Talk:List of genocides/Archive 13

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

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


 * Oh yes, this is also a unilateral removal without getting consensus to remove. This should be restored. After quickly looking, it seems to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * based on our Trail of Tears article namely [|this bit] we should include it and explain there is scholarly debate on the matter—blindlynx 19:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. Everything was debated. Having a debate does not mean the item should not be included to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also see this thread just above on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The current content needs a supporting in-line citation. WP:V. This is not a matter of debate but a matter of policy. The citation for the current content explicitly says (and is directly quoted) that scholars have generally found no intent, contrary to the definition of genocide in the 1948 Convention (which is also directly addressed in the page numbers of the source cited).
 * In other words, the source as cited says the material should be removed. Therefore I am removing it. If you want the material included, you need a source that supports its inclusion per the existing WP:LISTCRITERIA. A link to another Wikipedia article is not sufficient. The sources cited in that article are not in themselves sufficient unless their conclusion of genocide does not contradict the 1948 definition. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, i'm not up on the scholarship for either but there seems to be a decent number of sources supporting inclusion of both as debated at the very least—blindlynx 20:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SamuelRiv I have a couple dozen sources from a preliminary search of Google Scholar that refer to the Trail of Tears as an act of genocide, or genocidal event, with multiple ones looking at the legalist lense of it. It will take me most likely a week to work through them currently, but will provide details here, as well as updating the Trail of Tears article as necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So, this is after having worked through ~1/10 of articles/theses/books I've collected so far:

• Political scientist Michael Rogin – "To face responsibility for specific killings might have led to efforts to stop it; to avoid individual deaths turned Indian removal into a theory of genocide."

• Indigenous studies scholar Nickey Michael and historian Beverly Jean Smith – "Over one-fourth died on the forced death marches of the 1830s. By any United Nations standard, these actions can be equated with genocide and ethnic cleansing."

• Political scientist Andrew R. Basso – "The Cherokee Trail of Tears should be understood within the context of colonial genocide in the Americas. This is yet another chapter of colonial forces acting against an indigenous group in order to secure rich and fertile lands, resources, and living spaces."

• Political scientist Barbara Harff – "One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is genocide, which is neither particular to a specific race, class, or nation, nor rooted in any one ethnocentric view of the world. […] Often democratic institutions are cited as safeguards against mass excesses. In view of the treatment of Amerindians by agents of the U.S. government, this view is unwarranted. For example, the thousands of Cherokees who died during the Trail of Tears (Cherokee Indians were forced to march in 1838-1839 from Appalachia to Oklahoma) testify that even a democratic system may tum against its people."

• Legal scholar Rennard Strickland – "There were, of course, great and tragic Indian massacres and bitter exoduses, illegal even under the laws of war. We know these acts of genocide by place names - Sand Creek, the Battle of Washita, Wounded Knee - and by their tragic poetic codes - the Trail of Tears, the Long Walk, the Cheyenne Autumn. But ... genocidal objectives have been carried out under color of law - in de Tocqueville's phrase, "legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the word." These were legally enacted policies whereby a way of life, a culture, was deliberately obliterated. As the great Indian orator Dragging Canoe concluded, "Whole Indian Nations have melted away like balls of snow in the sun leaving scarcely a name except as imperfectly recorded by their destroyers"."

• Attorney Maria Conversa – "The theft of ancestral tribal lands, the genocide of tribal members, public hostility towards Native peoples, and irreversible oppression--these are the realities that every indigenous person has had to face because of colonization. By recognizing and respecting the Muscogee Creek Nation's authority to criminally sentence its own members, the United States Supreme Court could have taken a small step towards righting these wrongs."

• Genocide education scholar Thomas Keefe – "The preparation (Stage 7) for genocide, specifically the transfer of population that "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" as stated in Article II of the UNCPPCG is clear in the Trail of Tears and other deportations of Native American populations from land seized for the benefit of European-American populations."

• Sociologist James V. Fenelon and historian Clifford E. Trafzer – "Instead the national government and its leaders have offered a systemic denial of genocide, the occurrence of which would be contrary to the principles of a democratic and just society. "Denial of massive death counts is common among those whose forefathers were the perpetrators of the genocide" (Stannard, 1992, p. 152) with motives of protecting "the moral reputations of those people and that country responsible," including some scholars. It took 50 years of scholarly debate for the academy to recognize well-documented genocides of the Indian removals in the 1830s, including the Cherokee Trail of Tears, as with other nations of the "Five Civilized" southeastern tribes."

• Sociologist Benjamin P. Bowser, psychologist Carol O. Word, and Kate Shaw – "There was a pattern to Indian genocide. One-by-one, each Native state was defeated militarily; successive Native generations fought and were defeated as well. As settlers became more numerous and stronger militarily, Indians became fewer and weaker militarily. In one Indian nation after the other, resistance eventually collapsed due to the death toll from violence. Then, survivors were displaced from their ancestral lands, which had sustained them for generations. […] Starting in 1830, surviving Native people, mostly Cherokee, in the Eastern US were ordered by President Andrew Jackson to march up to two thousand miles and to cross the Mississippi River to settle in Oklahoma. Thousands died on the Trail of Tears. This pattern of defeat, displacement, and victimization repeated itself in the American West. From this history, Native Americans were victims of all five Lemkin specified genocidal acts."

• Sociologist and historian Vahakn Dadrian lists the expulsion of the Cherokee as an example of utilitarian genocide, stating "the expulsion and decimation of the Cherokee Indians from the territories of the State of Georgia is symbolic of the pattern of perpetration inflicted upon the American Indian by Whites in North America."

• Genocide scholar Adam Jones – "Forced relocations of Indian populations often took the form of genocidal death marches, most infamously the "Trails of Tears" of the Cherokee and Navajo nations, which killed between 20 and 40 percent of the targeted populations en route. The barren "tribal reservations" to which survivors were consigned exacted their own grievous toll through malnutrition and disease."

• Cherokee politician Bill John Baker – "this ruthless [Indian Removal Act] policy subjected 46,000 Indians—to a forced migration under punishing conditions […] amounted to genocide, the ethnic cleansing of men, women and children, motivated by racial hatred and greed, and carried out through sadism and violence."

• Cultural studies scholar Melissa Slocum – "Rarely is the conversation about the impact of genocide on today’s generations or the overall steps that lead to genocide. As well, most curricula in the education system, from kindergarten up through to college, does not discuss in detail American Indian genocide beyond possibly a quick one-day mention of the Cherokee Trail of Tears."

• English and literary scholar Thir Bahadur Budhathoki – "On the basis of the basic concept of genocide as propounded by Rephael Lemkin, the definitions of the UN Convention and other genocide scholars, sociological perspective of genocide- modernity nexus and the philosophical understanding of such crime as an evil in its worst possible form, the fictional representation of the entire process of Cherokee removal including its antecedents and consequences represented in these novels, is genocidal in nature. However, the American government, that mostly represents the perpetrators of the process, and the Euro-American culture of the United States considered as the mainstream culture, have not acknowledged the Native American tragedy as genocide."

• Muscogee Nation Historic and Cultural Preservation Manager Rae Lynn Butler – "really was about extinguishing a race of people"; Archivist at the Cherokee Heritage Center Jerrid Miller – "The Trail of Tears was outright genocide".
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not following this thread closely but it seems you have shown that there is significant scholarship which refers to this event as a genocide. I would therefore be personally in favour of it's readdition to the article, though note that I am not knowledgeable enough about this subject matter (regarding genocides generally, or the inclusion criteria of this article secifically) to have a strong opinion here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some more:
 * Some more:

• Historian Jim Piecuch argues that the Trail of Tears constitutes one tool in the genocide of Native Americans over the three centuries since the beginning of colonization in north America.

• Legal scholars Christopher Turner and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond reiterate Strickland's assessment.

• Historian David Stannard and ethnic studies scholar Ward Churchill have both identified the trail of tears as part of the United States history of genocidal actions against indigenous nations.

• Sociologist and psychologist Laurence French wrote that the trail of tears was at least a campaign of cultural genocide.
 * -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If this hasn't been readded it probably should be. Greag work @Cdjp1. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Still got a few more to go through from potentials I've grabbed. But while the trail of tears being a genocide may be a minority opinion, we can see various specialists view it as such, and what can be seen in a broader view, in specialist texts that talk of the genocide of Native Americans, the Trail of Tears seems to be a common event they'll point to as evidence of genocide, often making comparisons to the death marches seen in other genocides such as the Armenian and Sayfo. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've re-added it without a description, can you provide one based on these sources? —blindlynx 23:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Le sigh, I guess I asked for this. I'll try and get something coherent bashed out tomorrow. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's much appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. It's not great, but at least it's there now, and others can adjust it to a better standard. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a good start! —blindlynx 14:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


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

Bengal Famine of 1943
I believe this event should be added as a genocide for much the same reason the Holodomor shows up in this list. The British had complete operation control over Bengal, and chose to employ policies that prioritized the war effort over civilian deaths from starvation. Under normal circumstances, classification as genocide is questionable, but when the death toll was between 800,000 and 3,800,000 none of which was because of natural causes, it begs the question as to why it can't find a place in this table. Of course, as usual, the last column can have notes on whether, or to what extent it was intentional or under duress, referring to the main article as necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware there is no significant scholarship describing this as a genocide, given that not even the extent to which the British were to blame is agreed upon by historians (I'm not personally disputing blame as I'm not an expert). If I am wrong and there are sources to this effect, by all means present them here, but we can't make the judgement without them due to WP:OR. TRCRF22 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here is a more or less contemporaneous characterization that mentions genocide in its title, written by the minister of commerce and industry in Nehru's first government of independent India. https://books.google.com/books/about/Bengal_Famine_an_Unpunished_Genocide.html?id=y7pazwEACAAJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A book title alone is not enough evidence. You would need to aid in providing specific citations from the book showing the argumentation. You may also want to look through Google Scholar results for journal articles to support the claim. The best support would be articles published in the Journal of Genocide Research, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and Genocide Studies International that say the Bengal Famine was an act of genocide. If you find good sources to support labelling the famine as a genocide, add the sources, and the arguments of the authors to the article Bengal famine of 1943. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are contending that my citation is not significant scholarship?
 * Can you please cite a specific WP:XX. Without that, I cannot interpret your comment as anything other than your opinion. Indeed, going by the comments here, I cannot find anything that corroborates your rather arbitrary requirement that inclusion should meet the bar that the event finds mention in a journal that has genocide in its name.
 * (a) Genocide is a commonly understood term. The compelling factors are the scale of the deaths, and the facts in question.
 * (b) With 3.8 million civilian deaths by manmade causes, and the preponderance of facts cited in the main article, and at least one book I cited that more than satisfies WP:RS, and in effect demonstrating that WP:OR is satisfied, the burden of proof is on you to show why it shouldn't be included. 216.228.112.21 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @216.228.112.21 The burden is on yourself to provide evidence that the event meets the current list criteria as you are making the request it be added. I was only providing suggestions for actions that would bolster your argument to convince others that the Bengal Famine should be added, including detailing the leading specialist journals in the field that would provided the greatest weight for the addition. The current article on the Bengal famine does not describe it as a genocide at all, so to say it supports the argument is just wrong. And whatever the merits of the book provided (where your current argument is that it has genocide in the title of the book) is one source, which is currently unassessd against the list criteria. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "A book title alone is not enough evidence."


 * For the purposes of the article, sure, but your interlocutor is trying to lead you to water—when previously you denied water even exists—but it is still up to you to drink! You have flatly denied that such scholarship exists, but even a cursory glance at the literature would show that's not the case. Such a cursory glance is insufficient for the purposes of the article but should at least disabuse you of your idea that no such scholarship exists. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not denied water even exists, I detailed what would likely be the strongest way to approach this. I am aware that there is scholarship in support of this position, but with my other current priorities in regards to wikipedia work, I am not able to do the leg work on this one. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean you have something more important than doing legwork on what is potentially the untold genocide of WW2 that rivals the death count of the Holocaust? Come on, this is about as bad faith as it gets. You have already come to a snap conclusion that it's not genocide. MHGA2024 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are making assumptions and unfounded allegations against fellow editors. If you would care to see my recent edit history, especially where my major edits have been located, you will see you are arguing with exactly the wrong editor about this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am simply making a logical conclusion from your statement that you had higher priority wikipedia work than doing legwork on scholarship that indicates this is the greatest cover up of WW2. When I find time I'll look at your other edits. It is possible that your bias is unconscious in this instance. MHGA2024 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no bias, you are simply a mistaken individual casting unfounded aspersions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "As far as I'm aware there is no significant scholarship describing this as a genocide,"


 * This just isn't true. Did you do a minimum of due diligence before making such a claim? Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances, classification as genocide is questionable, but when the death toll was between 800,000 and 3,800,000 none of which was because of natural causes, it begs the question as to why it can't find a place in this table. The number of dead isn't a criteria for genocide, or else every large war would constitute a genocide. The present list criteria requires intent.
 * The comparison to the Ukrainian famine is interesting, because with the Bengal famine we do see what may amount to intent among the British leadership. Just have a gander at Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill. You will not find such language among the Soviet leadership as far as I'm aware.
 * All this said, I think we need more than one book as a source. I will also note that Bengal famine of 1943 does not mention the word genocide at all, though that may be due to pro-British bias. Its Talk page does bring this issue up. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, absolutely. It is precisely the issue that different scholars have different criteria what genocide is, and this is not necessarily UN Convention. If multiple scholarly RS say that something was a "genocide", it should be included to the list. This is no different from any other lists. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed having a reliable peer-reviewed scholarly source not count because it doesn't have the word 'intentional' is absurd—blindlynx 20:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Intentionality is a bit more complex, as even scholars who have more expansive definitions of genocide will still hold to intentionality as being a key feature. There are a minority of scholars who move away from the necessity of intentionality, and it seems to be growing, especially with scholars adopting A. Dirk Moses' "total security" framework. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly... we should follow wp:RS---including accurately describing the state of scholarship on a historic event---rather than applying reductive criteria to it—blindlynx 21:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that some scholars have a more expansive definition runs afoul with the need for unambiguous list inclusion criteria. Or we could run with it I guess, rob the word genocide of all meaning until we circle back to the position held by Holocaust justifiers like Ernst Nolte. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt That is simply an extremely bad faith reading of the argument and scholars in the subject. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To expand the explanation, in the scholarship, when I say "more expansive" that is in relation to the UN convention, which has been criticised as a definition and framework since the inception of the field. Though if we really want to, even before the inception of the field with the work of Lemkin. I would have thought you'd be understanding and even sympathetic to the literature in this matter considering how the 1948 convention was formed through the meddling of imperialist powers seeking to prevent the convention from being used against them for their colonial and imperial endeavours that have caused countless genocides across the globe. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It might seem bad faith if one isn't aware of the centrality of Nazi intent in Holocaust studies, and the ways in which Holocaust deniers, neo-Hitlerites and the like attempt to downplay it. The issue of intent also crops up regarding the North American genocides as has been discussed on this very Talk page. A more recent example could be the Iraq War, which I've seen plenty of sources label a genocide, despite not demonstrating US intent to genocide Iraqis. There the word "genocide" is used to mean "a lot of people being killed". KetchupSalt (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And this does nothing to change the expander I provided. You choose to place those who argue that the crime of crimes is a horrendous mark on human history, and the political machinations that led to the UN convention has aided in the prevention of prosecution of the crime and reparations to the victims, where they state that direct and explicit intent may not be necessary for something to be a genocide, alongside those who play games with the UN convention specifically because of the intentionality bar, where they argue the Holocaust is not genocide due to a lack of intent. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, but those who argue that the Holocaust was not intentional are lying. These people are acting as though we can't read the words of Hitler, or that we are unaware of the decades of genocidal rhetoric by the NSDAP. When you remove intent, genocide seizes to be a crime at all. Genocides happen all the time apparently, and the Nazis did just did an oopsie whoopsie. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt except it does not. My previous comment stands, as you have not countered any point of it, and just reiterated your misreading of scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to think there is only one position in the scholarship, which is untrue. You also seem to be unwilling to engage with the implications of straying from the UN definition, which include:
 * 1) No need for intent, which makes genocide not a crime.
 * 2) Inclusion of other groups, notably classes. No distinction is thereby made between nation and class. Attacks on the ruling class of a nation is an attack on the nation itself. This is the Hitlerite position. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt you continue to prove your inability to read any of the comments I've made. The move acknowledges that there are a variety of frameworks that scholars use, including how many continue to hold intentionality as a key factor. There is no scholar in the field of genocide research who argues genocide should not be a crime, and the wiki article using scholarship for this list does not affect whether it is recognised as a crime. I once again ask you to try reading the scholarship for your point on class, which shows your concerns are unfounded in the scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see different Genocide definitions, and we can not say that some of them are better than others. Satisfying the 1948 UN Convention is not a good criterion for any list. It is too complex. We can not judge this ourselves. And we should not. This is list of genocides, not a List of genocides satisfying 1948 UN Convention. If it was, the list would be much shorter. We just need multiple scholarly RS saying that it was a genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "We can not judge this ourselves. And we should not."


 * Agreed. This is why we cite WP:RS's that use the criteria of the 1948 convention to make their assessments.
 * "This is list of genocides, not a List of genocides satisfying 1948 UN Convention."


 * Actually, it is a list of genocides satisfying the 1948 UN convention. If it weren't, there would be no need for this discussion—in arguing for the list to be otherwise, you have necessarily admitted what it actually and presently is. And the article very explicitly says what it is in the body; that it does so in the body and not the title is a question of practicality, of no particular relevance to this discussion. There are other lists, such as Genocides in history and with different inclusion criteria, as this very article mentions. Your proposal would render this article (or those articles) redundant. Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is we are judging it ourselves, editors are judging whether or not reliable peer-reviewed scholarly sources use a definition that they think aligns with the conventions one rather than following wp:rs—blindlynx 18:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it should explicitly say that in the title. Readers can come to their own conclusion then, on whether this article is worth reading, let alone the talk page. As it stands now, it violates WP:CB. What's that you ask? Wikipedia:Click Bait. Lol. MHGA2024 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm weakly in favour of expanding the inclusion criteria. Weakly since I'm not well versed in this subject matter. But it seems to me that the word 'genocide' is simply not well defined, and that it is not for Wikipedia to attempt to define it. As long as there is significant scholarship calling something a genocide I think we should include it here. Perhaps this article could be divided into tiers of events "unanimously considered genocide", and events whose characterization as genocide is "disputed". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If you do start reading through the literature about genocide, you will find various frameworks for considering genocide, and as it is an active academic discipline, it's almost inevitable these frameworks will continue to change as new research and arguments are conducted and made. While we may have some genocide experts appear here as editors, unless they declare otherwise, we must assume all of us contributing are laypeople. This assumption, I believe, then means none of us can comment as to which frameworks are more or less valid, and thus our inclusion criteria here should be based on if specialists are labelling events as genocide, regardless of framework employed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I support 's proposal to align the definition used for this list with significant scholarship, without having explicit mention of the 1948 Convention definition. That would better align us with reliable sources. makes a good point that the current definition we use requires more interpretation by editors than Cdjp1's proposal would. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I support widening the criteria and not making the 1948 convention so central, but we need to do it carefully to avoid filling the list with contested and borderline cases. My proposal would be something like: where there is a scholarly and/or legal consensus that it was/is a genocide. Inclusion of all incidents where one or more peer reviewed scholars in reliable sources make the case for inclusion but the overwhelming majority disagree (or don't bother responding) would be problematic. In other words, we should go with the preponderance of reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Defining it by scholarly consensus doesn't get us anywhere than where we are now on the topic. In very few cases will you get consensus among scholars on the topic of genocide. It isn't widening the criteria if you limit the mention of calling something a genocide to those events which the majority of scholars agree on. Who defines a majority in that case? Is it a number? At what threshold does it become a preponderance of reliable sources? We will continue to have edit wars and heated discussions on article talk pages where one group presents fifteen scholars while another group presents sixteen and so on and both sides will declare the opposing groups scholars as not "high quality" reliable sources. I've been involved in several such discussions recently. If we are going to expand the criteria then lets define the expansion to what. If we are going to define it requires a majority of all of scholarship to define something a genocide then we might as well remove the term from almost every article but those discussing the Holocaust. -- A Rose Wolf  12:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let us be realistic: there are no list criteria that will avoid future heated discussions. Hopefully, clear and workable criteria will lessen the amount of discussion and discord, but I suggest it would be foolish to imagine such can be avoided. However, plenty of Wikipedia is contentious and we get by. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is exactly that, requiring scholarly or legal consensus is not a clear or workable criteria unless the goal is to limit the use of the term to events that exactly meet the UN definition and there is no additional criteria that will help us avoid the heated discussions. -- A Rose Wolf  13:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the benefit of the 1948 definition. It is easy to understand. And more importantly it is unambiguous, as required by WP:LISTV. As soon as you turn the word genocide into a floating signifier you run into the kind of problems we've discussed here many times. For example, what do we do when sources disagree on the meaning of the word genocide? KetchupSalt (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt we do as we do for every article, work with the weighted preponderance. Plus to claim that the UN's definition is unambiguous is patently wrong should you bother to read the scholarship or even look at the lack of application of the convention. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But it isn't, for example scholarship is divided about whether or not the Holodomor was intentional and therefor a genocide. What ended up happening with the current definition is we exclude good sources simply because editors think that they don't focus on intentionallity which is clearly at odds with WP:WEIGHT which by the way is a policy not an essay like WP:LISTV—blindlynx 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So, as most people seem to be in support of moving from the "1948 convention" wording and definition, I will remove it from the list criteria. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 2045, 28 April 2024 (UTC)