Talk:List of genocides/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

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 [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:

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#India. 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 List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll § Genocides, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution 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 Cdjp1'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. blindlynx 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. --ARoseWolf 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. --ARoseWolf 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)

Gaza

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) @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) 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) Hi, I thought I owed you a response seeing as you asserted my comments were done in bad faith. Had a look at the article and the lede states Japanese military, Japanese navy, Japanese leadership, then moves to only Japanese in parts but not the entire article, it changes throughout. I suppose I prefer specifics and this is not in bad faith. And just for comparison, nowhere in this article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel does it refer to Palestinians as carrying out the attacks, only Hamas. But this is off topic. Chavmen (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) 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) Actually Israel doesn’t target civilians. It’s the hamas which uses palestinian civilians as human shields. So this isn’t genocide. “Spreading awareness” is not a reason to include it as a genocide, and it’s against the purpose of Wikipedia. Iron armour (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Hamas and Gaza aren’t the same thing 2A02:DD07:8041:A500:9DF1:248C:8B46:A718 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC) The Hamas uses Gaza civilians as human shields, and this is the reason they get killed. Therefore it can’t be considered genocide since they is no genocidal attempt, only Hamas terrorists using their civilians as human shields. A useful contributor (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) hello there A useful contributor im here to tell you that no not every Palestinian death is because of hamas I’m not denying hamas’s crimes obviously but blaming every single Palestinian death on Hamas is absolutely pathetic and stupid since Israel has committed crimes against the Palestinian before hamas’s foundation (for example the Deir Yassin massacre or the Tantura massacre) as well the dehumanising language against the Palestinians [1]https://www.arabnews.com/node/2396301/amp [2]https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/dehumanising-palestinians-israels-rhetoric-genocide-3457346?amp [3]https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1786922 [4]https://www.livemint.com/news/world/pm-netanyahu-invokes-amalek-theory-to-justify-gaza-killings-what-is-this-hebrew-bible-nation-11698555324918.html [5]https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/israel-defence-minister-human-animals-gaza-palestine_uk_65245ebae4b0a32c15bfe6b6/ [6]https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/ Israel never cared about the palestinian people because if they really did they wouldn’t kick out over 700,000 people out their homes and destroy over 400 of their cities, towns and villages, they wouldn’t let over 600,000 israeli settlers live in the West Bank knowing very well that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law not to forget alot of those israeli settlers are extremely violent as well and are also protected by Israel and so many more examples on how Israel makes palestinian lives a living hell sooooo I recommend you don’t learn history from zionists on twitter.com okay? (Also don’t take this paragraph as a very reliable source about Israel and Palestine either i am just pointing how horrible Israel is) TazunaJersey (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC) In your comment about the language, you completely ignored the October 7th attack when hamas killed over 1,000 civilians were killed by most brutal methods. If you think that calling the terrorists that committed those crimes “human animals” as a sign of genocide or as a sign of being “horrible” then I’m not sure what to reply. You are exaggerating the violence of some Israeli settlers, while completely ignoring the violence of Palestinians against Israeli settlers. Also, about the legality of the settlements, the international community did not recognize Jordan’s claim on the West Bank. Most of the aid to Gaza gets used by the Hamas for their military purposes. If Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, then they obviously aren’t very good at it as their population is growing in Gaza Strip and in the West Bank. The casualty numbers are due to the hamas using their civilian population as human shields. Also Israel treats Palestinians in Israel hospitals which is very strange for a country that is supposedly committing genocide against them. Also the hamas did not invent Islamist terrorism or antisemitism. Terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians existed long before that. Залізні мечі (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Again I’m not defending hamas not every civilian casualty is hamas’s fault it’s weird it just enables Israel’s genocide more like zionists could watch a video of a whole Palestinian family who have lived in Palestine for years get blown up into pieces yet they won’t have a single feeling of outrage, sadness, condemnation etc because as long as these Palestinians are labelled as just human shields and not actual human beings who have dreams and hopes humanity will just continue to fall Also the “If Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, then they obviously aren’t very good at it as their population is growing in Gaza Strip and in the West Bank.” lol ok now tell me what happened to the Arab population in the 400 cities, towns and villages also yes Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians by indiscriminate bombing and starving like sure the Palestinian population may have grown but it doesn’t mean they are safe from genocide many ethnic groups have survived genocide it’s about the intent so anyways I have more important things then wasting my time arguing with dumb zionists on the internet TazunaJersey (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Calling the palestinian casualties human shields does not mean that they won’t feel sadness as you suggested in your comment. If the hamas fires rockets on Israeli civilians from densely populated areas, and actively prevents civilian evacuation, that it’s the hamas that puts its civilians at risk. You yourself admitted that “it’s about the intent so anyways”, which means that even if the number of palestinian casualties claimed by the hamas were true, then it wouldn’t constitute genocide due to the lack of a genocidal intention. Pointing to events that happened 75 years ago also doesn’t prove anything. Israel is fighting a war against the hamas, and the hamas is hiding behind civilians. As the other person said above, if Israel has genocidal intentions against palestinians, then they aren’t very successful at realizing them. Considering the fact that Israel is the stronger side of the conflict, it doesn’t make sense to think that despite them being as bad as you are trying to make them look, the population of Palestinians keeps growing. If you keep claiming there’s a “genocide” against Palestinians, do you think the October 7th attack was genocidal? The hamas shot thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians, they raped, and they massacred. They tortured kids in front of their parents, burned babies, and systematically raped women. They killed babies, old people, holocaust survivors. Why were they killed? Due to them being Israelis. Therefore hamas is the genocidal side of the conflict. The suffering of palestinian civilians will end if the hamas stops using them as human shields. I will quote former Israel pm Golds Meir “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population, and also treats Palestinians in Israeli hospitals which doesnt make sense for a country which is committing genocide. Harbu Darbu (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC) @Harbu Darbu Your post surprised me in its content, and I felt I had to provide another argument. Please read carefully (statistics, etc.) this article also: Palestinian genocide accusation “I will quote former Israel pm Golds Meir “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Don’t you think quoting Golda Meir is just slightly biased? “The hamas shot thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians, they raped, and they massacred. They tortured kids in front of their parents, burned babies, and systematically raped women. They killed babies, old people, holocaust survivors. Why were they killed? Due to them being Israelis. Therefore hamas is the genocidal side of the conflict. The suffering of palestinian civilians will end if the hamas stops using them as human shields.” While Hamas may not have been justified in their attack, Israel have also certainly not been. “Considering the fact that Israel is the stronger side of the conflict, it doesn’t make sense to think that despite them being as bad as you are trying to make them look, the population of Palestinians keeps growing. If you keep claiming there’s a “genocide” against Palestinians, do you think the October 7th attack was genocidal?” A population can still grow if the potential genocide is protracted. Positive population growth and genocide are not mutually exclusive. “You yourself admitted that “it’s about the intent so anyways”, which means that even if the number of palestinian casualties claimed by the hamas were true, then it wouldn’t constitute genocide due to the lack of a genocidal intention.” Others would disagree over the fact that Israel has no genocidal intentions. “Therefore hamas is the genocidal side of the conflict. The suffering of palestinian civilians will end if the hamas stops using them as human shields.” Palestinians have been put at harm long before the creation of Hamas. Scientelensia (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Regarding your claim of Golda Meir being biased, her quote is backed by real world data. Saying that “some people would disagree” doesn’t prove anything. Some people would also disagree over the fact that the Earth is round. And long before the creation of the hamas there were other palestinian terrorist organizations. And again, if Israel has genocidal intentions, then they aren’t successful at implementing them which strange considering the fact that they are the stronger side in the conflict. Harbu Darbu (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Yes, but your first statement (on Golda Meier) is subjective, the second is true (round Earth). Scientelensia (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Harbu Darbu "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population" How so? By attacking the same civilians they told to evacuate? By blocking the entry of food and medicine for civilians? By bombing an ambulance carrying 15 civilians? By bombing more than 200 schools? By bombing municipal water tanks and power generators? By letting over 15 babies die? Please, if you are so kind, could you explain how does "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population"? Also, if this is supposedly "about Hamas", how does that even explain the Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war? BirdCities (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC) The hamas terrorists shot palestinian civilians who tried to evacuate from Gaza. Most of the humanitarian supplies sent to Gaza get into the hands of the hamas and not of civilians. hamas terrorists use schools as command centres and fire rockets on Israeli civilians from them. Do you expect Israel to not defend Israelis? The Israeli incursions are necessary to combat terrorism. If Israel is indeed committing genocide, then it’s strange the casualty numbers among palestinians aren’t much higher since Israel definitely has the military capability to do so. Harbu Darbu (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Why is the “human shields” argument the only response zionists have to Israel’s genocidal atrocities in gaza like do these people generally believe food, clean water, electricity, telecommunications, medicine, basic hygiene etc (which Israel has taken away from them) is “urmmmm hamas🤓☝️“ like South Africa isn’t having a whole genocide case against Israel for nothing These people probably believe the 40 beheaded babies or the days of the week being hamas is true again I got more important things to do then argue with zionists on the internet Also again you know bombing civilians isn’t the only war crime Israel has done right? You know this didn’t start on October 7 right? You know Israel has committed human rights violations way before hamas even had power in gaza and it’s foundation? Read this text in bold below it’s important and I don’t want you zionists to ignore it 1. So first of all I don’t support hamas and they definitely should held accountable for their war crimes 2. I don’t have to keep saying this but not every Palestinian death is just hamas using human shields 3. I’m not saying hamas doesn’t use human shields but do you really every time Israel brutally murders a Palestinian it’s all just human shields?Over 23,000 Palestinians have been killed with a lot of the victims being women and children according to the sources in article about hamas, hamas has about 20,000-25,000 members compare that! 4. Again Israel has committed human rights violations against the Palestinians before hamas had power in Gaza and its foundation as well as Israel’s current human violations in the West Bank which IS NOT run by hamas Atp this point if you can’t accept Israel is committing a genocide in gaza along with other human rights violations there’s no point in arguing with you goodbye okay TazunaJersey (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Harbu Darbu: There are no sources for the claim that Hamas is using schools as command centers. If you are going to argue about things then instead of using made up claims you're gonna need to use actual sources. You can't just say "Uhhh Hamas is totally using this place as a hiding spot so it's okay to bomb it" to justify every single killing when you have no proof about it. This might shock you but replying "B-but, what about Hamas???" every time someone points out war crimes committed by Israel is, in fact, a pretty bad rebuttal and just shows how little arguments you have. You have not even once replied to what I asked you, which was to show facts that defend your claim of "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population". Arguing that Israel could kill more people if they wanted is not a rational argument. You think that killing Palestinian civilians is justified if it's for the sake of protecting Israelis civilians. That is valuing Israeli lives more. The lives of 100 Palestinian civilians are just as valuable as the lives of 100 Israeli civilians. If Hamas was hiding among Israeli civilians, would you argue that it's completely okay to bomb them and kill all those Israeli civilians just to fight terrorism? This might shock you but replying "B-but, what about Hamas???" every time someone points out war crimes committed by Israel is, in fact, a pretty bad rebuttal and just shows how little arguments you have. You have not even once replied to what I asked you, which was to show facts that defend your claim of "Israel goes to great lengths to protect the civilian population". Arguing that Israel could kill more people if they wanted is not a rational argument. You think that killing Palestinian civilians is justified if it's for the sake of protecting Israelis civilians. That is valuing Israeli lives more. The lives of 100 Palestinian civilians are just as valuable as the lives of 100 Israeli civilians. If Hamas was hiding among Israeli civilians, would you argue that it's completely okay to bomb them and kill all those Israeli civilians just to fight terrorism? BirdCities (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) @Harbu Darbu, Can You please support your claims? @Scientelensia supported his claims the moment he made them by linking to the Wikipedia pages, I wish if you can do the same. خريف الارض القديرة (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) It is the same way rabbits reproduce. They have many children to have a better chance of survival. Chainsawz (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC) That’s hilarious to say when the Uygur genocide is listed despite no first hand source whatsoever 2601:283:4C81:2960:10E8:AA14:404E:180 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Already, one could consider it as one. My text was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Here is one more by Ilan Pappe VeronikaStein (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) This one by Genocide Watch has explicitly classified this instance as 'Level 8: Extermination' VeronikaStein (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Correction. 'Stage 9: Extermination' VeronikaStein (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 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) The massacre committed by the hamas against Israeli civilians should be included in the list as genocide. The atrocities are documented in the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and were most likely worse than described in the article. Iron armour (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Fully aligned. We must be very consistent. VeronikaStein (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) As Jewish Currents has been invoked by two editors, just noting this response from an Israel-critical scholar: Dov Waxman (30 October 2023). "On "A Textbook Case of Genocide"". Jewish Currents. Retrieved 2 November 2023. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) 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. [7]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) 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) War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Allegations of genocide Palestinian genocide accusation#Discourse on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Another one by New York UN Official Craig Mokhiber VeronikaStein (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC) "Liberal Israeli leaders were contemplating genocide in Gaza already in 1967". Mondoweiss. 2017-11-17. Archived from the original on 2023-10-20. Retrieved 2023-11-05. "Yadlin said Israel would be happy if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state." - Katz, Y (2010-12-21). "Yadlin: Israel would be 'happy' if Hamas takes over Gaza". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2022-12-28. Retrieved 2023-11-05. Segal, Raz (2023-10-13). "A Textbook Case of Genocide". Jewish Currents. Archived from the original on 2023-11-03. Retrieved 2023-11-05. "Raz Segal is an associate professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Stockton University and the endowed professor in the study of modern genocide" Maybe we could just add to the list and include a disputed tag, maybe pointing to the "Palestinian genocide accusation" article. -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC) That’s a good idea. Scientelensia (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Absolutely not. That's not what the tag is for. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC) 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) @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) 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) 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) Based on this from the entry on ethnic cleansing, the situation in Gaza looks like genocide: 'Ethnic cleansing has been described as part of a continuum of violence whose most extreme form is genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or population transfer whereas genocide is the attempt to destroy part or all of a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. While ethnic cleansing and genocide may share the same goal and the acts which are used to perpetrate both crimes may often resemble each other, ethnic cleansing is intended to displace a persecuted population from a given territory, while genocide is intended to destroy a group. 'Some academics consider genocide to be a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing". As Norman Naimark writes, these concepts are different but related, for "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people". William Schabas adds, "Ethnic cleansing is also a warning sign of genocide to come. Genocide is the last resort of the frustrated ethnic cleanser." Sociologist Martin Shaw has criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide as he believes that both ultimately result in the destruction of a group through coercive violence.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Genocide M.mk (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC) South Africa initiated proceedings two days ago with the International Court of Justice against Israel with regards to the ongoing alleged genocide. This will take some time to make its way through the legal system, but once it does and if a guilty verdict is handed down then I say that would be plenty reliable. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC) On Jan 26th 2024 the International Court of Justice has given provisional ruling I WOULD SUGGEST ... that Gaza genocide is added in the list as "suspected" genocide and the addition would be backed by the I.C.J. ruling. By being proactive Wikipedia as a community would help people to be aware of this ongoing (suspected) genocide and thus putting pressure to Israel to obey the International Court of Justice ruling and orders! "54. In the Court's view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seeks Israel's compliance with the latter's obligations under the Convention." So basically what ICJ has said that they explicitly ordered Israeli to abstain from killing Palestinians and to ensure that humanitarian aid gets there. Ensure, would mean that Israeli must us their army would have to protect humanitarian aid and ensure that it gets to Palestinians and they can distribute it properly. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf and International commission of jurists comment the ruling https://www.icj.org/gaza-israel-must-implement-provisional-measures-ordered-by-the-international-court-of-justice/ “Through this Order, the world’s highest judicial authority has acknowledged that there is a risk of genocide being committed in Gaza,” said Said Benarbia, MENA Programme Director at of the International Commission of Jurists. “It is now incumbent on Israel to implement the provisional measures – as well as its obligations under the United Nations Charter – as a matter of urgency.” 91.157.41.141 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC) By being proactive Wikipedia as a community would help people to be aware of this ongoing (suspected) genocide and thus putting pressure to Israel to obey the International Court of Justice ruling and orders! WP doesn't really work like this. We have to wait until sufficient reliable sources says it is indeed a genocide per the UN definition. See WP:LISTV. Through this Order, the world’s highest judicial authority has acknowledged that there is a risk of genocide being committed in Gaza Note here the careful wording "risk of genocide". I don't doubt more RS will start calling it a genocide as time goes on and as (unfortunately) more people die. WP tends to trail behind. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Strongly support This is an obvious case of genocide, as pointed out by many researchers, journalists, politicians and organisations from all over the world. However, in my experience in other (unrelated) article discussions, I think other users will not agree to add it until the English-speaking hegemonic mass media calls it that.🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC) That would be a ridiculous standard, but sadly in line with the pro-Western liberal bias evident on WP at present. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-gaza-provisional-ruling.html 91.157.41.141 (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Let's get this added. It's quite clearly a genocide by any non-biased definition. Many who oppose it in this discussion are using Israeli PR quotes that have long since lost their credibility. Let's not let bad actors censor this any longer. Get it added to the page. 92.28.201.22 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ([8]), which cited several scholars including Bayan al-Hout (an expert on the massacre) in its decision. 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)

The "official report to the UNHRC" you cite is actually just a written statement by a Palestinian advocacy group: Palestinian Return Centre . The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is of "question[able] legitimacy" and "did not have the support of any government." AndyBloch (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If it was, wouldn't this be an act of genocide, not a genocide in itself? And therefore not appropriate to be included here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Other incidents that were only a single act rather than an organised campaign such as the Massacre of Salsipuedes are included. 143.159.91.189 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The genocide of the Charrúas was more than a single massacre, and it resulted in the deaths of a very high percentage of the group, with the rest sold into slavery. (Did you read the whole article you cited, and also the article on the Charrúas: Charrúa#Genocide?) AndyBloch (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should be added based on the citations given in that article, as well as this essay I found by several genocide scholars that calls the massacre an act of genocide. TRCRF22 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Sabra and Shatila massacre should not have been added to this list. It has not been "recognised in significant scholarship" as a genocide. As a percentage of the group, it would be the smallest (or one of the smallest) on this list, and also the smallest in number of deaths under 10% (and the 10% is the low figure for the Osage Indian murders). The high estimate for Sabra and Shatila deaths is 3,500. That was about 0.2% of the Palestinian population at the time (and around 3% of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon). The only genocides on the list that are even close to the small size and percentage are the Yazidi genocide and the Iraqi Turkmen genocide, but each of them also included sexual slavery and forced conversion and resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Not every massacre that could be part of a genocidal campaign belongs in this list. AndyBloch (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The only genocides on the list that are even close to the small size and percentage are the Yazidi genocide and the Iraqi Turkmen genocide Not correct. If Palestinians in Lebanon are considered the target rather than all Palestinians globally (thus making the percentage around 3% according to your own estimate), this is the same percentage listed for the Bosnian genocide as well as the lowest estimate given for casualties of the Queensland Aboriginal genocide. While it's true that the actual number of casualties is significantly lower than other entries on the list, the Genocide Convention does not specify a required number of casualties for an event to be considered a genocide, and this is an unresolved question in both law and academia as it relates to genocide. While it's true that there is only a small amount of scholarship describing this event as genocide, the same could also be said about the IS persecution of Yazidis, but this is included on the list because it was recognised as such by the United Nations, as is the case here. TRCRF22 (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You are conflating "genocide" and "acts of genocide." This article is a list of genocides, not a list of acts of genocide. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling the massacre an "act of genocide," not "a genocide." (As an aside, a vote by the UN GA is also not "scholarship." Further, it was argued that "the term genocide ... had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision.") The Sabra and Shatila massacre is also not included in the Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) page because it is not by itself a genocide, even if it is an act of genocide. If we are going to start including every act of genocide, then there would be a lot more entries in this list. Should we include every pogrom in history? (How about Tetiiv in 1920?) Should we include every racist massacre in the US, or even individual racist murders? No, of course not. If the UN resolved that the Oct 7 massacres were an act of genocide, should Oct 7 be included in this list? No. This list is for genocides, not genocidal acts, and the Sabra and Shatila massacre, by itself, was not a genocide. AndyBloch (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@AndyBloch Short answer, yes. But I know I will be outvoted by other editors. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes to which question(s)? Why? AndyBloch (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@AndyBloch Should we include every pogrom in history? and subsequent rhetorical questions you included. I'm in agreement with Shaw's commentary on ethnic cleansing being a form of genocide and not something that should be seen as distinct from genocide. This would mean things such as Pogroms would count as acts of genocide, if not genocides in themselves. I am aware my opinions are currently a minority in the scholarly opinion, and so don't expect a lot of what I'd consider genocides to appear here.

I will say, it is an interesting point on the distinction between genocide and an act of genocide, and this is probably something we should consider while we're looking at potentially changing the list criteria [in a section lower down this talk page]. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@AndyBloch Should we include every pogrom in history? (How about Tetiiv in 1920?) Should we include every racist massacre in the US, or even individual racist murders?The difference between this pogrom and other similar events is that this one has actually been described as genocide rather than "just" a pogrom. The 1920 Tetiiv pogrom is not called genocide in any significant scholarship that I'm aware of, whereas this massacre is. @Cdjp1 has helpfully provided a list of scholarly articles below that describe it as such, and the fact that one scholar has called the designation politically motivated is not enough to invalidate the overall consensus. In addition to Cdjp1's citations and the "Nakba Memoricide" article, David Hirst also supports the classification as a genocide in Beware of Small States, and Fawaz Gerges concurs with him in his review of Hirst's book. While the UN resolution is not scholarship in itself, political resolutions of this kind are accepted as citations for the purposes of this list. See the entry on the Anfal campaign which cites little else. The MacBride Commission's similar finding is also important to note, particularly as unlike the UN's finding it has not been called a political finding. Notably, the Commission (operating off the precise legal definition that is the current inclusion criteria) found that the events in Sabra and Shatila constituted genocide in and of themselves rather than being an "act of genocide". TRCRF22 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of Pogrom": "A pogrom is a violent riot incited with the aim of massacring or expelling an ethnic or religious group," Every pogrom is essentially by definition either an act of genocide or an act of ethnic cleansing, or both. Calling a massacre a pogrom is equivalent to calling it an act of genocide against an ethnic or religious group. Furthermore, there is significant scholarship calling them acts of genocide, sometimes individually, much more than the few mostly equivocal articles provided by @Cdjp1 about the Sabra and Shatila massacre. (I could go through them individually but I don't have the time right now.) This wikipedia list is (or should be) a list of genocides, not every massacre that some scholarship has argued is an act of genocide. Why are you pushing so hard for Sabra and Shatila out of all the other genocidal massacres (including many or most pogroms)? It is not hard to find genocides that are much more than a single massacre that should be on this list (like the genocide of the Igbo Nigerian Civil War#Genocide question) and we should be focusing on those. (The Anfal campaign article cites a lot more than just political resolutions. Trials, court rulings, a HRW report.) (Note that only 4 out of the 6 members of the MacBride commission took the position that Sabra and Shatila was an act of genocide. Two members dissented. If you have a copy of the full report, please show me where the report found that the events "constituted genocide in and of themselves.") AndyBloch (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@TRCRF22 I bought a used copy of the full MacBride report (and also have found that there is a copy online but I am not sure of the copyright status of it). 4 out of 6 members added an appendix "Majority Note on Genocide and Ethnocide", discussing whether all the activity of Israel in Lebanon (not just Sabra and Shatila) constituted genocide, and used their own definition of genocide that was "not limited to the formula adopted by the United Nations in of 1948." "It should be emphasised that this conclusion does not suggest an Israeli intention to exterminate in a physical sense the people of Palestine as a whole or in part. What the majority of the Commission has in mind is a different form of genocide...." In other words, these four MacBride commission members were explicitly NOT using the 1948 definition of genocide used in this wikipedia list, and when they wrote "this constitutes a form of genocide" they weren't writing about Sabra and Shatila specifically. AndyBloch (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tobby72 firstly as @TRCRF22 points towards, there is no "minimum threshold" of dead which a genocide need reach to be considered a genocide. By the UN Convention, and by many of the frameworks employed by specialists in genocide research, they allow for things to be declared genocide even when the death toll is 0. Beyond the excellent work of Rashed, Short, and Docker, other articles from a very quick skim that accept the labelling of the massacre as genocide or label it themselves as genocide include:

• Arens, Richard (1983). "Review: Israel's Responsibility in Lebanon". Journal of Palestine Studies. 13 (1): 102–108. JSTOR 2536928.
• Burnett, Weston D. (1985). "Command Responsibility and a Case Study of the Criminal Responsibility of Israeli Military Commanders for the Progrom at Shatila and Sabra". Military Law Review. 107 (71). - reports on the Soviet Union's statements considering the massacre a genocide perpetrated by Israel.
• Malone, Linda A. (1985). "The Kahan Report, Ariel Sharon and the Sabra-Shatilla Massacres in Lebanon: Responsibility Under International Law for Massacres of Civilian Populations". Faculty Publications. 587: 373–433.
• Malone, Linda A. (2000). "The Appointment of General Yaron: Continuing Impunity for the Sabra and Shatilla Massacres". Faculty Publications. 222: 287–305.
• Siegal, Ellen (December 2001). "After Nineteen Years: Sabra and Shatila Remembered". Middle East Policy. 8 (4): 86–100.
• Mallat, Chibli; Verhaeghe, Michael; Walleyn, Luc (2002–2003). "Special Dossier on the "Sabra and Shatila" Case in Belgium". The Palestine Yearbook of International Law. 12: 183–289.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't studied this particular massacre, but I do believe the UN is a reliable enough source, especially since the 1948 Convention is the present inclusion criteria. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

Change "scholalrs" to "scholars". This typo appears twice in the Holodomor section. 2A00:23C8:140A:2001:D0FA:99D0:9B7C:B482 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —blindlynx 22:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2024

Holodomor is technically not a genocide because genocides have to be within these acts "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#:~:text=Genocide%20is%20the%20intentional%20destruction,%2C%20racial%20or%20religious%20group%22. Asaki898 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 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. Charliehdb (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove Darfur, Bosnia, Rohingya, and Anfal - lack of consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all,

It was suggested that the war in Gaza should be removed because the court has not made a decision on whether it counts as a genocide. In line with that standard, I believe consistency should be applied to others listed because courts have not made a determination that such events constitute a genocide. Allow me to explain.

For Darfur, while Omar-Al Bashir has been charged with genocide by the ICC, it should be noted that the ICC has not made a ruling yet if he is guilty of genocide. An independent commission of inquiry on Darfur stated the following: "The Commission concluded that the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide. Arguably, two elements of genocide might be deduced from the gross violations of human rights perpetrated by Government forces and the militias under their control. These two elements are, first, the actus reus consisting of killing, or causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life likely to bring about physical destruction; and, second, on the basis of a subjective standard, the existence of a protected group being targeted by the authors of criminal conduct. However, the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities are concerned. Generally speaking the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare."

Regarding Bosnia, the courts recognized Srebrenica as a genocide. However, the ICJ declined to find Serbia responsible for it, and declined to find Serbia responsible for genocide in its ethnic cleansing campaigns. I suggest including Srebrenica only in this list.

Concerning the Rohingya, the ICJ has not made a ruling yet. We should not presume Myanmar committed genocide until the court makes a determination.

Lastly, regarding the Anfal campaign, a Dutch court concluded that campaign was not an act of genocide. As stated, "In its written judgment, the appeals panel said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the poison gas attacks on Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988 amounted to genocide." CPW72693 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Court decisions are not the criteria for this list, as detailed multiple times in the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@CPW72693: Please note that until your account becomes extended confirmed, you are only allowed to make simple edit requests for any content related to Israel and Palestine. See the banner on top of this page. Edit requests should have the form of: "Please change X to Y", and quote a source to back them up if needed. Please make sure not to engage in discussions on this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where is Israel Palestine?

Where is Israel Palestine? 182.2.105.223 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Its inclusion is currently being discussed, above. — Czello ^(music) 12:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)