Jump to content

Talk:List of genocides

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

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

Genocides against Tibetan and Uyghur peoples by the Chinese Communist Party.

[edit]

Where are the active genocides against the Muslim Uyghurs in China's Xinjiang province and against Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet?

To call these atrocities anything other than genocide is a disgrace. If Israel's actions in Palestine can be called a genocide, then the CCP's ongoing attempt to exterminate and sinophy the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples and religions should absolutely be labelled a genocide. Jbak0905 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Uyghur genocide" was previously listed in the article but was removed for failing the inclusion criteria back when we used the UN definition. Now that the inclusion criteria has changed it may be time for another discussion about it. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the new inclusion criteria Uyghur should certainly be included. Tibet is usually characterized as a 'cultural genocide' so would require further discussion to establish clear consensus—blindlynx 14:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Endwise: As the user who removed the Uyghur genocide entry from the list, could you offer an opinion? TRCRF22 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that one of the reasons for removing it was a lack of death toll. Every single entry in the article's list has a death toll. The Uyghur genocide, when it was listed here, was the only entry that did not have a death toll. Given that the article Uyghur genocide itself had its title changed to Persecution of Uyghurs in China, you should first go there and argue for a restoration of that article's title. But you should familiarize yourself with the subject matter and the discussion behind the decision here. JasonMacker (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are considered “cultural genocide” if I am not mistaken, as opposed to genocide in the liter sense here, the mass killing of thousands of people with intent to destroy them The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the situation in Tibet, about which I am totally uninformed, but several experts have described the persecution of Uyghurs as meeting the standard of the Genocide Convention. While it's true that there are no (or very few) deaths, genocide can also be committed by "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", and by "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", both of which have been documented against Uyghurs. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article Persecution of Uyghurs in China, the following scholarship is mentioned or cited as it being a case of genocide (as opposed to cultural genocide):
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time in the near future to do the digging myself, but looking for papers published in the following journals concluding it is a genocide would help bolster the argument for inclusion (and should be added to the Persecution article):
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is one other supporting academic source included in the article that you've missed. "The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention" is a paper by the scholar Azeem Ibrahim and includes contributions from dozens of genocide scholars, international law experts and experts on Chinese ethnic policies. The article also discusses a legal opinion from the Essex Court Chambers authored in part by Alison Macdonald KC - an expert in human rights and international law - which found a "very credible case" for there being a genocide against Uyghurs. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no factual basis for the claim that the Chinese government is attempting to exterminate Uyghurs or Tibetans. And that probably has a lot to do with why it's not included here. 2601:645:D00:4B80:7C84:2092:82F3:4E1D (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

[edit]

Why is this genocide not included in the list? It was a large genocide of Poles, where around 100000 Poles were killed by UPA militias. On the list we have aslo have other genocides done by fasists militias/partisants (Genocides done by the Chetniks), so Volhynia genocide should be aslo included. Szturnek¿? 16:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to show that this has been "classified as genocide by significant scholarship" per the inclusion criteria here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources we have in the section Volhynia and Eastern Galicia of Genocides in history (World War I through World War II), while some Polish academics have said there are characteristics of genocide, they say that it was a campaign of ethnic cleansing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think Snyder also calls it an act of genocide but not sure where—blindlynx 23:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx just a quick 10 minutes check, but these three sources seem to have Snyder calling the killings of Jews in the area genocide, while calling the killing of Poles ethnic cleansing. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1 Ahh that tracks, sorry for the miss remembering—blindlynx 13:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx no problem, there could be more sources out there, and I will eventually get to doing a more in depth check for Poles in Volhynia and Galicia, but this probably wont be till into next year. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we have Siege of Leningrad on the list, because some Russian historians claim, so Volhynia Massacre should be aslo added, because for exaple IPN claims officially that Volhynia was a genocide (link). Additionally, is ethnic cleansing significantly different from genocide? In particular, since the UPA murdered Poles on the spot, rather than deporting them. If this is a significant difference, then why do we have various NKVD operations on the list that are described as ethnic cleansing, not genocide? Szturnek¿? 13:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through some of the original 2008 piece by Piotr Zając and the characterisation in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia of Genocides in history (World War I through World War II) was incorrect, so I've updated that. Zając concludes that the crimes were genocide, ideally we'd have more sources from other individuals. @Szturnek: if you can help finding/providing such sources, I'd see no issue in including Volhynia and Galicia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of germany 1940-1945

[edit]

In total, Allied bombing campaigns conducted by the UK and US are estimated to have killed between 305,000 and 410,000 German civilians during World War II.

If Gaza genocide is included, so should this. 2A00:23C5:6433:4301:6DA1:980D:A0D:4500 (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how content decisions are made. Content decisions should be based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide a source for the civillian death toll of ww2. Could you explain what you mean by 'Content decisions should be based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy.'; does this not conform to policy? If so you must cite the policy. 2A00:23C5:6433:4301:6DA1:980D:A0D:4500 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would need WP:reliable sources which explicitly call the bombings a genocide. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The statement "if A is included, then B should be included", where A=Gaza genocide and B=Allied bombing campaigns is an invalid decision procedure. The inclusion of B has no dependency on the inclusion of A, or vice versa. The inclusion test for this article is "classified as genocide by significant scholarship" and that test should be applied independently to A and B. So, you can see that providing a civilian death toll statistic wouldn't tell you anything about whether an event has been "classified as genocide by significant scholarship". Only sampling reliable sources can answer that question. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting thing to think about. In germany 300-400k civillians were bombed, and in Japan a similar number were killed by the atomic bombs. These were defensive wars fought by the US and UK. But in abscence of some journalist/scholar calling that Genocide, it isn't, and the bombing of gaza, which is a defensive war fought by Israel, is a genocide because a scholar did. Where is the explanation for why Gaza is a genocide in distinction to other strategic bombing such as in ww2? And why is the fact that international courts have not determined gaza to be a genocide taken into account? 2A00:23C5:6433:4301:6DA1:980D:A0D:4500 (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally you're correct about a lot of this analysis, but ultimately it's WP:OR. Wikipedia includes things based on the prevalence of reliable sources. Sources currently describe Gaza as a genocide, but not Germany. — Czello (music) 10:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it probably won't help. I find not thinking about it, not caring and just following the policies and guidelines works better in Wikipedia. Having an expectation of consistency, that things should make sense, seems to be almost always wrong. Reliable sources just say what they say. The information doesn't need to be globally consistent or make sense. And like Czello says, Wikipedia content just reflects reliable source content. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is not fighting a ‘defensive’ war, so that excuse doesn’t work. You don’t defend yourself against the people you occupy and oppress after they fight back The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is something like Whataboutism. NotSoTough (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it. Also the way Gaza genocide is mentioned alongside this, it’s a common ‘argument’ I’ve seen people use to justify it by bringing up allied bombings of axis powers as if the two are remotely the same. Also him describing the war on Gaza as “defensive” even though Israel occupies Palestine and as a result default Palestinian resistance groups are the defenders by default The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. NotSoTough (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% correct but this doesn't show that any changes need to be made to the article itself, rather to Wikipedia alarmingly low standards for what should be considered a genocide.
If 20 scholars from 1 university all publish articles in popular papers claiming an event is a genocide is that "significant"? What if the event happens in a country with freedom of the press so more debate around it happens, does that make it more of a genocide than if it were to occur in a dictatorship that doesn't allow those debates to take place?
The criteria for which something counts as a genocide on this article needs a complete overhaul, ideally using 1 or 2 trusted, supernational committees to determine it rather than thousands of "scholars" out of which only a "significant" amount need to agree in order to make it an official genocide. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an 'official genocide'. And if your concern is that the current state of affairs means there is a risk of Israel being included, that is not a legitimate reason. You do not have the privileges to express your alarm about such things here. You do not have the extendedconfirmed privilege and therefore your speech is limited by the WP:ARBECR rule, as you presumably already know because you have been told "If you continue to violate WP:ECR...you will be blocked from editing." Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They both not the same. NotSoTough (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to remove Gaza Genocide from the list

[edit]

This page has recently become a firestorm due to the inclusion of the accused Gaza Genocide into the page. The insertion of the Gaza Genocide into the page is as blatant of a NPOV violation that you could possibly get. The ninth word in the Gaza Genocide article is accused. Not committing, nor committed, accused. Even the ICJ, who is spearheading the investigation into Israel's action in Gaza, has not classified Israel's actions as genocidal. I propose to open a new discussion about the inclusion of Gaza Genocide on this page. Pyramids09 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, and the recent increase in the number of non-extended confirmed interactions with the page, I assume off-site social media activity/coordination/influence operations etc. may be impacting the talk page. Apparently is extremely easy to manipulate susceptible people and send them to Wikipedia to do something. If it continues the talk page may need to be EC-protected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a clear uptick in comments made on this talk page recently, all essentially saying the same thing. I agree that an EC protection might be necessary (given that one needs to be EC to participate here beyond basic edit requests). — Czello (music) 10:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whether "This page has recently become a firestorm" or not is not relevant to our internal processes and discussions about content. Wikipedia editors make the content decisions based on our rules regardless of what is happening off-site. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IOHANNVSVERVS, I reverted the strike out because Pyramids09 was granted extendedconfirmed on 2021-06-25, 67 days after registration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my striking their edit was a mistake. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing sympathy and thanks to IOHANNVSVERVS. Even trying to keep up with this talk page is beyond me. Thank you for trying to keep some order here. I'd have probably just left WP for a while. CAVincent (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Euro-Med HRM, Law for Palestine, the UN, the Lemkin Institute, hundreds of scholars and thousands of lawyers have all described it as genocide. Just because the ICJ has not yet made a determination, which you know full well is because they are still hearing the case and so cannot deliver a verdict, does not mean we should exclude. TRCRF22 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is largely off-topic. Regarding the suggestion of Pyramids09 that we "open a new discussion about the inclusion of Gaza Genocide", I don't think that's a good idea as we just had a lengthy RfC on this question which was closed on Sept 3.[15] Also of note is the inclusion criteria of this list, which is stated in the lead of the article:

This list includes all events which have been classified as genocide by significant scholarship. As there are varying definitions of genocide, this list includes events around which there is ongoing scholarly debate over their classification as genocide and is not a list of only events which have a scholarly consensus to recognize them as genocide.s genocide.

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ongoing debate over whether it is a genocide, as is the case with Gaza, then it should not be included. Or separated into a list of alleged genocides. Wikipedia is there to spread common knowledge, not propaganda and things that are debated.
I strongly Support deleting the Gaza genocide from the list. Epomis87 (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list includes all events which have been classified as genocide by significant scholarship.
Scholarly and expert opinions on the Gaza genocide

Other scholars have offered opinions relating to the topic of incitement to genocide, but have not specifically drawn conclusions on the question of genocide itself.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every genocide is debated The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, I did not see it earlier. It was "include". As our page says "Israel has been accused of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people by a number of experts, governments, United Nations agencies...". It appears that the criteria for inclusion are changed. It is enough to have significant well-sourced accusations or claims of something to be a genocide, including claims by scholars. Then we can include a lot more items here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we should, but the task of having consistency across the various lists in this topic area seems to have slowed—blindlynx 23:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I chose to focus on adding entries to the genocides in history articles per new literature. I will get back to trying to harmonise the articles in line with their specific criteria, but for the next few months I have a huge amount of irl priorities. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

[edit]

Can you add the Sikh genocide in 1984? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots 2601:646:9E82:76B0:FC64:D2A3:A698:2228 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: for citations in the article referring to the riots as a genocide all are news covering either the Akal Takht's calling it a genocide, or covering individual politicians seeking to have the riots recognised politically as genocide. None of the sources are scholarship, which is the requirement for inclusion in the list. If you know of scholarship that concludes the riots are genocide, please provide them. --
Cdjp1 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created forks might warrant attention

[edit]

Recently, two forks of this page have been created, List of genocides committed by the United States and List of genocides committed by the Soviet Union. I've been editing on the former to address what I consider POV problems, but since I'm only human, I thought I'd bring this up here, since y'all are more experienced with dealing with this topic.

Hopefully, by working together, we'll be able to make those articles be on par with this one (or, at the very least, determine if such articles are warranted in the first place).

EDIT AS OF 20 NOVEMBER: The creator of the former page has been outed as a sockpuppet of a user known for advocating the mentioning of indigenous genocide in the ledes of Canada and Australia. Thought I might add this as it might affect the judgement of all y'all. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZionniThePeruser looking at them, and considering we already have the article series Genocides in history, I would argue both are unnecessary. Additionally all those listed in the US article are covered in the article Native American genocide in the United States. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi crimes against the Polish Nation

[edit]

The true number is accually 6 million. NotSoTough (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 million includes the number of Jews, which is mentioned in The Holocaust entry. The 3 million here references the non-Jew ethnic Polish who were exterminated because the Nazis also viewed slavic people as subhuman The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it right now. NotSoTough (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1:

Tomasz Szarota; Wojciech Materski, eds. (2009). Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami [Poland 1939–1945. Humans and Victims of Repression under two Occupations]. Warsaw: Institute of National Remembrance (IPN). Archived from the original on 23 March 2012.

  - Janusz Kurtyka; Zbigniew Gluza. Preface.: "ze pod okupacja sowiecka zginelo w latach 1939–1941, a nastepnie 1944–1945 co najmniej 150 tys [...] Laczne straty smiertelne ludnosci polskiej pod okupacja niemiecka oblicza sie obecnie na ok. 2 770 000. [...] Do tych strat nalezy doliczyc ponad 100 tys. Polaków pomordowanych w latach 1942–1945 przez nacjonalistów ukrainskich (w tym na samym Wolyniu ok. 60 tys. osób [...] Liczba Zydów i Polaków zydowskiego pochodzenia, obywateli II Rzeczypospolitej, zamordowanych przez Niemców siega 2,7– 2,9 mln osób." Translation: "It must be assumed losses of at least 150.000 people during the Soviet occupation from 1939 to 1941 and again from 1944 to 1945 [...] The total fatalities of the Polish population under the German occupation are now estimated at 2,770,000. [...] To these losses should be added more than 100,000 Poles murdered in the years 1942–1945 by Ukrainian nationalists (including about 60,000 in Volhynia [...] The number of Jews and Poles of Jewish ethnicity, citizens of the Second Polish Republic, murdered by the Germans amounts to 2.7–2.9 million people."
  - Waldemar Grabowski. German and Soviet occupation. Fundamental issues.: "Straty ludnosci panstwa polskiego narodowosci ukrainskiej sa trudne do wyliczenia," Translation: "The losses of ethnic Poles of Ukrainian nationality are difficult to calculate."

NotSoTough (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2:
R. Miller, Phyllis (1995). "Gdansk". In Ring, Trudy; Watson, Noelle; Schellinger, Paul (eds.). International Dictionary of Historic Places. Vol. 2 Northern Europe. New York, USA: Routledge. p. 293. ISBN 1-884964-01-X. NotSoTough (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3: East, Roger; Pontin, Jolyon (2016). Revolution and Change in Central and Eastern Europe (Revised ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-4742-8749-4. NotSoTough (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J. Goldberg, Harold (2019). Daily Life in Nazi-Occupied Europe. California, USA: ABC-Clio, LLC. pp. 16, 26. ISBN 978-1-4408-5911-3. NotSoTough (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I can not access your first and second sources directly.
  • Source 1, per the quote provided, it acknowledges and specifies how 3 million were non-Jews, and 3 million were Jews, in line with the entry which mentions the 3 million Polish Jews being killed as part of the Holocaust.
  • Source 3 (as with the quote for Source 1) acknowledges and specifies how 3 million were non-Jews, and 3 million were Jews, in line with the entry which mentions the 3 million Polish Jews being killed as part of the Holocaust.
  • Source 4 (as with the quote for Source 1) acknowledges and specifies how 3 million were non-Jews, and 3 million were Jews, in line with the entry which mentions the 3 million Polish Jews being killed as part of the Holocaust.
With these 3 sources considered, the change is not done. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accually got these sources from the article Nazi war crimes in occupied Poland during World War II. NotSoTough (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was saying 6 million but i dont know. NotSoTough (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary information under 'Gaza Genocide'

[edit]

The entry for the Gaza genocide has a bunch of stats about types of harm done other than death, which are included in no other entry. These include people 'under rubble', 'injuries', 'Damage to or destruction of homes and buildings', 'acute food insecurity' and 'internally displaced persons'. No other genocide on this list includes information like that. It is all about death toll. For consistency I think that information should be removed. Alternatively we can fill up all the entries with such information. LastDodo (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I am going to remove these additional bits of information from this entry that have no parallel in the other entries, unless someone can defend their inclusion. I will give it a few more days for someone to respond before going ahead. LastDodo (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what little its worth i see no issue in removing the Information highlighted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the number of people buried under the rubble at least is worthy of inclusion, as they are all almost certainly dead and thus can be considered victims of the genocide. A change in wording (i.e. "presumed dead under rubble") might be necessary to communicate this. TRCRF22 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. At some point the numbers will be confirmed, but until then there's nothing wrong with including that as a proxy. I will leave it a few more days for comments and then go ahead. LastDodo (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have made the change, leaving in the number under rubble and the estimate of the total proportion of pre-war Gaza population killed. LastDodo (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2024

[edit]

Rawalpindi Massacre of 1947 should be included. Allegedly the sitting representatives had a hand in the events, and it was aimed only at specific groups in the city. Also, it occurred way before the Partition of India. Xyznwa (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. You would need to show that this has been "classified as genocide by significant scholarship" per the inclusion criteria here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Extended confirmed edit request on 29 November 2024

[edit]

Change link for "Libyan Arabs" in the lead from "Libyan genocide" to "Libyan genocide" as the former is now a disambiguation page. Meluiel (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Meluiel (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request to add the Hamas-led Oct. 7th attacks

[edit]

Add the Hamas led October 7th attacks to the page. There's an entire Wikipedia entry on the allegations of genocide against Hamas so clearly there is significant scholarship that states as much. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this counts as genocide then unfortunately the number of genocides throughout history must number in the tens of thousands if not more. Since the Wikipedia article is only called 'allegations of genocide', I would be against including this one at present. LastDodo (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the extensive conversation above, all that is needed for a genocide to be added to this article is that there be "significant scholarship" accusing it of genocide. That certainly exists for the Hamas led October 7th attacks.
Im open to arguments against but "if we add that one we'd need to add a lot more" is an argument against the low standards for genocide that Wikipedia defined, not one against this specific case. After all, most genocides are merely "allegations of genocide" since there's no official body that decided what is or isn't genocide, at least not one that's used as a criterion for this specific list. Fyukfy5 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyukfy5: it would be helpful if you can provide the references for or links to the scholarship showing significant assessment, it would greatly speed up the process of adding the event to the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will post what I think are the most relevant sources but I also implore any confirmed editors to take a look for themselves in the Allegations of genocide in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel under the "Academic and legal discourse" tab.
Anyway:
https://archive.today/2023.10.19-000330/https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd4lrsDRg3HbJqoAf0BlAe7BHJuzpQB_Le27Iureq9vpCoBkw/viewform
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-is-never-justifiable-israel-and-hamas-in-gaza
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4388533-israel-is-not-committing-genocide-but-hamas-is/
As I said there are many more but these are just a few. I think the first is the most relevant for being "significant scholarship" seeing as over 200 scholars co-signed the letter accusing the attacks as genocide. Fyukfy5 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LastDodo: That's not the inclusion criteria. Regardless of what articles are titled on WP, the inclusion criteria is classified as genocide by significant scholarship, for the October 7 attack, there has been statements by good chunk of scholars denouncing the attack as genocidal, but I am not up to date with what scholarship has been published on it yet. If there is significant scholarship, either by number or weight, it can, and should be included. As has been elucidated both in the current legal definition of genocide, as well as a multitude of definitions developed by scholars that are more robust analytical tools, there can be very few, or even no deaths, and an event can still be a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Tamil genocide be added? Crocusfleur (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If its not a genocide, then the title of that article should be changed. LastDodo (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doneblindlynx 16:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Genocide in Tigray (It has an article)

[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_in_Tigray Add this genocide to the list? Vanisherman (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. According to that article, at least 162,000 people were killed, and perhaps as many as 600,000. Anyone object? LastDodo (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Doneblindlynx 18:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive conversation: On the inclusion of genocidal massacres

[edit]

I can see this being a potential issue that we will eventually have to make a determination on and that is whether something assessed in significant scholarship as a genocidal massacre as opposed to a genocide, where it is not part of of a broader campaign/instance of genocide (as recognised in significant scholarship), should be included in the list? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]