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.

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 https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301/amp
 * https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/dehumanising-palestinians-israels-rhetoric-genocide-3457346?amp
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1786922
 * https://www.livemint.com/news/world/pm-netanyahu-invokes-amalek-theory-to-justify-gaza-killings-what-is-this-hebrew-bible-nation-11698555324918.html
 * https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/israel-defence-minister-human-animals-gaza-palestine_uk_65245ebae4b0a32c15bfe6b6/
 * 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)
 * @Harbu Darbu, Can You please support your claims?  @Scientelensia supported his claims the moment he made them by linking to the Wikipedia pages, I wish if you can do the same. خريف الارض القديرة (talk) 17:17, 7 May 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:
 * 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. 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
 * Palestinian genocide accusation
 * -- 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)
 * "Yadlin said Israel would be happy if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state." -
 * "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,
 * 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)
 * 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)

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, 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)
 * 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?) AndyBloch (talk) 06:23, 16 April 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 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) 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)
 * @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:
 * - reports on the Soviet Union's statements considering the massacre a genocide perpetrated by Israel.
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 17 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)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 17 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)
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 17 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)
 * 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)

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:

-- 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
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)


 * ✅ —blindlynx 22:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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
Hello! I would appreciate it if someone would comment out (place  following) the list references (references within named   tags listed in the   template) named "Milton1992", "USHMM2", and "AxisYugo" to fix unused list-defined reference errors. Thank you! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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
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:

Line 625:

Or revert this edit. Thank you! — Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 14:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2024
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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
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 &#183; 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)
 * Buidhe's suggestion seems very reasonable to me: articles like this one should reflect significant body of scholarship. Of course we shouldn't require unanimity – there will always be sources close to or sympathethic to the perpetrators, while decisions by international tribunals unfortunately have also a political dimension and may or may not reflect the facts on the ground. Impartial scholarship appears the best way to go here. No disclaimer is necessary – there's no "Wikipedia point of view", and anyway every Wikipedia page already contains a link to General disclaimer. — kashmīrī  TALK  02:45, 14 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 reasonably 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)


 * I don't think that's what we're saying necessarily. The standard I think, which is what it is written at the top of the list, is acceptance in some "significant scholarship". See for example the Holodomor: the majority scholarly position is probably that it is not a genocide, but we include it because there is legitimate scholarly debate. I think if we include the Holodomor we should include the Gaza genocide. Though there is also a reasonable argument to include neither. Endwise (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several items on the list that probably don't belong here, but given these events are happening now it's more important that we get this one right. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 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)


 * 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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/1794/25558 https://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)
 * , 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
 * (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)
 * Nanjing
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case it definitely should be included, the sources are good enough The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case it definitely should be included, the sources are good enough The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
Please make the following change to the article:

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 &#183; 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Left guide (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024
Please make the following change to the article:

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 &#183; 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Left guide (talk) 05:27, 20 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: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide
Should Gaza genocide be included in this list? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Don't include unless the title is changed to "alleged genocides" or similar. In my view, inclusion under the current title amounts to a statement in wikivoice that a genocide is occurring. Regardless of what the majority view is, we should avoid such statements in cases where there's significant (non-fringe) controversy. I know there have been attempts to qualify such implied statements with prose like "recognized in significant scholarship", but that doesn't fully address the issue, just as false advertising can't be remedied by adding fine print. The non-neutral (implied) statement is still there. — xDanielx  T/C\R 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Include there are a lot of reliable sources calling it genocide or saying in so many words that Israel is engaging in genocidal actions. Most of the sources that disagree with that label are either simply unreliable or directly tied to Israel and its backers. If this situation was applied to an enemy of the US, like China or Russia, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Dronebogus (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not true. For example, Persecution of Uyghurs in China and Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War are not included in the list. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is sufficient sourcing to call China’s actions against the Uyghurs genocide of some description, at least. Dronebogus (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't include, per xDanielx. Sourcing is not sufficient yet to put it in Wikivoice per the recent RM - and generally, we should wait to do so until after the ICJ has ruled, at which point we can either make it clear that the allegations were true or that they were false. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't include per XDanielx. Right now the status of a genocide is disputed, and really entries to this article should only be made when it's clearer. — Czello (music) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't include per XDanielx. Right now the status of a genocide is disputed, and really entries to this article should only be made when it's clearer. — Czello (music) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
This has been going back and forth for a while, so let's go ahead and continue with the WP:DR steps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)