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.
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 ]
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 ]
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 ]
Por favor, realice el siguiente cambio en el artículo:
AndyBloch ( discusión ) 13:33 10 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No estoy de acuerdo con esta edición. No es correcto que el genocidio sea simplemente matar a un gran número de personas. ( t · c ) buidhe 03:46, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No se trata de cuál es la definición correcta de genocidio. Estas columnas de la tabla se titulan Asesinatos estimados y Proporción del grupo asesinado, y la información de esas columnas solo debe incluir esa información. La proporción del grupo asesinado en el genocidio yazidí también debería modificarse. AndyBloch ( discusión ) 09:44 13 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 ]
Por favor, realice el siguiente cambio en el artículo:
AndyBloch ( discusión ) 13:41 10 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No estoy de acuerdo con esta edición. No es correcto que el genocidio sea simplemente matar a un gran número de personas. ( t · c ) buidhe 03:46, 12 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No se trata de cuál es la definición correcta de genocidio. Estas columnas de la tabla se titulan Asesinatos estimados y Proporción del grupo asesinado, y esas columnas solo deberían incluir esa información. La proporción del grupo asesinado en el genocidio yazidí también debería modificarse. AndyBloch ( discusión ) 09:45 13 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 ]
¿Debería incluirse el genocidio de Gaza en esta lista? ScottishFinnishRadish ( discusión ) 13:46 19 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Encuesta
- No lo incluyas a menos que el título se cambie a "presuntos genocidios" o algo similar. En mi opinión, la inclusión bajo el título actual equivale a una declaración en Wikivoice de que se está produciendo un genocidio. Independientemente de cuál sea la opinión mayoritaria, deberíamos evitar este tipo de declaraciones en los casos en que exista una controversia significativa (no marginal). Sé que ha habido intentos de calificar estas declaraciones implícitas con prosa como "reconocido en una importante investigación académica", pero eso no aborda por completo el problema, al igual que la publicidad engañosa no se puede remediar añadiendo letra pequeña. La declaración no neutral (implícita) sigue estando ahí. — xDanielx T / C \ R 22:44, 19 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Muchas (¿la mayoría?) de las entradas de la lista han sido controvertidas, véase Política de reconocimiento del genocidio . Estados Unidos[1] (y otros[2]) niegan el genocidio de los rohinyá . Naciones Unidas [3] (y otros[4]) niegan el genocidio de Darfur . La mayoría de los que niegan el genocidio de Gaza también cuestionarían la entrada de larga data de la masacre de Sabra y Shatila en esta lista. VR (Por favor, haga ping en la respuesta) 00:00, 8 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Hay muchas fuentes confiables que lo califican de genocidio o dicen con muchas palabras que Israel está cometiendo actos genocidas. La mayoría de las fuentes que no están de acuerdo con esa etiqueta son simplemente poco confiables o están directamente vinculadas a Israel y sus partidarios. Si esta situación se aplicara a un enemigo de los EE. UU., como China o Rusia, no estaríamos teniendo esta conversación. Dronebogus ( discusión ) 02:38 20 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si esta situación se aplicara a un enemigo de EE. UU., como China o Rusia, no estaríamos teniendo esta conversación.
- Eso no es cierto. Por ejemplo, la persecución de los uigures en China y las acusaciones de genocidio de los ucranianos en la guerra ruso-ucraniana no están incluidas en la lista. BilledMammal ( discusión ) 04:33 20 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Creo que hay suficientes fuentes para calificar las acciones de China contra los uigures de genocidio de algún tipo, al menos. Dronebogus ( discusión ) 04:31 21 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Se podría pensar, pero el consenso de los editores fue diferente.[5] — kashmīrī TALK 22:18, 23 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Veo muchos votos razonables que apoyan la etiqueta de genocidio. No hubo consenso; el cambio fue básicamente por decreto administrativo, implementado para eludir el problema de una manera razonable y basada en políticas. “Genocidio” siempre será una etiqueta controvertida, especialmente cuando se trata de un país que está muy involucrado en la geopolítica internacional. Dronebogus ( discusión ) 11:55, 26 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No lo incluyas, según xDanielx. Las fuentes aún no son suficientes para incluirlo en Wikivoice según la reciente RM y, en general, deberíamos esperar hasta que la CIJ haya dictado sentencia para hacerlo, momento en el que podremos dejar en claro que las acusaciones eran verdaderas o falsas. BilledMammal ( discusión ) 04:32 20 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- La política de la wiki depende de RS, no de la CIJ. Y la mayoría de las entradas de esta lista no tienen una sentencia de la CIJ. VR (Por favor, haz ping en la respuesta) 00:01, 8 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No lo incluyas, según XDanielx. En este momento, el estatus de genocidio es objeto de controversia y, en realidad, solo se deberían incluir comentarios en este artículo cuando esté más claro. — Czello ( música ) 09:32, 21 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No lo incluyas . Este artículo "solo considera actos que están reconocidos como genocidios en importantes estudios académicos", y este caso es obviamente un tema extremadamente controvertido en este momento, las acusaciones también podrían ser falsas. Deberíamos esperar y ver cómo se desarrollan las cosas. HaOfa ( discusión ) 15:33 24 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- En base a esos criterios, Gaza debería ser incluida, ya que en los estudios publicados actualmente se la describe abrumadoramente como un genocidio. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 21:43 24 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No, no lo es. Por ejemplo, The Economist : "Acusar a Israel de genocidio es una burla a la CIJ... desvía la atención de la verdadera crisis humanitaria en Gaza". https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/01/18/charging-israel-with-genocide-makes-a-mockery-of-the-icj HaOfa ( discusión ) 11:16 25 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No estoy seguro de entender, este no es un artículo académico. blindlynx 11:34, 25 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- @ האופה The Economist no es una publicación académica, inténtalo de nuevo. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 14:23 25 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Las publicaciones y los académicos serios necesitan tiempo para analizar las pruebas y emitir sus veredictos. Se debería cuestionar a quienes ya han sacado conclusiones mientras la guerra todavía está en curso, a pesar de que muchos medios de comunicación y líderes mundiales afirman directamente que se trata de una invención. Los activistas han hecho con frecuencia acusaciones de genocidio durante las operaciones israelíes en Gaza durante toda la última década, por lo que hay muchas buenas razones para dudar de su credibilidad. HaOfa ( discusión ) 17:12 25 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- ¿Entonces su respuesta es pedirnos que usemos las opiniones de los no expertos en lugar de las de los expertos en la materia, incluidos varios expertos preeminentes? Realmente usted es un editor con una visión ideológica limitada en estos asuntos. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 19:44 25 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Existe un retraso temporal (en particular debido al sesgo de selección y al retraso en la publicación) para evaluar el consenso académico. Los eventos aquí son demasiado recientes para evaluar el consenso académico en su totalidad. — MarkH 21 discusión 21:28, 15 agosto 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Wikipedia tiene un problema generalizado y persistente: trata automáticamente las fuentes académicas como fiables. 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, los estudios poscoloniales, etc. Partofthemachine ( discusión ) 05:05 15 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No estoy de acuerdo con ambos puntos: el consenso académico a lo largo del tiempo es el criterio de referencia. Sin embargo, la actualidad significa que, de todos modos, es difícil evaluar el consenso académico en este caso. — MarkH 21 discusión 21:28, 15 agosto 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Por el contrario, los académicos y los expertos en la materia son mucho más confiables en casos como este que requieren un análisis especializado, mientras que los columnistas aleatorios para fuentes de audiencia general pueden no saber de qué están hablando o permitir que sus opiniones personales informen sus opiniones. ¿O estamos diciendo que The Economist tiene más credibilidad que expertos preeminentes como Schabas y Moreno Ocampo sobre cómo es un genocidio? TRCRF22 ( discusión ) 16:58 16 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Esta afirmación se basa en la presunción de que todos o la mayoría de estos académicos saben algo sobre algo, lo cual no es el caso. Por ejemplo, el Instituto Lemkin para la Prevención del Genocidio , que es una de las fuentes más citadas para la afirmación de que Israel está cometiendo genocidio, también cree que no permitir que las mujeres transgénero compitan en deportes femeninos es una forma de genocidio. Partofthemachine ( discusión ) 21:13 16 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Corrección: cree que tales prohibiciones están "motivadas por una ideología genocida", no que las personas trans estén sufriendo literalmente un genocidio. Pero incluso si lo creyeran, no se sigue de ello que la mayoría de los académicos "no sepan nada de nada" sólo porque un organismo académico tenga una opinión con la que usted no esté de acuerdo. Muchas publicaciones para el público en general también han expresado algunas opiniones bastante marginales. TRCRF22 ( discusión ) 21:43, 16 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- ( editar conflicto ) Esa ONG no es una institución académica. Además, cualquier publicación propia tampoco es una fuente académica.Para evaluar el consenso académico se analizan los libros y artículos de revistas académicas y se los evalúa en su conjunto, otorgando la ponderación adecuada a las fuentes individuales más destacadas y confiables. — MarkH 21 discusión 21:48, 16 agosto 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Estoy bastante seguro de que Omer Bartov y Raz Segal pueden saber algo sobre el genocidio. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 10:56 19 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- @Partofthemachine Así no es como funciona nada de esto. -- Cdjp1 ( discusión ) 10:53 19 ago 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Incluir . Los acontecimientos históricos siempre están sujetos a debate, y los acontecimientos violentos son cuestionados y cuestionados rutinariamente, especialmente por la minoría alineada con el presunto perpetrador o simpatizante de él. Sin embargo, esta página no se titula Lista de genocidios no cuestionados (probablemente estaría en blanco en tal caso). Cuando la mayoría de las fuentes confiables están de acuerdo, o cuando hay evidencia de una calidad muy alta (por ejemplo, la ONU o múltiples expertos en la materia), entonces sería una violación del punto de vista no vinculante dejar que las opiniones de las minorías dicten el contenido de Wikipedia. Esta es precisamente la situación con el genocidio de Gaza. — kashmīrī TALK 22:54, 24 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Incluir : esta no es una lista de genocidios oficialmente reconocidos por la ONU ni nada de acuerdo con esa métrica, de ahí la inclusión de tantos eventos en el artículo, incluidos los yazidíes, los asesinatos de los indios Osage, los rohingya, el genocidio de los acholi y los langos, Guatemala, etc. Podría seguir. El artículo también se llama literalmente genocidio de Gaza . Es una lista de genocidios o masacres similares a genocidios que son reconocidos como tales por una gran cantidad de académicos y organizaciones no gubernamentales, etc. - la única razón para no incluirla es debido a un sesgo personal o de lo contrario necesitamos tener una discusión sobre toda la página. Además, según Kashmiri. Ecpiandy ( discusión ) 00:04, 25 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- No lo incluyas , según xDanielx. Las acusaciones de genocidio en Gaza son obviamente controvertidas (según muchos, son totalmente inventadas) y carecen de consenso. Agregar una afirmación tan controvertida violaría nuestras pautas de neutralidad. O.maximov ( discusión ) 11:48, 25 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
Según muchos, son totalmente inventados
¿Quiénes son esos misteriosos "muchos"? Selfstudier ( discusión ) 13:47 27 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
- Incluir : según lo indicado anteriormente. Incluso Al Jazeera , que se declara generalmente confiable en WP:RSPS , cubre la cobertura del tema. Será esencial contar con pruebas suficientes de genocidio en la historia. Ahri Boy ( discusión ) 10:52 26 jul 2024 (UTC) [ responder ]
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]
- In that case, having read the sources in the template, I'm inclined to oppose the inclusion of Gaza here. The entry that swayed my opinion most was the Brooking Institute in June saying
A third of scholars see Israel's military actions in Gaza as 'genocide' [34%]
While I'm aware that the article itself mentions that an additional 40 percent of the scholars liken Israeli actions to "major war crimes akin to genocide," I don't consider that a classification of genocide in and of itself. Therefore, the fact that Israeli actions in Gaza amounting to genocide is a minority opinion in what I think it's reasonable to conclude is the segment of the scholarly population most likely to hold that opinion means that don't think Gaza should be included on this list out of an abundance of caution. (And out of a similar abundance of caution, I don't think this list should include any ongoing genocides until the dust has settled, but the implications of that opinion for the list leaves the scope of this RfC.) DecafPotato (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- 😂 Levivich (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ? - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See Argument from incredulity. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would point to the inclusion criteria for this list
are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides
, and if you look at the academic publications in the collated list (see scholarship
), all bar 1 (who terms it genocidal violence [...] to distinguish it from genocide per se
), call Israel's assault on Gaza a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — The real question here is what is the scope of this article? If the criteria is "recognition in significant scholarship as a genocide", as is stated in the lead of this article currently, then clearly this belongs. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include Significant historic genocide that has already been the subject of international decision making in the International Court of Justice. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include. Historians like Pappé have been describing it as a genocide for years. Recent scholarship and international law decisions confirm it.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include Why wouldn't we? The article Gaza genocide exists, the result of a veritable fountain of expert sourcing supporting the view that such a thing is beyond mere assertion, whatever the disagreement.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't include. Just as there are many sources calling it a genocide, there are many others disputing that (see the discussion here). Also, the argument that the relevant article is now named Gaza genocide is spurious and should be ignored by the closer. The move is under review now and in any case Wikipedia is not an RS. Alaexis¿question? 08:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't include - We should avoid including this in the list due to significant controversy and lack of international consensus. The status of events in Gaza as genocide is highly disputed, and there's no unified recognition from the international community. Adding it could compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. Including Gaza in the list of genocides could set a precedent for adding other highly disputed events, potentially leading to an influx of controversial and politically charged entries. This could undermine the integrity and credibility of the list as a whole, making it harder for readers to trust the information presented.Eladkarmel (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include - It's likely that by the end of current conflict, 10% of the population of the strip will have likely perished. I wonder how people would react if this kind of mortality occurred in a western country. Say if some entity eliminated 30 million Americans or something. What kind of language would get bandied about then? My sense is people wouldn't hesitate to call it the "destruction of a people in whole, or in part". NickCT (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how did we arrive at 10%, it's currently ~38,000 people, around 1.7% of Gaza's population (if we accept the Hamas-run sources, which also include an unknown but significant number of Hamas militants). During World War II, approximately 8.23% of Germany's population died. Does this mean the Allies committed genocide against the German people? The answer is no. They were not systematically planned or executed with the intent to exterminate the German population. I don't get this logic. HaOfa (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. It's not measured in deaths. It's measured in bringing about the end of conditions that maintain life and a society, like, I don't know, razing an entire territory to the ground, destroying the civic infrastructure, killing every doctor, scholar, poet and medic, torturing civilians to death in detention centres – all of that fascistic stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The number you cite is deaths directly attributal to conflict (i.e. people hit by bombs and bullets). The number discussed in the Lancet piece I linked to is the excess mortality figure (i.e. it includes things like deaths from the starvation and disease arising from the conflict). I guess the allies weren't really trying to rid a place of Germans (except maybe France), which I guess is what makes the parellel different. NickCT (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HaOfa Gaza MoH figures only include bodies retrieved after Israeli attacks. They don't include excess mortality. Yet, even though the Russians didn't kill a single Ukrainian during the Holodomor – all its 3–5 million victims died of starvation – we consider the event as genocide and include all the indirect deaths in the count. Similarly, I see no reason to exclude indirect deaths from the victim count in Gaza. — kashmīrī TALK 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include: It's a list of "genocides", and the clue is in the name. It's not a list of court-ruled genocides, scholarly consensus genocides or anything else. The very notion of not including Gaza genocide seems to rather spit in the face of the RM and community consensus that determined it be named as such. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is, the article clearly says that it includes only scholarly consensus genocides. HaOfa (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it says "recognised in significant scholarship", which Gaza genocide is, hence the RM result. This is just going to keep going around in circles. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we were to use
scholarly consensus
(which is not the inclusion criteria for the list), looking at the specifically expert opinions published in academic literature you will find all bar 1 (who terms it genocidal violence [...] to distinguish it from genocide per se
) call Israel's assault on Gaza a genocide. Which, at least currently, sounds like a consensus. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include. As the above table demonstrates, the body of academic opinion that this is genocide is large and growing. I also point to the 17-page legal opinion, written in April this year to the British government and signed by over 600 lawyers (including former Supreme Court judges) that has condemned Israel's actions as genocidal (see here). In addition, the ICJ said in its interim ruling on the South African case that Israel would be in breach of the Genocide Convention if it continued to block the provision of aid to Gaza, which it has done. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Include. THE UN did not say that there is a genocide. Only Francesca Albanese and she's clearly a very controvertial figure. As long as most countries do not recognize this as a genocide and academics and experts are divided on this, this remains an extremely minority view, and should not be included in the list. ABHammad (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this rambling comment? The UN isn't particularly relevant here and no one has based their assessment on it, so that's a straw man. Genocides are also not determined by "most countries recognizing them"; I'm not sure if countries recognising genocides has ever been much of thing, let alone a metric that anyone is following. Occasionally there are stories about countries refusing to recognize genocide, but that's normally the accused, like Serbia re: Bosnians; Turkey re: Armenians; etc. The standard here is relevant experts, and to state with any confidence that it's a minority view you'd have to either show more relevant experts rejecting the notion than affirming it, or produce a source that specifically declares it to be a minority scholarly assessment. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ABHammad: The UN said precisely this. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories represents all the UN members and is precisely the UN that speaks. — kashmīrī TALK 09:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Francesca Albanese is a highly controversial figure who has faced criticism from the US, UK, and France for her extreme anti-Israel bias. Some leading figures even described her opinions as bordering on antisemitism. Recently, there have been investigations into her potential connections with Hamas. Since all these controversies exist, and the calls from the US for her dismissal, calling her "the UN that speaks" and using her opinion as the truth is very very problematic. Galamore (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions will be characterized by many as a controversial figure with an anti-Israel bias whose views border on antisemitism. This is true regardless of the role of the person. It is even true for humble Wikipedia editors. The relevant fact of the matter from Wikipedia's perspective is that she is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- US, UK and France are three of Israel's greatest allies/supporters... IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Galamore: This is BLP violation territory, per WP:BLPTALK. I suggest you heavily redact the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Francesca Albanese was not the only UN Special Rapporteur to describe it as genocide. Multiple others have done so as well, including Paula Gaviria Betancur, Michael Fakhri and other UNSRs from relevant areas. TRCRF22 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include The United Nations includes Israel and all of its arms benefactors as a member country. They would deny genocide, wouldn't they? Dozens of reliable sources and scholars of genocide, unconnected from participation in the massive destruction regard it as such, and there's very few examples more clear-cut of genocide than what's happening in Gaza. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include.
The policy question here is which side should be given more WP:WEIGHT: that Gaza genocide is a genocide, or it isn't. There are ~140 entries at Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, but two entries have been endorsed by hundreds of scholars, so lets focus on those:- April: A letter by law experts in the UK wrote "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met". This was signed 59 professors of law and 105 lecturers of law (1,001 lawyers in total).
- May-June: A survey by Middle East Scholar Barometer of 750 of Middle Eastern Studies scholars found: 75% defined Israel's actions as either major war crimes akin to genocide, or genocide, vs 24% who don't.
- Alternatively, we can focus on peer-reviewed scholarly publications in that table published in the last few months. The existence of Gaza genocide is supported by Semerdjian (Journal of Genocide Research, July); Green (State Crime Journal, June); McAlister (Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, June); Ak (Journal of Humanity, Peace and Justice, June); Di-Capua (Journal of Genocide Research, May); Jamshidi (Journal of Genocide Research, May); Sultany (Journal of Genocide Research, May) etc. VR (Please ping on reply) 23:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The policy question here is which side should be given more WP:WEIGHT: that Gaza genocide is a genocide, or it isn't." — This is not true. The current criteria includes any events "recognised in significant scholarship as genocides". We don't need to, and shouldn't, be saying whether or not it is a genocide, but just that there is significant scholarship which considers it to be. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, it turns out that previous consensus was indeed achieved here on the inclusion criteria being "
"that are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides"
". We ought to be following the WP:LISTCRITERIA consistently, and can't exclude a genocide that meets that criteria arbitrarily.
- Don't include. This event is not widely recognized as genocide, and the allegation itself has been described by many as inaccurate and politicized. We should keep this page focused on actual, widely accepted cases. Otherwise, this article, which is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic, could turn into a propaganda page used in future conflicts to attack opponents with unverified allegations. Galamore (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the criteria that is required to be included in this list? VR (Please ping on reply) 11:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include obvious that it meets the list criteria, no serious argument from opposers that it does not. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include.
recognised in significant scholarship as [a genocide]
as per the list criteria.—Alalch E. 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Don't include – The classification of "Gaza genocide" is disputed. We should wait for a clearer consensus before considering inclusion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus isn't the inclusion criteria for this list—blindlynx 15:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Include per Levivich's list of scholarship, it's discussed enough as a genocide to warrant listing. starship.paint (RUN) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include. We already have Gaza genocide, and most of us have eyes and ears with which to see what Israeli politicians say and Israeli soldiers do on a daily basis. xDanielx does raise a good point however: we should be careful what we say in wikivoice. At present the list inclusion criteria is quite lax. The US State Department is in a bit of a pickle here, because if we change the criteria to academic consensus then the Holodomor entry goes. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include. When credible sources refer to it as genocide, why shouldn't it be included? The death toll estimates range from 40,000 to over 186,000 people. Hosein (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include
The classification is disputed, and we should not have an entry on Gaza until such a time as there is consensus in the scholarly sources. Quite frankly, adding "Gaza Genocide" to this list is absolutely taking sides in a contentious political/social dispute. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) After some discussion, I've changed my vote to include on the basis that (a.) there is a more than nominal amount of scholarship alleging that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide and (b.) the article now clearly states that inclusion in the list does not necessarily indicate universal consensus. I believe that the "don't include" votes have raised significant concerns regarding NPOV/due weight; these are concerns that I share. The entry should absolutely reflect that this is a controversial accusation which many reliable sources reject; it should absolutely not be written in wikivoice. My include vote is contingent on the text following our policies on due weight and NPOV; I would much rather not have an entry than have an entry that strays from these principles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]- The present list inclusion criteria does not require scholarly consensus. KetchupSalt (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article specifically requires that entries be “ recognised in significant scholarship as genocides”; any reasonable reader is going to interpret the presence of an entry as meaning there is widespread to undisputed scholarly consensus. If (a.) the quoted language were edited to note that recognition does not mean universal agreement/the absence of significant scholarship to the contrary and (b.) the Gaza entry gives sue weight to academic sources that do not find genocide, I would be willing to include. However, as the article is currently written I do not support inclusion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognition in significant scholarship is already not the same thing as having scholarly consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our inclusion criteria should be fully spelled out and the distinction you identified should be clearly and unambiguously explained within the article itself. Basically, just be fully transparent about our rational. You and I may know the difference between consensus and significant recognition, but many casual readers skimming through the article will not. We’re dealing with a highly controversial subject and I think we need to be extra careful with our wording. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a sentence to this effect in the lead for clarity's sake, feel free to massage it—blindlynx 14:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Given this additional clarification, I’m dropping my objection and will support inclusion of an entry on Gaza. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Include I realized i haven't explicitly stated my position in this discussion yet. For the sake of making the closer's life easier i think we should include given there is significant scholarship calling this a genocide—blindlynx 19:14, 27 August 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]
- I think that we might need to clarify the standard for inclusion a bit. Currently it says the list is things
that are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides
, but this is ambiguous in a way that is leading to the split above - does it mean "significant scholarship exists that describes this as a genocide, even if it's in the minority", or does it mean "the consensus of all significant scholarship on the topic, taken collectively, is that it is a genocide?" Normally I think we use the latter standard for whether to call something a genocide in the article voice or not. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- I'm inclined towards the former reading, mostly because the language parallels WP:WEIGHT. That said we should defiantly explain the state of current scholarly disagreement here for any entry—blindlynx 11:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the latter option — that inclusion requires the consensus of significant scholarship – is best for the article, but I think that this question would be best posed as a separate RfC given its overarching scope. DecafPotato (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a difference between the two, consensus of a significant portion of scholarship can still be in the minority—blindlynx —blindlynx 18:54, 31 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]
- See these two previous discussions which are relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_genocides/Talk:List_of_genocides/Archive_13#Proposed_change_of_the_inclusion_criteria_to_align_with_Genocide_scholarship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_genocides/Talk:List_of_genocides#Inclusion_of_Gaza_genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a rough “include” consensus? The supporters mostly cite, or at least acknowledge, that reliable sources have termed it a genocide; the opposers largely just say it’s “controversial” etc. which seems like WP:UNDUE weight to biased and non-expert sources Dronebogus (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't support inclusion, but yes, it does appear that there is a (contested) consensus to include. I'd say that this has now been adequately discussed and merits inclusion. CAVincent (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't make the sweeping conclusion that "reliable sources sources have termed it a genocide" when many of the academic sources being referenced here are published in fields that will effectively publish anything that agrees with the conclusion: "the Western world is bad". As editors, we shouldn't be expected to eschew our own editorial judgement of these low-quality sources just because they're associated with academia. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean genocide scholars in the field of genocide studies? Perhaps you could name the genocide scholars you take umbrage with as merely reactionary figures with no expertise? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That the Western world is bad is objectively true though; reality has a well-known Marxist bias. You'd need sources that contradict what we can see with our own eyes to claim otherwise. KetchupSalt (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DCON,
consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue
. Most arguments against inclusion are either asserting that it is a fringe or minority view (which Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate shows is clearly not true) or simply claiming without evidence that the experts are wrong. I am by no means an expert in policy, but I would agree that there is a consensus to include. TRCRF22 (talk) 06:45, 29 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.
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]
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]
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:
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]
- Notified the standalone lists and MoS/Lists talk pages: diff, diff—Alalch E. 00:54, 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]
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]
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 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.
- "Oliver Cromwell offered Irish Catholics a choice between genocide and forced mass population transfer". - Albert Breton, Nationalism and Rationality
- "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
- "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
- "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
- "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
- "It was to be the justification for Cromwell's genocidal campaign and settlement" - Peter Beresford Ellis, Eyewitness to Irish history
- "[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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 ]
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 ]