Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Genocide and mass atrocities

Similar to incorrect information on medical topics, incorrect information on genocide and other mass atrocities can have serious real-world consequences. Both genocide denial and exaggeration of historical atrocities have fueled additional mass crimes, leading to the deaths of many innocent people. Furthermore, mass atrocities are often denied, minimized, or deliberately exaggerated for various reasons that have nothing to do with historical evidence. Therefore, it is especially important that Wikipedia should provide accurate and unbiased information on such topics.

The consequences of misinformation
False claims of genocide against the targets of a planned genocide may be considered incitement to genocide and are theoretically prosecutable as inchoate crimes under international law. This tactic has been used in several historical genocides including the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, and Bosnian genocide.

"[D]enial is the most common response to in-group atrocities." This is unfortunate as denial inhibits the process of coming to terms with the events and achieving reconciliation and justice. Genocide expert Gregory Stanton considers denial the last stage of genocide. According to Roger W. Smith, Eric Markusen, and Robert Jay Lifton: "by absolving the perpetrators of past genocides from responsibility for their actions and by obscuring the reality of genocide as a widely practiced form of state policy in the modern world, denial may increase the risk of future outbreaks of genocidal killing."

What types of content are covered by this essay
Any claim about the historical fact of a mass atrocity event, such as: "the perpetrators of the Jedwabne pogrom were ethnic Poles" or "On 16 October 1941, 1,000 Jews were deported from Prague to the Łódź Ghetto." Claims about later responses to mass atrocities, such as building a memorial, a statement by a political leader, or so forth should be cited to reliable sources but are not covered by this essay.

What is a reliable source?
A variety of considerations need to be applied when considering what is a reliable source for a claim. An important consideration is whether it is accepted by subject matter experts in the relevant field. For example, if a non-scholarly book has received positive evaluation in scholarly reviews, then it may be considered reliable. On the other hand, sometimes older sources, particularly those published close to an event, may not be reliable if more recent scholarly sources find significant errors in the work.

Generally reliable: What may be a reliable source: What is not a reliable source:
 * Findings of international courts
 * Peer-reviewed, scholarly sources
 * Articles published by reputable institutions such as United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. However, the reputation of such institutions differs, whether the institution is sufficiently "reputable" may be in doubt, and reliability may be limited to their core area of expertise.
 * News articles published by non-experts
 * Non-peer reviewed books, even if they would be considered minimally reliable for other claims
 * Statements by governments or political bodies such as United Nations or European Union. Such statements are usually based as much or more on political and diplomatic considerations than the historical truth of an event.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica—it is a non-specialist source and is not peer-reviewed

What if the event is not covered in any peer-reviewed sources?
It is better not to have an article on a topic than to risk repeating information that may or may not be accurate.