Talk:List of genocides/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Suggested improvement on the category of Polish lives lost during WW2 as a result of anti polish Soviet aggression

This article mentions the Polish Operation of the NKVD but only includes the lives lost on Polish soil as a result of executions of Polish officers and intelligentia by the NKVD. This atrocity was part of a much larger atrocity perpetrated by the NKVD and thus the figure given potentially severly underesimates loss of Polish lives. This is summarised by the Wikipedia page Soviet Repressions of Polish Citizens and in much more detail by multiple monographs, papers and books (reference Trail of Hope by Prof. Norman Davies. Osprey Publ. 2015). Esimtates vary enourmously but the one cited by Prof Davies estimates that of 1,200,000 Poles who were deported to the USSR, only about 250,000 were known to have made it out of the USSR alive. An unreferenced estimate of those who died are given in the Soviet Repressions wikipedia article as 150,000 which is much higher than the one in this list but is still potentially much lower than the true death toll given that of 1.2 million deportees, only 250,000 were known to have made it out of the USSR. As the Polish minority in Russia (see wikipedia article under this title) is estimated as 47,000 then it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of the deportees died in the USSR, thus the potential upper estimate of this death toll which should be noted in this article is 950,000. THis part of the list definitely needs attention from a qualified historian who is an expert in this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.80 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Gukurahundi?

Gukurahundi is a genocide that took place in Zimbabwe in the 1980s and it is referred to as the one on the corresponding Wikipedia page. Shouldn't it be added into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.47.145 (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Holodomor Deaths

Naimark’s book gratuitously ascribes genocidal motive to Stalin while the sources he uses contradict his narrative. He cites Kuromiya who puts the Ukrainian death toll at 4 million (Stalin: Profiles in Power p.93). Kuromiya uses Davies and Wheatcroft’s volume as citation who acknowledge that Ukranian demographers place ukranian deaths at 3.5 million (VOL 5: The Years of Hunger, Preface to Revised Edition, p. xiv). The authors acknowledge that even this is too high and, additional citing Kuromiya, do not ascribe genocidal motive to Stalin. Indeed their estimates from 1932-33 are radically lower throughout the whole USSR (at 4 million) in their in-depth survey (ibid. p 412). There was a famine, it was not a genocide, and numbers are greatly exaggerated all the way up from the Hearst coverage in the 30’s. Simply fact checking the sources proves that Holodomor should not be listed as a genocide on this page. 2600:1011:B05A:FC30:60FE:177D:5200:51F (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess it’s your word against Naimark’s. The source is good. Please dispute it at WP:RSN.

I added another, Oxford Bibliographies on International Relations.  —Michael Z. 23:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Naimark quotes Kuromiya: “at least 4 million in Ukraine.” Naimark says “Three to five million of this number died in Ukraine and in the heavily Ukrainian-populated northern Kuban,” where Stalin murdered Ukrainians by hunger and decisively destroyed Ukrainian national identity at the same time. There is no inconsistency. Anonymous’s analysis is selective. —Michael Z. 23:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Definition of genocide and Holodomor

Why is the Holodomor called a genocide, it wasn't targeted towards a specific group and the according to the CPPCG a genocide is

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Crainsaw (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been pointed out many times, as has the fact that the genocide narrative is a form of Holocaust denialism. So far this has fallen on deaf ears. Moreover WP itself considers the question contentious given the existence of the Holodomor genocide question article, thus making the listing here POV- KetchupSalt (talk) KetchupSalt (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean “the genocide narrative”? Are you trying to say that recognizing any other genocides than the Holocaust is Holocaust denial? Or just the Holodomor, for some reason I can’t conceive of? Sounds like a fringe POV.

Recent historiography unequivocally tells us that “For the past two decades, this scholarship has largely been dominated by the debate about whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide.”[1] It does not tell us that anyone considers it “denialism” of the Holocaust. In fact, Holodomor studies has become a mainstream part of genocide studies (cf. a section in Naimark 2016, Genocide: A World History,[2] and a major section in Oxford Bibliographies’ long article “20th Century Genocides”).[3]

Could you explain how citing the Holocaust to deny the Holodomor is not Holodomor denialism?  —Michael Z. 16:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I am referencing double genocide theory and the work of Kristen Ghodsee. I have read Naimark. He admits there is no evidence supporting mens rea on the part of the Soviet leadership. Therefore Article 2 does not apply.

Could you explain how citing the Holocaust to deny the Holodomor is not Holodomor denialism?

Do any of the Soviet leaders write long screeds seeking the destruction of the Ukrainian nation? Do they make speeches and radio and film appearances proclaiming this to be the goal of the CPSU and of the peoples of the Soviet Union? Do they publish story after story accusing the Ukrainian nation of all the USSR's ills? No they do not.

The entire point of the double genocide narrative is false equivocation. Supposedly the Soviets were "just as bad if not worse" than the Nazis. This is the Noltean position. WP should not be keeping it alive. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I can’t make sense of that. What is the relevance of your questions? None of the articles you cite make the assertion you make. You have cited no sources as making the assertion you make. Does Naimark say “article 2 of the Genocide Convention does not apply,” or is that just you?

From here it looks like you are pushing a personal WP:FRINGE theory.  —Michael Z. 08:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You might disagree, but its strange that you would have never heard of the double genocide theory. Thankfully, KetchupSalt has helpfully linked it. Parabolist (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you read carefully you’ll see I acknowledged their links to articles which do not make the assertion that they made.  —Michael Z. 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Classifying the Holodomor as a genocide is controversial, and you know that. The reasons it is controversial are contained in the links. Referring to the "genocide narrative" isn't denying the Holodomor, it's clearly referencing the debate over its classification as a genocide. Parabolist (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The classification of the Holodomor has indeed been a matter of academic debate, none of which has anything to do with double genocide theory, and you two haven’t offered a shred of evidence to the contrary.  —Michael Z. 23:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

What a baffling response. I think anyone reading this could click double genocide theory and see how strange it is to say that is has nothing to do with the debate over the Holodomor's classification of a genocide. I don't even know how to respond to this comment? Odd. Parabolist (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn’t say what you are saying about the Holodomor. It doesn’t even mention the Holodomor. You have offered not a single reliable source that says what you are saying about the Holodomor, nor even one that relates the double genocide theory to the Holodomor in any way.

I am repeating myself. This discussion is just talking in circles about literally nothing. I’ll try to disengage, but please interpret my silence as continued opposition to your completely unfounded assertions.  —Michael Z. 07:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned Ghodsee as a source several times. Getty as well, who clearly bears quoting again:

The overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois’s co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan. Are deaths from a famine cause by the stupidity and incompetence of a regime . . . to be equated with the deliberate gassing of Jews?

It is precisely this equivocation that makes it Holocaust denial. But even besides that, the fact that the classification is controversial even here on WP means that the inclusion here is WP:POV. KetchupSalt (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no sources cited.  —Michael Z. 14:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Other than the one quoted? Parabolist (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no citation for that quotation.  —Michael Z. 07:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, page 124 which in turn points to. Michael Ellman's "Socialist Planning" touches on this as well, and neither Getty nor Ellman appear sympathetic toward Leninism. KetchupSalt (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I have little memory of what we were discussing almost a month ago and no time to read all of that right now. Can you just restate your thesis with the supporting quotations?

Take into consideration that I did find Ghodsee’s one reference to the Holodomor, where she writes the following:

Getty writes: “The overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois’s co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan. Are deaths from a famine cause by the stupidity and incompetence of a regime . . . to be equated with the deliberate gassing of Jews?”

The idea that the Holodomor was caused by “bungling” is not taken seriously by scholars of the subject, as far as I know certainly wasn’t when Ghodsee wrote that in 2014, and probably not when Getty wrote the article she cites in 2000.

If this is your one great source, I will probably find it hard to take seriously. On the surface it seems to discredit Ghodsee and Getty as sources on the Holodomor.

Anyway, perhaps something in there does connect the “double genocide theory” to the Holodomor, so please let me know if it does. Has any Holodomor scholar ever written about it?  —Michael Z. 02:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The question remains one of intent to genocide, a necessary criterion for Article 2 to apply. For example Naimark admits that there is no concrete evidence that Stalin had genocide in mind, nor should we expect that he did given what the man himself has written on the national question. Naimark conjectures that Stalin and his lieutenants "allowed it to happen", and that this constitutes genocide. Indeed in the conclusion of "Stalin's Genocides" Naimark explicitly expands the definition of genocide outside that of the UN definition, so that for example the mass execution of reactionaries or the liquidation of certain classes (kulaks, landlords etc) can also be considered genocide. The notion that the mass killing of say bankers should be equivalent to the mass killing of Jews has obvious unfortunate implications. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Stalin is immaterial, although Naimark writes that there is “not a lot of evidence,” not no concrete evidence that he ordered it, and regarding intent that “he did want to destroy them as the enemy nation he perceived them to be.” Naimark writes that the Holodomor was a genocide following the legal precedent of the Srebrenica massacre decision. He counts off the difficulties in analyzing the famine as a genocide, and addresses each one concluding that it was one. What Naimark writes about the UN convention is either specific to dekulakization or in line with “the subsequent development of international law.” Your “bankers” talk has nothing to do with his classification of the Holodomor as a genocide against Ukrainians.

Your arguments misrepresent the source on substantial points.  —Michael Z. 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Order by date

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

---

This is a list of historical events. Let’s set the default sort order by the “From” date of each event, instead of the “Lowest estimate” of death toll column.

The list should not place WP:UNDUE emphasis on absolute numbers, or imply that some genocide is more significant than another because of sheer numbers. The sortable column headings let the reader easily rank the numbers if desired, anyway.

There are five different acts that each can legally define genocide on its own, and three of them are not causes of death: Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide. See also my proposal in #Requested move 22 December 2022, above, for more details relating to the rationale.  —Michael Z. 16:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This would also have the benefit of being able to place genocides in historical context. For example how the Holocaust was modeled after the North American genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the purpose of this list is raw numbers of deaths, which is interesting in itself. It is not proposing to be a comprehensive list of genocides (it is quite incomplete). I'd expect a list organized by time (or some other criteria) would be more comprehensive than this. Which is why I opposed the move above. This list is kinda what is says it is ("by death toll"). It is not saying it is something else. I'd prefer the list you're suggesting would be a separate page. Walrasiad (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand any of the logic in that argument. And where did you get the notion that this is not a growing list and is intended to be non-comprehensive?

All lists are incomplete until completed. This one is proposing to be comprehensive as much as a fork of it with an altered title would be, and I don’t know why you would expect anything different. There is no indication of any limits. The difference is literally three words and the table order.

Any list(s) of genocides must satisfy the content policies (WP:STANDALONE#Content policies), including WP:NPOV. In my opinion, the emphasis on absolute numbers is a POV that gives undue weight and potentially supports misapprehensions about what constitutes genocides. It also fails to respond to the stated list criteria, because the UN’s definition of genocide has nothing to do with numbers.

I’m proposing this list retain the exact same content (including whatever level of comprehensiveness consensus leads to), but without that inappropriate emphasis.  —Michael Z. 17:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A list organized by death toll numbers is POV? That sounds POV. Are you trying to say death tolls are a meaningless number? That's a little suspicious, frankly. It makes me suspect you want to minimize the significance of heavier-toll genocides. And that sounds very POV.

Numbers are what they are. Many people are interested in lists of this type. Sure, "list of cites by population" doesn't give you as good an understanding of urban areas as listing them by population density. Yet people are still interested in a list of cities by size. I don't see a reason not to have this page organized the way it is. It is certainly desired by many readers.

As to time-scaled pages of genocides, with all the subtlety required, we have plenty of them, starting with the umbrella article Genocides in History, and its child pages, which go through them chronologically: Genocides in history (before World War I), Genocides in history (World War I through World War II), Genocides in history (1946 to 1999), Genocides in history (21st century). If you prefer lists, then there are list pages covering nearly the same topic organized chronologically, e.g. List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Walrasiad (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, numbers are what they are. Ranking crimes according to certain numbers elevates some of them according to a certain POV. This POV defies the logic of the Genocide Convention, which doesn’t require any particular numbers to constitute the ultimate crime. “In whole or in part.” “As such.” It codifies genocidal crimes that do not require even a single killing.

“It is certainly desired by many readers.” [Citation needed], and WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, or rather it is not formulated to pander to the speculative desires of the mass majority (that is a definition of clickbait, not an encyclopedia). It is a repository of encyclopedic information according to reliable sources.

Naimark 2017, Genocide: A World History, for example, discusses genocides organized by historical categories, not by numbers.

But if the consensus is to keep the emphasis on larger numbers of killings here, then I will just create a separate List of genocides.  —Michael Z. 17:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's just numbers. A list of numbers is convenient and desired. This list has been searched for and accessed a lot. The numbers are all sourced from RSs. Numbers are just numbers, they are not making any POV point. The only one who seems to be pushing a POV is you. Which is concerning.

There is no either/or here. There are plenty of chronologically-arranged pages and lists on this topic. A death toll numbers list is desirable in itself, and a useful supplement to the topic. Nobody is stopping you from making another list the way you desire it. Forgive my suspicions, but it seems like you're trying to suppress numbers, and I can't help but wonder why. Walrasiad (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Walrasiad, what are you implying about me?  —Michael Z. 19:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a very strange and rude way of arguing. Genocides don't come from nowhere, they are always preceded by other forms of oppression against the victimized group. There's always historical context. Genocide is not a competition.

On creating a separate List of genocides I think that would be unwise as it would split efforts. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@User:KetchupSalt, @User:Walrasiad, can we revisit this as the list has been renamed? If we still can’t agree, I will ask for more opinions in the relevant WikiProjects. —Michael Z. 17:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Since this conversation is inert for two weeks, I have started an RFC below at #RFC on table sort order. —Michael Z. 22:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The sorting by number of deaths is off: the Third Punic War, Armenian massacres of 1894–1896 Ottoman Empire, and Parsley massacre seem to sort as if the death totals are divided by 1000 (e.g. the highest estimate for Third Punic War is 450,000, but it sorts as if the figure is 450.) I'm not sure how to fix this, so I thought I'd flag it here. Aaiqbal (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The table is, or should be, ordered by date now, since consensus in #RFC on table sort order, below.  —Michael Z. 21:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Ukrainian genocide

There is an increasing number of organisations and academics calling a part of the Invasion of Ukraine, a genocide (as also called by some politicians in Russia). Should it be included now or later? 51.155.213.25 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rundown in Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The New Lines/Wallenberg report in particular is a strong source supporting that incitement to genocide, a crime against the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, is being committed, and that there is a serious risk that genocide to be committed or already being committed, that the obligation to prevent on parties to the convention has been triggered.

I suggest:

• Event: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Location: Ukraine
• From: February 24, 2022
• To: ongoing
• Lowest: [the UN’s confirmed number of civilian casualties]
• Highest: [the highest reliable estimate]

 —Michael Z. 00:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it is too early to list events in the Ukraine war as a genocide. I think we should wait until more information is avaliable, like other genocides, and until more groups refer to these killings as unequivocally a genocide. We should be extremely cautious when adding to this list, especially when it refers to ongoing events. The word "genocide" also has a very specific meaning: killing with the intention to destroy the cultural group. I doubt that we will be able to say much about the actual intention of many of the killings until the war is over, and until scholarship and organisation reports are published, which will be the best time to add this to the list. --Spekkios (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Legal genocide is not defined by killing, but by risk to the target group (although we know that killing has been committed). This list’s inclusion criteria, i.e., the defining terms, refer to the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which 1) defines 5 genocidal acts which may each on its own comprise genocide, 4 of which are not killing (art. II, and a reason we renamed the list), but all five of which the Russian Federation has committed in Ukraine, and 2) triggers the obligation to prevent on state parties before genocide occurs, i.e., when there is a risk of genocide (arts. I, VIII). Genocide is not like murder, defined to preserve the rights of an accused individual by only existing after a perpetrator has been convicted in court: it is defined by the target group’s right to exist and the risk to that existence, and not by waiting for years of court proceedings. Experts have already determined that incitement to genocide (also a crime against the convention) and the risk of genocide already exist. —Michael Z. 16:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless actual proof exists Russian has a plan to destroy the entire Ukrainian country or their people this does not pass per what the genocide convention says… Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No. That is a blatant misinterpretation. The Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide does not have any words to that effect, but says the opposite:

• It says “or in part,” meaning “the entire” is absolutely wrong (and which a court upheld in the Bosnian genocide case).
• It says “as such” (which the same court further interpreted positively as including planning to destroy a target group in only a restricted scope).
• (It lists five crimes that each can constitute genocide on their own, and therefore not requiring physical destruction, in case that is what’s meant above.)

 —Michael Z. 07:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

On 2022-05-27, a major report (reference above) said that Russia was violating the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide by inciting genocide (including by statements from at least 2014 onwards), was committing all five acts listed in the convention, and may have started committing actual genocide. Russia has continued doing so for nearly a full year since.

On 2023-03-17, the International Criminal Court, during its investigations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Ukraine, issued an arrest warrant for the president of Russia.

On 2023-04-27, “the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has voted that the forced detention and deportation of children from Russian occupied territories of Ukraine is ‘genocide,’ at a session on Thursday.”[4][5]  —Michael Z. 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Meas_Muth,_Ta_Chan,_Armenian_Genocide!

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocides_in_history&diff=prev&oldid=1153767966#Khmer_Rouge_Genocide_Criminals:_Meas_Muth,_Ta_Chan,_Armenian_Genocide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.62.68.2 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Tamil's genocide in Sri Lanka

The details are there in this wiki link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#:~:text=According%20to%20Tamil%20Center%20for,beginning%20of%20the%20civil%20war although I wonder why kt has not been added hundreds of thousands were killed in a war that lasted over 25 years. 103.76.188.239 (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this deserves inclusion. Please make a specific edit request.  — Freoh 13:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Alied Genocide 1944-1946

I miss the allied genocide on ethnic germans in middleeast europe where 3-4 Millions persihed in a rather short time, whole provinces populated 100& german for 8 centuries were wiped out...

Or is a Genocide only a genocide if the victim was the winner in the end? 194.230.148.88 (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources that describe this genocide?  — Freoh 13:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

At no point did the Allies intend the destruction of the German nation. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Union and its client states conducted ethnic cleansing in parts of Germany and Poland, and forced resettlements in other places. If any of these are considered genocide in reliable sources, we should consider adding them (Soviet deportations of the Chechens and Ingush, and the Crimean Tatars are already listed).  —Michael Z. 23:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The main article is Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). "The death toll attributable to the flight and expulsions is disputed, with estimates ranging from 500,000–600,000 and up to 2 to 2.5 million." Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There was also the Polish population transfers (1944–1946) and Operation Vistula.  —Michael Z. 13:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

American Indian genocides

What are only the California Indian genecides acknowledged? What about the rest of the Native American nations subjected to genocidal war campaigns and other murderous efforts ??! 2603:8000:A742:E9D:9014:9855:7B43:F17F (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think for lack of anyone digging up suitable sources. Sven Lindqvist makes the same point as you, that the colonization of the Americas amounts to one large genocide. But there is resistance among some editors to add such an entry, see the archives. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree that we should include this genocide. Please make a specific edit request.  — Freoh 17:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss whether to list each constituent genocide separately, or all of them as part of one big genocidal project as Lindqvist does, or both, so as to not diminish the severity of it. I've been reading about the Spanish slaughters lately, and it's utterly horrifying stuff. The enslavement, torture and decimation of the Taino, the Mexica, the Inca and the Maya just to name a few. There are more, many more than we perhaps have time to list. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the best solution might be to restructure this page as a timeline rather than a table. Then, it would be easy subdivide genocidal campaigns using different bullet levels. (A downside would be that it would be impossible to sort by death count, but given how contentious those numbers can be, that might be a good thing.) Maybe it would be worth asking WikiProject Lists for their input?  — Freoh 16:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe color coding could be useful? Or perhaps a column categorizing events to specific campaigns. KetchupSalt (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I was considering adding a campaign column, but I think that there are already too many columns. It makes it harder to read when a full paragraph is squeezed into one of many tiny columns.  — Freoh 15:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Typos

The "proportion of groups killed" in the Guatemalan genocide tab says that people "where killed" instead of "were killed." This mistake is repeated in note 11, where it states people "where killed and sent to re-education camps." Brassmonkey3212 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

The lower estimate for the number of Bengalis killed in the genocide of 1971 comes from a BBC source that states this estimate comes from “independent researchers”. After through searching, this “research” appears to be from estimates from foreign sources, mostly Pakistani government, or were made during the genocide and do not reflect the full number of those killed. It is also important to note that one of the lower estimates is supported by the C.I.A. during Nixon and Kissinger’s time in office. Both were direct supporters of the Pakistani regime and strongly opposed Bengali independence (please see source 1 New Yorker article on main article “Bangladeshi genocide”). Ergo, it is safe to assume this bound is biased. 2601:1C0:4701:2D00:3D50:3C38:7975:DB21 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• The edit request process is only for proposing specific changes, in the format of "Change X text to Y text" If you just want to discuss some aspect of this article, it may be done without marking it as an edit request.

That said, a source being biased does not preclude its use on Wikipedia(as all sources and people have biases), unless you are alleging that the source is so biased that it is making things up out of whole cloth, which you don't seem to be. If you have sources with what you believe to be more accurate information, please offer them, if you do, perhaps we have a range of casualty figures. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Please change the lower estimate of Bengalis killed from 300,000 to the more accurate 1.5 million as found through Rummel. The lower estimate for the number of Bengalis killed in the genocide of 1971 comes from a BBC source that states this estimate comes from “independent researchers”. After through searching, this “research” appears to be from estimates from foreign sources, mostly Pakistani government, or were made during the genocide and do not reflect the full number of those killed. It is also important to note that one of the lower estimates is supported by the C.I.A. during Nixon and Kissinger’s time in office. Both were direct supporters of the Pakistani regime and strongly opposed Bengali independence (please see source 1 New Yorker article on main article “Bangladeshi genocide”). Ergo, it is safe to assume this bound is biased. 2601:1C0:4701:2D00:3D50:3C38:7975:DB21 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Callmemirela 🍁 14:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The highest estimate for Bosnian Genocide is above the generally used statistics which only represent a lower estimate

Highest estimate for number of victims of Bosnian genocide should be 156,000

Change “31,107–39,199” into “156,500”

You can also change lowest estimate from “Just over 8,000” into “31,107” Because considering Srebrenica alone to be a genocide is wrong when other towns shared a similar fate.

Source: Burg, Steven L.; Shoup, Paul S. (1999). The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention (2nd ed.). M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-3189-3. 77.77.216.26 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: thanks for your request! Your edit request isn't likely to be answered unless you provide a link to some digital material of the book so that we can check this. The only other chance is that another reviewer has access to that book, which isn't very likely. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cocobb8 Firstly, read Wikipedia:Offline sources and then visit a library. 81.214.107.198 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL, I recommend you stop using bad words now please. Otherwise, I will be forced to report you. If this continues, you will be reported. Thank you for your understanding. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cocobb8 Do not cite pages that you have not read or know nothing about. 81.214.107.198 (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I really think you should start being more WP:NICE please. This is my last warning, or I will request administrator attention. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's my advice to you: Try accessing the sources first before denying them. 81.214.107.198 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Here we go. I'm glad that we are being more cordial. Yes, I understand I may have done something wrong here. The best thing would have been to let someone else with access to the source verify this. Furthermore, I did not deny at all, just provided the person who made the request to add a digital link to the source to make our work quicker. Until then, this request is now  on hold until someone with access to the source can take a look at it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to be this rude. The text is available on libgen. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:COPYVIOEL. 81.214.107.198 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In which way is it a WP:COPYVIOEL? Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This way: Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. 81.214.107.198 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Is libgen a website publishing books illegally? If that is the case, then yes it is a WP:COPYVIOEL. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, though it seems that the numbers are radically different mostly because there is disagreement about which deaths to include in the genocide, not because of disagreement over whether the people died or not. I am not sure if there is a better way to reflect this.  — Freoh 17:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Uyghur Concentration Camps

Shouldn't there be a section about the ongoing Uyghur Genocide in China. It was even confirmed recently in a report by the UN and there have been laws passed to forcibly assimilate the Uyghurs into the majority Han Chinese, along with the resettlement of many Han into the historically Uyghur region of Xinjiang, which both work to reduce the ethnic Uyghur populations. Not to mention the internment camps in the area which have been run by the Chinese government to "reeducate" the Muslim Uyghur population, along with attempts to eliminate their religious ties. 98.162.187.50 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all you would need to provide sources. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of sources in our article Uyghur genocide which could easily and usefully be included here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Pict & Maetae Genocide

210AD-debated finish date , Septimius Severus Emperor of the Roman Empire ordered a complete genocide on attacking “Caledonian” forces north of Hadrians wall towards the end of his reign. The sources of the results show that the genocides of the Roman forces caused a clearance of valuable, usable farm land and a re-taking of native forests taking 80+ years to recover to the previous , indicating a massive wipeout of the ancient population as what we now know as Scotland ( specified areas Angus , Fife , Perthshire and Clackmannanshire ). Making it one of the most devastating genocides in European history from original population in the area and for time taken to recover. 31.94.35.11 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

Per Template:Number table sorting add nts parameter to fields where it is missing under List of genocides section, so that the table sorts properly (see Parsley Massacre, Third Punic War, Armenian massacres of 1894–1896) Zach99998 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

Based on this source and source, Add Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the list. Parham wiki (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Give the numbers that you want to be added. Cherrell410 (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In the List of genocides section of the article, write Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Event, in Location write Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, in Country write Ukraine, in "from" write 2022, in "to" write Present and the two lowest fields Put estimate and highest estimate together, Like "from" and "to" the Rwandan genocide, and write 494. source of the dead Parham wiki (talk) 9:29 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I think this might need wider discussion as to what extent this constitutes 'Genocide', given that it is only child abductions - and I'm not condoning it - rather than actual murders. I would advise starting a new section to gain the opinions of other editors. Closing request thus. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Parham wiki (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

In "See also" section add:

• Democide#Application. Don Stroud (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I worry that given the content that appears immediately under that heading around number of deaths from various political regimes that it could be taken as POV pushing around "Communist genocides"/"deaths from Communism" and falsely equating those with genocides of specific ethnic etc groups. I'd be okay adding a link to the beginning of Democide though. Thoughts? Lizthegrey (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Approve. Please add a link to Democide article. Don Stroud (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Spanish genocide (i cannot publish it)

during war, systematic extrajudicial executions done by the coup army, and during the francoist repression or white terror done by civil guard and others. 500,000+ refugees 130,199 summary executions 114,226 cases of enforced disappearance 30,960 cases of stolen children 2,382 mass graves 180 concentration camps http://globalstudies.msu.edu/events/contexts-can-spanish-genocide-speak/?fbclid=IwAR0Ww_7ffnDJYFJLvFzhaLG0ZbHI_2uWuvfpWlYuo4jWxUq6uOVQM9LvUqo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayozek (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Central and South American genocide (i cannot publish it)

the largest genocide so far, it's involved the Vatican, Karl V of the Augsburg royal house and german bankers Jacob Fugger and Welser family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welser_family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayozek (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Remains from previously existing section 'Native American genocide'

(These links were added on 24 August 2021 in this change together with text that is now gone, likely archived:)

https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:8480:3580:d978:ed58:fcfc:1058 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Several sources referred to Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine as genocide. According to the Genocide Convention, child abduction is genocide, so it should be added to the list. Parham wiki (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this should be added now. Last week New Lines Institute published a report saying Russia is continuing and escalating genocide in Ukraine.[6]  —Michael Z. 14:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion: Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1#Requested move 4 August 2023.  —Michael Z. 15:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Add Uyghur genocide to this article. Uyghur genocide has plenty of reliable sources. It is strange that Uyghur genocide was already added into the article last year, but someone else secretly removed it. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:357A:C9DF:9D11:1110 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Mzajac Courtesy tagging since he added it in last year. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:357A:C9DF:9D11:1110 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This was previously discussed:

• Talk:List of genocides/Archive 3#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020 (October 2020)
• Talk:List of genocides/Archive 7#Uyghur genocide (February 2021)
• Talk:List of genocides/Archive 9#Uyghur genocide (October 2022)

Main objections were that this was then a list of genocides by death toll, although the inclusion criteria didn’t seem to require having one even then. Other objections were that this is not a genocide, although I’d argue that the title of the article Uyghur genocide and its inclusion in categories such as Category:Genocides in Asia indicates there is consensus to consider it as such, and therefore it is justified for inclusion in this list with its inclusion criteria in mind.

I added it on October 9, 2022,[7]. It was deleted by @Florian Blaschke on December 20, 2022.[8] Sorry I hadn’t noticed. The comment on removal was that it was unsourced, so I will restore it and try to find suitable reference from the main article. —Michael Z. 21:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done[9]  —Michael Z. 21:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Removal of "Native American Genocide"

The article disclaimer states that the list "only considers acts which are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides by the legal definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

None of the sources show that outside of specific events, such as the California genocide, that the disease mortality estimates (for which there is extreme uncertainty given uncertainty of both population estimates and population decline) in any way shape or form meet the legal definition of genocide as per the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The 'genocide' being referred to here is the interaction of tens of milillons of people across centuries of which most mortality is attributed to disease which likewise killed tens of millions in the 'Old World.'

To quote Grenke 2005, p. 199: "For the most part, however, the diseases that decimated the Natives were caused by natural contact. These Native peoples were greatly weakened, and as a result, they were less able to resist the Europeans. However, diseases themselves were rarely the sources of the genocides nor were they the sources of the deaths which were caused by genocidal means. The genocides were caused by the aggressive actions of one group towards another."

Even Russel Thornton has pointed out that there were disastrous epidemics and population losses during the first half of the sixteenth century “resulting from incidental contact, or even without direct contact, as disease spread from one American Indian tribe to another.”  Thornton has also challenged higher Indigenous population estimates, which are based on the Malthusian assumption that “populations tend to increase to, and beyond, the limits of the food available to them at any particular level of technology."

PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed per the outcome of this RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh and KetchupSalt:, I see in the archive that you two discussed this, so I'm letting you know why I removed it. This was a long running dispute, so I opened an RFC to determine consensus. The result was pretty solidly not to include it as a single event on the list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

For a while I read what PresidentCoriolanus wrote as claiming that there was no genocidal intent whatsoever, which would be silly. For example Hernán Cortés' conquest of the Maya used the already spreading diseases to great effect. Likewise the deliberate spread of disease by English colonists is well documented, and there can be little doubt that such acts did not have genocidal intent. But these are more isolated events. The Indian Wars may serve as a good entry, and I wouldn't be surprised that there are sources listing the number of dead, and the genocidal intent is clear. The introduction of distilled alcohol also plays a role in the destruction of the aboriginal American nations.

I agree the extrapolation of population figures, especially for a largely hunter-gatherer economy, is dubious. Some authors may unwittingly apply capitalist mores on a pre-capitalist continent. Just because England experienced immense squalor thanks to industrialization and the dispossession of the peasantry does not mean the pre-contact Americas was anything like England. The myth of the tragedy of the commons follows a similar incorrect line of thinking that peasants (and hunter-gatherers) are stupid.

I will point out that not fitting the UN definition of genocide has not been a hindrance to adding other events to this list. Lack of intent is no hindrance to some editors, logic be damned. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many instances of genocidal intent and massacres committed by European-American and Native American populations alike in the 500 years of post-contact history. The California genocide and other identifiable genocides are already included in the article. There are grounds to include other massacres as well.

<br>

But even with massacres such as the Conquest of the Desert we should be careful when earmarking them for inclusion. Initially, I thought that should be included, but after further reading, it is clear there was not a genocidal intent with Adolfo Alsina, Minister of War under President Nicolás Avellaneda, stating the goal was "to populate the desert, and not to destroy the Indians." Like many conflicts in the Americas, they are complex, in this case the government signed a peace treaty with a Chieftain but he broke it a short time later and massacred 400 Argentinians. Yet in the subsequent retaliation, 1000 Mapuche including civilians were killed. It would be an autochthonous bias to list one massacre in the conflict and not the other.

<br>

The consideration of the ongoing spread of disease in the planning of strategy for conquest is not necessarily genocidal. According to the Spanish conquest of the Maya page, conquistadors wanted to 'convert and pacify' the population (which I would consider a form of cultural genocide). The page states that "although disease was responsible for the majority of deaths, Spanish expeditions and internecine warfare between indigenous groups also played their part" which is correct, but this is applicable to most of the world. The tens of millions of deaths from the same diseases in the old world occurred across centuries too, centuries with thousands of conflicts.

"Likewise the deliberate spread of disease by English colonists is well documented" - KetchupSalt

A proponent of the characterization of coexistence, conflict, and tens of millions of interactions across 500 years of history, Jeffery Ostler, himself states in his book, Surviving genocide : Native nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas:

"Some writers have provided examples of Europeans intentionally inflicting Indians with disease (usually through blankets infected with smallpox) and argued for their typicality. But the evidence marshalled thus far has failed to dislodge a scholarly consensus that the intentional infliction of disease was rare."

<br>

There is at least one documented instance of military commanders discussing the possibility, but not as far as I am aware any proof that it was ever actually carried out. According to an interview for History.com, historian Philip Ranlet of Hunter College says that:

<br>

"'There is no evidence that the scheme worked,”'Ranlet says. 'The infection on the blankets was apparently old, so no one could catch smallpox from the blankets. Besides, the Indians just had smallpox—the smallpox that reached Fort Pitt had come from Indians—and anyone susceptible to smallpox had already had it.'"

<br>

"'That’s the one documented case that we have,' says Paul Kelton, a historian at Stony Brook University, and author of two books on the role of epidemics in the European takeover of the Americas. It’s not known whether Bouquet actually followed up on Amherst’s letter and made additional attempts on his own to spread smallpox to the Native Americans, he says."

<br>

If the Indian Wars are included, which involved a variety of conflicts with a variety of objectives, with massacres conducted by both sides. the list should then be expanded to include all wars in history that involved displacement or massacres. Or every instance of displacement should be included (that of Pied Noirs, the Roman exile of the Jews, etc). Thousands if not tens of thousands of wars of territorial expansion have occurred in history (the ancient Chinese wars of expansion were actually some of the most deadly and should then be included). Not against inclusion, just the list should then be consistent. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

We still can't do line breaks here... PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Try using {{pb}} instead of <br>. It looks like whatever editor you're using is applying nowiki tags to the line break tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There is at least one documented instance of military commanders discussing the possibility, but not as far as I am aware any proof that it was ever actually carried out. It was at least attempted, but yes we don't know whether it was effective or whether it happened more than once. The fort Pitt incident may have been one of expedience. I did a quick search and came up with this history.com article (which I guess is the one you mention) and this allthatsinteresting.com article. But this is mostly an aside.

I agree we shouldn't inflate the meaning of genocide. In fact doing so is a popular tactic of Holocaust deniers. In the end we have to go with what reliable sources say. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking a bit about it, estimating the pre-contact population is similar to counting trees in a forest. This text by Lewis Lord even mentions planimetry, which is the tool traditionally used in forestry. Kroeber's one person per 256 ha estimate sounds quite low, just on the grounds of game yield. An interesting question, but still, population decline alone does not a genocide make. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

1793-1794 French Genocide: The Vendée

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2023

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

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

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