Talk:List of genocides/Archive 12

Genocide of Palestinians in Gaza (ongoing)
I don't think there is much need to argument this suggested topic, but for the sake of clarity: Israel has already explicitly enacted 3 out of 5 genocidal actions as per Article II of Genocide Convention (1 - killing members of group, 2 - serious bodily and mental harm, 3 - deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction), the ICJ is set to a hearing against Israel for charges of genocide as South African lawyers have compiled pages after pages with statements by Israeli officals clearly documenting the genocidal intention of this monstrous collective punishment on innocent civilians, there is already 20 000+ reported dead over a population of 2 millions, there are 1.2 million internally displaced people crammed up in a third portion of Gaza territory, and more and more evidence is simply right there in the face of everyone. 213.32.254.179 (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This appears to be largely WP:OR. — Czello (music) 13:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's original research. Anyone who doesn't believe it is a genocide only needs to wait, before the ICJ's decision or the resulting destruction to Gaza or the West Bank. Maybe we should also include the wrongful imprisonments of those in the West Bank. Sophistocles (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is OR as that comment was all formulating a personal conclusion - textbook OR in fact. But yes, we can wait until there is a more conclusive ruling. — Czello (music) 22:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't formulating a personal conclusion. Please read this: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf. Which outlines the the extent of the evidence that asserts Israel's actions in this conflict as Genocidal. There also many other scholarly sources with the same conclusion. There is clearly a very strong allegation of Genocide and some people disagree. However the inclusion of the Holodomor shows me that this list looks to also include allegations which are debated, so why would we not include this? I believe the list should be more open to any situation where there is a genuine reliable case for genocide.
 * I also expect this Genocide to be added following a ruling against Israel's actions from the ICJ. Sophistocles (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what this article needs to do, in these cases and more broadly, is to be more explicit about the highly contested nature of most possible entries in this list. That is, Wikipedia shouldn't be saying in its own voice that X or Y is a genocide when the debate is far from settled, but we should be acknowledging cases where there is significant debate. Maybe that's about including some more text in the lead to note this. Maybe that's including more text around individual entries noting debate. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree @Bondegezou Sophistocles (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The comments above were forming a conclusion as no source was linked. But as you've now linked one – it needs scholarly recognition, not a case being put forward to the ICJ that hasn't even been decided on yet. — Czello (music) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Guatemalan genocide entry
It asks for "citation needed."

Here is some info:

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

Quote above is found at this link:

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


 * CounterPunch is not a reliable source. Do you have a better sources for this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is a WP:SPS blog from a tenured prof at Princeton Seminary (and also not a specialist in genocides or international law). CounterPunch is the blog publisher, for purposes of evaluation per its entry in WP:RSP. Furthermore, Taylor is the secondary citation to the primary internal citation: UNOPS Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico 1999.
 * The latter must be critically examined for whether the former accurately characterizes its description of "genocide". At that point it is a WP:RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

it was a human massacre, as accepted and declared by many countries So also must be listed here in the list. I will updateore facts and figures shortly. Jassipawar (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The main article for the topic is 1984 anti-Sikh riots, and describes it as a typical pogrom. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2024
2A02:8428:50B:1A01:6EAB:2660:5837:84E5 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Add palestanians genocide by Israel!


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2024
Add the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, source: Nakba, killing and massacres articles on wikipedia

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_and_massacres_during_the_1948_Palestine_war Liteobserver23 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. see above. Note that Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war also details massacres of Jewish people committed by Arabs, so your point is not made.  Cannolis (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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

If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of WP:1RR, please make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary. If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do a "self revert") "self revert requested by user:irtapil" to the start.
 * mention it is a self revert or mention its about 1RR
 * specify who asked you to do it
 * specify which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

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

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

Why is the (redacted) here but not the (redacted)?
can someone explain in plain English why a whole thread got redacted? Irtapil (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

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


 * As I recall the discussion was whether to list all of them as one big genocide, to list each one separately or perhaps to add an extra "campaign" column to group them under. A campaign column would be useful for other cases of genocide, for example Generalplan Ost, itself consisting of multiple genocides. If I remember correctly there is also controversy over whether to count dead due to pandemics as part of the American genocides.
 * Due to WP:SYNTH we can't list events as genocides unless there are sources calling them as much, even if they seem obviously genocidal to us. And per WP:LISTV sources must unambiguously call them genocides in line with the UN definition, as that is the criteria for inclusion on this list. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

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


 * In the century that followed arrival of Europeans, the native population of the Americas dropped from 30-50 million This doesn't mean all those 30-50 million were genocided. The crime of genocide requires intent, and the literature linked here so far raises doubt whether deceases spreading by themselves qualify as genocide. Which authors claim 2.5-5 million? They could be a good source.
 * Failing that, individual events such as the Trail of Tears would be a good start I think, or better yet the Indian Removal Act. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing to try and find RS on is the near-eradication of the buffalo as a deliberate act of genocide of the various First Nations that depended on the buffalo for survival, especially the Sioux. The buffalo article lists one source of this type, but it doesn't list any numbers, and its reliability is perhaps dubious. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Christians are not a nation. Also please provide a source. The Boxer Rebellion makes zero mention of it being a genocide and a quick Web search on "Boxer Rebellion genocide" yields nothing. Finally ethnic cleansing and genocide are not the same thing. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group Parham wiki (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But we still need sources calling it as much. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Parham wiki (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does need to be given it’s proper definition so at least it’s being acknowledged that we still 2600:8803:E3FC:9F00:955:3AA5:6FCF:5E40 (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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


 * So, my view would be to leave out of the article debates like the Holodomor genocide question (and certainly the Palestinian genocide accusation, as was suggested above). But that we should still keep historical events which most scholars would generally describe as genocide, even though a smaller minority of scholars do not; I'm thinking for example the East Timor genocide or even the Rohingya genocide. No matter where you draw the line though there's going to be a grey area of course. Endwise (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I will check out Genocides in history. I think there are some big, politically contentious cases (e.g. Holodomor genocide question, Palestinian genocide accusation) that it would be good to cover somehow, noting they are contentious. At present, we have endless Talk discussion and sometimes edit warring over such. It seems to me better to say, in not so many words, look, people talk about these cases as maybe genocide but there's a big argument, go follow these links and make your own mind up.
 * We then have almost the reverse problem with a bunch of cases like Conquest of the Desert and Genocide of Indigenous peoples in Paraguay where there is very little attention given to them and it's very difficult for us Wikipedia editors to make a fair judgement as to whether they are "generally/usually/typically recognised in significant scholarship" or "unequivocally defined". You can see some sources call them that, but is some enough? I like the phrasing "recognised in significant scholarship" because it's easier to tell that, yes, there is some significant scholarship on the idea that X is genocide than it is to tell whether, overall, scholarship concludes yay or nay.
 * Ultimately, I don't think the article can be more about historical genocides than about describing scholarly disputes about what is and isn't genocide because there is very little that is "unequivocally defined" as genocide and an awful lot that is disputed to some degree. But then, generally, I think list articles generally need more expository text! Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a similar issue with the Genocide navbox template, which has a discussion here, where just about everything that has at least someone claiming it is genocide listed in it's "list of genocides", except anything relating to Palestine. Where regardless of your opinion of the Palestine accusation, it has a whole lot more experts and relevant academics calling it a genocide than for others on the list, such as Carthage. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bondegezou @Endwise to clarify something does not need to be "unequivocally genocide" to be included, that comment is in regards to instances of massacres where they are not included unless they were shown to be unequivocally genocide. The wording is poor and confusing so I'll look at adjusting it. Basically making it line up with the standard that is mentioned and actually used in the article, a significant amount of scholarship saying it's genocide in line with the UN convention.
 * Accusations, allegations, and articles about academic debates of the events (Holodomor genocide question) should not be included as they are out of the scope of the article.
 * On my prior comment, the navbox has settled and moved to be more in line with the standards of this article, though the navbox is more expansive in what it includes.
 * Personally I'd want many more events adding, though that's based on the issue I have with a lot of the analysis and lacking inquiry in the field of genocide studies. This does touch to what Bondegezou mentioned regarding Conquest of the Desert and Paraguay, there are definitely biases in research around what gets studied in genocide scholarship, so the metric used will necessarily be somewhat relative to what has been published. This can be remedied somewhat by searching the non-English literature on such topics. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove 1932-33 Ukrainian famine from list
So as expected my WP:BOLD change was reverted. This matter has been discussed multiple times, but to the best of my knowledge not since this article gained a clear list inclusion criteria. WP:LISTV is clear on what to do: list entries should be unambiguous and they should follow each list's inclusion criteria. The present criteria is the UN Genocide Convention. To the best of my knowledge no RS considers the famine to be a genocide according to the UN criteria. In fact, as has been discussed on Talk:Holodomor genocide question, many sources lament this very fact, as they cannot demonstrate the intent required by the convention. Therefore the famine does not belong on this list.

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


 * @KetchupSalt the Genocide Convention is not the criteria for inclusion (editors making the assessment against it as to what is a genocide is OR), the criteria for inclusion is that a significant proportion of the scholarship regards the event as genocide in regards to the Genocide Convention. In the case of the Holodomor this criteria is met. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Genocide Convention is not the criteria for inclusion It literally is. Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes so I will quote WP:LISTV verbatim:
 * Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. Both clear criteria and adherence to these criteria must take priority over any praise or condemnation an editor may feel is implied by membership. Some lists cover characterizations that can be considered negative. Such lists, if not carefully maintained can be used to promote a certain POV. Opponents of a subject may try to include it in the list despite it not meeting the list criteria. Supporters may try to remove it despite it meeting the list criteria.
 * Helpfully this list has a very clear list criteria:
 * The term genocide is contentious and as a result its definition varies. This list only considers acts which are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
 * Now, unless my eyes are broken, and unless you refer to some other Genocide Convention other than the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, then the famine should not be included, because it does not fulfill the list criteria. You have not argued that the famine is a genocide per the convention, and as far as I know no RS does (quite the opposite). Or is there suddenly some other set of rules that apply to this list and this list only? KetchupSalt (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I stated:
 * the criteria for inclusion is that a significant proportion of the scholarship regards the event as genocide in regards to the Genocide Convention
 * And as you identified:
 * The term genocide is contentious and as a result its definition varies. This list only considers acts which are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
 * Hope this helps your eyes. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you agree with me, and it should indeed be removed, because no such consensus exists, as has been discussed at length at Talk:Holodomor genocide question. There is (arguably) a consensus among Western academics that the famine was a genocide, but not per the UN definition, as the definition used in genocide studies is broader than the UN definition. This has also been discussed at length at said Talk page. Indeed plenty of sources lament the narrow scope of the UN definition. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt no, because that is not what I said, nor what the inclusion criteria listed says. I am well aware of the Holodomor genocide question talk page and your unending quest. As that page shows, there is significant scholarship that recognises it as a genocide, therefore it is in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is incongruous handling of the Holodomor and it's classification across articles and templates. In the genocide navbox it is included as a genocide, in the sidebar it is not, and in the Holodomor article the lead says whether it constitutes a genocide is disputed, the infobox only lists it's recognition as genocide by political bodies, and of course later in the article deals with the debate. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As that page shows, there is significant scholarship that recognises it as a genocide, therefore it is in the list. Not according to the UN definition, but by these scholars' own definition. In other words, the present situation treats the word "genocide" as a floating signifier. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is true based on the items currently included to the list. We should probably remove "according to the UN definition" or say "per scholarship or according to UN definition" in the lead", so that any of two criteria would work (scholarship or UN definition). My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the consensus has been for this page to include genocides as per the UN definition, not just because some "scholar(s)" label it as such per their own personal definition; there are other pages for those sorts of "genocides", with different inclusion criteria, namely and Genocides in history, both of which are linked to in the lead here. This consensus is evinced by the fact that this particular wording or something close to it has been stable for like a decade or longer. What you are proposing is a redefinition of the list, which would require discussion and a strong consensus in favor of it—whereas removing the Ukrainian famine of '32-33 would simply be in compliance with the consensus already is on what this list should be. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We should probably remove "according to the UN definition" or say "per scholarship or according to UN definition" in the lead", so that any of two criteria would work (scholarship or UN definition). Why? Bear in mind that WP:LISTV requires precise list inclusion criteria. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is also significant scholarship arguing it isn't a genocide. Why should the scholarship that argues it is be presented as the true account? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Not only Holodomor, but also the currently ongoing crimes by Russia in Ukraine qualify as genocide even by UN criteria : The Genocide Convention does not require evidence of all five prohibited acts to meet the legal standard. Russia’s violation of all five acts of genocide is therefore particularly heinous and adds to the overall portrait of their escalating attempts to commit genocide in Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you get the article Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be renamed to Genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it will go on the list. The most recent allegations of genocide have all been long debated across multiple articles and templates that provide an overview of multiple genocides, and the final agreement is not not have these instances included under the name genocide, until their main articles reflect that. I would agree that the bar is met for the likes of Ukraine and Gaza, but other editors are not convinced by the scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "to be renamed to". I would vote "rename" because I trust the conclusions by the Council of Europe, several major countries and RS. There was no such RfC yet. There was a different suggestion here, and a number of RS was provided during that discussion to support such position. This is something to think about... My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "I trust the conclusions by the Council of Europe"


 * I certainly don't, and neither should other people, when it comes to obviously politically motivated rulings against a geopolitical rival. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the table, I can see at least 4 examples that have been included with a lower threshold; none of them has "genocide" in the title. In these cases, one can find a few strong sources saying that it was a genocide, but there was nothing like the official recognition by several countries or the Council of Europe. But in my opinion, this lower threshold is OK because I agree with RS that say these events were genocide, excluding maybe only one example because "Soviet" does not mean Russian or any other specific ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This topic isn't about the present war. But the words of Mr. Putin, especially his denial of the existence the Ukrainian nation in contradiction of material reality, do appear to support genocidal intent as far as I can tell. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to add it there's a good number of sources for it eg. []—blindlynx 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is your OR, and also not particularly relavant here—see WP:NOTAFORUM. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

It seems that 's point bears repeating, and this discussion summarized, as the essential policy points have not been addressed: Arguing over sources is silly -- what you should be doing, if you want a change, is proposing in a new section to change the list inclusion criteria. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article current follows WP:LISTCRITERIA and specifies the 1948 UN Genocide Convention as the basis of its inclusion standard in its first section. Scholarly sources are relevant in that they say an event conforms or does not conform to the definition of the 1948 Convention, which critically requires intent.
 * I just removed two sections on consideration. The first is Trail of Tears, for which the cited source specifically says that intent is not present. The second is Holodomor, for which the first cited source is nonrigorous and old (see WP:HISTRS) and the second source details how the 1948 Convention is an inadequate definition for events such as Holodomor, which is why scholars have used new definitions in subsequent decades. Other sections whose sources deny intent should similarly be removed.
 * Thus to include such sections, either the specified list criteria must be changed, or else an appropriate weight of RS sources must be found that explicitly say that there is genocidal intent (as well as the other elements of the 1948 definition, or preferably that it conforms to the 1948 definition explicitly). This is not some subjective judgement, but a matter of what the sources explicitly say (WP:V) and what the article criteria are (WP:LISTV).


 * The academic debate in the last 30 odd years has centred on whether or not it was intentional---in other words if it meets the gen convention definition---it seems that wee should include the holod and mention that this is an open question in scholarship, removing it does not accurately reflect sources or serve readers—blindlynx 14:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is accurate, then you must find and cite and a reliable source that reflects this. The current sources do not. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously? There's no shortage of good scholarship saying it was an intentional genocide. This paper provided a decent overview of whats going on in scholarship and this one talks a lot about the question of intentionality —blindlynx 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. Wikipedia's content guidelines require in-line citations to WP:reliable sources that directly support and WP:verify the preceding content. The wp:burden to provide sources is on those seeking to include content, not on those challenging it.
 * I agree with the sources you now provided, that they show there is sufficient scholarship specific to criteria of the 1948 Convention. Make sure to cite the relevant page numbers. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given this is contentious i would prefer not to revert a second time, i'll mock up a draft with sources and an explanation of the state of scholarship linking to Holodomor genocide question later today and someone else can include it. Sound good?—blindlynx 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no shortage of good scholarship saying it was an intentional genocide. No source claims it is a genocide according to the UN definition (as far as I know). No source claims that it was a deliberate killing of Ukrainians because they were Ukrainian. What exists are sources that confuse ethnicity and class, and sources that use their own personal definition of genocide, thereby robbing the word of its meaning. KetchupSalt (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, whether or not the Holodomor was intentional and therefore constitutes a genocide under the Genocide Convention is debated by scholalrs. —blindlynx 19:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I restored it per WP:Consensus. Based on discussion above, there is a consensus to "keep", or at least there is no consensus to delete (this is a long-standing item of the list). Welcome to start an RfC if anyone wants. As of note, every significant genocide was debated or/and denied. This is not a reason for removal. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you get that this means there's some consensus to keep everything exactly as it was. Specifically User:blindlynx says above they will add new sources, and those sources are the ones I agreed support scholarly consideration of Holodomor as being defined under the 1948 Convention; the previously existing sources did not, and I have not seen arguments directly about those sources suggesting otherwise. The Holodomor material, or any material, can only be added with supporting RS that correctly verify it according to the list criteria, which is what the user says they will do above, and which is why I reverted re-adding the old material without said modification.
 * As for Trail of Tears, no argument has been given and no new sources addressing the 1948 Convention have been proposed, and the existing source specifically says that current scholarship suggests it does not meet the definition. Until a good review of modern scholarship is presented saying the opposite, or list criteria are changed, it has to stay out. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A removal of a longstanding item from a list requires WP:Consensus. As about supporting references, we had them, see here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've re added it with the new text—blindlynx 20:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't what WP:LISTV says to do. Do the rules not apply all of a sudden? KetchupSalt (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * The actions after the bombings.
 * Had the US not accepted surrender, or had they gone on to slaughter large portions of the population afterwards, the bombings would be part of that genocide, but they didn't. There was no attempt to wipe out the entire group.
 * -- Keiyakins (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be the "entire group". The UN definition says "in whole or in part". Sophistocles (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources calling the bombings genocides per the UN definition? Merely killing lots of civilians doesn't a genocide make. This also appears to be WP:SYNTH. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Bombings_as_war_crimes Sophistocles (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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


 * @MHGA2024 see Talk:List of genocides above -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024
Spelling error, missing T Change "he Iraqi Turkmen genocide refers to a series of killings, rapes, executions, expulsions, and sexual slavery of Iraqi Turkmen by the Islamic State." to "The Iraqi Turkmen genocide refers to a series of killings, rapes, executions, expulsions, and sexual slavery of Iraqi Turkmen by the Islamic State." Poenga (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Great Bengal famine of 1770
There's significant scholarship that terms this event a genocide as well. It claimed upwards of 10 million lives and as such, it would be at the top of this table. If you disagree, I look forward to your arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHGA2024 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide sources? Also, the table is in reverse chronological order—blindlynx 20:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2024
The "The Holocaust in Croatia including the Genocide of Serbs" section has an error in formatting when it comes to the "highest estimated killings" field. Specifically, the number 548,000 is in the "notes" sections of that particular entry instead in the proper field. Levo1Desno2 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ —blindlynx 20:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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


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

hows this look?—blindlynx 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This could work, two initial points, we would need to cut down the text that is currently in the efn, that will aid in readability in the table and some of the efn content is too much detail for such a list. The second point is that in this formatting it seems like it breaks the ability to sort entries by the end date, all other categories of sorting seem to still work. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Weird ... i got rid of some superfluous markup and it seems to work no. I think it's best to focus on the format now and once that's done we can pair pair it down? —blindlynx 21:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reformatted the table in the article, the content should be identical but i'm sure there are minor types and mistakes i missed—blindlynx 15:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * that said we should pair down some of the descriptions and generally clean up most of them—blindlynx 15:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wonderful work. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer the old format, because you can see more events on the screen at once. (Also, I have a page with a plot of the data, and the new formatting broke the page. I had to change the url to use an old revision. https://observablehq.com/@labvegas/genocides)
 * If you do keep the new format, move the Proportion of group killed column to the main row, and collapse the description row or limit the height and use scrolling.
 * With either format, the Proportion of group killed column should be edited to be just a percentage or range of percentages, moving the explanations to a note (like the estimated killings columns) so that rows are shorter and approximately the same height. For example, Rohingya might be "~2% [5]" with the explanation moved to a note. AndyBloch (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The next steps is to seriously trim down descriptions so limiting height shouldn't be necessary, but probably worth doing anyways.
 * Why did it break your data pull?
 * My main concerns with the old format are that the events categorization as genocides and proportion of group killed both require serious contextualization hence the more involved descriptions....this developed naturally over time with the long footnote after the names and the write-up for portion killed and teh new format is meant to present that info better—blindlynx 20:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (My data pull broke because it was relying on one row per event and the original columns. I can certainly fix it without too much difficulty.)
 * Certainly the proportion requires contextualization, but I think it still should be on the main row and sortable, with the context moved to a footnote. Maybe there could also be estimated group population columns, with columns for region of conflict and worldwide? To make my chart I had to do a bit of research on populations of the relevant group to get estimates of the proportion for many of the genocides. AndyBloch (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant about having anything to detailed in a note but yeah i agree that a sort able percent would be useful.
 * I'll come up with a mock up with those numbers when i get a chance—blindlynx 23:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)