Talk:List of genocides

Before writing a comment please read the comments below, and add yours in the most relevant section, or add a new section if nothing similar exists.

"Scholarly consensus" bar too narrowly defined?

The bar for inclusion in this list ignores a very fundamental aspect of historical genocides. Scholarly consensus on opinion (not facts) usually follows societal acknowledgement of past wrongs, not the other way around. Can we perhaps gravitate to something that doesn't define scholarly consensus so narrowly? Without that, I think articles such as this one run the risk of being in the business of genocide-denial, all while striving to be objective and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHGA2024 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

I believe the Boxer Rebellion should be added as a genocide. It was ethnic cleansing of Christians and foreigners in Norther China, & it definitely fits the definition of a genocide. Just because it was also a war doesn’t mean it wasn’t a genocide, for example take the Bosnian War. 67.226.222.24 (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Christians are not a nation. Also please provide a source. The Boxer Rebellion makes zero mention of it being a genocide and a quick Web search on "Boxer Rebellion genocide" yields nothing. Finally ethnic cleansing and genocide are not the same thing. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@KetchupSalt: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group Parham wiki (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. But we still need sources calling it as much. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Does need to be given it’s proper definition so at least it’s being acknowledged that we still 2600:8803:E3FC:9F00:955:3AA5:6FCF:5E40 (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaza

Please be watching as it seems we are witnessing a genocide of massive proportions happening in Gaza right now. With no power water and food gas or media coverage , we likely won’t know the numbers for weeks or months but it will be grave. 2607:FEA8:28E0:9170:5DE1:71FB:9CF1:F80B (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future." We do not know how many people will be killed by the Israelis in this ethnic cleansing. We will have to wait for available estimates, after the cleansing is completed. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not wait until it is completed to add this entry. Some sources suggest this may have been ongoing for many years already. There is no need to provide an end date, and casualties counts can be updated occasionally. VeronikaStein (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dimadick, no matter how senior, one should refrain from loaded language such as this - framing all "Israelis" as "Ethnic Cleansing". I'm new to the policies but targeted harassment doesn't bode well on Talk pages for purposes of WP:CON. Thanks :) Chavmen (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not loaded. "The Japanese" bombed Pearl Harbour, "the Romans" invaded Gaul, etc. etc. This is not "targeted harassment," this is commonly accepted language, and to argue as such would be to do so in bad faith. Jackwc123 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jackwc123

"... how many people will be killed by the Israelis in this ethnic cleansing...until this cleansing is completed." It's not the same. And this is not commonly accepted. Chavmen (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You aren't responding to my comment. What I said is "commonly accepted" is attributing an act to a nation, i.e. "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour." In fact, let us take a look at the Wiki page itself for that very same event:

"Japanese demands included..."

"...coordinated Japanese attacks..."

"The Japanese also sank or damaged..."

"The experiences of World War I taught the Japanese that..."

"...the Japanese attack on USS Panay..."

^ as you can plainly see, attributing an act to a nation (i.e. "killed by the Israelis") is a completely normal and commonly-accepted way of speaking about international matters, and everyone is patently aware that speaking this way is shorthand for speaking about national entities, not citizens. You are arguing this point in deliberately bad faith. Jackwc123 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I owed you a response seeing as you asserted my comments were done in bad faith.

Had a look at the article and the lede states Japanese military, Japanese navy, Japanese leadership, then moves to only Japanese in parts but not the entire article, it changes throughout.

I suppose I prefer specifics and this is not in bad faith.

And just for comparison, nowhere in this article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel does it refer to Palestinians as carrying out the attacks, only Hamas.

But this is off topic. Chavmen (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

agreed, there is over a thousand deaths and mostly children. It should be included and be spread awareness of, does not matter if its not over yet 2601:646:8300:78F0:BC9A:4BBC:8E6:6239 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually Israel doesn’t target civilians. It’s the hamas which uses palestinian civilians as human shields. So this isn’t genocide. “Spreading awareness” is not a reason to include it as a genocide, and it’s against the purpose of Wikipedia. Iron armour (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hamas and Gaza aren’t the same thing 2A02:DD07:8041:A500:9DF1:248C:8B46:A718 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields, and this is the reason they get killed. Therefore it can’t be considered genocide since they is no genocidal attempt, only Hamas terrorists using their civilians as human shields. A useful contributor (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

hello there A useful contributor im here to tell you that no not every Palestinian death is because of hamas I’m not denying hamas’s crimes obviously but blaming every single Palestinian death on Hamas is absolutely pathetic and stupid since Israel has committed crimes against the Palestinian before hamas’s foundation (for example the Deir Yassin massacre or the Tantura massacre) as well the dehumanising language against the Palestinians [1]https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301/amp

[2]https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/dehumanising-palestinians-israels-rhetoric-genocide-3457346?amp

[3]https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1786922

[4]https://www.livemint.com/news/world/pm-netanyahu-invokes-amalek-theory-to-justify-gaza-killings-what-is-this-hebrew-bible-nation-11698555324918.html

[5]https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/israel-defence-minister-human-animals-gaza-palestine_uk_65245ebae4b0a32c15bfe6b6/

[6]https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/

Israel never cared about the palestinian people because if they really did they wouldn’t kick out over 700,000 people out their homes and destroy over 400 of their cities, towns and villages, they wouldn’t let over 600,000 israeli settlers live in the West Bank knowing very well that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law not to forget alot of those israeli settlers are extremely violent as well and are also protected by Israel and so many more examples on how Israel makes palestinian lives a living hell sooooo I recommend you don’t learn history from zionists on twitter.com okay? (Also don’t take this paragraph as a very reliable source about Israel and Palestine either i am just pointing how horrible Israel is) TazunaJersey (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In your comment about the language, you completely ignored the October 7th attack when hamas killed over 1,000 civilians were killed by most brutal methods. If you think that calling the terrorists that committed those crimes “human animals” as a sign of genocide or as a sign of being “horrible” then I’m not sure what to reply. You are exaggerating the violence of some Israeli settlers, while completely ignoring the violence of Palestinians against Israeli settlers. Also, about the legality of the settlements, the international community did not recognize Jordan’s claim on the West Bank. Most of the aid to Gaza gets used by the Hamas for their military purposes. If Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, then they obviously aren’t very good at it as their population is growing in Gaza Strip and in the West Bank. The casualty numbers are due to the hamas using their civilian population as human shields. Also Israel treats Palestinians in Israel hospitals which is very strange for a country that is supposedly committing genocide against them. Also the hamas did not invent Islamist terrorism or antisemitism. Terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians existed long before that. Залізні мечі (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Again I’m not defending hamas not every civilian casualty is hamas’s fault it’s weird it just enables Israel’s genocide more like zionists could watch a video of a whole Palestinian family who have lived in Palestine for years get blown up into pieces yet they won’t have a single feeling of outrage, sadness, condemnation etc because as long as these Palestinians are labelled as just human shields and not actual human beings who have dreams and hopes humanity will just continue to fall

Also the “If Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, then they obviously aren’t very good at it as their population is growing in Gaza Strip and in the West Bank.” lol ok now tell me what happened to the Arab population in the 400 cities, towns and villages also yes Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians by indiscriminate bombing and starving like sure the Palestinian population may have grown but it doesn’t mean they are safe from genocide many ethnic groups have survived genocide it’s about the intent so anyways I have more important things then wasting my time arguing with dumb zionists on the internet TazunaJersey (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling the palestinian casualties human shields does not mean that they won’t feel sadness as you suggested in your comment. If the hamas fires rockets on Israeli civilians from densely populated areas, and actively prevents civilian evacuation, that it’s the hamas that puts its civilians at risk. You yourself admitted that “it’s about the intent so anyways”, which means that even if the number of palestinian casualties claimed by the hamas were true, then it wouldn’t constitute genocide due to the lack of a genocidal intention. Pointing to events that happened 75 years ago also doesn’t prove anything. Israel is fighting a war against the hamas, and the hamas is hiding behind civilians. As the other person said above, if Israel has genocidal intentions against palestinians, then they aren’t very successful at realizing them. Considering the fact that Israel is the stronger side of the conflict, it doesn’t make sense to think that despite them being as bad as you are trying to make them look, the population of Palestinians keeps growing. If you keep claiming there’s a “genocide” against Palestinians, do you think the October 7th attack was genocidal? The hamas shot thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians, they raped, and they massacred. They tortured kids in front of their parents, burned babies, and systematically raped women. They killed babies, old people, holocaust survivors. Why were they killed? Due to them being Israelis. Therefore hamas is the genocidal side of the conflict. The suffering of palestinian civilians will end if the hamas stops using them as human shields. I will quote former Israel pm Golds Meir “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population, and also treats Palestinians in Israeli hospitals which doesnt make sense for a country which is committing genocide. Harbu Darbu (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Harbu Darbu Your post surprised me in its content, and I felt I had to provide another argument. Please read carefully (statistics, etc.) this article also: Palestinian genocide accusation

• “I will quote former Israel pm Golds Meir “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Don’t you think quoting Golda Meir is just slightly biased?
• “The hamas shot thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians, they raped, and they massacred. They tortured kids in front of their parents, burned babies, and systematically raped women. They killed babies, old people, holocaust survivors. Why were they killed? Due to them being Israelis. Therefore hamas is the genocidal side of the conflict. The suffering of palestinian civilians will end if the hamas stops using them as human shields.” While Hamas may not have been justified in their attack, Israel have also certainly not been.
• “Considering the fact that Israel is the stronger side of the conflict, it doesn’t make sense to think that despite them being as bad as you are trying to make them look, the population of Palestinians keeps growing. If you keep claiming there’s a “genocide” against Palestinians, do you think the October 7th attack was genocidal?” A population can still grow if the potential genocide is protracted. Positive population growth and genocide are not mutually exclusive.
• “You yourself admitted that “it’s about the intent so anyways”, which means that even if the number of palestinian casualties claimed by the hamas were true, then it wouldn’t constitute genocide due to the lack of a genocidal intention.” Others would disagree over the fact that Israel has no genocidal intentions.
• “Therefore hamas is the genocidal side of the conflict. The suffering of palestinian civilians will end if the hamas stops using them as human shields.” Palestinians have been put at harm long before the creation of Hamas.

Scientelensia (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your claim of Golda Meir being biased, her quote is backed by real world data. Saying that “some people would disagree” doesn’t prove anything. Some people would also disagree over the fact that the Earth is round. And long before the creation of the hamas there were other palestinian terrorist organizations. And again, if Israel has genocidal intentions, then they aren’t successful at implementing them which strange considering the fact that they are the stronger side in the conflict. Harbu Darbu (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but your first statement (on Golda Meier) is subjective, the second is true (round Earth). Scientelensia (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Harbu Darbu "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population" How so? By attacking the same civilians they told to evacuate? By blocking the entry of food and medicine for civilians? By bombing an ambulance carrying 15 civilians? By bombing more than 200 schools? By bombing municipal water tanks and power generators? By letting over 15 babies die? Please, if you are so kind, could you explain how does "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population"? Also, if this is supposedly "about Hamas", how does that even explain the Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war? BirdCities (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The hamas terrorists shot palestinian civilians who tried to evacuate from Gaza. Most of the humanitarian supplies sent to Gaza get into the hands of the hamas and not of civilians. hamas terrorists use schools as command centres and fire rockets on Israeli civilians from them. Do you expect Israel to not defend Israelis? The Israeli incursions are necessary to combat terrorism. If Israel is indeed committing genocide, then it’s strange the casualty numbers among palestinians aren’t much higher since Israel definitely has the military capability to do so. Harbu Darbu (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the “human shields” argument the only response zionists have to Israel’s genocidal atrocities in gaza like do these people generally believe food, clean water, electricity, telecommunications, medicine, basic hygiene etc (which Israel has taken away from them) is “urmmmm hamas🤓☝️“ like South Africa isn’t having a whole genocide case against Israel for nothing

These people probably believe the 40 beheaded babies or the days of the week being hamas is true again I got more important things to do then argue with zionists on the internet

Also again you know bombing civilians isn’t the only war crime Israel has done right?

You know this didn’t start on October 7 right? You know Israel has committed human rights violations way before hamas even had power in gaza and it’s foundation?

Read this text in bold below it’s important and I don’t want you zionists to ignore it

1. So first of all I don’t support hamas and they definitely should held accountable for their war crimes

2. I don’t have to keep saying this but not every Palestinian death is just hamas using human shields

3. I’m not saying hamas doesn’t use human shields but do you really every time Israel brutally murders a Palestinian it’s all just human shields?Over 23,000 Palestinians have been killed with a lot of the victims being women and children according to the sources in article about hamas, hamas has about 20,000-25,000 members compare that!

4. Again Israel has committed human rights violations against the Palestinians before hamas had power in Gaza and its foundation as well as Israel’s current human violations in the West Bank which IS NOT run by hamas

Atp this point if you can’t accept Israel is committing a genocide in gaza along with other human rights violations there’s no point in arguing with you goodbye okay TazunaJersey (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Harbu Darbu: There are no sources for the claim that Hamas is using schools as command centers. If you are going to argue about things then instead of using made up claims you're gonna need to use actual sources. You can't just say "Uhhh Hamas is totally using this place as a hiding spot so it's okay to bomb it" to justify every single killing when you have no proof about it.

This might shock you but replying "B-but, what about Hamas???" every time someone points out war crimes committed by Israel is, in fact, a pretty bad rebuttal and just shows how little arguments you have.

You have not even once replied to what I asked you, which was to show facts that defend your claim of "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population". Arguing that Israel could kill more people if they wanted is not a rational argument.

You think that killing Palestinian civilians is justified if it's for the sake of protecting Israelis civilians. That is valuing Israeli lives more. The lives of 100 Palestinian civilians are just as valuable as the lives of 100 Israeli civilians. If Hamas was hiding among Israeli civilians, would you argue that it's completely okay to bomb them and kill all those Israeli civilians just to fight terrorism?

This might shock you but replying "B-but, what about Hamas???" every time someone points out war crimes committed by Israel is, in fact, a pretty bad rebuttal and just shows how little arguments you have.

You have not even once replied to what I asked you, which was to show facts that defend your claim of "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population". Arguing that Israel could kill more people if they wanted is not a rational argument.

You think that killing Palestinian civilians is justified if it's for the sake of protecting Israelis civilians. That is valuing Israeli lives more. The lives of 100 Palestinian civilians are just as valuable as the lives of 100 Israeli civilians. If Hamas was hiding among Israeli civilians, would you argue that it's completely okay to bomb them and kill all those Israeli civilians just to fight terrorism? BirdCities (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It is the same way rabbits reproduce. They have many children to have a better chance of survival. Chainsawz (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s hilarious to say when the Uygur genocide is listed despite no first hand source whatsoever 2601:283:4C81:2960:10E8:AA14:404E:180 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Already, one could consider it as one. My text was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides&diff=prev&oldid=1180110837

What do people think? Other than BilledMammal, who does not agree with the text. Scientelensia (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree the situation is very grave, but we have to follow what reliable sources say. I do not see a significant number of reliable sources describing events in Gaza as a genocide. Bondegezou (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I can find many however which show that Israel has breached the UN Genocide Convention, stating specifically the terms which it has breached. E.g. one or two of the sources on the Genocide against Palestinians page/ What do you think of this article, also? https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide Scientelensia (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I was coming here to share the same source from jewishcurrents. It qualifies. As of 5 hours ago, reported civilian casualties are 2,215. Of course it will go way up from here. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-live-dozens-killed-while-fleeing-to-southern-gaza#:~:text=The%20Israeli%20military%20has%20indicated,Israeli%20air%20attacks%20on%20Gaza. VeronikaStein (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

High casualty events are not automatically genocides, and high casualty events in the future are definitely not. So far, at least 17,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russia in the current war but that is not listed. The last months has seen the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians under threat of genocide, not listed here. Tens or hundreds of thousands have died in the Tigray War, I don’t know how many in Yemen and Syria, all described by some sources as genocide but not listed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Again however, I would like to quote scholar Raz Segal:

Raz Segal:

“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—more bombs than the US dropped on all of Afghanistan in any year of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals.

It’s not only Israel’s leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 called for Israel to “turn Gaza to Dresden.” Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news station, published a report about left-leaning Israelis calling to “dance on what used to be Gaza.” Meanwhile, genocidal verbs—calls to “erase” and “flatten” Gaza—have become omnipresent on Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading “Zero Gazans” was seen hanging from a bridge.” Scientelensia (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR is very, very clear. Wikipedians are not to base edits on original research. We edit based on what reliable sources say. Is there a substantial body of reliable sources calling current events a genocide? Your arguments constitute original research and, thus, have no epistemological value for determining edits. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not solely my edits. There is no original research. Lost of scholars call it a genocide. I am not saying that it is though. Scientelensia (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources explicitly calling it a genocide and we can look at them. You have given us one above, from Jewish Currents. Do you have more? Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is one more by Ilan Pappe VeronikaStein (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Pappe is an activist and historian not a genocide scholar or legal expert. This article predates the current crisis too. While clearly there are going to be individuals who see this as a genocide (and they may be right), and that can be discussed on the article about the conflict if they are noteworthy, but we need there to be wide consensus that it's a genocide before we include it in a list like this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Another one There is a lot here to look through, but it is said explicitly in the conclusion. VeronikaStein (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

CCR is an advocacy organisation not a reliable source. I think we need the preponderance of reliable sources to agree before listing it here BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Being an advocacy organization doesnt necessarily mean it's not a reliable source. Youd need evidence they have posted false information in the past, or other indications of unreliability Ashvio (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This one by Genocide Watch has explicitly classified this instance as 'Level 8: Extermination' VeronikaStein (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Correction. 'Stage 9: Extermination' VeronikaStein (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You've misread the genocide watch article; it's raising a warning about the actions against both Israel and Gaza. The stage nine warning applies to the actions against Israel; the large scale massacres of civilians. The warning that applies to the actions against Gaza is Stage 4, dehumanization, which it considers to be a step towards genocide but not genocide itself.

In other words, that source supports adding the actions against Israel to the list ("The massacres by Hamas constituted acts of genocide"), but not the actions against Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The massacre committed by the hamas against Israeli civilians should be included in the list as genocide. The atrocities are documented in the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and were most likely worse than described in the article. Iron armour (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the academic assessment previously provided, the following articles show consensus among some politicians as well as the public. Generally speaking, how many sources are we looking for here?

Colombia condemns genocide in Gaza

Lula's party calls out Israel for 'genocide' in Gaza

Protests Across the U.S. Call for Israel to End Its Siege and Genocide in Gaza VeronikaStein (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Pappe paper and the CCR piece are older and refer to events prior to the recent outbreak of war. They don’t argue that the current events constitute a genocide, which I thought is what we were discussing. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Some sources here backdate the beginning of this genocide as early as 1948. That is not a case for not adding this to the list. The topic is 'Gaza', not 'Gaza 2023'. The start date can be disputed. The casualty counts too. Statements by activists and historians contribute to public consensus. All of these sources, as a whole, need to be taken into consideration. This is because we will not receive a public statement by Netanyahu admitting genocide. Nor will we from Biden. VeronikaStein (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Democracy Now, Brazilian Report and Middle East Monitor are strong sources, and I don't think US protestors, Lula or Petro are qualified to make this judgement (although Lula and Petro's opinions would be obviously due on the article about the events). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I will take that note and try to source more mainstream American news, thank you. Official statements made by heads of 3rd party states are some of the best sources for consensus here. My understanding is that evidence of consensus among a wide group of academics, politicians, and the public are what is required for consensus. Is that correct? Or are Wikipedia contributors themselves more qualified than Lula and Petro? VeronikaStein (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Interested in your thoughts on my sources below. Not saying we need to add this as genocide immediately, but there's a growing number of scholars and qualified experts calling this genocide or ethnic cleansing, along with Israeli statements also implying such intentions. Ashvio (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Other potential genocides missing from this list is not a case against adding this one to the list. This topic is titled 'Gaza'. VeronikaStein (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the list needs to apply some kind of consistent principles. If we start including everything that anyone has described as a genocide, we'll get a very long list very quickly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully aligned. We must be very consistent. VeronikaStein (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN won’t call the Ughyrs a genocide but call Gaza a genocide… so why is one not a genocide on the list and the other isn’t? 2601:283:4C81:2960:C18F:1953:44AB:1FC2 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter what the UN says. Wikipedia summarizes WP:Reliable sources. In the case of genocide, which is part of the scholarly field of genocide studies, we summarize WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Not governments, not non-government organizations... scholarship. Per WP:NPOV, if the mainstream view of scholars is that something is genocide, Wikipedia says it's genocide, in its own voice. Otherwise, not. Ask the scholars why they agree the Uyghur genocide is a genocide but they don't agree about Palestinians. Whatever their reasons, Wikipedia follows the scholarship.

When the scholars agree that the Nakba is a genocide -- which I think they will, probably in the next 12-24 months, once they start publishing new papers and books -- then Wikipedia will call it a genocide in WP:WIKIVOICE. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious why scholars would agree on Uyghur genocide but decline Gaza Genocide. China is an official foe of the west and Israel is an official ally. The VAST majority of scholars live in the west and almost none are protected by tenure anymore. You think that they haven't noticed that colleges, even elite ones, are being targeted and defunded by wealthy Israel supporters for the crime of having a local chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. There is a high cost for so called neutral scholars to say anything negative about Israel, and nothing but incentives to say negative things about China. Adbdb0o (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the UN has called the current 2023 conflict a genocide. The term is heavily loaded and should not be used lightly especially in an act of self defense. Further, there are a number of wars with high death tolls that are not classified as genocides. As others much more senior than I have said, we go by WP:RSP and what the WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. See:

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-israel-commits-acts-genocide

https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/experts-laws-war-apply-hamas-israeli-military-rcna120767 Chavmen (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As Jewish Currents has been invoked by two editors, just noting this response from an Israel-critical scholar:

• Dov Waxman (30 October 2023). "On "A Textbook Case of Genocide"". Jewish Currents. Retrieved 2 November 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There are sources from before the current conflict on this suggesting Israel's actions are a genocide, for what it's worth. Not sure if it's a consensus of scholars but is likely enough to include as notable opinion in relevant articles for Israel/Palestine. [7]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230107922_2

For the current conflict, sources calling this an ethnic cleansing (UN expert)

800 scholars signed a statement warning of "potential genocide"

Statements from Knesset suggesting a "second Nakba" for proving intent

And more recently, an Israeli think tank suggested an opportunity to commit what basically constitutes ethnic cleansing as described by secondary sources

I think it's likely too early to suggest the current conflict is a genocide yet as others noted, but it should definitely be on our radar. For the overall conflict since 1948, it could definitely qualify as "ethnic cleansing" at the very least if we have a separate article for that. Ashvio (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The letter signed by 800 scholars really brings to light the genocidal intent. In addition to this, there are numerous speeches and actions that further contribute to this grim assessment.

In the context of this conflict, the term 'collective punishment' has been, and continues to be, in my view, employed as a euphemism for genocide. This choice of language is likely due to the efforts of ambassadors and diplomats who are working to maintain diplomatic relations and de-escalate tensions.

However, as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a platform for WP:OR. Wikipedia strives to documents history accurately, even if that means adopting a more conservative/cautious stance. This results in articles lagging behind current events and trends. Nevertheless, I think that the main article on this conflict could do a better job at reflecting the various claims and accusations more promptly than this list does. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Allegations of genocide
• Palestinian genocide accusation#Discourse on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Another one by New York UN Official Craig Mokhiber VeronikaStein (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Liberal Israeli leaders were contemplating genocide in Gaza already in 1967". Mondoweiss. 2017-11-17. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-11-05.
• "Yadlin said Israel would be happy if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state." - Katz, Y (2010-12-21). "Yadlin: Israel would be 'happy' if Hamas takes over Gaza". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2022-12-28. Retrieved 2023-11-05.
• Segal, Raz (2023-10-13). "A Textbook Case of Genocide". Jewish Currents. Archived from the original on 2023-11-03. Retrieved 2023-11-05. "Raz Segal is an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide"

Maybe we could just add to the list and include a disputed tag, maybe pointing to the "Palestinian genocide accusation" article. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good idea. Scientelensia (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That's not what the tag is for. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

we have Israeli historian and professor of genocide and holocaust studies Omer Bartov saying on 10 November 2023,

Whether at the moment this is genocide, my own sense is that it is not genocide at the moment, because there is still no clear indication of an attempt to destroy the entire population, which would be genocide, but that we are very close on the verge of that. And if this so-called operation continues, that may become ethnic cleansing — in part, it’s already happened with the move of so many Palestinians from northern Gaza to southern Gaza — and that may become genocide.

so in the future depending on how the future unfolds it might make sense to add a second entry of gaza to the list of instances of ethnic cleansing, this time in the 2020s. though i hope we wont have to 😢🙏 ~ Johnfreez (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnfreez He is but one scholar, and I'm sure there are others, but there are plenty of other scholars who would say it isn't. NGOs and journalists are also saying it isn't a text book case of Genocide or ethic cleansing. So at best, still fits into the accusation realm.

The Economist for one:

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/11/10/how-the-term-genocide-is-misused-in-the-israel-hamas-war Chavmen (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

there is still no clear indication of an attempt to destroy the entire population The UN charter stipulates no such requirement. In fact it states that it is genocide whether it is "in whole or in part", and WP:LISTV stipulates that we follow the charter. Intent also seems abundantly clear. But either way we probably need to wait for the scholarship to catch up as many in here have said. I will also point out that academia is not the sole source of WP:RS. The international legal system is catching up, and should for example the ICC find Israel's leadership guilty of the crime of genocide I'd say that's reliable enough. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say this story out today from an Israeli magazine with sources in the IDF rather definitively proves genocidal intent.

‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza. Permissive airstrikes on non-military targets and the use of an artificial intelligence system have enabled the Israeli army to carry out its deadliest war on Gaza, a +972 and Local Call investigation reveals. Adbdb0o (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on this from the entry on ethnic cleansing, the situation in Gaza looks like genocide:

'Ethnic cleansing has been described as part of a continuum of violence whose most extreme form is genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or population transfer whereas genocide is the attempt to destroy part or all of a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. While ethnic cleansing and genocide may share the same goal and the acts which are used to perpetrate both crimes may often resemble each other, ethnic cleansing is intended to displace a persecuted population from a given territory, while genocide is intended to destroy a group.

'Some academics consider genocide to be a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing". As Norman Naimark writes, these concepts are different but related, for "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people". William Schabas adds, "Ethnic cleansing is also a warning sign of genocide to come. Genocide is the last resort of the frustrated ethnic cleanser." Sociologist Martin Shaw has criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide as he believes that both ultimately result in the destruction of a group through coercive violence.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Genocide M.mk (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

South Africa initiated proceedings two days ago with the International Court of Justice against Israel with regards to the ongoing alleged genocide. This will take some time to make its way through the legal system, but once it does and if a guilty verdict is handed down then I say that would be plenty reliable. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

On Jan 26th 2024 the International Court of Justice has given provisional ruling

I WOULD SUGGEST ... that Gaza genocide is added in the list as "suspected" genocide and the addition would be backed by the I.C.J. ruling.

By being proactive Wikipedia as a community would help people to be aware of this ongoing (suspected) genocide and thus putting pressure to Israel to obey the International Court of Justice ruling and orders!

"54. In the Court's view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seeks Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention."

So basically what ICJ has said that they explicitly ordered Israeli to abstain from killing Palestinians and to ensure that humanitarian aid gets there.

Ensure, would mean that Israeli must us their army would have to protect humanitarian aid and ensure that it gets to Palestinians and they can distribute it properly.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf

and International commission of jurists comment the ruling

https://www.icj.org/gaza-israel-must-implement-provisional-measures-ordered-by-the-international-court-of-justice/

“Through this Order, the world’s highest judicial authority has acknowledged that there is a risk of genocide being committed in Gaza,” said Said Benarbia, MENA Programme Director at of the International Commission of Jurists. “It is now incumbent on Israel to implement the provisional measures – as well as its obligations under the United Nations Charter – as a matter of urgency.” 91.157.41.141 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

By being proactive Wikipedia as a community would help people to be aware of this ongoing (suspected) genocide and thus putting pressure to Israel to obey the International Court of Justice ruling and orders! WP doesn't really work like this. We have to wait until sufficient reliable sources says it is indeed a genocide per the UN definition. See WP:LISTV.

Through this Order, the world’s highest judicial authority has acknowledged that there is a risk of genocide being committed in Gaza Note here the careful wording "risk of genocide".

I don't doubt more RS will start calling it a genocide as time goes on and as (unfortunately) more people die. WP tends to trail behind. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support This is an obvious case of genocide, as pointed out by many researchers, journalists, politicians and organisations from all over the world. However, in my experience in other (unrelated) article discussions, I think other users will not agree to add it until the English-speaking hegemonic mass media calls it that.🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That would be a ridiculous standard, but sadly in line with the pro-Western liberal bias evident on WP at present. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-gaza-provisional-ruling.html 91.157.41.141 (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's get this added. It's quite clearly a genocide by any non-biased definition. Many who oppose it in this discussion are using Israeli PR quotes that have long since lost their credibility. Let's not let bad actors censor this any longer. Get it added to the page. 92.28.201.22 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Genocide of Indigenous Americans

The process of exterminating Indigenous peoples in the Americas perhaps deserves an entry of its own, though some constituent parts do appear. The list of North American massacres of Indigenous peoples has its own page with a seemingly endless list of incidents, and when taken together clearly constitutes a singular genocidal effort rather than individual anomalies within the process of colonization.

The Uyghur Genocide is listed, in spite of many of the claims about said events -- forced reeducation, forced sterilization, etc. -- were and are practiced on Indigenous peoples on these continents, along with forced removal of lands, which is plainly the definition of ethnic cleansing, and is even accepted as such in the Wikipedia article on "Ethnic Cleansing."

Furthermore, the Holodomor even makes an appearance, even though its status as a genocide is so debatable that the note on its very inclusion in this list mentions that fact. If an alleged genocide can be included in this list with a footnote, then I find it particularly jarring that these events, which are confirmable genocidal simply by looking at the words of those who perpetrated them ("our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada" as said Duncan Campbell Scott, architect of Canada's residential school system, or how about George Washington's claim that "the gradual extension of our Settlements will as certainly cause the Savage as the Wolf to retire; both being beasts of prey tho' they differ in shape" -- there are countless admissions such as these).

If not as one singular item in the list, then the list may at the very least seek to add individual events such as The Trail of Tears, the Residential School System in Canada/Indian Boarding School system in America, the mass sterilization campaigns against Indigenous peoples in places such as Peru and the United States, the ongoing extermination of Amazonian tribes in the pursuit of lumber and likewise events in Paraguay, etc. etc. etc. Jackwc123 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As I recall the discussion was whether to list all of them as one big genocide, to list each one separately or perhaps to add an extra "campaign" column to group them under. A campaign column would be useful for other cases of genocide, for example Generalplan Ost, itself consisting of multiple genocides. If I remember correctly there is also controversy over whether to count dead due to pandemics as part of the American genocides.

Due to WP:SYNTH we can't list events as genocides unless there are sources calling them as much, even if they seem obviously genocidal to us. And per WP:LISTV sources must unambiguously call them genocides in line with the UN definition, as that is the criteria for inclusion on this list. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In the century that followed arrival of Europeans, the native population of the Americas dropped from 30-50 million, depending on authors, to 2.5-5 million, depending on authors. We can't be splitting this up into "small genocides". Of course some is due to disease, but other genocides include indirect deaths also. I don't have the time to scour the history of this article, but I seem to recall there being several larger genocides and the Americas being included? Tallard (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In the century that followed arrival of Europeans, the native population of the Americas dropped from 30-50 million This doesn't mean all those 30-50 million were genocided. The crime of genocide requires intent, and the literature linked here so far raises doubt whether deceases spreading by themselves qualify as genocide. Which authors claim 2.5-5 million? They could be a good source.

Failing that, individual events such as the Trail of Tears would be a good start I think, or better yet the Indian Removal Act. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Another thing to try and find RS on is the near-eradication of the buffalo as a deliberate act of genocide of the various First Nations that depended on the buffalo for survival, especially the Sioux. The buffalo article lists one source of this type, but it doesn't list any numbers, and its reliability is perhaps dubious. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila?

Should the Sabra and Shatila Massacre be listed here? It was recognised as an act of genocide in the MacBride Report and by the United Nations. 5.61.122.219 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

As with most of these examples, there isn't consensus that this was genocide, but I think the citations given in that article look to me sufficient to justify adding them here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Returning to this issue, I would like to note that as well as the above citations, the incident was described as a genocide in an official report to the UNHRC by the Palestinian Return Centre, and by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission ([8]), which cited several scholars including Bayan al-Hout (an expert on the massacre) in its decision. A civil case alleging genocide was also brought against Ariel Sharon in Belgium - this case failed, but the dismissal was because Sharon was not present in the country, not because the incident's status as a genocide was disputed. There are a couple of other articles online I could link to if necessary, but I'm not sure if they would be considered RS for what constitutes genocide. 5.61.122.219 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If it was, wouldn't this be an act of genocide, not a genocide in itself? And therefore not appropriate to be included here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Other incidents that were only a single act rather than an organised campaign such as the Massacre of Salsipuedes are included. 143.159.91.189 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should be added based on the citations given in that article, as well as this essay I found by several genocide scholars that calls the massacre an act of genocide. TRCRF22 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

@Cdjp1, @Carlotm The Albigensian Crusade can't be listed as a genocide because the Cathars were not killed because of their race (a notion that didn't exist yet) but because of their faith.
Best Regards,
Belysarius (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group Parham wiki (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm tagged specifically for this, as to my recollection I've never added the Albigensian Crusade specifically to the list. If we were to remove all genocides that occurred before the modern invention of race, it means nothing prior to the 18th/19th century would be on here, contrary to academics and experts on the matter. And per the UN definition for genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, "

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.

" so your counter as to why the Albigensian Crusade should not be included here falls when held against this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I tagged you because you are the two main contributors to this article and therefore the two most likely to respond to me. I thank you for your response.

The crusade aimed to convert the Cathars who had recently abandoned Roman Christianity and not to destroy the Albigensian people or Occitan culture.

Unfortunately if you were to add all religious massacres to this list, it would be infinite and would include for example massacres committed by the Cathars against Catholic civilians in Cathar-held towns.

Furthermore, the Albigensian crusade is very different from a massacre committed by a strong government against a minority since it is a war between feudal lords and the Albigensian lords had armies, forts and were able to defend themselves and attempt offensives. Belysarius (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To break this down:

1. We rely on what reputable sources say on a matter, if it is the opinion of the relevant experts in the matter that the Albigensian Crusade counts as a genocide against the Cathars, then it is what should be expressed in the relevant wiki articles.
2. On Conversion, this may be an argument for it not being a genocide, as conversions forced or otherwise are not explicitly stated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, though it is not a strong argument due to the following:
   1. It can be argued that forced conversions, especially of children of the group would fall under the spirit of 'e', that is "(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
   2. If we step away from the legal definition adopted by the UN (which is possible as shown by the wealth of academic research around genocide), we can find that forced conversions are considered at least part of cultural genocide, and in some cases genocide. You can even find some discussion of forced conversion as a tool of genocide under the Ottoman Empire in this wiki article. For a couple of examples of the academic literature you can see Mallavarapu, 2017 and Kurt, 2016.
   3. As religious groups are identified specifically in the Convention, destroying a religious, even if only through conversion, is still the destruction of that religious group.
   4. Finally this is all operating under the assumption that all the Albigensian Crusade entailed was in fact just conversions, which we know it was not, and in fact in most cases was the mass killing of both actual and suspected Cathars.
3. You seem to try to separate the Albigensians as being a different form of categorisation than the Cathars, which is wrong, as it's use in the name "Albigensian Crusade" and it's use as an accusation of a heretical movement in Rome's eyes is specific to those they viewed as Cathars. Britannica has a quick read on this detailing why they were called Albigensians by Rome.
4. If I were to have my say on the matter, yes, we would include a lot more cases of mass killings in this list, but it is not up to us to make the decision, only to report on what the reputable sources say.
5. You seem to argue that a genocide can not be a genocide if the two parties involved are 'separate' polities at war, is this the case? If it is, then a few examples this criteria would see removed from this list would be: the Iraqi Turkmen genocide, the Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State, the German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation, mass sections of the Holocaust and the Romani Holocaust, and basically all genocides against indigenous peoples during the 17th-19th centuries. This sort of view is at odds with not just the Convention's definition and understanding of the crime of genocide, but also against multiple other definitions and analyses through genocide research.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@user:Belysarius Consider what CDjP1 posted as coming from my mind completely. Cheers.Carlotm (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Cdjp1. In particular, (1): we rely on what reliable sources say. We should not be trying to argue this matter based on our interpretation of the criteria. We should look to reliable sources to do the interpreting. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The notion of "Cathars" also did not actually exist at the time of the Albigensian Crusade, and this idea of a heterodox sect of gnostic-inspired dualistic Christians in Medieval France has largely been abandoned by current historians.

The term "Cathar" literally doesn't appear once in a single primary source that actually dates from the time, and the document upon which later notions of Catharism were based is widely regarded to be a forgery. Since the group that this article asserts to have been the target of the Albigensian Crusade didn't actually have any coherent existence, its inclusion on this list is absurd.

I know that this is technically OR until I provide sources, but I'm currently on my phone and will provide them later, just leaving this comment now so I don't forget. Djehuty98 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Djehuty98: Leglu, Rist, and Taylor is the book you want, which points out how the existence of Catharism, was at the least overblown by those seeking a heresy. Though, this does not change the materials which we cite for it's inclusion in the list. Cdjp1 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Consider adding the Massacres/Genocide of Albanians in Balkan Wars

Even though this event isn't universally called a genocide, a significant portion of scholarship views the atrocities as systematic, and some explicitly refer to it as "extermination" which would imply that the atrocities were part of a genocidal campaign. View this as an addition that would be similar to the Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

For context, a discussion on this topic has already been raised here ([9]). Making inferences from multiple sources that they themselves do not explicitly state violates WP:OR. In addition, some of the sources do not meet WP:RS due to age, POV pushing and a lack of peer review. For a significant topic like this, you need to find multiple sources that meet RS such as peer review papers that specifically analyses this event. As mentioned in the previous talk page discussion, it is currently extremely difficult to find as this is an under-researched area. I have not been able to find any myself either. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily consider using sources citing "systematic extermination" or systematic atrocities as constituting WP:OR since they would objectively fall under the definition of genocide as defined by the UN. Some of the old sources, like (as you may be referring to) Albania's Golgotha and the Carnegie Commission's report are supported by secondary sources. Since there are some sources citing genocide directly, like sources 1-7 per my original suggestion (as well as Mark Levene's characterization of the Luma massacre), I think this implication is common enough to justify inclusion in this article, as it was to include the "Genocide question" section on the article in question. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yung Doohickey: looking at the sources provided in the comment here, some of these seem like they'd be better for use in the article. A note in the first column, ala how the other entries have, will allow you to expand on what Massacres of Albanians in Balkan Wars was, allowing you to add the relevant citations. Ones from respected academics which explicitly use the word "genocide" or "genocidal" in the description of events will be the best to have. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Guatemalan genocide entry

It asks for "citation needed."

Here is some info:

'The killing of this period in Guatemala has been recognized as “genocide” by official analysts and by a thorough 12-volume investigative report (CEH, 1999). This latter study made clear the appropriateness of the phrase “acts of genocide” to name the crimes of Guatemala’s military against the Maya, in spite of the military’s claim that they lacked “intent” to commit genocide, that it was only motivated by economic, political or military concerns (CEH, 1999, ch. 2, vol.3).'

Quote above is found at this link:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/12/22/israel-and-genocide-not-only-in-gaza/ M.mk (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

CounterPunch is not a reliable source. Do you have a better sources for this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The source is a WP:SPS blog from a tenured prof at Princeton Seminary (and also not a specialist in genocides or international law). CounterPunch is the blog publisher, for purposes of evaluation per its entry in WP:RSP. Furthermore, Taylor is the secondary citation to the primary internal citation: UNOPS Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico 1999.

The latter must be critically examined for whether the former accurately characterizes its description of "genocide". At that point it is a WP:RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

Need no add current Genocide to list Palestinian (Gaza) Genocide 2023-Present 2600:1700:589D:E810:D0C5:D18:5363:C820 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza (ongoing)

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think there is much need to argument this suggested topic, but for the sake of clarity: Israel has already explicitly enacted 3 out of 5 genocidal actions as per Article II of Genocide Convention (1 - killing members of group, 2 - serious bodily and mental harm, 3 - deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction), the ICJ is set to a hearing against Israel for charges of genocide as South African lawyers have compiled pages after pages with statements by Israeli officals clearly documenting the genocidal intention of this monstrous collective punishment on innocent civilians, there is already 20 000+ reported dead over a population of 2 millions, there are 1.2 million internally displaced people crammed up in a third portion of Gaza territory, and more and more evidence is simply right there in the face of everyone. 213.32.254.179 (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC) This appears to be largely WP:OR. — Czello (music) 13:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) I don't think it's original research. Anyone who doesn't believe it is a genocide only needs to wait, before the ICJ's decision or the resulting destruction to Gaza or the West Bank. Maybe we should also include the wrongful imprisonments of those in the West Bank. Sophistocles (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC) It is OR as that comment was all formulating a personal conclusion - textbook OR in fact. But yes, we can wait until there is a more conclusive ruling. — Czello (music) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC) It isn't formulating a personal conclusion. Please read this: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf. Which outlines the the extent of the evidence that asserts Israel's actions in this conflict as Genocidal. There also many other scholarly sources with the same conclusion. There is clearly a very strong allegation of Genocide and some people disagree. However the inclusion of the Holodomor shows me that this list looks to also include allegations which are debated, so why would we not include this? I believe the list should be more open to any situation where there is a genuine reliable case for genocide. I also expect this Genocide to be added following a ruling against Israel's actions from the ICJ. Sophistocles (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC) I think what this article needs to do, in these cases and more broadly, is to be more explicit about the highly contested nature of most possible entries in this list. That is, Wikipedia shouldn't be saying in its own voice that X or Y is a genocide when the debate is far from settled, but we should be acknowledging cases where there is significant debate. Maybe that's about including some more text in the lead to note this. Maybe that's including more text around individual entries noting debate. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) I agree @Bondegezou Sophistocles (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC) The comments above were forming a conclusion as no source was linked. But as you've now linked one – it needs scholarly recognition, not a case being put forward to the ICJ that hasn't even been decided on yet. — Czello (music) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Please add the following entry to the table:

Event	Location	Period		Estimated killings		Proportion of group killed
		From	To	Lowest	Highest
Sabra and Shatila massacre	Beirut, Lebanon	1982	1982	460	3,500	Unknown due to a lack of accurate figures.

5.61.122.219 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

5.61.122.219 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Additions to the list need to be recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Please provide sources demonstrating as such. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Are the above citations not sufficient? They include genocide scholars, international law experts and the UN itself, and all of them apply the UN definition. 5.61.122.219 (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Slave trade

Clearly a case of genocide, it is estimated that the slave trade promoted by European nations and that lasted for 300 years is to blame for the death of at least 12 million Africans 176.83.233.251 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

The genocide of Tamil people in Sri Lanka is now accepted by the UN. From 1983 to 2004, 54,053 Tamil civilians were killed during the war and another 25,266 were made to disappeared but never found again. Another almost 70,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the last five months of the campaign. Facttk (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Genocide against Bosniaks and Croats by Chetniks in WW2

Change the higher estimate into “138,000” The figure that most Bosniaks use is 106,000 (only for killed Bosniaks) which is different from the Yugoslav government statistics. Some numbers go as high as 150,000 but I couldn’t find relevant sources for it aside from claims. When it come to Croats the highest estimate I found was 32,000 maybe someone knows another one. and adding 106,000 and 32,000 I reached the figure of 138,000. Sources: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=873357https://hrcak.srce.hr/103223?lang=en 80.80.42.30 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Holodomor here but not the Palestinian genocide accusation?

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In both cases their characterization as genocides is questioned but only one is included here. What's the reason for this inconsistency? 181.98.62.149 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Relevant articles: Holodomor genocide question Palestinian genocide accusation 181.98.62.149 (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) The Holodomor is largely accepted by historians to be a genocide. What's happening in Palestine doesn’t have as much consensus. — Czello (music) 11:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) You seem to know so much about history Czello, always answering in so many different topics so quickly... not to mention being able to answer with more confidence than chatGPT. Are you really that knowledgeable that you can answer so fast without rereading or are you just pushing your POV in different articles181.98.62.149 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) This is an odd response for a fast reply; you're welcome, by the way. However to reiterate we go by what sources say. — Czello (music) 13:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC) What you say the sources say and what the sources on this articles and in Holodomor genocide question actually say don't match. But have you honestly checked them and you somehow still think that they match what you claim or are you just claiming they do because that's your POV and you ignore the mismatch? 181.98.62.149 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC) The majority of historians and genocide scholars do not recognise the Holodomor to be a genocide, though there is a genuine debate. Endwise (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Debate still exists but it has far more recognition than what is happening in Palestine. — Czello (music) 13:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Someone (BilledMammal based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles) reverted my comment because ips can't comment on articles related to the Palestine genocide. I readded the topic because this article is not related to Israel. I'm saying the Holodomor doesn't belong on this list. 181.98.62.149 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) I removed under both WP:ARBPIA and WP:GS/RUSUKR, although the second is less clear and I won't re-remove. BilledMammal (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Why aren't the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki included in on this page? There is debate about this in the same way there is debate about the classification of the Holodomor. If we are including some that are debatable we must include the atomic bombings.

Colonel Harry F. Cunningham said: "There are no civilians in Japan."[1] To justify Japan as a military target. It is rhetoric of this sort that justifies genocidal actions against a nation, in the same way that and Israeli leader said that “[t]here are no innocents in Gaza”[2]. Saying that civilians are a legitimate target is "intent to destroy" "a national ... group"[3] which is the UN definition which I assume we are following here.

[1]John Toland, The Last Great Victory: The End of World War II, July/August 1945, Dutton Adult, 1995, p. 205.

[2]https://twitter.com/avigdorliberman/status/1730297081959530685

[3]https://web.archive.org/web/20230101182544/https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf Sophistocles (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The actions after the bombings.

Had the US not accepted surrender, or had they gone on to slaughter large portions of the population afterwards, the bombings would be part of that genocide, but they didn't. There was no attempt to wipe out the entire group.

-- Keiyakins (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the "entire group". The UN definition says "in whole or in part". Sophistocles (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources calling the bombings genocides per the UN definition? Merely killing lots of civilians doesn't a genocide make. This also appears to be WP:SYNTH. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombings_as_war_crimes Sophistocles (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

How do we cover debate and uncertainty

To expand on a tangential point I made above in a now closed discussion, we are faced with a large number of possible entries to this list that are debated. (Sometimes that's just a debate within the Academy; sometimes that's a debate with broader geopolitical ramifications.) Wikipedia cannot settle these contentious topics and shouldn't be declaring contested cases as definitely genocide (or not genocide) in its own voice, but we should, as per WP:NPOV, describe disputes, but not engage in them and Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

Is there a way of doing that by being more explicit about the (highly) contested nature of many (most?) entries in this list? Can we include some more text in the lead to note this? Can we include more text for individual entries noting debate?

Personally, I think we should include more entries, but with more caveats noting ongoing debate. But I'm starting this section really just to get ideas from everyone about how to cover contentious cases neutrally. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article reads "It excludes mass killings which were not unequivocally defined as genocide". And yet , the Holodomor genocide question is included without any explanation as to why besides some users pushing their POV and ignoring the very second sentence of this article. 181.98.62.149 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• The lead says "Unequivocally defined" as genocide, which I think is too strong of a bar. The actual list section says "recognised in significant scholarship" as genocide, which is a much lower bar. Of course we can't include everything anyone has said is genocide, like the white genocide conspiracy theory, so we have to put the bar somewhere. In my opinion, it should be something like "generally/usually/typically recognised in significant scholarship" as genocide (under the Genocide Convention).

"Describe, not engage in disputes" is a pretty good point. But I think this article should be more about historical genocides than about describing scholarly disputes about what is and isn't genocide. I think a description of those disputes is better for articles like Genocides in history (or e.g. Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)), which have more room in the prose to explain a scholarly debate.

So, my view would be to leave out of the article debates like the Holodomor genocide question (and certainly the Palestinian genocide accusation, as was suggested above). But that we should still keep historical events which most scholars would generally describe as genocide, even though a smaller minority of scholars do not; I'm thinking for example the East Timor genocide or even the Rohingya genocide. No matter where you draw the line though there's going to be a grey area of course. Endwise (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Endwise. I will check out Genocides in history. I think there are some big, politically contentious cases (e.g. Holodomor genocide question, Palestinian genocide accusation) that it would be good to cover somehow, noting they are contentious. At present, we have endless Talk discussion and sometimes edit warring over such. It seems to me better to say, in not so many words, look, people talk about these cases as maybe genocide but there's a big argument, go follow these links and make your own mind up.

We then have almost the reverse problem with a bunch of cases like Conquest of the Desert and Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Paraguay where there is very little attention given to them and it's very difficult for us Wikipedia editors to make a fair judgement as to whether they are "generally/usually/typically recognised in significant scholarship" or "unequivocally defined". You can see some sources call them that, but is some enough? I like the phrasing "recognised in significant scholarship" because it's easier to tell that, yes, there is some significant scholarship on the idea that X is genocide than it is to tell whether, overall, scholarship concludes yay or nay.

Ultimately, I don't think the article can be more about historical genocides than about describing scholarly disputes about what is and isn't genocide because there is very little that is "unequivocally defined" as genocide and an awful lot that is disputed to some degree. But then, generally, I think list articles generally need more expository text! Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar issue with the Genocide navbox template, which has a discussion here, where just about everything that has at least someone claiming it is genocide listed in it's "list of genocides", except anything relating to Palestine. Where regardless of your opinion of the Palestine accusation, it has a whole lot more experts and relevant academics calling it a genocide than for others on the list, such as Carthage. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou @Endwise to clarify something does not need to be "unequivocally genocide" to be included, that comment is in regards to instances of massacres where they are not included unless they were shown to be unequivocally genocide. The wording is poor and confusing so I'll look at adjusting it. Basically making it line up with the standard that is mentioned and actually used in the article, a significant amount of scholarship saying it's genocide in line with the UN convention.

Accusations, allegations, and articles about academic debates of the events (Holodomor genocide question) should not be included as they are out of the scope of the article.

On my prior comment, the navbox has settled and moved to be more in line with the standards of this article, though the navbox is more expansive in what it includes.

Personally I'd want many more events adding, though that's based on the issue I have with a lot of the analysis and lacking inquiry in the field of genocide studies. This does touch to what Bondegezou mentioned regarding Conquest of the Desert and Paraguay, there are definitely biases in research around what gets studied in genocide scholarship, so the metric used will necessarily be somewhat relative to what has been published. This can be remedied somewhat by searching the non-English literature on such topics. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar issue and discussion at Genocides in history (1946 to 1999): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history_(1946_to_1999)#Scope_of_this_article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

1984 Sikh Genocide is

It was a well planned and organized genocidal attempt on Sikhs of Punjab (India).The contemporary PM of India,Indira Gandhi, used to create Sikh fobia vote politics. But her 2nd ambition for which Indian state declared a total war against Sikhs before 1984 under that plan they used 3major ops against Sikhs. 1st op Blue Star i.e.attack on the heart of the Sikhs 'The historical golden golden Temple'. 2nd Operation 'Wood Rose' to search and eliminate every youth between 16-46 to make big gap in a generation and to teach the Sikhs lesson,as they dare to stand against, Emergency Declaration of Indira Gandhi during this order every political opposition leader was captured in prison. Only Sikhs in the Punjab took stand against this anti democratic possession. 3rd Operation was Op.'Shanti', In this activity, Indian state made many groups of their forces to defame the Sikhs. They used to kill many of hindus and blamed on sikhs. Sikhs criticised and demanded for the enquiries but they denied. Sikh Youths captured from their homes, colleges, farms and shot dead on point blank. A human rights activist S.Jaswant Singh Khalsa, collected evidence of elimination of 25000 Sikhs, from public crimation centres but later on S.khalra was also picked up and disappeared. It's a long history having long list of credible evidence. Even Contemporary governer Mr B.D.pande also declared in his book that there were many activities in process by the govt.agencies used against Sikhs. Many thousands of Sikh Youths killed on the land of Punjab. Almost a generation was eliminated. The reason declared to the peoples of India behind all above that S.Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala is a terrorist but during and RTI (right to information) plea Indian govt.confirmed that there was not a single case had registered in Punjab and whole India but whole Indian forces with heavy artillery used to attack on a religious place. "Isn't this a genocide"

Again in November 1984 2nd genocidal operation was in whole India when for 03days Sikhs were killed, burnt alive, women gang raped.everything in front and support of Indian forces. Human watch and human rights commission filed a report under name "who is guilty". But no response to many of such reports.

If that mass killing was in result of a PM then why this mass killing didn't happen again when next PM fired by Bomb. Not a single Hindu killed in revenge. When Mahatma Gandhi was shot publicly why the mass killing didn't happen. How come within few hours, hard core criminals from prisons released with fire powder and voter lists of Sikh to Identify and burn the Sikh properties and Sikhs peoples.

it was a human massacre, as accepted and declared by many countries So also must be listed here in the list. I will updateore facts and figures shortly. Jassipawar (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The main article for the topic is 1984 anti-Sikh riots, and describes it as a typical pogrom. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2024

2A02:8428:50B:1A01:6EAB:2660:5837:84E5 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Add palestanians genocide by Israel!

That is obviously a contentious addition that would require consensus, not something that can be actioned with an edit request. Endwise (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2024

Add the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, source: Nakba, killing and massacres articles on wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba#:~:text=During%20the%20foundational%20events%20of,and%20given%20new%20Hebrew%20names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war Liteobserver23 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. see above. Note that Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war also details massacres of Jewish people committed by Arabs, so your point is not made. Cannolis (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Important information to include in edit summaries for "self reverts"

This is a page where this seems to be a lot more likely than average to happen. I'm asking for this partly because, from the edit summaries already there, I really can't tell if this is happening already.

If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of WP:1RR, please make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary.

• mention it is a self revert or mention its about 1RR
• specify who asked you to do it
• specify which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do a "self revert") "self revert requested by [[user:irtapil]]" to the start.

Probably a good idea to tag who asked for it in any edit that involved someone else, like "as user:____ suggested on the talk page (link to discussion section)" instead of just "as agreed on talk page" like I've seen a few other times.

Irtapil (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the (redacted) here but not the (redacted)?

can someone explain in plain English why a whole thread got redacted? Irtapil (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary provided, it is the enforcement of community sanctions and arbitration decisions due to topic. Cdjp1 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a more of a meta discussion but it's ridiculous such a high bar for a talk page, being the same as for editing the article. Specially considering that some wikipedia users are very loose when it comes to assessing whether an articles is related to the banned topic or not. For instance, the countries by gdp list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)&diff=prev&oldid=1202592802

Remove 1932-33 Ukrainian famine from list

So as expected my WP:BOLD change was reverted. This matter has been discussed multiple times, but to the best of my knowledge not since this article gained a clear list inclusion criteria. WP:LISTV is clear on what to do: list entries should be unambiguous and they should follow each list's inclusion criteria. The present criteria is the UN Genocide Convention. To the best of my knowledge no RS considers the famine to be a genocide according to the UN criteria. In fact, as has been discussed on Talk:Holodomor genocide question, many sources lament this very fact, as they cannot demonstrate the intent required by the convention. Therefore the famine does not belong on this list.

I did a bit of archive digging and it appears the famine was added to this list in this edit from 2013. Interestingly none of the two cited sources call it a genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@KetchupSalt the Genocide Convention is not the criteria for inclusion (editors making the assessment against it as to what is a genocide is OR), the criteria for inclusion is that a significant proportion of the scholarship regards the event as genocide in regards to the Genocide Convention. In the case of the Holodomor this criteria is met. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Genocide Convention is not the criteria for inclusion It literally is. Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes so I will quote WP:LISTV verbatim:

Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may try to include it in the list despite it not meeting the list criteria. Supporters may try to remove it despite it meeting the list criteria.

Helpfully this list has a very clear list criteria:

The term genocide is contentious and as a result its definition varies. This list only considers acts which are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Now, unless my eyes are broken, and unless you refer to some other Genocide Convention other than the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, then the famine should not be included, because it does not fulfill the list criteria. You have not argued that the famine is a genocide per the convention, and as far as I know no RS does (quite the opposite). Or is there suddenly some other set of rules that apply to this list and this list only? KetchupSalt (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I stated:

• the criteria for inclusion is that a significant proportion of the scholarship regards the event as genocide in regards to the Genocide Convention

And as you identified:

• The term genocide is contentious and as a result its definition varies. This list only considers acts which are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Hope this helps your eyes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Then you agree with me, and it should indeed be removed, because no such consensus exists, as has been discussed at length at Talk:Holodomor genocide question. There is (arguably) a consensus among Western academics that the famine was a genocide, but not per the UN definition, as the definition used in genocide studies is broader than the UN definition. This has also been discussed at length at said Talk page. Indeed plenty of sources lament the narrow scope of the UN definition. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@KetchupSalt no, because that is not what I said, nor what the inclusion criteria listed says. I am well aware of the Holodomor genocide question talk page and your unending quest. As that page shows, there is significant scholarship that recognises it as a genocide, therefore it is in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is incongruous handling of the Holodomor and it's classification across articles and templates. In the genocide navbox it is included as a genocide, in the sidebar it is not, and in the Holodomor article the lead says whether it constitutes a genocide is disputed, the infobox only lists it's recognition as genocide by political bodies, and of course later in the article deals with the debate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As that page shows, there is significant scholarship that recognises it as a genocide, therefore it is in the list. Not according to the UN definition, but by these scholars' own definition. In other words, the present situation treats the word "genocide" as a floating signifier. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is true based on the items currently included to the list. We should probably remove "according to the UN definition" or say "per scholarship or according to UN definition" in the lead", so that any of two criteria would work (scholarship or UN definition). My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but the consensus has been for this page to include genocides as per the UN definition, not just because some "scholar(s)" label it as such per their own personal definition; there are other pages for those sorts of "genocides", with different inclusion criteria, namely List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll § Genocides, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution and Genocides in history, both of which are linked to in the lead here. This consensus is evinced by the fact that this particular wording or something close to it has been stable for like a decade or longer. What you are proposing is a redefinition of the list, which would require discussion and a strong consensus in favor of it—whereas removing the Ukrainian famine of '32-33 would simply be in compliance with the consensus already is on what this list should be. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We should probably remove "according to the UN definition" or say "per scholarship or according to UN definition" in the lead", so that any of two criteria would work (scholarship or UN definition). Why? Bear in mind that WP:LISTV requires precise list inclusion criteria. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There is also significant scholarship arguing it isn't a genocide. Why should the scholarship that argues it is be presented as the true account? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not only Holodomor, but also the currently ongoing crimes by Russia in Ukraine qualify as genocide even by UN criteria [10]: The Genocide Convention does not require evidence of all five prohibited acts to meet the legal standard. Russia’s violation of all five acts of genocide is therefore particularly heinous and adds to the overall portrait of their escalating attempts to commit genocide in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you get the article Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be renamed to Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it will go on the list. The most recent allegations of genocide have all been long debated across multiple articles and templates that provide an overview of multiple genocides, and the final agreement is not not have these instances included under the name genocide, until their main articles reflect that. I would agree that the bar is met for the likes of Ukraine and Gaza, but other editors are not convinced by the scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"to be renamed to". I would vote "rename" because I trust the conclusions by the Council of Europe [11], several major countries and RS. There was no such RfC yet. There was a different suggestion here, and a number of RS was provided during that discussion to support such position. This is something to think about... My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I trust the conclusions by the Council of Europe

I certainly don't, and neither should other people, when it comes to obviously politically motivated rulings against a geopolitical rival. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the table, I can see at least 4 examples that have been included with a lower threshold; none of them has "genocide" in the title. In these cases, one can find a few strong sources saying that it was a genocide, but there was nothing like the official recognition by several countries or the Council of Europe. But in my opinion, this lower threshold is OK because I agree with RS that say these events were genocide, excluding maybe only one example because "Soviet" does not mean Russian or any other specific ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This topic isn't about the present war. But the words of Mr. Putin, especially his denial of the existence the Ukrainian nation in contradiction of material reality, do appear to support genocidal intent as far as I can tell. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it there's a good number of sources for it eg. [[12]]—blindlynx 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is your OR, and also not particularly relavant here—see WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing it from this list diminish it's utility to the reader, ultimately there are enough scholars and institutions call the Holodomor a genocide that not including it would be surprising to readers even if scholarship has a more nuanced position—blindlynx 20:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that KetchupSalt's point bears repeating, and this discussion summarized, as the essential policy points have not been addressed:

• The article current follows WP:LISTCRITERIA and specifies the 1948 UN Genocide Convention as the basis of its inclusion standard in its first section. Scholarly sources are relevant in that they say an event conforms or does not conform to the definition of the 1948 Convention, which critically requires intent.
• I just removed two sections on consideration. The first is Trail of Tears, for which the cited source specifically says that intent is not present. The second is Holodomor, for which the first cited source is nonrigorous and old (see WP:HISTRS) and the second source details how the 1948 Convention is an inadequate definition for events such as Holodomor, which is why scholars have used new definitions in subsequent decades. Other sections whose sources deny intent should similarly be removed.
• Thus to include such sections, either the specified list criteria must be changed, or else an appropriate weight of RS sources must be found that explicitly say that there is genocidal intent (as well as the other elements of the 1948 definition, or preferably that it conforms to the 1948 definition explicitly). This is not some subjective judgement, but a matter of what the sources explicitly say (WP:V) and what the article criteria are (WP:LISTV).

Arguing over sources is silly -- what you should be doing, if you want a change, is proposing in a new section to change the list inclusion criteria. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The academic debate in the last 30 odd years has centred on whether or not it was intentional---in other words if it meets the gen convention definition---it seems that wee should include the holod and mention that this is an open question in scholarship, removing it does not accurately reflect sources or serve readers—blindlynx 14:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is accurate, then you must find and cite and a reliable source that reflects this. The current sources do not. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? There's no shortage of good scholarship saying it was an intentional genocide. This paper provided a decent overview of whats going on in scholarship and this one talks a lot about the question of intentionality —blindlynx 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Wikipedia's content guidelines require in-line citations to WP:reliable sources that directly support and WP:verify the preceding content. The wp:burden to provide sources is on those seeking to include content, not on those challenging it.

I agree with the sources you now provided, that they show there is sufficient scholarship specific to criteria of the 1948 Convention. Make sure to cite the relevant page numbers. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Given this is contentious i would prefer not to revert a second time, i'll mock up a draft with sources and an explanation of the state of scholarship linking to Holodomor genocide question later today and someone else can include it. Sound good?—blindlynx 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of good scholarship saying it was an intentional genocide. No source claims it is a genocide according to the UN definition (as far as I know). No source claims that it was a deliberate killing of Ukrainians because they were Ukrainian. What exists are sources that confuse ethnicity and class, and sources that use their own personal definition of genocide, thereby robbing the word of its meaning. KetchupSalt (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What about this to replace the note in the first column: The Holodomor also known as the Ukrainian Famine was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether or not the Holodomor was intentional and therefore constitutes a genocide under the Genocide Convention is debated by scholalrs. —blindlynx 19:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• I restored it per WP:Consensus. Based on discussion above, there is a consensus to "keep", or at least there is no consensus to delete (this is a long-standing item of the list). Welcome to start an RfC if anyone wants. As of note, every significant genocide was debated or/and denied. This is not a reason for removal. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure how you get that this means there's some consensus to keep everything exactly as it was. Specifically User:blindlynx says above they will add new sources, and those sources are the ones I agreed support scholarly consideration of Holodomor as being defined under the 1948 Convention; the previously existing sources did not, and I have not seen arguments directly about those sources suggesting otherwise. The Holodomor material, or any material, can only be added with supporting RS that correctly verify it according to the list criteria, which is what the user says they will do above, and which is why I reverted re-adding the old material without said modification.

  As for Trail of Tears, no argument has been given and no new sources addressing the 1948 Convention have been proposed, and the existing source specifically says that current scholarship suggests it does not meet the definition. Until a good review of modern scholarship is presented saying the opposite, or list criteria are changed, it has to stay out. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A removal of a longstanding item from a list requires WP:Consensus. As about supporting references, we had them, see here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've re added it with the new text—blindlynx 20:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't what WP:LISTV#INC says to do. Do the rules not apply all of a sudden? KetchupSalt (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

The recent content dispute regarding whether this should be included or not should be discussed. @Brusquedandelion and @SamuelRiv

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oh yes, this is also a unilateral removal without getting consensus to remove. This should be restored. After quickly looking, it seems to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

  based on our Trail of Tears article namely [bit] we should include it and explain there is scholarly debate on the matter—blindlynx 19:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Everything was debated. Having a debate does not mean the item should not be included to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also see this thread just above on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The current content needs a supporting in-line citation. WP:V. This is not a matter of debate but a matter of policy. The citation for the current content explicitly says (and is directly quoted) that scholars have generally found no intent, contrary to the definition of genocide in the 1948 Convention (which is also directly addressed in the page numbers of the source cited).

In other words, the source as cited says the material should be removed. Therefore I am removing it. If you want the material included, you need a source that supports its inclusion per the existing WP:LISTCRITERIA. A link to another Wikipedia article is not sufficient. The sources cited in that article are not in themselves sufficient unless their conclusion of genocide does not contradict the 1948 definition. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, i'm not up on the scholarship for either but there seems to be a decent number of sources supporting inclusion of both as debated at the very least—blindlynx 20:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv I have a couple dozen sources from a preliminary search of Google Scholar that refer to the Trail of Tears as an act of genocide, or genocidal event, with multiple ones looking at the legalist lense of it. It will take me most likely a week to work through them currently, but will provide details heat, as well as updating the Trail of Tears article as necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• @SamuelRiv. Whatever possible concerns you might have, you need to have WP:Consensus to remove a long-standing item from the list. It would be different if no one objected this removal. But no one actually agree with your removal at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change of the inclusion criteria to align with Genocide scholarship

Currently our inclusion criteria that are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides in line with the legal definition of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide which seems to cause confusion.

Firstly, people are relying heavily on the mention of the 1948 convention as being the definer, when it's in line with, so the points in scholarship need only align with points of the convention, so we need at least to come to a decision and make it more clear how we implement this.

Secondly, I would propose removing the 1948 convention from our criteria, as many genocide scholars, while they will refer the convention inevitably for their work, have definitions and understandings of genocide that are more expansive than the convention. This would also have the effect of aiding in the discussion and inclusion of historical genocides (prior to the 20th century), which are much less likely to be assessed with reference to the 1948 Convention in the literature.

Thirdly, by mentioning the 1948 convention in its current way may lead to people viewng the list members through the legalist frame, as I have observed in discussions offline. That is, the assumption that the legal system has determined an instance to be genocide. This then feeds back into the second point, as it is highly unlikely that any pre-20th century genocides will be processed through the relevant courts for such a decision to be provided.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely. It is precisely the issue that different scholars have different criteria what genocide is, and this is not necessarily UN Convention. If multiple scholarly RS say that something was a "genocide", it should be included to the list. This is no different from any other lists. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed having a reliable peer-reviewed scholarly source not count because it doesn't have the word 'intentional' is absurd—blindlynx 20:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Intentionality is a bit more complex, as even scholars who have more expansive definitions of genocide will still hold to intentionality as being a key feature. There are a minority of scholars who move away from the necessity of intentionality, and it seems to be growing, especially with scholars adopting A. Dirk Moses' "total security" framework. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly... we should follow wp:RS---including accurately describing the state of scholarship on a historic event---rather than applying reductive criteria to it—blindlynx 21:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that some scholars have a more expansive definition runs afoul with the need for unambiguous list inclusion criteria. Or we could run with it I guess, rob the word genocide of all meaning until we circle back to the position held by Holocaust justifiers like Ernst Nolte. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@KetchupSalt That is simply an extremely bad faith reading of the argument and scholars in the subject. == Cdjp1 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

To expand the explanation, in the scholarship, when I say "more expansive" that is in relation to the UN convention, which has been criticised as a definition and framework since the inception of the field. Though if we really want to, even before the inception of the field with the work of Lemkin. I would have thought you'd be understanding and even sympathetic to the literature in this matter considering how the 1948 convention was formed through the meddling of imperialist powers seeking to prevent the convention from being used against them for their colonial and imperial endeavours that have caused countless genocides across the globe. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Please see different Genocide definitions, and we can not say that some of them are better than others. Satisfying the 1948 UN Convention is not a good criterion for any list. It is too complex. We can not judge this ourselves. And we should not. This is list of genocides, not a List of genocides satisfying 1948 UN Convention. If it was, the list would be much shorter. We just need multiple scholarly RS saying that it was a genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  We can not judge this ourselves. And we should not.

  Agreed. This is why we cite WP:RS's that use the criteria of the 1948 convention to make their assessments.

  This is list of genocides, not a List of genocides satisfying 1948 UN Convention.

  Actually, it is a list of genocides satisfying the 1948 UN convention. If it weren't, there would be no need for this discussion—in arguing for the list to be otherwise, you have necessarily admitted what it actually and presently is. And the article very explicitly says what it is in the body; that it does so in the body and not the title is a question of practicality, of no particular relevance to this discussion. There are other lists, such as Genocides in history and List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll § Genocides, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution with different inclusion criteria, as this very article mentions. Your proposal would render this article (or those articles) redundant. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is we are judging it ourselves, editors are judging whether or not reliable peer-reviewed scholarly sources use a definition that they think aligns with the conventions one rather than following wp:rs—blindlynx 18:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bengal Famine of 1943

I believe this event should be added as a genocide for much the same reason the Holodomor shows up in this list. The British had complete operation control over Bengal, and chose to employ policies that prioritized the war effort over civilian deaths from starvation. Under normal circumstances, classification as genocide is questionable, but when the death toll was between 800,000 and 3,800,000 none of which was because of natural causes, it begs the question as to why it can't find a place in this table. Of course, as usual, the last column can have notes on whether, or to what extent it was intentional or under duress, referring to the main article as necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no significant scholarship describing this as a genocide, given that not even the extent to which the British were to blame is agreed upon by historians (I'm not personally disputing blame as I'm not an expert). If I am wrong and there are sources to this effect, by all means present them here, but we can't make the judgement without them due to WP:OR. TRCRF22 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Here is a more or less contemporaneous characterization that mentions genocide in its title, written by the minister of commerce and industry in Nehru's first government of independent India. https://books.google.com/books/about/Bengal_Famine_an_Unpunished_Genocide.html?id=y7pazwEACAAJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A book title alone is not enough evidence. You would need to aid in providing specific citations from the book showing the argumentation. You may also want to look through Google Scholar results for journal articles to support the claim. The best support would be articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and Genocide Studies International that say the Bengal Famine was an act of genocide. If your find good sources to support labelling the famine as a genocide, add the sources, and the arguments of the authors to the article Bengal famine of 1943. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you are contending that my citation is not significant scholarship?

Can you please cite a specific WP:XX. Without that, I cannot interpret your comment as anything other than your opinion. Indeed, going by the comments here, I cannot find anything that corroborates your rather arbitrary requirement that inclusion should meet the bar that the event finds mention in a journal that has genocide in its name.

(a) Genocide is a commonly understood term. The compelling factors are the scale of the deaths, and the facts in question.

(b) With 3.8 million civilian deaths by manmade causes, and the preponderance of facts cited in the main article, and at least one book I cited that more than satisfies WP:RS, and in effect demonstrating that WP:OR is satisfied, the burden of proof is on you to show why it shouldn't be included. 216.228.112.21 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@216.228.112.21 The burden is on yourself to provide evidence that the event meets the current list criteria as you are making the request it be added. I was only providing suggestions for actions that would bolster your argument to convince others that the Bengal Famine should be added, including detailing the leading specialist journals in the field that would provided the greatest weight for the addition. The current article on the Bengal famine does not describe it as a genocide at all, so to say it supports the argument is just wrong. And whatever the merits of the book provided (where your current argument is that it has genocide in the title of the book) is one source, which is currently unassessd against the list criteria. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A book title alone is not enough evidence.

For the purposes of the article, sure, but your interlocutor is trying to lead you to water—when previously you denied water even exists—but it is still up to you to drink! You have flatly denied that such scholarship exists, but even a cursory glance at the literature would show that's not the case. Such a cursory glance is insufficient for the purposes of the article but should at least disabuse you of your idea that no such scholarship exists. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I have not denied water even exist, I detailed what would likely be the strongest way to approach this. I am aware that there is scholarship in support of this position, but with my other current priorities in regards to wikipedia work, I am not able to do the leg work on this one. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no significant scholarship describing this as a genocide,

This just isn't true. Did you do a minimum of due diligence before making such a claim? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Circassian genocide

The article disclaimer states that the list only considers acts which are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As far as I'm aware there is no significant scholarship describing this as a genocide. The same can be said about the "Dzungar genocide". -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tobby72 There are 4,490 results on a Google scholar search for "Circassian genocide", showing academic and scholarly results from reliable sources and reputable journals. In Richmond's 2013 book (which we cite) it even details how the the Circassian genocide can be argued to be a genocide according to the 1948 convention. As to the Dzungar genocide it appears in reference books on genocide from academic publishers, and is considered a genocide by leading genocide scholars (such as Mark Levene). So I would argue for both entries we have the bar met for inclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

It's rather award that the details of each genocide are buried in a refn does anyone know if there's a way to move the description currently in the refn and the portion of the group killed bits to a second row sorta how episode summaries of tv shows are formatted (i realize taht's a different template)—blindlynx 16:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am more than happy to see such a change, but as you highlight it may be difficult with the current template. Hopefully we will be able to find a way to incorporate it into the table in a readable way. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)