercenaries no matter what a convention says that HAVE to do it for private gain.

 * Please provide a source which says that "contradictor" is a person who fights for idelogical reasons and that people who fight for idelogical reasons are "generally considered to be mercenaries". Because under the laws of war if a person fights for ideology and not "essentially by the desire for private gain" then they are not a mercenary. In many wars people fight as combatants for ideological reasons. For example the foreign elements of the SS or the  foreigners, (including Americans before the States entered the war in the Eagle squadrons), who fought in the RAF during World War II. None of them were mercenary. But American pilots of the Flying Tigers who had "material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" were.  Philip Baird Shearer

And as for the bounty hunter, "usually" is the key word here. Yes, they might not be a part of the "conventional" war kind, but they might be enlisted by one side of the conflict's participants to help them f.eg track down an enemy leader. Thus they are indirectly a part of the armed conflict, just not directly under a batallion of soldiers fighting in the front lines. I'm not sure what the so-called "laws of war" says although, perhaps you could elobarate. This is the most widespread view of it, nevertheless, and I'm still sure my stance stands corrected. If you are convinced, them please let the text back in to the article.-OleMurder 09:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There are many professions which mercenaries may be employed to do as combatants in an armed conflict. "Bounty hunter" is only one possibility, although if they are not dressed in uniform and are operating behind the front lines they may be guilty of more war crimes than being a mercenary. As we do not list all the possible range of activities which could be ones that a mercenary could do. Eg from private to field marshal. I do not see why "bounty hunter" (BH) should be singled out. Particularly in the introduction, and when a BH can be a defined as a BH without "take[ing] a direct part in the hostilities" as part of an "armed conflict" and so not qualifying as a mercenary. It does not bring any clarity to the article. Philip Baird Shearer 16:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gurkhas and French Foreign Legionnaires are not mercenaries
Hi Philip. I see you reverted my change, without responding to the reason I gave. Basically my thinking is, there is no single definition of what a mercenary is, so the section on Gurkha and FFL needs to say according to which definition/s they aren't considered mercenaries. If their is some fundamental law of nature saying they aren't mercs, then why include them in the article on mercenaries at all? (Anymore than a section in the Birds article called Dogs are not birds). Presumably it is included because there is some sort of controversy, and as written it seems very POV. (For the record, I don't think they are mercs, but the section needs to be brought up to wikipedia standard). Regards, Ashmoo 00:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The second paragraph in the section explains why they are not mercenaries under Protocol I. The section is structured in a News style (see this also), so the first paragraph is a summary of the second and depending on what you think of what I am going to say here possibly a third! In point of fact Gurkhas are (also) not mercenaries because the common customs of the laws of war dating back before the creation of the British Army say they are not. This is because the officers and men of the British army are paid for by funds raised by the UK parliament but the Officers and men take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. The country that the soldier comes from is irreverent, there are many none UK nationals serving in the British army, none of whom are considered mercenarys under the laws of war. If any of them were captured and denied POW status the person(s) responsible for such an action would be guilty of a war crime. Under the British Regimental system is is quite common to group solders by region and nationality. It would follow that IF the Gurkhas are mercenaries then so is the rest of the British Army which is clearly a nonsense.

 * It seems that sone people who come from a nation state (like the USA) have real difficulties understanding that the the Nation and the State are different things particularly in a state which pre-dates the American constitution. To understand the situation one has to see it from the position of a medieval battle like the battle of Agincourt. The English archers were paid, but they were subjects of King Henry V so they were not mercenaries, as was anyone else who if not a subject had taken an oath of fidelity to him. But in the case of the Genoese crossbowmen who fought for the French king as they had not taken such an oath they were mercenaries. The status of the men who fight for the British army today is not that diffrent from that of the Engish army at Agincourt Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok. I've already said I agree with you, you don't need to convince me. But please re-read my comment and respond to the points I raised. Factually, it is excellent, it is only the tone, which reads a bit like a blog rant entry, that I'm concerned about. Regards, Ashmoo 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Philip, since you haven't replied I'm going to tweak the article again. Ashmoo 03:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Jumping in here with two left feet: it seems to me that Ghurkas and Legionnaires both fill every characteristic of the mercenary (as defined in the opening quote from the Geneva Convention protocol) except for receiving a salary substantially in excess of normal. How does taking an oath suddenly remove the onus? And what about these gentlemen:
 * American fliers like Ajax Baumler who served in Spain and received $500/$1000 for each enemy plane shot down?
 * Americans who acquired RCAF rank and served in RAF "Eagle" squadrons (low paid -- but they did not take the oath!)
 * The American Volunteer Group Flying Tigers who served in Burma and China at nearly three times the pay they were earning in U.S. service, plus a bounty for each plane shot down?

Seems to me that contributors here are put off by the negative connotation of the term and therefore try to provide an exemption for any military force they admire! --Cubdriver 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The oath is important because it means that they are fully intergrated into the British Army or French army. So Ghurkas are not mercenaries because they are members of the armed forces of a party to a conflict so they fail the 47e test as well as 47c, 47d (they are resident territory controlled by Britain)). The same arguments can be made for the Legion. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Ajax Baumler but most volenteers on both sides of the Spanish civil ware were motivated by ideology not money and so were not mercenaries.
 * What is your source to say that the RAF Eagle squadrons did not take an oath? I do not see how they could serve in the British armed forces without taking an oath.
 * The AVF are usually described as mercenaries. As the Flying Tigers article makes clear "The pilots were mostly reserve officers who were discharged to fight as mercenaries in the army of a foreign country."

 * It seems to me that e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and just about rules out most famous cases of mercenary fighters. I don't know about Albert Baumler (who, I find, earned $1,500/month plus $1,000 for each plane shot down, figures that effectively can be multiplied by 20 to find their equivalent in our much-depreciated greenbacks) but the AVG Flying Tigers most defintely were members of the armed forces of a Party (China) to the conflict. Arguably the Hessians in the British army in the nascent U.S. were likewise not merks. That pretty much leaves us with the white guys who occasionally parachute into Africa to bear arms for a month or two. --Cubdriver 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the conditions of employment in a military. For example if one is working for a PMC and engaged in combat then one is a mercenary. To be a mercenary one has to be motivated by private gain and not be a national of a party to the conflict and not a member of the armed forces to the conflict. In practice to be a mercenary one is usually in a unit with other mercenaries who take commands from their captain who is also a mercenary. For example did the AVG's contracts allow them to be posted to any unit in the Chinese air force or only to that of Claire Chennault, and if Chennault was replaced with a Chinese officer were the AVG members still obliged to fight. I see from the alterations that you (Cubdriver) made to the Flying Tigers page that, they were mercenaries because they were employees of the CAMCO and officially employed as training instructors. As soon as they flew a combat mission they were mercenaries as they were not members of the Chinese air force.

In the case of the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas they are fully integrated into the armed forces of the French and British armies. Their offices are French and British and their contracts do not specify specific officers, just officers of the respective armies. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems very clear to me that this whole gig about the Legion and the Ghurkas results from Britain and France having written into the convention language that rules out their own merks being considered as such. Further, I find this discussion very discouraging, as further proof that Wiki articles become captive to folks with an agenda and time to spare. (I have seen this elsewhere, of course.) It serves to make me less apt to rely on the Wikipedia in the future. I mean, where do you get that stuff about officers necessarily being of the nationality of the employing country? In any event, I resign from the effort to straighten out this overtly biased article. --Cubdriver 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

American or British spelling
Please ensure words are spelled either the American or British way, not a mixture of both, it's either organization and organized or organisation and organised. There was a tie with three words being spelled -ized / -ization and three -ised / -isation. Have come down on the American -z as first word was spelled that way. Call me pedantic, but minds have to be made up. It's yet another means of making an article encyclopaedic. Dieter Simon 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mercenary/Archive 1


text:
Tracy Kidder

John Tracy Kidder (born November 12, 1945) is an American writer of nonfiction books. He received the  Pulitzer Prize for his The Soul of a New Machine (1981), about the creation of a new computer at Data General Corporation. He has received praise and awards for other works, including his biography of Paul Farmer, a physician and anthropologist, titled Mountains Beyond Mountains (2003).

Kidder is considered a literary journalist because of the strong story line and personal voice in his writing. He has cited as his writing influences John McPhee, A. J. Liebling, and George Orwell. In a 1984 interview he said, "McPhee has been my model. He's the most elegant of all the journalists writing today, I think."

Kidder wrote in a 1994 essay, "In fiction, believability may have nothing to do with reality or even plausibility. It has everything to do with those things in nonfiction. I think that the nonfiction writer's fundamental job is to make what is true believable."

Early life and education
John Tracy Kidder was born November 12, 1945, in New York City. He graduated from Phillips Academy in 1963. He attended Harvard College, originally majoring in political science, but switching to English after taking a course in creative writing from Robert Fitzgerald. He received an AB degree from Harvard in 1967.

Kidder served in the United States Army as a first lieutenant, Military Intelligence, Vietnam, from 1967 to 1969. After returning from Vietnam, he wrote for some time and was admitted to the Iowa Writers' Workshop. He received an MFA degree from the University of Iowa in 1974.

Career
Kidder wrote his first book, The Road to Yuba City: a Journey into the Juan Corona Murders, while at the University of Iowa. The Atlantic Monthly commissioned the work, and he continued writing as a freelancer for the magazine during the 1970s. The Road to Yuba City was a critical failure, and Kidder said in a 1995 interview that

"I can't say anything intelligent about that book, except that I learned never to write about a murder case. The whole experience was disgusting, so disgusting, in fact, that in 1981 I went to Doubleday and bought back the rights to the book. I don't want The Road to Yuba City to see the light of day again."

Kidder has said that, unlike many other writers, he was not much influenced by his Vietnam experience: "Of course, whenever you're in an experience like Vietnam, it is bound to influence your work; it's inevitable, but I really don't think it greatly shaped me as a writer." His works for The Atlantic Monthly include several essays and short stories about the Vietnam War, including "The Death of Major Great" (1974), "Soldiers of Misfortune" (1978), and "In Quarantine" (1980). Writing in 1997, David Bennett rated these three pieces "among the finest reporting to come out of Vietnam."

Kidder's second book, The Soul of a New Machine (1981), was much more successful than his first. His account of the complex community and environment of programming and computer development won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1982. He has continued to write nonfiction books and articles, and these have been well received by the critics. Kidder's 2009 book, Strength in What Remains, is a portrait of a man who survived the genocide in Burundi.

He has explored a wide range of topics through his books: House (1985), a "biography" of a couple having their first house built, and the people involved in the project; Among Schoolchildren (1989), set in an elementary-school classroom in Holyoke, Massachusetts, and reflecting on US education through the lives of these 20 children and their teacher (these two books were both bestsellers); and Old Friends (1993), which explored the daily lives and personal growth of a pair of elderly men in a nursing home. His books have made "Notable" annual lists of The New York Times and received positive praise from critics, in addition to awards.

In fall 2010 Kidder was selected as the first A. M. Rosenthal Writer-in-Residence at the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. At the center, he worked with his onetime editor at The Atlantic, Richard Todd, on a book about writing, titled Good Prose: The Art of Nonfiction. He lectured to students and did research to identify his next narrative subject.

Selected awards

 * Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, 1982, for The Soul of a New Machine
 * National Book Award for Nonfiction, 1982, for The Soul of a New Machine
 * Robert F. Kennedy Book Award, 1989–1990, for Among Schoolchildren
 * L. L. Winship/PEN New England Award, 1990, for Among Schoolchildren
 * Ambassador Book Award in American Studies, 1990, for Among Schoolchildren
 * Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement, 2001
 * Lettre Ulysses Award (2nd prize), 2004, for Mountains Beyond Mountains

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tracy Kidder


text:
Disc film

Disc film is a discontinued still-photography film format that was aimed at the consumer market. It was introduced by Kodak in 1982.

Technical details
The film is in the form of a flat disc, and is fully housed within a plastic cartridge. Each disc holds fifteen 10 × 8 mm exposures, arranged around the outside of the disc, with the disc being rotated 24° between successive images.

The system was a consumer-oriented product, and most cameras are self-contained units with no expansion capability. The disc film allows them to be compact and considerably thinner than other cameras. The cameras are very simple to load and unload, and are generally completely automated. The cassette has a built-in dark slide to prevent stray light reaching the film when the disc is removed.

As the film is rotated on a disc instead of over a spool, the cassette is very thin. The flat nature of the format also led to the potential advantage of greater sharpness over curved spool-based cassette formats (such as Minox film, 110 and 126 film). Disc film has a very thick acetate base, comparable thickness with 4×5" sheet film, which holds the film much flatter than the other formats of the time.

Performance and market reception
Disc film did not prove hugely successful, mainly because the image on the negative is only 10 mm by 8 mm, leading to generally unacceptable grain and poor definition in the final prints from the analog imaging equipment used at the time. The film was intended to be printed with special six-element lenses from Kodak, but many labs simply printed discs with standard three-element lenses used for larger negative formats. The resulting prints often disappointed the consumer. Few labs made the investment required to get the best out of the small negative size. A problem with labs of the time was the manual nature of processing the color negative film. This was essentially a manual process, unlike spool-based films, whose chemical processing could be fully automated.

There were several different manufacturers of disc film. Kodak produced films throughout the complete lifespan of the format, but 3M, Konica and Fuji also produced disc film. While Kodak film was always eponymous, 3M and Konica made disc film for many third parties, branded with the retailer's logo. As with most photographic film, for such white-label products the country of manufacture provides the best indication as to the actual manufacturer.

The film was officially discontinued by the last manufacturer, Kodak, on December 31, 1999, though the cameras had disappeared from the market long before then.

Legacy
The 1983 "Minolta Disc-7" camera introduced a predecessor of the selfie stick—a convex mirror on its front to allow the composition of self-portraits, and its packaging showed the camera mounted on a stick while used for such a purpose.

In 2012, Hèrm Hofmeyer in The Netherlands and Film Rescue International in Canada cooperatively developed a method to produce fresh disc films, and about 30 fresh B&W and colour discs were made. A detailed protocol on how to manufacture such discs at home was released in 2020.

Film history

 * Kodak: Kodacolor HR (1981), Kodacolor VR (1982–1991), Kodacolor (or Kodak) Gold (1992–1999)
 * Fuji: Fujicolor HR series (1982–1995) and third party film. Manufactured in Japan.
 * 3M: HR film series (1982–1996) and third party film. Manufactured in Italy until the 1990s, then USA.
 * Konica: Konicacolor SR (c. 1983–86), SR-V (c. 1980s), SR-G (c. 1990–93). Also third party film. Manufactured in Japan.

title: Disc film


text:
Talk:Genocide/recent

From Talk:Genocide article, Please see Talk:Genocide/Old for previous discussion. Fredbauder 14:34 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC) --- This article contained a number of inaccuracies which I have corrected: -- SJK --- IMHO two notion should be included in an article about genocide pogrom and crime agains humanity.
 * the legal definition of genocide is not specific to the ICC. It has been around since 1948, long before the ICC, and is incorporated in the national legislation of many countries
 * the Rome Statute has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction and does not mention it anywhere AFAIK (whoever wrote that probably doesn't understand what universal jurisdiction is)
 * people may say genocide not involving killing is "not generally accepted usage", but if you look at the legal definition, the legal definition does not require anyone to be killed for an act of genocide to take place - added this qualification

 * Some events listed here are technically either mass murder or a war crime in whole or part.

Above statement deleted by someone.

Not really deleted read further :

events commonly called genocide despite the fact they are technically either mass murder or a war crime in whole or part :

I believe the distinction beteween real genocide and events commonly called genocide is re-inforced. Bur still no reference to pogroms.

Ericd 18:32 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

We need to clarify the popular vs. legal definitions of genocide, or we'll keep getting peremptory changes like this. I suggest we stop pushing the international law thing, and give popular usage its due: "large numbers of civilians killed by a government in peacetime" or something similar. --Ed Poor
 * TRhat just isn't the definition Ed as you yourself quoted above "Merriam-Webster has "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".

Genocide is the attempt to destroy a group because they are members of a group not just killing lots of people. --rmhermen That's not enough it's a pogrom genocide aims total extermination think to Final solution. --- I think the present two introductory paragraphs accurately explain the original definition, and the fact that some people use it in a broader and narrower sense than the original defintion. I think we have to give priority to the international law meaning, because it is the original meaning -- it is what the person who originally invented the word meant by it. If popular usage is different, in most cases that is simply because they don't know what the word means. Just because most people fail to understand what a word means, doesn't mean its meaning suddenly changes to fit their misunderstanding--since "genocide" is a technical term in law and the social sciences, it means what experts in those fields use it to mean, not what the average person thinks it means. We shouldn't change the definition of words to fit popular misconceptions of what they mean. -- SJK

This is ridiculous. Of course the definition needs to be on this page. --rmhermen

 * Okay, I un-split it. But I made MANY OTHERS changes as well, particularly to the definition and to text relating to (i.e., quibbling with) the definition. --Ed Poor

Roughly 800,000 Christian Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Muslim Hutus. See Rwanda/History.

Who write such disinformation ? Hutus and Tutsis are Christians. Even Hutus catholic priests were invoveld in the genocide ! Ericd 04:30 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

Extermination of ethnic groups by the Soviet communist government Why is it bigger font !!!!!!! not NPOV !!!! Ericd 04:35 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC) --- Who removed reference to the Japanase massacres ????? I don't like what happens here !!!!!

 * Well said Ericd, why atrocities committed by Soviet or the PRC were in bigger front? Also who deleted reference to the Japanese massacres? So does those notations and editings mean that geneocides committed by Chinese government needed to be exagerrated and those suffered by Chinese (people) deserved to be ignored? What kind of NPOV is this? Actually it's not that hard to trace the page history to check who did all that, Eddy. By the way, I really doubted the accuracy of the number of people killed during Mao's regime. I know it's a large number but not as large as quoted. I personally revert those changes.

Ktsquare Sep 14 2002

As I understand much of the preceding discussion, there has been some debate as to whether the article should address the legal or popular use of the term "genocide." The last revision seemed to attempt to accomodate both sides. I too agree that both usages should be recognized and explained -- I just thought the last version was especially poorly-written. I hope readers find my change to the first paragraph both to accomodate the different points raised over the past few days, and to be somewhat more elegantly written.

I also deleted the two dictionary definitions. Frankly, they just seemed odd -- as if someone had inserted them in the article just in order to prove a point. The only point I could see was the use of the term "mass murder," I hope that my new introduction renders the inclusion of dictionary definitions unnecessary.

Besides, I really think including a dictionary definition in an encyclopedia is inapporpriate and bizarre; I certainly do not know of any other authoritative encyclopedia does it. I don't mean to be a slave to concetnion; I think they do not do it for a good reason. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are both tools, but tools for different jobs. In someone wants a dictionary definition, they go to a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. A good dictionary will provide a list of definitions in order of the degree of use. An encyclopedia should summarize current research on a topic -- two entirely different things. Perhaps it is true that "most people" use the term "genocide one way -- but to me, that is precisely why such a usage should be underplayed in an encyclopedia article. If "most people" use a term a certain way, then obviously "most people" already "know" that.  People generally turn to encyclopedias to learn what they do not know, or to learn what is not popular knowledge.  By the way, I think this article, ofr the most part, does a good job of providing that!  Slrubenstein

My thought is that including the precise legal definition of genocide is excellent, however this is not a legal textbook, nor will anyone go free because the wrong charge is made. Contributors have repeatedly presented examples of events which they consider genocide, such as the events in Cambodia. In a sense they have voted with their fingers and made a definition. Neither should the examples which in whole or part are technically in the wrong category be deleted nor should a whole lot of space be spent explaining exactly why each incident is not "genocide". The difference between popular usage and legal jargon needs to be briefly set forth with links to the alternate possibilities, relatively early in the article. Fred Bauder

 * The first paragraph does exactly what you claim it should do -- I cut the second paragraph because it is poorly written and adds nothing -- except (as you point out) a couple of useful links which I incorporated into the first paragraph, where they belong. By the way, I believe it is unhelpful to characeterize one definition as "technically wrong" and the other as "jargon." There are various ways that different people use the word genocide.  This is an encyclopedia article and a good article will explain the history of the word and its uses.  The point is, to privilege the legal definition is not to say that people who use the word differently are "wrong.  There are two reasons to privilege the legal definition (I hope you understand that privileging one usage does not preclude discussion of other usages).  First, this is an encyclopedia and its task is to educate people about things they do not know.  Second, the legal definition came first; the word entered popular useage because of the legal definition.  One cannot understand the popular usage unless one first understands the legal history. Slrubenstein

The following sentence mixes up "broadly" and "narrowly":

 * Since that time, the term has been adapted by both the international legal community to refer broadly to state-sponsored violence against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, and by the general public, to refer more narrowly to acts of mass-murder against such groups (see also war crimes or other crimes against humanity).

I think the popular usage (i.e., gov't sponsored mass murder) is broader than the usage of international law -- which excludes political targets.

--Ed Poor 14:36 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * Ed, the sentence uses "narrowly" and "broadly" correctly. First, when I wrote the sentence I included the terms "national, ethnic, racial, or religious group," in deffererence to you, who I believe had formerly included two dictionary definitions that described the "popular" meaning of genocide, both of which listed these groups.  More importantly, those dictrionary definitions - and frankly, my own experience -- has led me to think that most people think "genocide" describes murder.  But the legal definition is much broader and includes acts that do not involve murder or killing and which I think many people did not know are nonetheless considered genocide by international law. By the way, I do not know what you mean by "political" targets -- certainly the Nazi genocide against Jews was a political act.  Do you mean killing people because of their political beliefs?  I do not know of anyone who would call the US Civil War (in which two sides slaughtered one another because of their political beliefs) to be genocide.  Slrubenstein

 * I was unaware that the US Civil War involved people slaughtering one another because of their political beliefs. Would you please write about that idea for the American Civil War article? I was referring to state-sponsored murder of civilians, as in China, Ukraine and Cambodia. The communist rulers of these countries sought to end political opposition to their dictatorships by killing millions of people. A lot of people call such killings "genocide", whether or not it fits the UN definition. We should either mention those killings somewhere -- either in genocide, where a lot of people will look, or in a better-named article. Can you think of a better name? --Ed Poor

 * Ed, I removed your phrase "even (or especially) when politically motivated," because it's inclusion implies that other forms of genocide are not politically motivated. Every example I can think of of genocide (according to Lemkin/UN definition was politically motivated, at least arguably.

 * I simply am not sure what you are trying to add. My sense is that whatever you are trying to add (that is of value) requires more elaboration -- rather than using an ambiguous phrase such as "poilitically motivated" what is needed is a more detailed study of different ways people have used the word genocide, and different forms of genocide -- all of which belongs in the body of the article and I encourage you to work on that section.

 * The opening definition is I think a good clear definition; it certainly in no way suggests that politics is uninvolved or irrelewvant, and does not in any way preclude the inclusion of a more elaborate and concrete discussion. For example, I agree with you that the China/Cambodia examples do not fit the UN definition as such. But the current opening of the article provides a link to "mass murder" which I think communicates precisely what you are saying.  I am not arguing with you over how to define genocide; I am saying that the opening introduction accomodates your views.  Would it help to add the words "and other groups?"  I just think that the phrase "mass murder" already does that (I mean, what do people think the word "mass" means in this context?).  I reread the intro and I really think it accomodates your view -- to add anything more to the introductory paragraph would at best be redundant and at worst raise too many questions about nuance that are better left for the body of the article.

 * By the way, as far as I understand people fought the civil war over the question of slavery and to a lesser degree states' rights -- two political issues if I ever saw one! Slrubenstein

I guess I'm reacting to the wording of the UN definition, which seems designed to exclude the most massive cases of mass murder from "genocide". If Mao has 20 to 60 million Chinese civilians murdered because they refuse to support a government policy, what should we call that? Not "genocide", according to the UN definition. Not "democide", because that's a neologism that few people are familiar with. Must we say that the Cambodian genocide wasn't "genocide"? If it's not genocide, what is it?

In which article should we describe cases where a government murdered 1,000,000 or more of its citizens? In mass murder? In [genocide]]? In democide? --Ed Poor

Well, if you are asking me what I think personally, I will just repeat my answer above: I think it should be in this article. I think there should be a section that contrasts different cases of genocide (e.g. American Indians in the 19th century, Jews in the mid 20th century, Cambodians in the lat 20th century), discuss different cuases (e.g., were the "killing fields" in Cambodia more a result of political conflict among Cambodians, or the need for the Cambodian government to drastically increase rice production within a very short time in order to acquire the capital needed to industrialize); and discuss different reasons people may call one example "genoicde" or not. I think all of this should be in the curent article.

I also think the current opening definition would serve to introduce such a discussion, Slrubenstein

I think its rather poor, more muddy and legalistic than elegant, but here's a question: Does genocide require intent, in the legal sense?

Also we seem to be loosing some facts due to editing. I note the rape of Nanking seems to have been deleted, also the massacre of the Jewish settlers in Hebron in 1933, all instances of some sort of genocidal wrong, which brings up another question: How should the article treat anachronistic instances, for example Columbus, nominally the head of state, is said to have committed genocide, but probably lacked both control over his Spanish subjects and intent (he only intended to enslave the natives) and also was more or less conducting himself as any European would have in those times (although there are subtle differences from country to country in this area). Fred Bauder

 * Fred, I do not think it is up to us to decide what is a case of Genocide or not. I think it is the task of an encyclopedia article to report on what others do.  Certainly many Native Americans consider Columbus to be one among many instigators of genocie -- if you think the article should include a discussion of "genocide" that is not limited to the legal definition, certainly the article should discuss these claims.  Even if you believe we should limit the article to the legal usage, I think we must discuss such claims.  I imagine there has been a lot written on Columbus and genocide; since I have not done research on this I leave it to others to develop this aspect of the article.  But even though I have not done research on this, I know that it is a valid topic -- I mean, Ward Churchill's essay "Bringing the Law Home" is certainly enought to justify research and discussion in this article, don't you think?

 * According to the law, a person need not be an official of the state to be held responsible for genocide. Moreover, "killing" people is only one of five possible forms of genocide and I am sure a mediocre lawyer could successfully argue that enslavement falls under one of the other four. Slrubenstein

I deleted someone's claim that there was "no evidence" for Soviet genocide in Ukraine. --Ed Poor

-- Eco

There is NO evidence of the Ukrainian "famines" outside of Robert Conquest's sick little mind (well, along with Solzhenitsyn and the rest of that ilk). Let me suggest a little reading for you:

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/sov-hol.html

The article is not from the site (which is pro-USSR). I would give you the original page for the article but it no longer exists.

I'm changing it back and I suggest you leave it that way until you can prove otherwise. I suggest you come prepared though. I've been studying Soviet history for close to 6 years...

 * If in all that time you've managed to avoid any evidence of Stalin's complicity in the Ukrainian famines, I wonder what your motivation for study is? I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark, but generally anyone who studies a country is interested in both its good and bad points. --Ed Poor

From the article:
 * The validity of claims made against the Soviet Union in the case of the Ukrainian famine(s), and other alleged Soviet holocausts are still being debated.

--Ed Poor

-- Eco

Oh, and by the way, Eddy, I didn't say there was NO evidence so next time you want put words in my mouth, let me know before if possible so I can get a SCREENSHOT of what I said. Let me take a break here for a second and say I was only offering something I didn't see presented -- AN OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE. I could understand if I was calling the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis a "holohoax" but there is physical, credible empirical and photographic evidence, etc. that it was not. In fact, my grandfather was in the 2nd wave that liberated Aushwitz. Beyond that, I have friends from Russia who will tell you that western historians are FULL OF IT. How do you argue with someone who LIVED during that time and is far more credible then a handfull of angry, anti-communist, Russian immigrants or Fascist liars like Conquest or Solzhenitzyn? Hmm...

Sorry to be an ass, but I am sick of the historical myths people pop off with.

-- Eco

If in all that time you've managed to avoid any evidence of Stalin's complicity in the Ukrainian famines, I wonder what your motivation for study is?

No, it's the other way around, my friend! Stalin was never just sitting by while Ukrainians starved because the only time Ukrainians starved is when the rich Kulaks got angry and decided to burn crops. By the way, something else that can be taken from that page I gave you that I think you should consider:

Readers should also consider what Western sources always neglect to mention: that around 1932 there were massive crop problems not only in the USSR, but also in India and the USA, where the "Dust Bowl" crisis forced people to abandon farmlands and migrate West en masse.

I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark, but generally anyone who studies a country is interested in both its good and bad points.

I will gladly tell you about the bad points of Stalin, the Soviet economy, or the like. I WILL NOT stand by and let people make up lies of this absurd scale about any country though. Even this one and trust me, I'm not exactly in love with the government here if you get my drift. My whole intention when I study something from a historical perspective is to find what exactly is the truth. I will be honest too, I went into Soviet history after having read Harvest of Sorrow, the Great Terror, and the Gulag Archipelago. I was also reading all the Trotsky I could get my hands on. I went into Soviet history as biased as they come and now I'm here.

I see too many historians trying to get their next idea for a book from their own mind. It's not hard to make up a news story, and it's only a bit more of a challenge to make up something like this. Hey, David Icke can do it about aliens! Albeit, not as well as some historians can do it about our stereotypical national enemy, but he's got some followers!

-- Eco

I'm happy the way it is if you are. I am more than willing to carry on this debate though. -- Big question -- the article says "and by the general public, to refer to state-sponsored mass murder (see also war crimes or other crimes against humanity)." What members of the general public? In my entire life, I have never heard genocide used in this way (to refer to government killings in general) until I came across Wikipedia. If it is a sense used by the general public, it must be used only by some of them (in which case it isn't really used by the general public, since the general public is everybody or the vast majority of people)... I had always heard "genocide" used to refer to killings based on racial or ethnic criteria. --- SJK -

Hmmm, SJK has an interesting point.

Something else I'd like to bring up. First off, I will be honest. My knowledge of Soviet history is what some friends consider to be "beyond extensive" (not bragging, just clarifying), but my knowledge in terms of "red" China is entirely lacking.

One thing that seems odd about the deaths caused by economic disasters in China is just that -- they were economic disasters! How exactly does incompetent leadership mean genocide? I think SJK will see my point here too...

--Eco -

Something else I thought of. Shouldn't the enslavement of millions of Africans by the US be considered in the genocide section? This is, of course, considering that a good portion either died being captured, on arrival, or on the plantation. It was simply state sponsored as opposed to state engineered genocide. Discuss.

--Eco

 * I think slavery is bad, because it makes so many people suffer. This encyclopedia really should have a lot more information on slavery. Millions of Africans were kidnapped and made slaves. I'd like to know how many of them became slaves of other black Africans vs. how many were sold abroad to Arabs, Europeans and Americans. (Someone told me once that 75% of African slaves were bought by Arabs, but I haven't been able to track down any proof or disproof of this. Any historians know about this?)

 * Currently, there are 100s of thousands of black slaves in the Sudan, maybe over a million. Is our motivation (a) to show that America is bad, or (b) to reveal the suffering that slaves have endured? If A, then let's focus on the plight of slaves on the boats headed toward America and on the Southern plantations. If B, let's also write about slaves imported to Islamic or Arab countries, including contemporary Sudan.

 * I'm not a historian, but I like reading history. --Ed Poor

---

''Currently, there are 100s of thousands of black slaves in the Sudan, maybe over a million. Is our motivation (a) to show that America is bad, or (b) to reveal the suffering that slaves have endured? If A, then let's focus on the plight of slaves on the boats headed toward America and on the Southern plantations. If B, let's also write about slaves imported to Islamic or Arab countries, including contemporary Sudan.''

If you want to write an article about slavery in Sudan for Wikipedia, by all means, do! Just be fair. I'm well aware slavery exists in all parts of the globe and my intention was not just to slander the US. To be honest, it sounds more like you're trying to find an excuse to slander Islamic countries BUT I'm not making any accusations. If you're not, ok, I'm sorry. There is currently quite a backlash of anti-Muslim/anti-Islam sentiment that I have personally witnessed on the streets. Thus, I'm more than willing to admit I'm a little paranoid of people who would write a thousand pages of exaggerated data on slavery in Islamic countries and ignore or downplay previous ones in contrast. See, the problem is this. The slavery you're speaking of isn't JUST in Islamic countries. It's in Hindu countries, Christian countries, etc. It also comes in so many different forms, albeit with varrying degrees of suffering, that it is hard to say what is and what is not slavery.

Now, my angle is that we have this case of slaves being shipped to America and it does, in some ways, fit the traditional definition of genocide (it was obviously race oriented, just for starters). It is also well documented as being the biggest, the most brutal and ruthless slave trade of it's time. In my opinion, we need to make sure the extent of such an atrocity is known better than it is now. We have racists and their ilk trying to propagate lies like "they should be thankful they were enslaved" or "black people were enslaving themselves too." The latter may have some truth to it but it has been completely blown out of proportion by racist "conservatives" who distort history to their own liking (a la David Horowitz, who I am glad to say has been throughly refuted). Another one is the swelling of lies about how since Africa has been generally decolonized, it has become worse then it was! Those of us in the field of social sciences have figured out it is a lasting effect of badly organized and executed decolonization and not due to the skin tone of the people being colonized as some assert, or that colonial rule was better. This is a different topic though and I'm getting off track entirely...

So in short, no. It's to slander the US. My question was simply should we consider the slave trade to America as genocide? Most (third world) modern slavery is not racially specific about who they enslave. It's generally class/caste specific or just whoever gets on the bad side of whoever else is in charge. Thus, it's not really genocide any way you look at it. By the way, I would still like someone's opinion on China.

--Eco

 * Eco, it sounds like you have a lot of strong feelings about injustice; so do I. I'm more of an editor than a researcher, so I hope you will channel your strong feelings into MANY LONG and DETAILED articles!
 * 1) Some of the terms used to classify atrocities are slippery, so I'd be happy to help you get a grasp on them: racism, genocide, crime against humanity and so on have complex definitions. Words like killed and prisoner are more readily defined.
 * 2) The challenge of an encyclopedia often lies in classifying things appropriately.

Let's work together. --Ed Poor

We need more documentation on Soviet and Chinese genocide. Did they or did they not murder tens of millions of their own people?

Also, we need to come to terms on the definition of genocide. Should it focus on "race" & "ethnicity" as in the international agreements? Or should it apply also to state-sponsored mass murders of political and social groups (as in the Soviet Union and Red China)?

Note: if we choose to go with the UN definition, then we will have to find a good place for the "non-genocidal" state-sponsored mass murders. It does no good to the reader to have a "some people say this isn't genocide" disclaimer on every third paragraph in the article.

I do not like the new introduction. I think the previous one was much clearer, more accurate and informative, and accommodated both the International Law definition as well as alternative uses of the term. But I will not revert until/unless there is some more discussion.

The previous introduction in my opinion muted the issue of "non-genocidal state-sponsored mass-murder" by metnioning it as an alternative view. Also, I do not understand Ed Poor's concern since there is a term for, and article that deals with, "non-genocidal state-sponsored mass-murder" -- specifically, mass murder (which is much more narrow a concept than genocide, which need not involve murder at all); indeed, the previous intro had a link to this article. So I do not see what the problem is. Slrubenstein

Absent discussion over the past couple of days, I have reverted to the previous definition. here is what I Cut:
 * Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, typically by governments murdering huge numbers of civilians in areas under their control (see Holocaust, mass murder, democide, crime against humanity, war crimes).

The reason I cut this is that it is WAY TOO NARROW -- genocide need not be systematic, nor need it involve murder. The reverted introduction is clearer and signals the different uses of the term. It still has a link to "mass murder" to address incidents that may not ligally be considered genocide, or that overlap with genocide. Slrubenstein

title: Talk:Genocide/recent