Talk:List of genocides
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of genocides article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 22 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of genocides by death toll to List of genocides. The result of the discussion was article moved. |
To-do list for List of genocides:
References
|
|
|||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
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.
Gaza
WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
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)
- The "official report to the UNHRC" you cite is actually just a written statement by a Palestinian advocacy group: Palestinian Return Centre . The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is of "question[able] legitimacy" and "did not have the support of any government." AndyBloch (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2024 (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)
- The genocide of the Charrúas was more than a single massacre, and it resulted in the deaths of a very high percentage of the group, with the rest sold into slavery. (Did you read the whole article you cited, and also the article on the Charrúas: Charrúa#Genocide?) AndyBloch (talk) 06:23, 16 April 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)
- The Sabra and Shatila massacre should not have been added to this list. It has not been "recognised in significant scholarship" as a genocide. As a percentage of the group, it would be the smallest (or one of the smallest) on this list, and also the smallest in number of deaths under 10% (and the 10% is the low figure for the Osage Indian murders). The high estimate for Sabra and Shatila deaths is 3,500. That was about 0.2% of the Palestinian population at the time (and around 3% of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon). The only genocides on the list that are even close to the small size and percentage are the Yazidi genocide and the Iraqi Turkmen genocide, but each of them also included sexual slavery and forced conversion and resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Not every massacre that could be part of a genocidal campaign belongs in this list. AndyBloch (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The only genocides on the list that are even close to the small size and percentage are the Yazidi genocide and the Iraqi Turkmen genocide
Not correct. If Palestinians in Lebanon are considered the target rather than all Palestinians globally (thus making the percentage around 3% according to your own estimate), this is the same percentage listed for the Bosnian genocide as well as the lowest estimate given for casualties of the Queensland Aboriginal genocide. While it's true that the actual number of casualties is significantly lower than other entries on the list, the Genocide Convention does not specify a required number of casualties for an event to be considered a genocide, and this is an unresolved question in both law and academia as it relates to genocide. While it's true that there is only a small amount of scholarship describing this event as genocide, the same could also be said about the IS persecution of Yazidis, but this is included on the list because it was recognised as such by the United Nations, as is the case here. TRCRF22 (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- You are conflating "genocide" and "acts of genocide." This article is a list of genocides, not a list of acts of genocide. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling the massacre an "act of genocide," not "a genocide." (As an aside, a vote by the UN GA is also not "scholarship." Further, it was argued that "the term genocide ... had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision.") The Sabra and Shatila massacre is also not included in the Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) page because it is not by itself a genocide, even if it is an act of genocide. If we are going to start including every act of genocide, then there would be a lot more entries in this list. Should we include every pogrom in history? (How about Tetiiv in 1920?) Should we include every racist massacre in the US, or even individual racist murders? No, of course not. If the UN resolved that the Oct 7 massacres were an act of genocide, should Oct 7 be included in this list? No. This list is for genocides, not genocidal acts, and the Sabra and Shatila massacre, by itself, was not a genocide. AndyBloch (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AndyBloch Short answer, yes. But I know I will be outvoted by other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes to which question(s)? Why? AndyBloch (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AndyBloch
Should we include every pogrom in history?
and subsequent rhetorical questions you included. I'm in agreement with Shaw's commentary on ethnic cleansing being a form of genocide and not something that should be seen as distinct from genocide. This would mean things such as Pogroms would count as acts of genocide, if not genocides in themselves. I am aware my opinions are currently a minority in the scholarly opinion, and so don't expect a lot of what I'd consider genocides to appear here. - I will say, it is an interesting point on the distinction between genocide and an act of genocide, and this is probably something we should consider while we're looking at potentially changing the list criteria [in a section lower down this talk page]. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AndyBloch
- Yes to which question(s)? Why? AndyBloch (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AndyBloch
Should we include every pogrom in history? (How about Tetiiv in 1920?) Should we include every racist massacre in the US, or even individual racist murders?
The difference between this pogrom and other similar events is that this one has actually been described as genocide rather than "just" a pogrom. The 1920 Tetiiv pogrom is not called genocide in any significant scholarship that I'm aware of, whereas this massacre is. @Cdjp1 has helpfully provided a list of scholarly articles below that describe it as such, and the fact that one scholar has called the designation politically motivated is not enough to invalidate the overall consensus. In addition to Cdjp1's citations and the "Nakba Memoricide" article, David Hirst also supports the classification as a genocide in Beware of Small States, and Fawaz Gerges concurs with him in his review of Hirst's book. While the UN resolution is not scholarship in itself, political resolutions of this kind are accepted as citations for the purposes of this list. See the entry on the Anfal campaign which cites little else. The MacBride Commission's similar finding is also important to note, particularly as unlike the UN's finding it has not been called a political finding. Notably, the Commission (operating off the precise legal definition that is the current inclusion criteria) found that the events in Sabra and Shatila constituted genocide in and of themselves rather than being an "act of genocide". TRCRF22 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- Wikipedia's definition of Pogrom": "A pogrom is a violent riot incited with the aim of massacring or expelling an ethnic or religious group," Every pogrom is essentially by definition either an act of genocide or an act of ethnic cleansing, or both. Calling a massacre a pogrom is equivalent to calling it an act of genocide against an ethnic or religious group. Furthermore, there is significant scholarship calling them acts of genocide, sometimes individually, much more than the few mostly equivocal articles provided by @Cdjp1 about the Sabra and Shatila massacre. (I could go through them individually but I don't have the time right now.) This wikipedia list is (or should be) a list of genocides, not every massacre that some scholarship has argued is an act of genocide. Why are you pushing so hard for Sabra and Shatila out of all the other genocidal massacres (including many or most pogroms)? It is not hard to find genocides that are much more than a single massacre that should be on this list (like the genocide of the Igbo Nigerian Civil War#Genocide question) and we should be focusing on those. (The Anfal campaign article cites a lot more than just political resolutions. Trials, court rulings, a HRW report.) (Note that only 4 out of the 6 members of the MacBride commission took the position that Sabra and Shatila was an act of genocide. Two members dissented. If you have a copy of the full report, please show me where the report found that the events "constituted genocide in and of themselves.") AndyBloch (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @TRCRF22 I bought a used copy of the full MacBride report (and also have found that there is a copy online but I am not sure of the copyright status of it). 4 out of 6 members added an appendix "Majority Note on Genocide and Ethnocide", discussing whether all the activity of Israel in Lebanon (not just Sabra and Shatila) constituted genocide, and used their own definition of genocide that was "not limited to the formula adopted by the United Nations in of 1948." "It should be emphasised that this conclusion does not suggest an Israeli intention to exterminate in a physical sense the people of Palestine as a whole or in part. What the majority of the Commission has in mind is a different form of genocide...." In other words, these four MacBride commission members were explicitly NOT using the 1948 definition of genocide used in this wikipedia list, and when they wrote "this constitutes a form of genocide" they weren't writing about Sabra and Shatila specifically. AndyBloch (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- @AndyBloch Short answer, yes. But I know I will be outvoted by other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are conflating "genocide" and "acts of genocide." This article is a list of genocides, not a list of acts of genocide. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling the massacre an "act of genocide," not "a genocide." (As an aside, a vote by the UN GA is also not "scholarship." Further, it was argued that "the term genocide ... had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision.") The Sabra and Shatila massacre is also not included in the Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) page because it is not by itself a genocide, even if it is an act of genocide. If we are going to start including every act of genocide, then there would be a lot more entries in this list. Should we include every pogrom in history? (How about Tetiiv in 1920?) Should we include every racist massacre in the US, or even individual racist murders? No, of course not. If the UN resolved that the Oct 7 massacres were an act of genocide, should Oct 7 be included in this list? No. This list is for genocides, not genocidal acts, and the Sabra and Shatila massacre, by itself, was not a genocide. AndyBloch (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Tobby72 firstly as @TRCRF22 points towards, there is no "minimum threshold" of dead which a genocide need reach to be considered a genocide. By the UN Convention, and by many of the frameworks employed by specialists in genocide research, they allow for things to be declared genocide even when the death toll is 0. Beyond the excellent work of Rashed, Short, and Docker, other articles from a very quick skim that accept the labelling of the massacre as genocide or label it themselves as genocide include:
- Arens, Richard (1983). "Review: Israel's Responsibility in Lebanon". Journal of Palestine Studies. 13 (1): 102–108. JSTOR 2536928.
- Burnett, Weston D. (1985). "Command Responsibility and a Case Study of the Criminal Responsibility of Israeli Military Commanders for the Progrom at Shatila and Sabra". Military Law Review. 107 (71). - reports on the Soviet Union's statements considering the massacre a genocide perpetrated by Israel.
- Malone, Linda A. (1985). "The Kahan Report, Ariel Sharon and the Sabra-Shatilla Massacres in Lebanon: Responsibility Under International Law for Massacres of Civilian Populations". Faculty Publications. 587: 373–433.
- Malone, Linda A. (2000). "The Appointment of General Yaron: Continuing Impunity for the Sabra and Shatilla Massacres". Faculty Publications. 222: 287–305.
- Siegal, Ellen (December 2001). "After Nineteen Years: Sabra and Shatila Remembered". Middle East Policy. 8 (4): 86–100.
- Mallat, Chibli; Verhaeghe, Michael; Walleyn, Luc (2002–2003). "Special Dossier on the "Sabra and Shatila" Case in Belgium". The Palestine Yearbook of International Law. 12: 183–289.
- -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Sabra and Shatila massacre should not have been added to this list. It has not been "recognised in significant scholarship" as a genocide. As a percentage of the group, it would be the smallest (or one of the smallest) on this list, and also the smallest in number of deaths under 10% (and the 10% is the low figure for the Osage Indian murders). The high estimate for Sabra and Shatila deaths is 3,500. That was about 0.2% of the Palestinian population at the time (and around 3% of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon). The only genocides on the list that are even close to the small size and percentage are the Yazidi genocide and the Iraqi Turkmen genocide, but each of them also included sexual slavery and forced conversion and resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Not every massacre that could be part of a genocidal campaign belongs in this list. AndyBloch (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't studied this particular massacre, but I do believe the UN is a reliable enough source, especially since the 1948 Convention is the present inclusion criteria. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:42, 14 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It might seem bad faith if one isn't aware of the centrality of Nazi intent in Holocaust studies, and the ways in which Holocaust deniers, neo-Hitlerites and the like attempt to downplay it. The issue of intent also crops up regarding the North American genocides as has been discussed on this very Talk page. A more recent example could be the Iraq War, which I've seen plenty of sources label a genocide, despite not demonstrating US intent to genocide Iraqis. There the word "genocide" is used to mean "a lot of people being killed". KetchupSalt (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- And this does nothing to change the expander I provided. You choose to place those who argue that the crime of crimes is a horrendous mark on human history, and the political machinations that led to the UN convention has aided in the prevention of prosecution of the crime and reparations to the victims, where they state that direct and explicit intent may not be necessary for something to be a genocide, alongside those who play games with the UN convention specifically because of the intentionality bar, where they argue the Holocaust is not genocide due to a lack of intent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes yes, but those who argue that the Holocaust was not intentional are lying. These people are acting as though we can't read the words of Hitler, or that we are unaware of the decades of genocidal rhetoric by the NSDAP. When you remove intent, genocide seizes to be a crime at all. Genocides happen all the time apparently, and the Nazis did just did an oopsie whoopsie. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KetchupSalt except it does not. My previous comment stands, as you have not countered any point of it, and just reiterated your misreading of scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to think there is only one position in the scholarship, which is untrue. You also seem to be unwilling to engage with the implications of straying from the UN definition, which include:
- 1) No need for intent, which makes genocide not a crime.
- 2) Inclusion of other groups, notably classes. No distinction is thereby made between nation and class. Attacks on the ruling class of a nation is an attack on the nation itself. This is the Hitlerite position. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KetchupSalt you continue to prove your inability to read any of the comments I've made. The move acknowledges that there are a variety of frameworks that scholars use, including how many continue to hold intentionality as a key factor. There is no scholar in the field of genocide research who argues genocide should not be a crime, and the wiki article using scholarship for this list does not affect whether it is recognised as a crime. I once again ask you to try reading the scholarship for your point on class, which shows your concerns are unfounded in the scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KetchupSalt except it does not. My previous comment stands, as you have not countered any point of it, and just reiterated your misreading of scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes yes, but those who argue that the Holocaust was not intentional are lying. These people are acting as though we can't read the words of Hitler, or that we are unaware of the decades of genocidal rhetoric by the NSDAP. When you remove intent, genocide seizes to be a crime at all. Genocides happen all the time apparently, and the Nazis did just did an oopsie whoopsie. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- And this does nothing to change the expander I provided. You choose to place those who argue that the crime of crimes is a horrendous mark on human history, and the political machinations that led to the UN convention has aided in the prevention of prosecution of the crime and reparations to the victims, where they state that direct and explicit intent may not be necessary for something to be a genocide, alongside those who play games with the UN convention specifically because of the intentionality bar, where they argue the Holocaust is not genocide due to a lack of intent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:34, 14 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)
- Then it should explicitly say that in the title. Readers can come to their own conclusion then, on whether this article is worth reading, let alone the talk page. As it stands now, it violates WP:CB. What's that you ask? Wikipedia:Click Bait. Lol. MHGA2024 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 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)
I'm weakly in favour of expanding the inclusion criteria. Weakly since I'm not well versed in this subject matter. But it seems to me that the word 'genocide' is simply not well defined, and that it is not for Wikipedia to attempt to define it. As long as there is significant scholarship calling something a genocide I think we should include it here. Perhaps this article could be divided into tiers of events "unanimously considered genocide", and events whose characterization as genocide is "disputed". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you do start reading through the literature about genocide, you will find various frameworks for considering genocide, and as it is an active academic discipline, it's almost inevitable these frameworks will continue to change as new research and arguments are conducted and made. While we may have some genocide experts appear here as editors, unless they declare otherwise, we must assume all of us contributing are laypeople. This assumption, I believe, then means none of us can comment as to which frameworks are more or less valid, and thus our inclusion criteria here should be based on if specialists are labelling events as genocide, regardless of framework employed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I support Cdjp1's proposal to align the definition used for this list with significant scholarship, without having explicit mention of the 1948 Convention definition. That would better align us with reliable sources. blindlynx makes a good point that the current definition we use requires more interpretation by editors than Cdjp1's proposal would. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I support widening the criteria and not making the 1948 convention so central, but we need to do it carefully to avoid filling the list with contested and borderline cases. My proposal would be something like: where there is a scholarly and/or legal consensus that it was/is a genocide. Inclusion of all incidents where one or more peer reviewed scholars in reliable sources make the case for inclusion but the overwhelming majority disagree (or don't bother responding) would be problematic. In other words, we should go with the preponderance of reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Defining it by scholarly consensus doesn't get us anywhere than where we are now on the topic. In very few cases will you get consensus among scholars on the topic of genocide. It isn't widening the criteria if you limit the mention of calling something a genocide to those events which the majority of scholars agree on. Who defines a majority in that case? Is it a number? At what threshold does it become a preponderance of reliable sources? We will continue to have edit wars and heated discussions on article talk pages where one group presents fifteen scholars while another group presents sixteen and so on and both sides will declare the opposing groups scholars as not "high quality" reliable sources. I've been involved in several such discussions recently. If we are going to expand the criteria then lets define the expansion to what. If we are going to define it requires a majority of all of scholarship to define something a genocide then we might as well remove the term from almost every article but those discussing the Holocaust. --ARoseWolf 12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Let us be realistic: there are no list criteria that will avoid future heated discussions. Hopefully, clear and workable criteria will lessen the amount of discussion and discord, but I suggest it would be foolish to imagine such can be avoided. However, plenty of Wikipedia is contentious and we get by. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- My point is exactly that, requiring scholarly or legal consensus is not a clear or workable criteria unless the goal is to limit the use of the term to events that exactly meet the UN definition and there is no additional criteria that will help us avoid the heated discussions. --ARoseWolf 13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is the benefit of the 1948 definition. It is easy to understand. And more importantly it is unambiguous, as required by WP:LISTV. As soon as you turn the word genocide into a floating signifier you run into the kind of problems we've discussed here many times. For example, what do we do when sources disagree on the meaning of the word genocide? KetchupSalt (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @KetchupSalt we do as we do for every article, work with the weighted preponderance. Plus to claim that the UN's definition is unambiguous is patently wrong should you bother to read the scholarship or even look at the lack of application of the convention. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- But it isn't, for example scholarship is divided about whether or not the Holodomor was intentional and therefor a genocide. What ended up happening with the current definition is we exclude good sources simply because editors think that they don't focus on intentionallity which is clearly at odds with WP:WEIGHT which by the way is a policy not an essay like WP:LISTV—blindlynx 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Let us be realistic: there are no list criteria that will avoid future heated discussions. Hopefully, clear and workable criteria will lessen the amount of discussion and discord, but I suggest it would be foolish to imagine such can be avoided. However, plenty of Wikipedia is contentious and we get by. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
So, as most people seem to be in support of moving from the "1948 convention" wording and definition, I will remove it from the list criteria. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 2045, 28 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 you 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 exists
, 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)- You mean you have something more important than doing legwork on what is potentially the untold genocide of WW2 that rivals the death count of the Holocaust? Come on, this is about as bad faith as it gets. You have already come to a snap conclusion that it's not genocide. MHGA2024 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are making assumptions and unfounded allegations against fellow editors. If you would care to see my recent edit history, especially where my major edits have been located, you will see you are arguing with exactly the wrong editor about this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am simply making a logical conclusion from your statement that you had higher priority wikipedia work than doing legwork on scholarship that indicates this is the greatest cover up of WW2. When I find time I'll look at your other edits. It is possible that your bias is unconscious in this instance. MHGA2024 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is no bias, you are simply a mistaken individual casting unfounded aspersions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am simply making a logical conclusion from your statement that you had higher priority wikipedia work than doing legwork on scholarship that indicates this is the greatest cover up of WW2. When I find time I'll look at your other edits. It is possible that your bias is unconscious in this instance. MHGA2024 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are making assumptions and unfounded allegations against fellow editors. If you would care to see my recent edit history, especially where my major edits have been located, you will see you are arguing with exactly the wrong editor about this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- You mean you have something more important than doing legwork on what is potentially the untold genocide of WW2 that rivals the death count of the Holocaust? Come on, this is about as bad faith as it gets. You have already come to a snap conclusion that it's not genocide. MHGA2024 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have not
- 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 you 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)
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)
- 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)
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.
The number of dead isn't a criteria for genocide, or else every large war would constitute a genocide. The present list criteria requires intent.- The comparison to the Ukrainian famine is interesting, because with the Bengal famine we do see what may amount to intent among the British leadership. Just have a gander at Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill#India. You will not find such language among the Soviet leadership as far as I'm aware.
- All this said, I think we need more than one book as a source. I will also note that Bengal famine of 1943 does not mention the word genocide at all, though that may be due to pro-British bias. Its Talk page does bring this issue up. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comparison between some lists on wikipedia
I was curious, so I threw together this little comparison chart of what genocides are included in a few lists we have on wikipedia:
List of genocides | Genocides in history Prior to WW1, WW1–WW2, 1946–1999, 2000– |
Genocide sidebar | Genocide navbox |
---|---|---|---|
Neanderthal genocide | |||
Chiefdom genocides | |||
Destruction of Carthage | Destruction of Carthage | ||
Asiatic Vespers | Asiatic Vespers | ||
Julius Caesar's campaigns | Gauls (Eburones) | ||
Bar Kokhba revolt | |||
Jie and Wu Hu | |||
Zandaqa | |||
Ancestral Puebloans | |||
Harrying of the North | |||
Mongol Empire | Mongol conquests | ||
Albigensian Crusade | 13th-century extermination of the Cathars | Cathars | |
Tamerlane | |||
Guanches | |||
Mongols in the Delhi Sultanate | |||
Taíno genocide | Taíno | Taíno | Taíno |
Genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil | Indigenous peoples in Brazil | ||
Kashmiri Shias | |||
Atlantic Slave Trade | |||
Genocide of the Huron | |||
Kalinago | |||
Pequots | |||
Great Gypsy Round-up | |||
Persecution of Huguenots | |||
Vendee | |||
War of the Three Kingdoms | |||
Khmelnytsky uprising | |||
Dzungar genocide | Dzungar genocide | Dzungar | Dzungar Mongols |
Chechens | |||
1804 Haiti massacre | 1804 Haiti massacre | ||
Al-Jawazi massacre | |||
Siege of Tripolitsa | |||
Caste War of Yucatán | |||
Apaches | |||
Yaquis | |||
Indigenous Australian | Indigenous Australian | ||
Black War | Black War | Black War | Black War |
Trail of Tears | Trail of Tears | ||
Massacre of Salsipuedes | Massacre of Salsipuedes | Charrúa | |
Zulu Kingdom under Shaka Zulu | |||
Beothuk | |||
Moriori genocide | Moriori genocide | Moriori | Moriori |
Queensland Aboriginal genocide | Queensland Aboriginal genocide | ||
Native American | Native American | Native American | |
Native American genocide in the United States | |||
Indian removal | |||
California genocide | California | California | California |
Sand Creek massacre | |||
Manchus | |||
1740 Batavia massacre | |||
Circassian genocide | Circassian genocide | Circassian | Circassians |
Conquest of the Desert | |||
Taiping Rebellion | |||
Japanese colonization of Hokkaido | |||
Anti-Romani sentiment (Attempted extirpations of Romani/Gypsies) | |||
Putumayo genocide | Putumayo | Putumayo | Putumayo genocide |
Great Famine (Ireland) | |||
January Uprising § The decades of reprisals | |||
Genocide of indigenous peoples § Tsardom of Russia's conquest of Siberia | |||
British Raj | |||
Persecution of Yazidis | |||
Hazaras | Hazaras | ||
Massacres of Badr Khan | |||
Congo Free State | |||
Ethiopia under Menelik II | |||
French conquest of Algeria | |||
Colonial Philippines | |||
Selk'nam genocide | Selk'nam | Selk'nam | Selk'nam |
Armenian massacres of 1894–1896 | Hamidian massacres | Hamidian massacres | |
Herero and Nama genocide | German South West Africa | Herero and Nama | Herero and Nama |
Ukame | |||
Balkan Wars | |||
Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction | Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction | ||
Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars | Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars | Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars | |
Greek genocide | Greeks | Greek | Greeks |
Pontic genocide | Pontic Greeks | ||
Armenian genocide | Armenian | Armenian | Armenian |
Diyarbekir | Diyarbekir | ||
Assyrian genocide | Assyrian genocide | Sayfo | Sayfo |
Destruction of the Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 | |||
Deportations of Kurds (1916–1934) | |||
Ingrian Finns | |||
Simele massacre | |||
Urkun | |||
Pogroms against Jews | |||
Decossackization | |||
Kantō Massacre | Kantō Massacre | ||
Napalpí massacre | |||
Japanese colonial empire/ Japanese war crimes | |||
Musha Incident | |||
Osage Indian murders | Osage Indian murders | ||
Libyan genocide | Libyan genocide | Libyan | Libyan Arabs |
Second Italo-Ethiopian War | |||
Kazakhstan | Kazakhs | ||
La Matanza | |||
Holodomor | Holodomor | Holodomor | Holodomor |
Ma Bufang against the Tibetans | |||
Polish Operation of the NKVD | Poles in the Soviet Union | Polish Operation of the NKVD | |
Parsley massacre | Parsley massacre | Parsley massacre | |
Nanjing Massacre | Nanjing Massacre | ||
Nazi crimes against the Polish nation | Poles | Poles | Nazi crimes against the Polish nation |
Romani Holocaust | Romani Holocaust | Romani | Romani Holocaust |
Three Alls policy | |||
The Holocaust | The Holocaust | The Holocaust | The Holocaust |
German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war | German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war | German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war | |
The Holocaust in Croatia | The Holocaust in Croatia | ||
Genocide of Serbs | Serbs | Serbs | Serbs in Croatia |
Genocide against Bosniaks and Croats by the Chetniks | Bosnian Muslims and Croats | Croats and Muslims | Muslims and Croats |
Sook Ching | |||
Nanshitou Massacre | |||
Volhynia | Volhynia | ||
Aktion T4 | |||
Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush | Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachay, Kalmyks, Meskhetian Turks, and Volga Germans | Chechens and Ingush | |
Deportation of the Crimean Tatars | Crimean Tatars | Crimean Tatars | |
Deportations of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians | |||
Massacres of Albanians in Yugoslavia | |||
Ethnic cleansing of Germans | |||
Partition of India | |||
Hyderabadi Muslims | |||
Sinicization of Tibet | |||
Stolen Generation | |||
Paraguay | Indigenous peoples in Paraguay | ||
Guatemalan genocide | Guatemala | Guatemalan | Guatemalan |
Zanzibar genocide | Arabs in Zanzibar | Massacre of Arabs during the Zanzibar Revolution | Arabs in Zanzibar |
1966 anti-Igbo pogrom | |||
Biafra (1966–1970) | |||
Genocide of Kurds | Feyli Kurds | ||
Equatorial Guinea | |||
Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 | |||
West New Guinea/West Papua | |||
Bangladesh genocide | Bangladesh | Bangladesh | Bangladesh |
Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh | |||
Indigenous Chakmas | |||
Genocide of Acholi and Lango people under Idi Amin | Idi Amin's regime | ||
Ikiza | Burundi 1972 | Ikiza | Burundi 1972 |
Hmong Genocide | |||
East Timor genocide | East Timor | East Timor | East Timor |
Derg | |||
Cambodian genocide | Cambodia | Cambodian | Cambodian |
Sabra and Shatila massacre | Sabra and Shatila massacre | ||
Genocide of Afghans by Soviet Armed Forces and proxies | |||
Gukurahundi | Gukurahundi | Gukurahundi | Gukurahundi |
Bush War (1981–1985) | |||
Anfal genocide | Anfal genocide | Anfal campaign | Anfal |
Isaaq genocide | Isaaq genocide | Isaaq | Isaaq |
Amhara genocide | Amhara | ||
Bosnian genocide | Bosnian genocide | Bosnian | Bosnian |
Burundi 1993 | Burundi 1993 | ||
Rwandan genocide | Rwandan genocide | Rwandan | Rwandan |
Massacres of Hazaras and other groups by the Taliban | |||
Forced sterilization in Peru | |||
Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War | Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War | Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War | |
Tamil genocide | |||
Chechnya | |||
Boko Haram and Fulani herdsman | |||
Effacer le tableau | Effacer le tableau | Effacer le tableau | Effacer le tableau |
Darfur genocide | Darfur genocide | Darfur | Darfur |
Southern Kaduna | |||
Allegations of genocide against Uyghurs | |||
Iraqi Turkmen genocide | Iraqi Turkmen | Iraqi Turkmen | Iraqi Turkmen |
Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State | Yazidis | Yazidi | Yazidis |
Shias under ISIS | Shias under ISIS | ||
Christians under ISIS | Christians under ISIS | ||
Rohingya genocide | Rohingya genocide | Rohingya | Rohingya |
South Sudan | |||
Yemen | |||
Ethiopia | |||
Accusations of genocide in Donbas | |||
Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine | |||
Nagorno-Karabakh | |||
Israel/Palestine |
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is very telling! Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. My feeling, especially after the change by @Cdjp1 to the definition of "genocide" used in this article, is that this list should be changed to a table with 1-line summaries of the genocides in the Genocides in history articles, so that the list can easily be sorted and searched. When there is an unsettled accusation of genocide (as there is for some ongoing or recent events) or a dispute in scholarship, or if some common definitions of genocide are met but not others, we can add a column or two to indicate that status. AndyBloch (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Long term, I hope to be able to unify the List of genocides, Genocides in history, and Genocide navbox, but this is a large undertaking, and as I have mentioned previously on this page, I do have a lot of IRL priorities so the unification effort is low on my to do list.
- As a rough guide to steps, as I would follow,:
- Any of the genocides listed in List of genocides should be added to Genocides in history
- any citations for items in List of genocides should be added to the their relevant items in Genocides in history
- items in Genocides in history should be checked over for any instances of citation needed and corrected (checking ideally through the journals Journal of Genocide Research, Genocide Studies and Prevention, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and Genocide Studies International)
- Once these have been completed I would move to adding entries into List of genocides for any items present in Genocides in history that are not already present in List of genocides.
- -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "scholalrs" to "scholars". This typo appears twice in the Holodomor section. 2A00:23C8:140A:2001:D0FA:99D0:9B7C:B482 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Holodomor is technically not a genocide because genocides have to be within these acts "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#:~:text=Genocide%20is%20the%20intentional%20destruction,%2C%20racial%20or%20religious%20group%22. Asaki898 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 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. Charliehdb (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Should the Dungan Revolt 1862-1877 be added?
the war saw a decline of an ethnic group in China. The population declined by 21 million from war related deaths and famine and displacement. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- It can be added if there is good scholarship calling it a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! I would appreciate it if someone would comment out (place <!--
preceding and -->
following) the list references (references within named <ref>
tags listed in the {{reflist}}
template) named "Milton1992", "USHMM2", and "AxisYugo" to fix unused list-defined reference errors. Thank you! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done: I couldn't find the 'USHMM2' ref. Commented out the other 2. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! The USHMM2 ref is missing because it was removed between me posting the edit request and you acting on said edit request. Also within that time period, the two references you commented out had their use re added, so those refs should actually no longer be commented out. Sorry for the time waste... – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 12:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello! Could someone please make these edits to fix two cite errors? (This is a reversal of my previous edit request because changes were made to the page between the request and its execution that made it unnecessary.)
In § References:
Line 617:
− | <ref name="Milton1992">{{cite journal |last=Milton |first=Sybil |date=February 1992 |title=Nazi Policies towards Roma and Sinti 1933–1945 |journal=Journal of Gypsy Lore Society |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077550120;view=1up;seq=3 |access-date=12 August 2016}}</ref> | + | <!-- ref not used <ref name="Milton1992">{{cite journal |last=Milton |first=Sybil |date=February 1992 |title=Nazi Policies towards Roma and Sinti 1933–1945 |journal=Journal of Gypsy Lore Society |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=1–18 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077550120;view=1up;seq=3 |access-date=12 August 2016}}</ref> --> |
Line 625:
− | <ref name="AxisYugo">{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005456 |title=Axis Invasion of Yugoslavia{{Snd}} Croatia |encyclopedia=Holocaust Encyclopedia |publisher=[[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum]] |date=2010 |access-date=12 August 2016 |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref> | + | <!-- <ref name="AxisYugo">{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005456 |title=Axis Invasion of Yugoslavia{{Snd}} Croatia |encyclopedia=Holocaust Encyclopedia |publisher=[[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum]] |date=2010 |access-date=12 August 2016 |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref> --> |
Or revert this edit. Thank you!
— Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that all the South American Native tribes of South America and the Tribes of that came from Africa be included into the list of genocides. Everyone knows that the South American Native Tribes were wiped out by the Spaniards when Christopher Columbus came to occupy the land and kill the adults and Enslave the adolescents and children. We all know that when they ran out of Southern Native American people, they started aiming for the Africans, wiping out whole villages and tribes of people we will never hear about again. Killing them to grab their children, exposing them to disease or a voyage that they would never make to the new world with the conditions they had to endure. To say that the holocaust was the worst genocide in the world is to spread lies, when the genocide that happened during the slave trade to those who were enslaved in order to build North America and South America happened on a much larger scale than the holocaust. We are talking about billions of people who died and their deaths are being ignored and washed over just because their culture is darker skinned. The shame!! 2600:100A:A111:4C51:CDBC:D96:8247:F056 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 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) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2024
It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at List of genocides. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Change the "Proportion of group killed" part of the table to "Other victimization statistics" in order to encompass other type of genocide victimization in these events like displacement, rape, torture, injury, etcetera since it seems some of the boxes in that section seem to be doing that already despite the current name and could add other valuable information to the article. Vanisherman (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Add high end deaths for Gaza genocide from New survey
New survey gives a higher death toll for Gaza deaths https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Vanisherman (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is a non peer-reviewed "correspondence" to The Lancet without doing any research whatsoever. Its "calculation" consists in a poorly based estimate about FUTURE (sic) deaths: "...many indirect deaths in the coming months and years". Its methodology: multiplication of Hamas' numbers by five, that's it. 46.57.106.124 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion of Gaza genocide
In the interest of avoiding further edit warring, I'm starting a section to discuss the Gaza genocide inclusion and the list inclusion criteria more generally.
I don't think we can verify many of the list entries as being the majority view in relevant scholarship. Usually we cite a couple sources that call the event a genocide. So, I support inclusion of any genocide described as such in a significant body of scholarship, with a disclaimer at the top of the list indicating that this list doesn't represent Wikipedia's viewpoint and a note of relevant disagreement with every disputed entry. (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- In this case we should change the article name to present this change in criteria. Vegan416 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- buidhe's suggestion is no different from the criteria that is currently detailed in the article lede, so a change of name is not necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- we did that a few months ago—blindlynx 22:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per the discussion in April, it was agreed to change the criteria from the previous criteria where it was scholarship + "in line with the UN convention", to "significant scholarship" (this can be by prominence or by multitude), as most Genocide Scholars and related specialists use frameworks different to the UN convention. So in trying to apply the previous standard editors would have to make that determination which it was thought bordered to close to OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, keep it on here that is the way the consensus is going now, and you can see plenty of other massacres and events that are only considered as such by a few sourcesa as you say there. Ecpiandy (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
By including it, we're saying that it is a genocide. This is going beyond what we can reasonable do based on the current sourcing. For example, we exclude the Ukraine genocide. We need to wait until the ICJ ruling for both of these. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion of "Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contradiction"
This topic is also regarded as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Should be included in this list too. Crxyzen (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done Please provide reliable sources that support inclusion—blindlynx 13:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Blindlynx Reliable sources are the page itself Crxyzen (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article doesn't offer evidence that the events are commonly classified as genocide. — kashmīrī TALK 11:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing these citations, please list them here—blindlynx 15:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Blindlynx Reliable sources are the page itself Crxyzen (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gaza genocide is false as it does not follow the 10 stages of genocide. 1. Classification 2.Symbolization 3.Dehumanization 4.Organization 5.Polarization 6.Preparation 7.Extermination 8.Denial 9.Cover up The Gaza strip is a current warzone and using the logic being used to say Israel is on a genocide would mean that America during world war 2 geocide the Japanese and the Germans along with other countrys. Sirfartface (talk) 02:31, 10 July 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. — kashmīrī TALK 11:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Chinese genocide
The Japanese crimes in China during the second sino Japanese wars are considered genocide no? It definitely should be included The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- We'd need good sources. They were civilian massacres, war crimes for sure, but has there been a genocidal intent? — kashmīrī TALK 11:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hope this source is good enough
- some sources have called it a genocide, with focus on the nanking massacre and soon ching
- https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/25558https://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm
- The “three Alls” policy could also be used to argue that there was an established intent, especially with what happened on the ground The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @The Great Mule of Eupatoria:, I'm working to unify the lists as per "Comparison between some lists on wikipedia". For actions in Japanese invasion of China, there are multiple specific aspects/instances which have scholarship describing them as genocide/genocidal, besides the Three Alls policy you identified, there is also the Nanjing Massacre.
- From the relevant articles potential sources are:
- Three Alls
- Felton, Mark (2015). "The Perfect Storm: Japanese military brutality during World War Two". The Routledge History of Genocide. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315719054-10/perfect-storm-mark-felton (inactive 31 January 2024). ISBN 9781315719054. Retrieved 24 July 2022.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link) (Though I'm not to happy having a Felton source, I'll dig to see if I can find more to add to the main article)
- Felton, Mark (2015). "The Perfect Storm: Japanese military brutality during World War Two". The Routledge History of Genocide. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315719054-10/perfect-storm-mark-felton (inactive 31 January 2024). ISBN 9781315719054. Retrieved 24 July 2022.
- Nanjing
- Campbell, Bradley (June 2009). "Genocide as social control". Sociological Theory. 27 (2): 154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01341.x. JSTOR 40376129. S2CID 143902886.
Also, genocide may occur in the aftermath of warfare when mass killings continue after the outcome of a battle or a war has been decided. For instance, after the Chinese city of Nanking was occupied by the Japanese in December 1937, Japanese soldiers massacred over 250,000 residents of the city.
- Campbell, Bradley (June 2009). "Genocide as social control". Sociological Theory. 27 (2): 154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01341.x. JSTOR 40376129. S2CID 143902886.
- Three Alls
- -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at List of genocides. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Please make the following change to the article:
− | + | As of July 10, 2024, 1.7% of the residents of the Gaza strip (38,295 out of 2.23 million) have been killed in the conflict, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health. |
AndyBloch (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with this edit. It's not correct that genocide is just killing large numbers of people. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a question of what is a correct definition of genocide. These columns in the table are titled Estimated killings and Proportion of group killed, and the information in those columns should only include that information. The Yazidi Genocide Proportion of group killed cell should be changed too. AndyBloch (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at List of genocides. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Please make the following change to the article:
− | + | 2% or more of the Rohingya population in Myanmar were killed. (Over 25,000 killed out of a population between 1.0 and 1.3 million.) |
AndyBloch (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with this edit. It's not correct that genocide is just killing large numbers of people. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a question of what is the correct definition of genocide. These columns in the table are titled Estimated killings and Proportion of group killed, and those columns should only include that information. The Yazidi Genocide Proportion of group killed cell should be changed too. AndyBloch (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Source reliability
I've opened a discussion at RSN on the reliability of the source "Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential", which cited in this article: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)