stringtranslate.com

Discusión:Lista de genocidios

Antes de escribir un comentario, lea los comentarios a continuación y agregue el suyo en la sección más relevante o agregue una nueva sección si no existe nada similar.

Solicitud de edición ampliada, confirmada y protegida el 29 de junio de 2024

Cambie la parte de la tabla "Proporción de grupos asesinados" por "Otras estadísticas de victimización" para abarcar otros tipos de victimización por genocidio en estos eventos, como desplazamientos, violaciones, torturas, lesiones, etcétera, ya que parece que algunos de los cuadros de esa sección ya parecen estar haciendo eso a pesar del nombre actual y podrían agregar otra información valiosa al artículo. Vanisherman ( discusión ) 18:42 29 jun 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

 No está hecho: no está claro qué cambios desea que se realicen. Mencione los cambios específicos en un formato de "cambio de X a Y" y proporcione una fuente confiable si corresponde. P,TO 19104 ( discusión ) ( contribuciones ) 20:15 12 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Inclusión del genocidio de Gaza

Con el fin de evitar más guerras de ediciones, estoy iniciando una sección para discutir la inclusión del genocidio de Gaza y los criterios de inclusión en la lista de manera más general.

No creo que podamos verificar que muchas de las entradas de la lista sean la opinión mayoritaria en la investigación pertinente. Por lo general, citamos un par de fuentes que califican el evento de genocidio. Por lo tanto, apoyo la inclusión de cualquier genocidio descrito como tal en un conjunto significativo de investigaciones, con una exención de responsabilidad en la parte superior de la lista que indique que esta lista no representa el punto de vista de Wikipedia y una nota de desacuerdo relevante con cada entrada en disputa. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:06, 8 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

En este caso deberíamos cambiar el nombre del artículo para reflejar este cambio de criterio. Vegan416 ( discusión ) 20:24 8 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La sugerencia de Buidhe no es diferente de los criterios que se detallan actualmente en el artículo principal, por lo que no es necesario un cambio de nombre. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 21:45 8 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo hicimos hace unos meses— blindlynx 22:27, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Según la discusión de abril, se acordó cambiar los criterios anteriores, donde se decía erudición + "en línea con la convención de la ONU", a "erudición significativa" (esto puede ser por prominencia o por multitud), ya que la mayoría de los académicos del genocidio y especialistas relacionados utilizan marcos diferentes a la convención de la ONU. Por lo tanto, al intentar aplicar el estándar anterior, los editores tendrían que tomar esa determinación que se pensaba que estaba cerca de OR. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 21:43, 8 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La sugerencia de Buidhe me parece muy razonable: artículos como este deberían reflejar un corpus importante de investigaciones. Por supuesto, no deberíamos exigir unanimidad: siempre habrá fuentes cercanas o simpatizantes de los perpetradores, mientras que las decisiones de los tribunales internacionales, lamentablemente, también tienen una dimensión política y pueden o no reflejar los hechos sobre el terreno. La investigación imparcial parece ser la mejor opción en este caso. No es necesario ningún descargo de responsabilidad: no existe un "punto de vista de Wikipedia" y, de todos modos, cada página de Wikipedia ya contiene un enlace a Wikipedia:Descargo de responsabilidad general . — kashmīrī  TALK 02:45, 14 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Sí, sigue así, así es como va el consenso ahora, y puedes ver muchas otras masacres y eventos que solo son considerados como tales por unas pocas fuentes, como dices allí. Ecpiandy ( discusión ) 21:42 9 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Al incluirlo, estamos diciendo que es un genocidio. Esto va más allá de lo que podemos hacer razonablemente en función de las fuentes actuales. Por ejemplo, excluimos el genocidio de Ucrania. Tenemos que esperar hasta que la CIJ dicte sentencia en ambos casos. BilledMammal ( discusión ) 00:40 14 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

No creo que eso sea necesariamente lo que estamos diciendo. El estándar, creo, que es lo que está escrito en la parte superior de la lista, es la aceptación en algún "estudio académico significativo". Véase, por ejemplo, el Holodomor: la posición académica mayoritaria es probablemente que no es un genocidio, pero lo incluimos porque existe un debate académico legítimo. Creo que si incluimos el Holodomor deberíamos incluir el genocidio de Gaza. Aunque también hay un argumento razonable para no incluir ninguno de los dos. Endwise ( discusión ) 01:01 14 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay varios elementos de la lista que probablemente no deberían estar aquí, pero dado que estos eventos están sucediendo ahora, es más importante que hagamos esto correctamente. BilledMammal ( discusión ) 01:12 14 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
La idea de que incluir el genocidio de Gaza significa que Wikipedia dice que es un genocidio es una completa tontería. Wikipedia no hace determinaciones de hechos. Se limita a informar lo que dicen fuentes autorizadas, y hay muchas fuentes autorizadas que dicen que lo que está sucediendo en Gaza es un genocidio. Ianbrettcooper ( discusión ) 11:12 6 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
y naturalmente esto significa que también se debe agregar el 7 de octubre, ya que se ajusta a la definición de genocidio perpetrado por Hamás. 2A00:23C8:16DC:2A00:7913:B11B:37F3:A347 (discusión) 08:35 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso depende completamente de lo que digan las fuentes. — Czello ( música ) 08:36, 24 de octubre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Inclusión de “La persecución de los musulmanes durante la contradicción otomana”

Este tema también se considera genocidio y limpieza étnica. Debería incluirse en esta lista también. Crxyzen ( discusión ) 00:06 9 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

 No está hecho. Proporcione fuentes confiables que respalden la inclusión. blindlynx 13:53, 9 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
@Blindlynx Fuentes confiables son la propia página Crxyzen ( discusión ) 00:41 10 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
El artículo no ofrece evidencia de que los eventos se clasifiquen comúnmente como genocidio. — kashmīrī  TALK 11:23, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
No veo estas citas, por favor, enuméralas aquí— blindlynx 15:06, 10 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
1-) Adam Jones. (2010). Genocidio: una introducción completa, páginas 65 y 152. "La incorporación de una perspectiva comparativa global sobre el genocidio del último medio milenio ha permitido avances importantes en la comprensión de los acontecimientos centrales en el campo de los estudios sobre el genocidio, como el proceso de disolución del imperio otomano, los asesinatos genocidas recíprocos (durante el "destejido" en los Balcanes)... El costo humano de este "gran destejido", desde la guerra de independencia de Grecia a principios del siglo XIX hasta las guerras finales de los Balcanes de 1912-1913, fue enorme. Cientos de miles de musulmanes otomanos fueron masacrados en el impulso secesionista..." DevletGiray ( discusión ) 13:53 2 sep 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
2-) Tatum, Dale C. (2010). Genocidio en los albores del siglo XXI: Ruanda, Bosnia, Kosovo y Darfur. Palgrave Macmillan. pág. 113. ISBN 978-0-230-62189-3En octubre de 1912 , Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria y Grecia lanzaron un ataque para desmembrar el decadente Imperio Otomano. Esta guerra se destacó por su brutalidad. Durante la misma se cometieron actos de genocidio y caos. Se masacró a civiles y se cortaron los labios y las narices de la gente. De este modo, la relación entre serbios y albanokosovares comenzó a deteriorarse. A partir de esta batalla, los serbios obtuvieron el control de Kosovo, su "tierra mítica" de origen.DevletGiray ( discusión ) 13:54, 2 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
3-) Csaplár-Degovics, Krisztián. Die Internationale Kontrollkommission Albaniens und die albanischen Machtzentren (1913–1914): Beitrag zur Geschichte der Staatsbildung Albaniens (PDF) (en alemán). pág. 41. Una de las experiencias inesperadas de las guerras de los Balcanes de 1912-1913 fue que los miembros de la Liga de los Balcanes cometieron genocidios y otros tipos de violencia masiva contra otras nacionalidades y la población musulmana de la península. Entre otras cosas, el proyecto de construcción del Estado albanés de las grandes potencias tenía como objetivo prevenir nuevos genocidios y otros actos de violencia contra la población albanesa y otros refugiados de Macedonia y poner fin a la anarquía del país.DevletGiray ( discusión ) 13:55, 2 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]
4-) McCarthy, J. Muerte y exilio: la limpieza étnica de los musulmanes otomanos, 1821-1922 , Darwin Press Incorporated, 1996, ISBN 0-87850-094-4 , Capítulo uno, La tierra que se perderá, pág. 1 DevletGiray ( discusión ) 14:01 2 septiembre 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Solicitud de edición ampliada, confirmada y protegida el 10 de julio de 2024

Por favor, realice el siguiente cambio en el artículo:

AndyBloch ( discusión ) 13:33 10 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

 No está terminado por ahora: por favor, establezcan un consenso para esta modificación antes de usar la plantilla. Guía de la izquierda ( discusión ) 05:26, 20 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]{{Edit extended-protected}}
Voy a cambiar answered= de nuevo a no, porque (1) me estás pidiendo que haga algo que me resulta imposible hacer según las reglas adoptadas el año pasado para las páginas de ECP, y (2) me parece que se trata de un cambio simple que consiste principalmente en eliminar contenido que no pertenece a la columna. Si me equivoco, entonces los editores de EC deberían iniciar una discusión. AndyBloch (discusión) 00:55 24 jul 2024 (UTC)[responder]
[suscribirse] AndyBloch ( discusión ) 00:57 24 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿A qué regla te refieres? McYeee ( discusión ) 05:07 20 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

 No terminado el cierre.

Kingsmasher678 ( discusión ) 16:11 30 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Solicitud de edición ampliada, confirmada y protegida el 10 de julio de 2024

Por favor, realice el siguiente cambio en el artículo:

AndyBloch ( discusión ) 13:41 10 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

 No está terminado por ahora: por favor, establezcan un consenso para esta modificación antes de usar la plantilla. Guía de la izquierda ( discusión ) 05:27, 20 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]{{Edit extended-protected}}
Voy a cambiar la respuesta a no, porque (1) me estás pidiendo que haga algo que me resulta imposible hacer según las reglas adoptadas el año pasado para las páginas de ECP, y (2) me parece que se trata de un cambio simple que consiste principalmente en eliminar contenido que no pertenece a la columna. Si me equivoco, entonces los editores de EC deberían iniciar una discusión. AndyBloch ( discusión ) 00:55 24 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
 Hecho , claramente una buena edición y en línea con el resto de los cuadros de información.

Kingsmasher678 ( discusión ) 16:18 30 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

RFC - Inclusión deGenocidio en Gaza

INCLUIR
En este debate, los wikipedistas deciden si nuestra Lista de genocidios debería contener una entrada sobre el genocidio de Gaza . Hay mucho desacuerdo al respecto y ambos bandos presentan argumentos buenos y malos, pero en general, en función de la solidez de los argumentos, esto se reduce a una clara inclusión , y no se acerca a nada. Se pueden realizar las modificaciones consiguientes.
Método de cierre: descarté las contribuciones de Kashmiri (que quería incluir) y O.Maximov (que quería excluir) porque las autoridades competentes han bloqueado estas cuentas indefinidamente y, por lo tanto, considero que no son wikipedistas responsables y de buena reputación. Descarté el argumento de que los académicos no han llegado a una conclusión sobre si el genocidio de Gaza realmente está ocurriendo. El asunto sigue siendo controvertido, pero hay una gran cantidad de fuentes académicas vinculadas en esta discusión que muestran un claro predominio de académicos que dicen que sí lo está. Descarté el argumento de que corresponde a la ONU o a los Tribunales Internacionales decidir qué es un genocidio y qué no lo es. Esto es Wikipedia, donde seguimos las fuentes académicas . Descarté la afirmación francamente extraña de que "el consenso no es el criterio de inclusión para esta lista". Esto es Wikipedia, donde el consenso lo decide todo, excepto las Acciones de la Oficina, las decisiones del Comité de Arbitraje y la Confianza y Seguridad .
Y la afirmación de que "las publicaciones de público general como The Economist son en realidad mucho más fiables que las publicaciones en campos dominados por la ideología, como la teoría crítica de la raza" no es algo que descarte a la ligera. La descarté con gran fuerza. Seguimos a los académicos.
Participación: nunca he editado este artículo ni ningún otro artículo sobre un tema estrechamente relacionado, y no recuerdo haber editado nunca un artículo sobre la disputa entre Israel y Palestina. Pero como soy uno de los relativamente pocos encargados de cerrar solicitudes de comentarios que tienen el estómago para esta área temática, he cerrado previamente varias solicitudes de comentarios que se refieren a la disputa entre Israel y Palestina a lo largo de la última década: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11. Esto no me convierte en "involucrado" según la definición de la palabra que da Wikipedia.
Espero que esto ayude y sea suficiente para resolver por completo la disputa. Cualquier consulta, comentario, crítica, queja o queja sobre este tema debe dirigirse a mi página de discusión. — S Marshall  T / C 14:40, 3 de septiembre de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

La siguiente discusión está cerrada. No la modifique. Los comentarios posteriores deben realizarse en la página de discusión correspondiente. No se deben realizar más modificaciones a esta discusión.

¿Debería incluirse el genocidio de Gaza en esta lista? ScottishFinnishRadish ( discusión ) 13:46 19 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Encuesta

Lea la primera línea del artículo "Esta lista de genocidios incluye estimaciones de todas las muertes que fueron causadas directa o indirectamente por genocidios que se reconocen en una cantidad significativa de estudios como genocidios ; una abrumadora mayoría de los estudiosos reconocen esto como genocidio. Articulamos bien este punto cuando discutimos el cambio de nombre finalmente exitoso al genocidio de Gaza " . Ecpiandy ( discusión ) 00:08 25 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

Levivich (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This has been going back and forth for a while, so let's go ahead and continue with the WP:DR steps. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because, if it's in the minority view (or even if it's a plurality but is clearly disputed enough to not be an overall scholarly consensus), then we might mention it but wouldn't put it in the article voice. And this can be tricky for a list, where inclusion in a list of X carries an implication of "this is definitely X"; the list is "list of genocides", not "list of things scholars have described as genocides". --Aquillion (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you assess the majority/minority? By the number of occurrences? By the number of copies printed? Are different academic publications weighted against each other, e.g., by impact factor? Is a UN report more or less of a majority opinion vs a thinktank report?
My feeling is that majority/minority can sometimes be merely abstract concepts on Wikipedia that get brought up simply to deny inclusion of specific opinion, under the pretext that the other side didn't provide that abstract "evidence of majority".
IMO, an opinion that's accepted beyond a niche community is probably WP:DUE for inclusion on Wikipedia, and then can be summarised in the lead, too, if it helps the reader to understand the subject better. — kashmīrī TALK 11:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important difference between just mentioning something (which certainly does not require a majority; we cover minority views all the time) and putting it in the article voice (which implicitly treats it as established fact.) See eg. the dispute over how to cover the "Uyghur genocide" above, which similarly concerned the article title - there are definitely many sources using the term, and we would definitely cover those sources, there was never any doubt about that; it's just that there's not a clear scholarly consensus that it's a genocide, so we can't call it one in the article voice ourselves. The question of whether we can include something that lacks that sort of scholarly consensus in this list therefore hinges on whether inclusion in this list amounts to Wikipedia itself saying, in the article voice, "yes this is definitely a genocide." And if it's not intended to convey that, we should consider changing the name. (This is a common issue with lists that have "sweeping" declarative titles.) If the list is intended to contain a bunch of entries saying "respectable scholars A, B, and C call this event a genocide; scholars X, Y, and Z disagree" then it's not a list of genocides, is it? --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, everything on wikipedia follows wp:Reliable sources so this has to be a 'list of list of things scholars have described as genocides' because scholars are the WP:BESTSOURCES—blindlynx 21:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an unorthodox comparison but over on the video-game side of Wikipedia we don't have a "List of the best video games" but a "List of video games considered the best," which has a strict inclusion criteria in which a game needs to be considered "among the best" by a set amount of reliable sources. It's not a 1:1 transition, obviously, but it might be worth restructuring this list slightly in that vein to relieve issues of wikivoicing, where an objective (or as close as one can get to objective) criteria can be set for inclusion. DecafPotato (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This actually seems like a sound suggestion to me. CAVincent (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear are you proposing a title change or modifing the inclusion criteria? —blindlynx 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the level of sourcing needed to present something as a contested opinion with in-text attribution - "these scholars say ABC; these other scholars say XYZ" - is different from the level of sourcing needed unambiguously present something as fact. I think it's reasonably obvious that this is a situation where there's sufficient sourcing to present it as an opinion that many scholars of note hold, but not sufficient sourcing to present it as absolute uncontested truth. And that's a problem if inclusion in the article implicitly treats an event's status as a genocide as uncontested truth, at least within academia. --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't and shouldn't be list as presenting uncontested truth though. It's a list of events where where there is enough scholarship that we should mention them, ie. their inclusion is WP:DUE. As DecafePotato said it's worth making this clearer—blindlynx 14:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text of the disputed entry read "Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war." — No one is proposing to present this designation as a genocide as an "absolute uncontested truth".
    More wording discussing its disputed status could be appropriate and perhaps the background of the entry in the table for the Gaza genocide could be made yellow or red to more clearly indicate its contested status. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no truth, only verifiability. And verifiability can only ever be a reasonable consensus among reliable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Section for the Kalinago

Glancing through this list, I was a bit surprised there was no mention of the Kalinago or Carib peoples. The depopulation of the native peoples of the Caribbean was probably one of the most complete destructions of a peoples resulting from European colonialism. Is there any objection to their inclusion? NickCT (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kalinago genocide would need a lot more academic sources that explicitly describe it using the term genocide. Right now there seem to be none in the article. — MarkH21talk 12:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I really don't like that Kalinago genocide article. The subject of the article seems to be a massacre of Kalinago's on a single island. But the Kalinago were massacred on, and or displaced from, many different islands. I feel like the article covers the wrong topic, or only covers a small portion of what is a larger topic. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding this to the list. It clearly meets the definition of genocide and there are several academic sources to support it. For example, Lennox Honychurch supports the classification in this paper for the University of the West Indies, and historian Melanie J. Newton describes it as such in her article "The Race Leapt at Sauteurs: Genocide, Narrative, and Indigenous Exile from the Caribbean Archipelago". Additionally Doctor Andreas Buser, a legal scholar from the University of Berlin, says in a 2016 article for the Heidelberg Journal of International Law (here) that the killings of the Kalinago people could be considered genocide. More citations might be helpful (I think this might also be discussed in Chalk and Jonassohn's The History and Sociology of Genocide, but I can't at this moment lay my hand on the passage), but there does seem to me to be something of a consensus. TRCRF22 (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TRCRF22 if you wouldn't mind adding information from the sources you mention here to the Kalinago article it would be brilliant. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Newton and Buser. Unfortunately I didn't realise that the article under discussion only dealt with one specific massacre rather than the wider persecution of the Carib peoples, which is what Honychurch's paper deals with, so that one doesn't fit into the article. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sorta feel like article's scope is wrong. The subject of the article should be the wider persecution. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of non genocides in the lead

The lead of this article is a little bit strange in that it starts off with listing a whole bunch of non genocides in the lead before it has even listed any genocides. Well I think it's important to determine and define what is not included in this list I don't really think we need to give a list of non genocides.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i threw the list of non genocides in the lead into a efn—blindlynx 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List ordering: Reverse or regular chronology

On 14 August I changed the ordering of the table from reverse-chronological to a regular chronology saying reverse reverse chronology -- non-reverse chronology is more encyclopedic (diff). Indeed, it is my view that in general, but especially when historical content in an encyclopedia in concerned, and especially when there is a history-related list, which is effectively a timeline, the ordering needs be chronological, and that reverse-chronological ordering contrary to professional writing in these areas, that it is odd, and even potentially recentist.

This change persisted for 12 days when it was reverted by Vice regent (talk · contribs), with the edit summary of revert, the long standing version of this page has been in reverse chronological order, please seek consensus if you want to change that, will restore other edits (diff).

While I do not dispute that the reverse ordering is the inherited state of things, many errors, flaws and inadequacies are inherited in many articles, which is not a reason not to change from that state to a better state.

Now, Vice regent, kindly produce a substantive rationale for your edit, so that editors may understand how the reverse chronology is better after all.

Pinging one additional editor who has edited the article throughout this period and who certainly must be aware of the change, and might have an opinion on the matter. @Cdjp1: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on whether the ordering should be chronological or reverse-chronological.—Alalch E. 09:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion either way. With that being said, the chronological order would be in line with similar lists on wikipedia, as well as in encyclopedias generally. This, in addition with the constant addition/removal of the most recent genocide to occur no longer being front and centre for readers coming to the article, causes me to lean more on the chronological order side. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E., @Cdjp1. I prefer reverse chronological order, but I can see the case for non-reverse chronological. The reason is that we have the option of either starting "today" (and going backwards) or starting at 1209. 1209 feels a bit arbitrary, while starting today feels more meaningful. Recent genocides (Rohingya genocide, Yazidi genocide etc) are also likely of greater interest to readers than Albigensian Crusade. Some lists do put latest/current events at the top, like List of non-international armed conflicts, List of accidents and incidents involving transport or storage of ammunition. But many other lists are in regular chronological order.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that reverse chronological order makes more sense here. As noted, contemporary and recentish events are much more likely to be of interest to our readers. Especially for users on mobile devices, we shouldn't present a loooong list of historical events to scroll through before getting to what they are likely looking for. (And yes, I know that the default sort can be adjusted, but why present this problem to readers who might not know how to adjust sorting.) CAVincent (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a thoroughly unencyclopedic approach. "Serve the reader the most recent genocide" is fine for some web portal, but it's not fine in an encyclopedia. This is a long list of historical events, and it should be understood as a long series of historical events. That is one of the educational purposes of this page.
The ordering should be consistent with Genocides in history (and its subarticles: Genocides in history (before World War I), Genocides in history (World War I through World War II), Genocides in history (1946 to 1999), and Genocides in history (21st century)). This list is just a condensed timeline for that content. It a "Table-format timeline of genocides in history". Genocides in history article does not start its Historical genocides section with Genocides after 2000, it starts it off with Genocides before World War I, and Genocides in history (before World War I) (effectively also a list of genocides, just not in table format) starts with the Neanderthal genocide. —Alalch E. 11:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are prose articles, not lists. Prose articles are never reverse chronological. But lists can not just be reverse chronological, but also sorted based on other criteria: like death toll (List of wars by death toll), alphabetical (List of battles (alphabetical)) or cost (List of disasters by cost). While I prefer reverse chronological, I think chronological would also work, so lets wait to see what others say.VR (Please ping on reply) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

Excerpt—Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists
Shortcuts
  • MOS:LISTSORT
  • MOS:SORTLIST
Lists may be sorted alphabetically (e.g. for people: by surname, given name, initials), chronologically (by date, usually oldest first), or occasionally by other criteria. To suggest that a list in an article or section should be sorted, use {{Unsorted list}}.
Guideline excerpt—Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
Shortcut
  • WP:SALORDER
Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2024, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, as is the case with Deaths in 2003.

The list of genocides does not require "frequent daily additions". Genocides are happening, but they are not happening anything near daily.—Alalch E. 00:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding from the notification: I can see the value of placing more recent entries first, as being more likely of interest to readers. Would some sort of grouping work as an alternative (eg by century)? --Hipal (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the more recent events are of interest to readers, they have the articles about the more recent genocides. This list is a comprehensive overview of genocides and it should communicate comprehensively which events in history have been classified as genocide by significant scholarship. "Genocides happening throughout history, since at least the Middle Ages: read a little bit about each one" is the educational value of this page, not serving information about recent events. —Alalch E. 01:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having it in regular chronological order, with section headers for each century, makes most sense. That's our normal order, as noticed above, and the section headers would allow quick access to the period people are interested in. Gawaon (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good solution. My main request would be that section headers be the highest level header, because on mobile only those headers are collapsible. I'd propose: Pre-19th century, 19th century, 20th century and 21st century.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Certainly highest-level. In the current list there are only three pre-19th cent. genocides. So maybe "Before World War I", "World War I through World War II", "1946 to 1999", "21st century" in terms of where to split the table. —Alalch E. 22:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for actions that align grouping across our articles covering the topic of genocides, see the "Genocides in history" articles, and the updated Genocide navbox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing stats from excess mortality, violent deaths, etc

The list is currently selecting as numbers for upper and lower bounds simply whatever is provided by the source as the "total", but in some cases that is excess mortality (over some defined time frame, when measurable) while in others that may be battle-related violent deaths, or else include nonviolent deaths as direct consequence of war activity (but still invariably a much lower number than excess mortality). See OurWorldInData's overview of some of these methodologies. These numbers are not simply comparable against one another, and certainly cannot be sorted in a list, without giving a deceptive impression.

The simplest place to start is to look at two general stats: excess mortality and violent battlefield deaths only, and find separate numbers accordingly. Some incidents have numbers available for one and not the other, and that's fine -- better to have numbers left blank than to give false comparisons. If a source for numbers does not make it obvious that its numbers come from one general methodology or another, then that source is probably unusable.

As an example, the numbers currently used for the Rohingya genocide entry are for deaths directly attributed to violence or consequences of displacement. This will invariably be a fraction of excess deaths. Excess deaths are in contrast used for the Darfur and DRC entries. (The Bosnian genocide number is simply incorrectly reported from source; if you get the correct number, it's not excess deaths or violent deaths, but their source Tabeau & Vijak use "war-related deaths" -- that's fine for the main article or blurb, but if your goal is to do a comparative list, there are more recent articles that try to calculate excess deaths in Bosnia.) SamuelRiv (talk) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to happen, then the column names must be changed, and a lot of numbers must be deleted, "despite" what RS say (but in actuality being precise to RS; I'd argue right now the columns are SYNTH). This needs feedback, because it's basically rewriting the list, and I don't want to waste time on this if it's just going to be reverted endlessly. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Include the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland on the list

I believe this conquest should be included as it was an attempt to destroy the Irish race and Catholicism in Ireland. Anyone who knows about it can attest to its bloodiness. There also does exist significant scholarship calling it a genocide.

  1. "Oliver Cromwell offered Irish Catholics a choice between genocide and forced mass population transfer". - Albert Breton, Nationalism and Rationality
  2. "Therefore, we are entitled to accuse the England of Oliver Cromwell of the genocide of the Irish civilian population" - Ukrainian Society of America, Ukrainian Quarterly
  3. "Faced with the prospect of an Irish alliance with Charles II, Cromwell carried out a series of massacres to subdue the Irish. Then, once Cromwell had returned to England, the English Commissary, General Henry Ireton, adopted a deliberate policy of crop burning and starvation, which was responsible for the majority of an estimated 600,000 deaths out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000" - Frances Stewart, War and Underdevelopment: Economic and Social Consequences of Conflict v. 1
  4. "As a leader Cromwell was entirely unyielding. He was willing to act on his beliefs, even if this meant killing the king and perpetrating, against the Irish, something very nearly approaching genocide" - Alan Axelrod, Profiles in leadership
  5. "The massacres by Catholics of Protestants, which occurred in the religious wars of the 1640s, were magnified for propagandist purposes to justify Cromwell's subsequent genocide" - Tim Pat Coogan, The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace
  6. "It was to be the justification for Cromwell's genocidal campaign and settlement" - Peter Beresford Ellis, Eyewitness to Irish history
  7. "[The campaign was] a conscious attempt to reduce a distinct ethnic population". - Mark Levene, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 2

ResearchAgent007 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It has been reliably estimated that up to 20% of the civilian population of Ireland died during the conquest, and some historians have put the figure as high as 41%. I have tracked down one additional academic source that supports inclusion: a 2017 article by Aziz Rahman, Mary Anne Clarke, and Sean Byrne that states "The 1649 warfare by Cromwellian soldiers culminated in acts of genocide against Irish Gaels with the liquidation of the inhabitants of Drogheda and Dundalk". - Peace Research, v. 49, no. 2 TRCRF22 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to try and get this added, looking at the list of sources in reference 39 in the article Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, and 331 in the article Genocides in history (before World War I)#War of the Three Kingdoms. Opposition to the inclusion in lists previously is the framing of historians who label it genocide or genocidal as being nationalist historians. Mark Levene who specialises in genocide refers to the Cromwellian conquest as such in volume 2 of "Genocide in the Age of the Nation State":

"[The Act of Settlement of Ireland], and the parliamentary legislation which succeeded it the following year, is the nearest thing on paper in the English, and more broadly British, domestic record, to a programme of state-sanctioned and systematic ethnic cleansing of another people. The fact that it did not include 'total' genocide in its remit, or that it failed to put into practice the vast majority of its proposed expulsions, ultimately, however, says less about the lethal determination of its makers and more about the political, structural and financial weakness of the early modern English state."

Any sources found supporting it's assessment as genocide should be added to, and quoted from, in the relevant main articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reopening of Gaza RFC

I am proposing that we reopen the Gaza RFC to allow for further discussion. Its current result is effectively just a fiat of the editor that closed it, without seriously taking into account many of the arguments made. The result did not take into account that many of the cited sources, such as those in Middle Eastern studies, are ideologically captured and beholden to an anti-Western perspective and do not really have any academic rigor (our article on the subject mentions this). Partofthemachine (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... there is a procedure to vacate an RfC close, and this isn't it. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Newimpartial (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a crank proposal, but noting strongest possible oppose. That was a robust discussion, and calling the closure "effectively just a fiat" is not assuming good faith, or really even paying attention to the discussion and its closure. The consensus wasn't what I wanted, but it's the consensus. Reopening the discussion now is not going to change the consensus. CAVincent (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Remove “Gaza Genocide” as it is not a genocide, and the numbers are falsified. 180,000 people have not been killed, this is way over the number even Hamas themselves listed, which was 40,000. Half of which are Hamas militants. IZG123 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See #RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide above. There was a long discussion about this which concluded it should be included. — Czello (music) 20:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

Add the 1984 Sikh Genocide. Source: https://www.basicsofsikhi.com/post/sikh-genocide-of-1984 Gurnisha (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2020/SR/142_I1.HTM Gurnisha (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. You'll need to show that "significant scholarship" considers this to be a genocide. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2024 (2)

Add Jallianwala Bagh massacre to this list as well, as the lower estimate for deaths falls above the lowest in the list. Xyznwa (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need reliable sources that say this was a genocide. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal to be discussed

These two removals of content should be discussed. 1 & 2. @Andrevan. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I did explain in my edit summaries but happy to discuss, on the first, the Lancet letter is a letter, not a medical report. That letter is quite controversial and it's not up to snuff to be included in my view. On the second I clearly stated that the material wasn't referenced at all. Unless the reference is hiding somewhere. You may restore that with a proper footnote, of course, as per usual. Andre🚐 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have issue with the removal of the Lancet letter, as while their logic is fine, for an estimate I would want something that is more thorough in its calculations based on data coming out of Gaza. If it is re-added, it should be called what it is, which is not a "medical report". As to the blockade, while it's easy to add references for it, it may border in the excess detail area for inclusion in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Andre🚐 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darfur genocide

There is consistent evidence of attacks against the darfur people by militants aimed at the killing of civilians in the currentbongoing war. Why is this item jot on the list?

https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/05/09/massalit-will-not-come-home/ethnic-cleansing-and-crimes-against-humanity-el Varjagen (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...it is. TRCRF22 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Factorfiction0 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest changing "List of genocides in reverse chronological order" to "List of possible genocides in reverse chronological order"

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no section on the Tigrayan/ Ethiopian Civil War ?

Mass Starvation, documented drone bombings (and sales, transport documentation), etc. Regardless of low-end/ average death toll, all 9/10 steps of genocide can be attested. 97.126.88.45 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can open a talk page for it, do you have citations describing it as a genocide? From some metrics and the highest estimate it could be the deadliest war in the 21st century The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Leningrad body count

Perusing the list, I was confused by the lack of a precise body count for the Siege of Leningrad. The lowest estimate is listed as the incredibly vague "more than 1 million", and there is no higher estimate. Surely there must be more detailed casualty counts than this available. TRCRF22 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that formatting it like that is strange as 1) 'lowest estimate' already implies more than the number given and 2) not having it be a number makes it appear above the Holocaust when sorting the list by 'lowest estimate'. I propose changing it to '1,000,000' to fix both of these problems (any other change non-withstanding). Citation unneeded (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The siege of Leningrad wikipedia page gives a more precise estimate of 1,042,000 civilian deaths. I would suggest that this would be a better number to use. 82.47.186.69 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

Under the section for Gukurahundi it lists the deaths as between 8000 and 300,000. However, inside the article nowhere are the estimations this high. I think this is upper bound is meant to be 30,000.

Change 300,000 to 30,000 2601:603:201:9C70:6594:29F2:5EBC:7D1F (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hecho ✅ IOHANNVSVERVS ( discusión ) 21:18 8 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]

genocidio tamil

Hay un artículo al respecto. ¿Por qué no lo incluyen en la lista? 157.131.130.26 (discusión) 07:42 24 oct 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]