Jump to content

Talk:List of genocides

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 5.61.122.219 (talk) at 16:45, 12 December 2023 (→Sabra and Shatila?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before writing a comment please read the comments below, and add yours in the most relevant section, or add a new section if nothing similar exists.

Indian genocides by Mughals and the European invaders is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:8E40:45:3D78:2D98:BA97:E052 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input on the addition of specific genocides in the Americas

The following seem to meet our criteria for inclusion in the list, but II want others input before I add any of them:

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of the Desert might not qualify per the discussion above and per WP:LISTV, especially these parts: Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics and Ensure that the criteria for inclusion in the list are neutral and based on widely accepted definitions of terms. I see that we now explicitly list the UN definition of genocide, so we should be careful that sources list a) intent and b) destruction of peoples as such. Mere military conquests do not qualify, nor does mere ethnic cleansing of an area.
The other four examples look fine to me. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find this discussion troubling that most likely non of you deciding to not call what occurred to the Native Americans not a Genocide. It is broadly recognized around the world less Caucasian Euro American scholars, as a Genocide which clearly shows bias. Is anyone making the decision a Naitve American? It clearly checks all the boxes while the discussion focuses around homicide it never seems to discuss the removal of culture and relocation. Wow.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804 67.60.216.236 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Girard, Philippe R. (2005). "Caribbean genocide: racial war in Haiti, 1802–4". Patterns of Prejudice. 39 (2): 138–161. doi:10.1080/00313220500106196. ISSN 0031-322X. S2CID 145204936. The Haitian genocide and its historical counterparts [...] The 1804 Haitian genocide
  2. ^ Moses, Dirk A.; Stone, Dan (2013). Colonialism and Genocide. Routledge. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-317-99753-5.
  3. ^ Forde, James (2020). The Early Haitian State and the Question of Political Legitimacy: American and British Representations of Haiti, 1804—1824. Springer. p. 40. ISBN 978-3-030-52608-5.
  4. ^ Andermann, Jens. Argentine Literature and the 'Conquest of the Desert', 1872-1896, Birkbeck, University of London. Quote: "It is this sudden acceleration, this abrupt change from the discourse of 'defensive warfare' and 'merciful civilization' to that of 'offensive warfare' and of genocide, which is perhaps the most distinctive mark of the literature of the Argentine frontier."
  5. ^ The Argentine Military and the Boundary Dispute With Chile, 1870-1902, George V. Rauch, p. 47, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999
  6. ^ Carroll, Rory (13 January 2011). "Argentinian founding father recast as genocidal murderer". The Guardian.
  7. ^ "Pruebas irrefutables demuestran el genocidio de la población charrúa". LARED21 (in Spanish). 2009-08-30. Retrieved 2021-01-13.
  8. ^ Albarenga, Pablo (2017-11-10). "Where did Uruguay's indigenous population go?". EL PAÍS. Retrieved 2021-01-13.
  9. ^ Rospigliosi, Fernando (1996). Las Fuerzas Armadas y el 5 de abril: la percepción de la amenaza subversiva como una motivación golpista. Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. pp. 46–47.
  10. ^ Gaussens, Pierre (2020). "The forced serilization of indigenous population in Mexico in the 1990s". Canadian Journal of Bioethics. 3 (3): 180+. doi:10.7202/1073797ar. S2CID 234586692. a government plan, developed by the Peruvian army between 1989 and 1990s to deal with the Shining Path insurrection, later known as the 'Green Plan', whose (unpublished) text expresses in explicit terms a genocidal intention
  11. ^ Burt, Jo-Marie (September–October 1998). "Unsettled accounts: militarization and memory in postwar Peru". NACLA Report on the Americas. 32 (2). Taylor & Francis: 35–41. doi:10.1080/10714839.1998.11725657. the military's growing frustration over the limitations placed upon its counterinsurgency operations by democratic institutions, coupled with the growing inability of civilian politicians to deal with the spiraling economic crisis and the expansion of the Shining Path, prompted a group of military officers to devise a coup plan in the late 1980s. The plan called for the dissolution of Peru's civilian government, military control over the state, and total elimination of armed opposition groups. The plan, developed in a series of documents known as the "Plan Verde," outlined a strategy for carrying out a military coup in which the armed forces would govern for 15 to 20 years and radically restructure state-society relations along neoliberal lines.
  12. ^ Getgen, Jocelyn E. (Winter 2009). "Untold Truths: The Exclusion of Enforced Sterilizations from the Peruvian Truth Commission's Final Report". Third World Journal. 29 (1): 1–34. This Article argues that these systematic reproductive injustices constitute an act of genocide ... those individuals responsible for orchestrating enforced sterilizations against indigenous Quechua women arguably acted with the necessary mens rea to commit genocide since they knew or should have known that these coercive sterilizations would destroy, in whole or in part, the Quechua people. Highly probative evidence with which one could infer genocidal intent would include the Family Planning Program's specific targeting of poor indigenous women and the systematic nature of its quota system, articulated in the 1989 Plan for a Government of National Reconstruction, or 'Plan Verde.' ... The Plan continued by arguing ... the targeted areas possessed 'incorrigble characters' and lacked resources, all that was left was their 'total extermination.'
  13. ^ Carranza Ko, Ñusta (2020-09-04). "Making the Case for Genocide, the Forced Sterilization of Indigenous Peoples of Peru". Genocide Studies and Prevention. 14 (2): 90–103. doi:10.5038/1911-9933.14.2.1740. ISSN 1911-0359. a genocide did occur ... there was a case of genocide that involved the state against the reproductive rights of an ethnic minority, an institutionalized genocide via a state policy.
  14. ^ "La esterilización forzada en Perú fue el mayor genocidio desde su colonización". Centro Amazónico de Antropología y Aplicación Práctica (CAAAP) (in Spanish). 2016-05-31. Retrieved 2021-08-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  15. ^ Back, Michele; Zavala, Virginia (2018). Racialization and Language: Interdisciplinary Perspectives From Perú. Routledge. pp. 286–291. Retrieved 4 August 2021. At the end of the 1980s, a group of military elites secretly developed an analysis of Peruvian society called El cuaderno verde. This analysis established the policies that the following government would have to carry out in order to defeat Shining Path and rescue the Peruvian economy from the deep crisis in which it found itself. El cuaderno verde was passed onto the national press in 1993, after some of these policies were enacted by President Fujimori. ... It was a program that resulted in the forced sterilization of Quechua-speaking women belonging to rural Andean communities. This is an example of 'ethnic cleansing' justified by the state, which claimed that a properly controlled birth rate would improve the distribution of national resources and thus reduce poverty levels. ... The Peruvian state decided to control the bodies of 'culturally backward' women, since they were considered a source of poverty and the seeds of subversive groups
  16. ^ "Editorial - Genocidio Arana". La Nación (in Spanish). Retrieved 10 June 2020.
  17. ^ FG (5 April 2017). "La fiebre del caucho y el genocidio indígena del Putumayo, Colombia". Red Filosófica del Uruguay (in European Spanish). Retrieved 10 June 2020.

Cdjp1 (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1793-1794 French Genocide: The Vendée

2600:1003:B134:1EE8:C8CD:800D:FC8E:E5F8 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

Change [Turkey]] in the Greek/Pontic Greek Genocide entry to [[Turkey]]. SRG372 (Talk • Edits) 21:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@KetchupSalt: 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)[reply]

Gaza

Please be watching as it seems we are witnessing a genocide of massive proportions happening in Gaza right now. With no power water and food gas or media coverage , we likely won’t know the numbers for weeks or months but it will be grave. 2607:FEA8:28E0:9170:5DE1:71FB:9CF1:F80B (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future." We do not know how many people will be killed by the Israelis in this ethnic cleansing. We will have to wait for available estimates, after the cleansing is completed. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should not wait until it is completed to add this entry. Some sources suggest this may have been ongoing for many years already. There is no need to provide an end date, and casualties counts can be updated occasionally. VeronikaStein (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dimadick, no matter how senior, one should refrain from loaded language such as this - framing all "Israelis" as "Ethnic Cleansing". I'm new to the policies but targeted harassment doesn't bode well on Talk pages for purposes of WP:CON. Thanks :) Chavmen (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not loaded. "The Japanese" bombed Pearl Harbour, "the Romans" invaded Gaul, etc. etc. This is not "targeted harassment," this is commonly accepted language, and to argue as such would be to do so in bad faith. Jackwc123 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackwc123
"... how many people will be killed by the Israelis in this ethnic cleansing...until this cleansing is completed." It's not the same. And this is not commonly accepted. Chavmen (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't responding to my comment. What I said is "commonly accepted" is attributing an act to a nation, i.e. "the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour." In fact, let us take a look at the Wiki page itself for that very same event:
"Japanese demands included..."
"...coordinated Japanese attacks..."
"The Japanese also sank or damaged..."
"The experiences of World War I taught the Japanese that..."
"...the Japanese attack on USS Panay..."
^ as you can plainly see, attributing an act to a nation (i.e. "killed by the Israelis") is a completely normal and commonly-accepted way of speaking about international matters, and everyone is patently aware that speaking this way is shorthand for speaking about national entities, not citizens. You are arguing this point in deliberately bad faith. Jackwc123 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, there is over a thousand deaths and mostly children. It should be included and be spread awareness of, does not matter if its not over yet 2601:646:8300:78F0:BC9A:4BBC:8E6:6239 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already, one could consider it as one. My text was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides&diff=prev&oldid=1180110837
What do people think? Other than BilledMammal, who does not agree with the text. Scientelensia (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the situation is very grave, but we have to follow what reliable sources say. I do not see a significant number of reliable sources describing events in Gaza as a genocide. Bondegezou (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. I can find many however which show that Israel has breached the UN Genocide Convention, stating specifically the terms which it has breached. E.g. one or two of the sources on the Genocide against Palestinians page/ What do you think of this article, also? https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide Scientelensia (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here to share the same source from jewishcurrents. It qualifies. As of 5 hours ago, reported civilian casualties are 2,215. Of course it will go way up from here. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/13/israel-hamas-live-dozens-killed-while-fleeing-to-southern-gaza#:~:text=The%20Israeli%20military%20has%20indicated,Israeli%20air%20attacks%20on%20Gaza. VeronikaStein (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High casualty events are not automatically genocides, and high casualty events in the future are definitely not. So far, at least 17,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed by Russia in the current war but that is not listed. The last months has seen the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians under threat of genocide, not listed here. Tens or hundreds of thousands have died in the Tigray War, I don’t know how many in Yemen and Syria, all described by some sources as genocide but not listed here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Again however, I would like to quote scholar Raz Segal:
Raz Segal:
“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: “1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—more bombs than the US dropped on all of Afghanistan in any year of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by “act accordingly”: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza “as such,” in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a “complete siege,” in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals.
It’s not only Israel’s leaders who are using such language. An interviewee on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 called for Israel to “turn Gaza to Dresden.” Channel 12, Israel’s most-watched news station, published a report about left-leaning Israelis calling to “dance on what used to be Gaza.” Meanwhile, genocidal verbs—calls to “erase” and “flatten” Gaza—have become omnipresent on Israeli social media. In Tel Aviv, a banner reading “Zero Gazans” was seen hanging from a bridge.” Scientelensia (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is very, very clear. Wikipedians are not to base edits on original research. We edit based on what reliable sources say. Is there a substantial body of reliable sources calling current events a genocide? Your arguments constitute original research and, thus, have no epistemological value for determining edits. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not solely my edits. There is no original research. Lost of scholars call it a genocide. I am not saying that it is though. Scientelensia (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provide reliable sources explicitly calling it a genocide and we can look at them. You have given us one above, from Jewish Currents. Do you have more? Bondegezou (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one more by Ilan Pappe VeronikaStein (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pappe is an activist and historian not a genocide scholar or legal expert. This article predates the current crisis too. While clearly there are going to be individuals who see this as a genocide (and they may be right), and that can be discussed on the article about the conflict if they are noteworthy, but we need there to be wide consensus that it's a genocide before we include it in a list like this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another one There is a lot here to look through, but it is said explicitly in the conclusion. VeronikaStein (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CCR is an advocacy organisation not a reliable source. I think we need the preponderance of reliable sources to agree before listing it here BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an advocacy organization doesnt necessarily mean it's not a reliable source. Youd need evidence they have posted false information in the past, or other indications of unreliability Ashvio (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one by Genocide Watch has explicitly classified this instance as 'Level 8: Extermination' VeronikaStein (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. 'Stage 9: Extermination' VeronikaStein (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've misread the genocide watch article; it's raising a warning about the actions against both Israel and Gaza. The stage nine warning applies to the actions against Israel; the large scale massacres of civilians. The warning that applies to the actions against Gaza is Stage 4, dehumanization, which it considers to be a step towards genocide but not genocide itself.
In other words, that source supports adding the actions against Israel to the list ("The massacres by Hamas constituted acts of genocide"), but not the actions against Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the academic assessment previously provided, the following articles show consensus among some politicians as well as the public. Generally speaking, how many sources are we looking for here?
Colombia condemns genocide in Gaza
Lula's party calls out Israel for 'genocide' in Gaza
Protests Across the U.S. Call for Israel to End Its Siege and Genocide in Gaza VeronikaStein (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Pappe paper and the CCR piece are older and refer to events prior to the recent outbreak of war. They don’t argue that the current events constitute a genocide, which I thought is what we were discussing. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources here backdate the beginning of this genocide as early as 1948. That is not a case for not adding this to the list. The topic is 'Gaza', not 'Gaza 2023'. The start date can be disputed. The casualty counts too. Statements by activists and historians contribute to public consensus. All of these sources, as a whole, need to be taken into consideration. This is because we will not receive a public statement by Netanyahu admitting genocide. Nor will we from Biden. VeronikaStein (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Democracy Now, Brazilian Report and Middle East Monitor are strong sources, and I don't think US protestors, Lula or Petro are qualified to make this judgement (although Lula and Petro's opinions would be obviously due on the article about the events). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that note and try to source more mainstream American news, thank you. Official statements made by heads of 3rd party states are some of the best sources for consensus here. My understanding is that evidence of consensus among a wide group of academics, politicians, and the public are what is required for consensus. Is that correct? Or are Wikipedia contributors themselves more qualified than Lula and Petro? VeronikaStein (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interested in your thoughts on my sources below. Not saying we need to add this as genocide immediately, but there's a growing number of scholars and qualified experts calling this genocide or ethnic cleansing, along with Israeli statements also implying such intentions. Ashvio (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other potential genocides missing from this list is not a case against adding this one to the list. This topic is titled 'Gaza'. VeronikaStein (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the list needs to apply some kind of consistent principles. If we start including everything that anyone has described as a genocide, we'll get a very long list very quickly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully aligned. We must be very consistent. VeronikaStein (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UN won’t call the Ughyrs a genocide but call Gaza a genocide… so why is one not a genocide on the list and the other isn’t? 2601:283:4C81:2960:C18F:1953:44AB:1FC2 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't matter what the UN says. Wikipedia summarizes WP:Reliable sources. In the case of genocide, which is part of the scholarly field of genocide studies, we summarize WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Not governments, not non-government organizations... scholarship. Per WP:NPOV, if the mainstream view of scholars is that something is genocide, Wikipedia says it's genocide, in its own voice. Otherwise, not. Ask the scholars why they agree the Uyghur genocide is a genocide but they don't agree about Palestinians. Whatever their reasons, Wikipedia follows the scholarship.
When the scholars agree that the Nakba is a genocide -- which I think they will, probably in the next 12-24 months, once they start publishing new papers and books -- then Wikipedia will call it a genocide in WP:WIKIVOICE. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather obvious why scholars would agree on Uyghur genocide but decline Gaza Genocide. China is an official foe of the west and Israel is an official ally. The VAST majority of scholars live in the west and almost none are protected by tenure anymore. You think that they haven't noticed that colleges, even elite ones, are being targeted and defunded by wealthy Israel supporters for the crime of having a local chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. There is a high cost for so called neutral scholars to say anything negative about Israel, and nothing but incentives to say negative things about China. Adbdb0o (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere that the UN has called the current 2023 conflict a genocide. The term is heavily loaded and should not be used lightly especially in an act of self defense. Further, there are a number of wars with high death tolls that are not classified as genocides. As others much more senior than I have said, we go by WP:RSP and what the WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. See:
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-israel-commits-acts-genocide
https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/experts-laws-war-apply-hamas-israeli-military-rcna120767 Chavmen (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Jewish Currents has been invoked by two editors, just noting this response from an Israel-critical scholar:
BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources from before the current conflict on this suggesting Israel's actions are a genocide, for what it's worth. Not sure if it's a consensus of scholars but is likely enough to include as notable opinion in relevant articles for Israel/Palestine. [1]https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230107922_2
For the current conflict, sources calling this an ethnic cleansing (UN expert)
800 scholars signed a statement warning of "potential genocide"
Statements from Knesset suggesting a "second Nakba" for proving intent
And more recently, an Israeli think tank suggested an opportunity to commit what basically constitutes ethnic cleansing as described by secondary sources
I think it's likely too early to suggest the current conflict is a genocide yet as others noted, but it should definitely be on our radar. For the overall conflict since 1948, it could definitely qualify as "ethnic cleansing" at the very least if we have a separate article for that. Ashvio (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The letter signed by 800 scholars really brings to light the genocidal intent. In addition to this, there are numerous speeches and actions that further contribute to this grim assessment.
In the context of this conflict, the term 'collective punishment' has been, and continues to be, in my view, employed as a euphemism for genocide. This choice of language is likely due to the efforts of ambassadors and diplomats who are working to maintain diplomatic relations and de-escalate tensions.
However, as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a platform for WP:OR. Wikipedia strives to documents history accurately, even if that means adopting a more conservative/cautious stance. This results in articles lagging behind current events and trends. Nevertheless, I think that the main article on this conflict could do a better job at reflecting the various claims and accusations more promptly than this list does. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another one by New York UN Official Craig Mokhiber VeronikaStein (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could just add to the list and include a disputed tag,[disputed – discuss] maybe pointing to the "Palestinian genocide accusation" article. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good idea. Scientelensia (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. That's not what the tag is for. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we have Israeli historian and professor of genocide and holocaust studies Omer Bartov saying on 10 November 2023,

Whether at the moment this is genocide, my own sense is that it is not genocide at the moment, because there is still no clear indication of an attempt to destroy the entire population, which would be genocide, but that we are very close on the verge of that. And if this so-called operation continues, that may become ethnic cleansing — in part, it’s already happened with the move of so many Palestinians from northern Gaza to southern Gaza — and that may become genocide.

so in the future depending on how the future unfolds it might make sense to add a second entry of gaza to the list of instances of ethnic cleansing, this time in the 2020s. though i hope we wont have to 😢🙏 ~ Johnfreez (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnfreez He is but one scholar, and I'm sure there are others, but there are plenty of other scholars who would say it isn't. NGOs and journalists are also saying it isn't a text book case of Genocide or ethic cleansing. So at best, still fits into the accusation realm.
The Economist for one:
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2023/11/10/how-the-term-genocide-is-misused-in-the-israel-hamas-war Chavmen (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is still no clear indication of an attempt to destroy the entire population The UN charter stipulates no such requirement. In fact it states that it is genocide whether it is "in whole or in part", and WP:LISTV stipulates that we follow the charter. Intent also seems abundantly clear. But either way we probably need to wait for the scholarship to catch up as many in here have said. I will also point out that academia is not the sole source of WP:RS. The international legal system is catching up, and should for example the ICC find Israel's leadership guilty of the crime of genocide I'd say that's reliable enough. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this story out today from an Israeli magazine with sources in the IDF rather definitively proves genocidal intent.
‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza. Permissive airstrikes on non-military targets and the use of an artificial intelligence system have enabled the Israeli army to carry out its deadliest war on Gaza, a +972 and Local Call investigation reveals. Adbdb0o (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

“Change dominican republic and hispaniola to include also Puerto Rico” 68.204.76.220 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

Add “Genocide of Turks by Armenians” on the list. It should be from 1914 to 1915. With location “Ottoman Empire”. Lowest estimate: 64,000 and Highest estimate: 300,000

We all know about and can’t deny the devastating Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocide, however I think it would be fair to include the retaliatory genocide as well.

The sources are below: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB5.1A.GIF 77.77.216.98 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per our article, "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." Not sure this fits. Also, provided source uses the term genocide multiple times but never in conjunction with the massacre of Turks, "Turkey's Armenians also massacred Moslems. Claims that this may have amounted to at least 1,000,000, or even 1,500,000 Moslem dead (table 5.1A, lines 106b and 106e) however, have no substantiation beyond former Young Turks or their officials. Had the Armenians indeed massacred even half this number, the Young Turks surely would have given it wide publicity, photographs and all. They had no better way to counter sympathy for the Armenians they were killing. In any case foreign newsmen and diplomats in the country surely would have noted the massacres. Moreover, the Turkish statistician Ahmed Emin, who was hardly sympathetic to the Armenians, gave (table 5.1A, lines 105 and 106f) an upper limit of 40,000 Moslem Turks killed by Armenians (including possibly by Armenian-Russian troops) in the area occupied by Russian forces after the Russian Revolution in 1917, and at least 128,000 for the 1914-1915 period.7 Given the other estimates and the overall populations involved, I estimate that from 128,000 to 600,000 Moslem Turks and Kurds were killed. Since this was done by Armenian irregulars serving with Russian forces, I split responsibility for these deaths in Turkey between the Russians and Armenians, and show in Table 5.1A (line 255) the Armenian half--probably 75,000 murdered. " Cannolis (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the list provided in the second source it specifically states it to be a genocide and gives the same figure of 64,000-300,000. I see that all sorts of ethnic cleansing campaigns were included in the list. I believe that targeting and mass murdering a specific group should constitute as genocide. Which was the case with Turks although I admit it was on a smaller scale than Armenians. But i think recording it would be fair nevertheless. Maybe other can gove their opinions on the matter as well. 77.77.216.98 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think it should be called genocide of Muslims Turks and Kurds, as both ethnicities were affected. 77.77.216.98 (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide against Bosniaks and Croats by the Chetniks

Change the higher estimate into “138,000”

The figure that most Bosniaks use is 106,000 (only for killed Bosniaks) which is different from the Yugoslav government statistics. Some numbers go as high as 150,000 but I couldn’t find relevant sources for it aside from claims. When it come to Croats the highest estimate I found was 32,000 maybe someone knows another one. and adding 106,000 and 32,000 I reached the figure of 138,000.

Sources: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=873357 https://hrcak.srce.hr/103223?lang=en 77.77.216.98 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Turkmen genocide

Iraqi Turkmen genocide

Location: Iraq Period From: 2014 Period To: 2017 Lowest Estimate: 3,500 Highest Estimate: 8,400

Sources:

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/2/13/iraqs-turkmen-mobilise-for-a-post-isil-future

https://21yyte.org/tr/merkezler/bolgesel-arastirma-merkezleri/orta-dogu-ve-afrika-arastirmalari-merkezi/isidin-irakta-turkmen-cografyasindaki-katliamlari https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Turkmen_genocide 77.78.230.98 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That first link does not use the word "genocide". Do you have more sources calling this a genocide? Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of sources Ive seen are classifying this as a genocie. Here you go some of then (not all are in English):
https://www.ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/uru/bilag/103/1494175.pdf
https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/200720174-amp
https://www.aa.com.tr/ar/الدول-العربية/البرلمان-العراقي-يعتبر-جرائم-داعش-بحق-التركمان-إبادة-جماعية/865821 77.77.216.98 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Parham wiki (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide in Ukraine

@Cdjp1, re. your revert,[2] what issues are present?  —Michael Z. 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion of Gaza above, many of the same concerns are present in regards to recency, academic consensus, etc. with the addition of the genocidal acts of Russia against Ukraine. If consensus among editors can be agree to add both Palestine and Ukraine there's no problem, but while the contentions exist there is a lack of consensus to add to the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither should be dependent on the other, as they are different things. And sorry, please list specific issues you have with this addition. I take it you object because 1) this event is too recent, and 2) you claim there is no academic consensus that the Genocide Convention is being violated by Russia. Does that sum it up?  —Michael Z. 19:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While not dependent on each other, the issues that have been highlighted under Gaza are also, from what I can see for the sources we have on Ukraine, also present.
1) this is not inherently an issue, but has bearing on the ability to find a consensus amongst experts without international prosecution on the crime of genocide.
2) From what sources we have present, from experts, while there are many willing to view it and call it a genocide (though to varying degrees), they do not represent a broad consensus across experts in any particular discipline, or across disciplines. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Which experts say there is no genocide in Ukraine?  —Michael Z. 21:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Genocide

The 1984 Sikh Genocide in India needs to be added. There is plenty of verifiable support that this was a genocide (see the wiki page here) for reference. The title of that page is also incorrectly labeled "riots" when it was government incited and directed, and there was active government involvement as well (local police either actively participating or intentionally refraining from stopping any violence). 2600:1700:7CC0:FEC0:8488:78A9:C978:6056 (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was an accident Jackwc123 (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sabra and Shatila?

Should the Sabra and Shatila Massacre be listed here? It was recognised as an act of genocide in the MacBride Report and by the United Nations. 5.61.122.219 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As with most of these examples, there isn't consensus that this was genocide, but I think the citations given in that article look to me sufficient to justify adding them here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to this issue, I would like to note that as well as the above citations, the incident was described as a genocide in an official report to the UNHRC by the Palestinian Return Centre, and by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission ([3]) A civil case alleging genocide was also brought against Ariel Sharon in Belgium - this case failed, but the dismissal was because Sharon was not present in the country, not because the incident's status as a genocide was disputed. There are a couple of other articles online I could link to if necessary, but I'm not sure if they would be considered RS for what constitutes genocide. 5.61.122.219 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albigensian Crusade

@Cdjp1, @Carlotm The Albigensian Crusade can't be listed as a genocide because the Cathars were not killed because of their race (a notion that didn't exist yet) but because of their faith.
Best Regards,
Belysarius (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I'm tagged specifically for this, as to my recollection I've never added the Albigensian Crusade specifically to the list. If we were to remove all genocides that occurred before the modern invention of race, it means nothing prior to the 18th/19th century would be on here, contrary to academics and experts on the matter. And per the UN definition for genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, "

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

" so your counter as to why the Albigensian Crusade should not be included here falls when held against this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged you because you are the two main contributors to this article and therefore the two most likely to respond to me. I thank you for your response.
The crusade aimed to convert the Cathars who had recently abandoned Roman Christianity and not to destroy the Albigensian people or Occitan culture.
Unfortunately if you were to add all religious massacres to this list, it would be infinite and would include for example massacres committed by the Cathars against Catholic civilians in Cathar-held towns.
Furthermore, the Albigensian crusade is very different from a massacre committed by a strong government against a minority since it is a war between feudal lords and the Albigensian lords had armies, forts and were able to defend themselves and attempt offensives. Belysarius (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To break this down:
  1. We rely on what reputable sources say on a matter, if it is the opinion of the relevant experts in the matter that the Albigensian Crusade counts as a genocide against the Cathars, then it is what should be expressed in the relevant wiki articles.
  2. On Conversion, this may be an argument for it not being a genocide, as conversions forced or otherwise are not explicitly stated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, though it is not a strong argument due to the following:
    1. It can be argued that forced conversions, especially of children of the group would fall under the spirit of 'e', that is "(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
    2. If we step away from the legal definition adopted by the UN (which is possible as shown by the wealth of academic research around genocide), we can find that forced conversions are considered at least part of cultural genocide, and in some cases genocide. You can even find some discussion of forced conversion as a tool of genocide under the Ottoman Empire in this wiki article. For a couple of examples of the academic literature you can see Mallavarapu, 2017 and Kurt, 2016.
    3. As religious groups are identified specifically in the Convention, destroying a religious, even if only through conversion, is still the destruction of that religious group.
    4. Finally this is all operating under the assumption that all the Albigensian Crusade entailed was in fact just conversions, which we know it was not, and in fact in most cases was the mass killing of both actual and suspected Cathars.
  3. You seem to try to separate the Albigensians as being a different form of categorisation than the Cathars, which is wrong, as it's use in the name "Albigensian Crusade" and it's use as an accusation of a heretical movement in Rome's eyes is specific to those they viewed as Cathars. Britannica has a quick read on this detailing why they were called Albigensians by Rome.
  4. If I were to have my say on the matter, yes, we would include a lot more cases of mass killings in this list, but it is not up to us to make the decision, only to report on what the reputable sources say.
  5. You seem to argue that a genocide can not be a genocide if the two parties involved are 'separate' polities at war, is this the case? If it is, then a few examples this criteria would see removed from this list would be: the Iraqi Turkmen genocide, the Genocide of Yazidis by the Islamic State, the German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation, mass sections of the Holocaust and the Romani Holocaust, and basically all genocides against indigenous peoples during the 17th-19th centuries. This sort of view is at odds with not just the Convention's definition and understanding of the crime of genocide, but also against multiple other definitions and analyses through genocide research.
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Belysarius Consider what CDjP1 posted as coming from my mind completely. Cheers.Carlotm (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Cdjp1. In particular, (1): we rely on what reliable sources say. We should not be trying to argue this matter based on our interpretation of the criteria. We should look to reliable sources to do the interpreting. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of "Cathars" also did not actually exist at the time of the Albigensian Crusade, and this idea of a heterodox sect of gnostic-inspired dualistic Christians in Medieval France has largely been abandoned by current historians.
The term "Cathar" literally doesn't appear once in a single primary source that actually dates from the time, and the document upon which later notions of Catharism were based is widely regarded to be a forgery. Since the group that this article asserts to have been the target of the Albigensian Crusade didn't actually have any coherent existence, its inclusion on this list is absurd.
I know that this is technically OR until I provide sources, but I'm currently on my phone and will provide them later, just leaving this comment now so I don't forget. Djehuty98 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide against Bosniaks and Croats by Chetniks in WW2

Change the higher estimate into “138,000” The figure that most Bosniaks use is 106,000 (only for killed Bosniaks) which is different from the Yugoslav government statistics. Some numbers go as high as 150,000 but I couldn’t find relevant sources for it aside from claims. When it come to Croats the highest estimate I found was 32,000 maybe someone knows another one. and adding 106,000 and 32,000 I reached the figure of 138,000. Sources: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=873357 https://hrcak.srce.hr/103223?lang=en 80.80.43.235 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangiga_massacre

Not on the list? 178.84.36.81 (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_genocides&oldid=1189563380"