Talk:List of genocides/Archive 5

This is related to several sections, so I put it in a separate section
This article creates an opportunity for several types of manipulation with facts and sources, which includes Holocaust trivialization, source misinterpretation, manipulation with numbers, etc.

First of all, I believe nobody can argue that there is a big difference between those cases that are legally recognized as genocide crime (i.e. recognized by a court, not by some scholar or some government) and all other events. In this list, that difference is blurred. Indeed, a difference between the Holocaust and a murder of Poles is absolutely obvious. Just one example, during mass killing of Jews in Warsaw ghetto Poles were relatively safe (of course, relatively to Jews). However, this list creates a totally false impression that it was nearly equally dangerous to be a Pole and a Jew in Nazi occupied Poland. In connection to that, I found it totally misleading and incorrect to combine legally recognized genocides, especially the Holocaust, with other mass killings. Therefore, I propose:


 * 1. Separate the acts of genocide that were recognized as such by some court from all other cases, and create a separate (short) list for the former.

Next, there are some cases that are almost universally considered as genocide, but that was not confirmed by a court. Usually, these cases are called "genocide" in all non-fringe sources (Armenian genocide is an example). I think it would be correct to put such cases into a separate list. I propose:


 * 2. Move the events that are universally recognized as genocide into the second sublist

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that the article's title is List of genocides by death toll. That means more deadly genocides appear at the top of the list, and they are seen as more terrible events. Meanwhile, in contrast to the Holocaust, many mass killing events were much more complex. Thus, we know that the Holocaust was a genocide directed against Jews, and Nazi were killing them using different means, the goal was to eradicate them completely (make Europe Judenfrei), and the total number of victims was about 6 million. And it is possible to find that information in some single mainstream source, and the information is generally accepted by a scholarly community.

In contrast, if we take some other case, for example Polish losses during Soviet rule, there is no agreement if that was genocide. Moreover, even the authors who describe, e.g. Katyn massacre, as an act of genocide do not apply that term to all deaths. Indeed, even for the Holocaust, the sources separate Jewish victims of the Holocaust from other Jews who were killed during WWII. Thus, I doubt such persons as Pavel Kogan, who was a Jew, and who was a Soviet military killed in Eastern Front, are considered the Holocaust victim. And that is correct. Similarly, I doubt the AK members killed by Soviets during a counter-guerilla operations, Polish POWs who died in Soviet internment camps, etc., are considered Soviet genocide victims. Therefore, if one source says that Katyn massacre and some other incidents were the acts of genocide, and another sources says that, e.g. 500,000 Poles died (or were killed) during the Soviet rule, it would not be correct to consider these deaths genocide deaths, unless majority sources say so explicitly. In connection to that, my third proposal is:


 * 3. Only those deaths that are considered as genocide deaths by majority of sources can be provided without attribution. If only few sources link the number of deaths with genocide, these must be explicitly attributed

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Separate the acts of genocide that were recognized as such by some court from all other cases, and create a separate (short) list for the former.
 * Sure, the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings which served as basis for the UN Convention concept of genocide and its prevention stated as follows in Indictment : Count Three:
 * The murders and ill-treatment were carried out by divers means, including shooting, hanging, gassing, starvation, gross overcrowding, systematic under-nutrition, systematic imposition of labor tasks beyond the strength of those ordered to carry them out, inadequate provision of surgical and medical services, kickings, beatings, brutality and torture of all kinds, including the use of hot irons and pulling out of fingernails and the performance of experiments by means of operations and otherwise on living human subjects. In some occupied territories the defendants interfered in religious matters, persecuted members of the clergy and monastic orders, and expropriated church property. They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.
 * So these three are definitely within the criteria mentioned above.
 * --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am speaking about the overall structure of the list, not about some specific case. However, in connection to Poles, your quote contains the words "and others". How should we interpret that? Does it mean that, e.g. Belorussians, were also the victims of genocide?
 * Secondly, the cited document does not provide numbers. Is it universally accepted that 1.8 million of Poles were genocide victims, or that is just a number of killed civilians (including those killed during counter-guerilla warfare). --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings is explicit in recognizing Poles as a group subject to genocide during WW2, to start questioning numbers is to back pedal on your own criteria mentioned above of including acts of genocide that were recognized as such by some court. --Nug (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The legal definition of genocide did not exist until 1948. The Nuremberg proceedings used "genocide" as a descriptive rather than legal term. No one was convicted of genocide; instead of war crimes or crimes against humanity. I would not count the Nuremberg proceedings with establishing genocide in the legal sense. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this seems to be a very well thought solution. Davide King (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely the Encyclopedia of Genocide would be a good source. according to the book description:
 * The Encyclopedia of Genocide is the first reference work to chart the full extent of this horrific subject with objectivity and authority. The Nazi Holocaust; the genocides in Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia; and the eradication of indigenous peoples around the world are all covered in A–Z entries, written by almost 100 experts from many countries.
 * However it does have a chapter on "Soviet Genocide", so I suspect there may be some opposition to its use here. One of the problems with using the UN Genocide Convention as a list criteria is that it was gutted by the Soviet Union in order not to expose itself, according to this recent book The Soviet Union and the Gutting of the UN Genocide Convention. --Nug (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This book is more than 20 years old, and ABC-CLIO isn't the greatest publisher in my experience. Although some encyclopedias are very high quality, it's not clear if this one is. There are serious errors in some encyclopedias, such as the 1990 Encyclopedia of the Holocaust which vastly overestimates the number of deaths at Jasenovac concentration camp. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with this approach. We say what the reliable sources say, not what some court case says. And completely agree with buidhe about the Jasenovac example, the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust contains so many other errors about Yugoslavia in WWII as to make it virtually unusable. These are often not scholarly tomes focussed on one genocide in depth, so they are bound to make mistakes trying to cover such a large number. We have to remember they are tertiary sources, and we shouldn't led by them, but by the consensus among the reliable secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Peacemaker67, you must agree that the statements "a person X was convicted of murder" and "according to prof. Y, X committed a murder" are two different claims. If we combine convicted criminals and those who, according some reliable sources, committed some crime (but were not tried and convicted) that would be deeply misleading. Remember, "genocide", as defined by the UNO convention, is a crime, and, accordingly, only a court can make a decision if some event was genocide. In parallel to a legal definition, much more loose definitions exist, but the preamble clearly says we include only those cases that fit a legal definition. That is an oxymoron, why can't you see it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Moriori
Could someone please remove the following from the Genocide of the Moriori section. "people from the Māori tribe." There is no such thing as "the Māori tribe". The hyperlinks to the iwi articles should be enough explanation. "They were not permitted to mix with their race." This isn't supported by the reference and is dubious. "There are no Moriori of unmixed ancestry left." This is misleading in this context as it implies unmixed ancestry was important to Moriori. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 23:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ however as this page is no longer protected, you may edit it directly as appropriate. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

More on inclusion criteria
In general, several general cases are possible.


 * The event was legally recognizes as a genocide crime by some court;


 * No court decision exists, but an overwhelming majority of sources say it was genocide as defined by the UN convention;


 * Some sources claim it was genocide as defined by UN, but some sources explicitly disagree;


 * Few sources describe it as genocide as defined by the UN convention, but majority sources say otherwise AND they do not dispute with the genocide claim (which means the sources claiming that was a genocide are nt notable enough)

Clearly, when we move from the top of this list to the bottom, the claims become less and less strong. It seems that a threshold lies in between one of those lines. We need to agree where to put is, and to amend the lead accordingly. I am pretty neutral, and I have no concrete opinion on the threshold criteria, but I insist that the lead must reflect the threshold criteria. Currently, it does not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some sources say that event was a genocide, but is is not clear what definition (the UN definition or some broader definition) is meant.
 * I strongly disagree with this. It is too focused on court cases prosecuting the crime of genocide and the UN convention, both of which are recent innovations. Both of these criteria are strongly biased towards modern genocide, and therefore suffer from recentism. Also, court cases are heavily dependent on the jurisdiction that tried them and the laws under which they were tried. Like all articles on WP, the inclusion criteria should be whether the academic consensus is that they were genocide. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of a court ruling makes the situation much easier. When it doesn't exist, which is the case for older genocides, academic consensus is necessary. I think that fits with the first two points, so I would eventually support that proposal. --WEBDuB (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Peacemaker67, what you write is nonsense, you cannot agree or disagree with that: that is just a summary of the actual hierarchy of degrees of recognition of some event as an act of genocide. If something was recognized as genocide legally, that almost automatically means all scholars agree that was genocide. If some sources occasionally call some event X "genocide", and it is even unclear if they mean the UN definition, that makes the statement "X was genocide" much, much weaker.


 * Regarding recentism, the worst kind of recentism is an attempt to apply modern standards to the events that happened in distant past. I think majority of events before the French revolution should not be included here.


 * WEBDuB, depending on where we put a threshold, the lead has to be changed accordingly. Thus, if the threshold is between the 2nd and 3rd lines, the lead should say "which were legally recognized as genocide, as defined by the UN convention, or are considered to fit that definition by an overwhelming majority of scholars".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Utter rubbish, Paul. I am not in a position to provide s detailed rebuttal, but your contention is just wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't need to provide any rebuttal, if you disagree with my description, provide your own. You must agree that the claim "X was genocide" may be stronger of weaker, and it may express a universally accepted opinion, majority view, significant minority view or fringe view. No person in clear mind can deny that. You may disagree with the criteria presented by me, but you cannot disagree that some criteria of that kind do exist. If you can propose your own criteria, please do that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paul, there must be some clearer criteria for inclusion. This article currently is about lists of genocides recognized by the legal definition in significant scholarship. Therefore there has to be a threshold. I think somewhere between the second and third point is reasonable, maybe combined with some sort of sub-listing as he suggested in another section above. However, I'm not sure what we should do in cases where many scholars classify it as genocide but use their own interpretations rather than the UN/legal definition. That is what makes this article problematic, as it relies too much on UN/legal convention so PM has a point. If we solely did that, we'd only have like 4 or 5 cases listed here, which is where it was headed when there was the massive purge. --Griboski (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

To something is included here at this list, it needs to be widely recognized by the academic community and sources as that. It is how it is, and we do not make here advocacy. This is one problematic article where always can be someone accusing someone about something. Or to someone find one or two sources and claim to that prove something as yes or no. So it need wide, really wide acceptance and recognition. 178.221.102.165 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)