Talk:List of genocides/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Jewish genocide during the Russian White Terror

In this revert the "Jewish genocide during the Russian White Terror" was reinstated to the list, linking to White Terror (Russia)#White Terror in Southern and Western Russia (missing section). Besides the text and target link being inaccurate (multiple sides (almost all of them) - see Template:Pogroms in Ukraine 1918–1920 for a short summary - were involved) - these pogroms are generally not described as a genocide. Any supporting references to them being a genocide? Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A general note. Does everybody agree that, if the article becomes a list of the events that are described as genocide in at least one source, that means that the article becomes a collection of minority views?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It would also become a collection of just about every mass killing that ever occurred - as there is almost always a source that will call them genocide. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that we need more sourcing than just one or two reliable sources. But do we want to limit the list to cases where a majority of sourcing on a topic uses a term? That seems hard to define. If 40% of sources say "genocide", 10% say "not genocide" and 50% don't say the word, does that count as yay or nay? Some leeway should be allowed. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

How about this - over 80%-90% say genocide, and say it in a context that it is clear they are using the legal term - as opposed to colloquial speech (e.g. not "genocidal" - which is not genocide). If 50% don't say the word - and use alternative terminology (e.g. ethnic cleansing) - it's rather clear genocide is not the accepted term. For all contested genocides - invariably you have a group that uses the term (often very frequently) - which is often ignored outside of that group. For genocides that are not contested - e.g. the Rawandan genocide or the Holocaust - that's not an issue. For the Armenian Genocide (which by now, mostly one group contests - affiliated with Turkey) - you still have well over 80%-90% acceptance (to the point that Armenian Genocide denial is a recognized "thing"). Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"How about this - over 80%-90% say genocide"-there is no list that we could based this on and therefore such qualifier would be purely arbitrarily--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Per my comment above. IF the source is scholary and reliable, I think an event deserves a mention here, but if the view disputed or fringe (very few citations), I think we need to indicate this clearly. Also, if the view can be attributed to only one scholar, even reliable, and has not been repeated by others, I'd say it's too fringe. Once two reliable scholars report it, I think it can be added here (but with a said indication that it's not a common view). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. I would suggest, as a general principle, to go by the article names -- if it says "genocide" then include (with the exception of the Holocaust and Holodomor, and perhaps others that I did not look up).

There's quite a bit of OR going on in the list with entries such as [[The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia|Genocide by the Ustaše]] including the [[Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia|Serbian genocide]]. If editors wish for the article names to say "genocide", they should first suggest an RM at the respective pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, could you please elaborate on "to go by the article names -- if it says "genocide" then include". What do you mean under "the article names": Wikipedia articles or something else? --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think the whole structure of the article is flawed, because some events that almost universally considered as genocide are added here, which means there is always tempting to add some other event that is a little bit less universally considered as genocide, and so on, which leads to blurring of the inclusion criteria; as a result, the article will be constantly inflating, and the discussion of that kind will be starting again and again. In my opinion, the only solution would be to set very strict inclusion criteria. However, since only few events (the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, and few others) are considered as genocides by everyone (except probably the perpetrator nation), this article is doomed to be very short. Therefore, it seems reasonable to split this list onto sublists: (i) The events that are universally considered as genocide, (ii) the events whose genocidal nature is a subject of debates (Holodomor, Irish famine), and (iii) the events characterised as genocide in some publications (deportation of Chechens). In addition, I would suggest to remove old historical events that happened in Medieval time or earlier, because, as far as I know, mainstream historians do not apply this term to them, and do not discuss this issue either. Indeed, virtually every war during ancient times was accompanied by what was genocide according to modern standards (be it a Third Punic war, or Mongol conquest of Persia, or German crusades to the Baltic region, etc). As a rule, these events are characterized as genocide by some journalist or political writer, or other non-professional historian, and the fact that those claims are not a subject of debates does not mean they are accepted: actually they are beyond the scope of historical community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Paul that sounds reasonable should the other Nazi atrocities that are characterized as genocide in some publications.Be in one category kind of like how the wiki Holocaust page quotes the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum/Around 6 million European Jews All victims of Nazi persecution: 17 million? since some say that what happened to the polish people and the people in the occupation zone when the Nazis Invaded the USSR was genocide like the discussion that is happening below this one.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion what if for the Holocaust we put it in its own category with the victims of Nazi persecution and instead of a high and low estimate we put around 6 million like the Holocaust wiki page has it and 11 million for the victims of Nazi persecution that way can quote the USHMM and that can let us remove the other atrocities on this page since it would cover them https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution. And I think the page protection should stay do to the nature of the pageJack90s15 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with K.e.coffman: "if it says "genocide" then include". For example, these in the Soviet Union and that one (of Poles). Note: these are scholarly academic sources. My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems you misunderstand what K.e.coffman means. Let's wait for an answer from him. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Yes, I meant the names of Wikipedia pages. I.e. the example above: if the editors wanted to include [[Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia|Serbian genocide]] they would first need to start an RM to move [[Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia]] to [[Serbian genocide]]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Paul with his statement (I think the whole structure of the article is flawed, because some events that almost universally considered as genocide are added here, which means there is always tempting to add some other event that is a little bit less universally considered as genocide, and so on, which leads to blurring of the inclusion criteria; as a result, the article will be constantly inflating, and the discussion of that kind will be starting again and again. In my opinion, the only solution would be to set very strict inclusion criteria. However, since only few events (the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, and few others) are considered as genocides by everyone (except probably the perpetrator nation), this article is doomed to be very short. Therefore, it seems reasonable to split this list onto sublists: (i) The events that are universally considered as genocide, (ii) the events whose genocidal nature is a subject of debates (Holodomor, Irish famine), and (iii) the events characterised as genocide in some publications (deportation of Chechens). In addition, I would suggest to remove old historical events that happened in Medieval time or earlier, because, as far as I know, mainstream historians do not apply this term to them, and do not discuss this issue either. Indeed, virtually every war during ancient times was accompanied by what was genocide according to modern standards (be it a Third Punic war, or Mongol conquest of Persia, or German crusades to the Baltic region, etc). As a rule, these events are characterized as genocide by some journalist or political writer, or other non-professional historian, and the fact that those claims are not a subject of debates does not mean they are accepted: actually they are beyond the scope of historical community) 100% agree with thisJack90s15 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• If something has been described as a "genocide" in an academic RS, it should be included. Debating if something was "universally recognized" leads nowhere. All genocides, even such as Armenian genocide, have been denied, disputed or not recognized by many countries. No, the Holocaust and Armenian genocide are not "considered as genocides by everyone". My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What you are doing significantly changes the article's scope. That can be done only after consensus is achieved. And, yes, the Holocaust and Armenian genocide are archetypal examples of genocide, which are universally recognized as such (except, maybe, some fringe authors). Lemkin, the person who coined this term, proposed it specifically to describe the Holocaust. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost

Why is it reference only "Soviet population"? It covered most of Central and Eastern Europe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think its because polish dead are under Nazi genocide of Poles and most of the Countries GPO covered were under the USSR/ Russia Ukraine Byelorussia Latvian Lithuania Estonia https://www.loc.gov/resource/g7001f.ct001610/?r=0.025,0.286,0.538,0.333,0Jack90s15 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of Nazi crimes against the Polish nation and Generalplan Ost in this list (beyond the genocide of Jews and Roma which is already listd) probably does not meet the list criteria. In both cases the view that these constituted genocide (as opposed to the plan entailing a future genocide or being genocidal in nature) is a minority view (though with more adherents than some of the other items above). The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, Columbia University Press, 2003 has a good overview discussion of this in "Defining the Holocaust", pages 45-51. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has them listed as victims of Nazi persecution? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution Jack90s15 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Most definitely victims of Nazi persecution. Most definitely ethnic cleansing, mass murder, forced labor, expulsion, and quite a few other evil things. And all of that - does not mean this meets the definition of genocide - which USHMM does not use in the linked page (except for the Holocaust). Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

some could say that what happened to the polish people and the people in the occupation zone was genocide https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CrimeOfGenocide.aspx

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

The drive to clear the East of inferior populations in preparation for German colonization led to intensive planning for the mass starvation of over 30 million people there. Policy guidelines issued before the invasion of the Soviet Union stated unequivocally that “many tens of millions of people in this territory will become superfluous and will have to die or migrate to Siberia… With regard to this, absolute clarity must reign.” Known as the Generalplan Ost,https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lebensraum

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

one of the most horrible sides of the Lebensborn policy was the kidnapping of children “racially good” in the eastern occupied countries after 1939. Some of these children were was orphans, but it is well documented that many were stolen from their parents’ arms. These kidnappings were organized by the SS in order to take children by force who matched the Nazis’ racial criteria (blond hair and blue or green eyes). Thousands of children were transferred to the Lebensborn centers in order to be “Germanized.” Up to 100,000 children may have been stolen from Poland alone https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-quot-lebensborn-quot-program Jack90s15 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Leading scholars agree that Nazi Germany carried out(thankfully failed) genocide attempt against Slavs.

• Raphael Lemkin known as the "grandfather of genocide studies" writes clearly that Generalplan Ost was genocide by writing "As a matter of fact, Hitler wanted to commit Genocide against the Slavic peoples, in order to colonize the East" as quoted in Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History by A. Dirk Moses, Berghahn Books, 2008, page 20"
• Robert Gellately writes in "The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective" ""Genocidal intent seems to have been more or less assumed in discussions of the Poles by a wide range of Nazi officials and planners".By "intent" I mean that was a desire to erase the Polish state, nation, and culture from the face of the Earth" and in regards to wider policies towards Slavic people "Given these percentages, it would have been impossible for any of these nations to survive as cultures or nations in any meaningful sense, so that these plans explicitly accept that all four of these nations would for all intents and purposes would cease to exist. These plans in effect, therefore, called for nothing less than serial genocide"
• Finally the Nazis themselves were quite open about their intentions; On 15 March 1940 SS chief Heinrich Himmler stated: "All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation consider the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task." Hannibal Travis
• In regards to UN definition of Genocide, the actions of German Nazis fulfill the criteria of genocide, Hannibal Travis in "Genocide, Ethnonationalism, and the United Nations. Exploring the Causes of Mass Killing Since 1945" points out several verdicts of Nuremberg Trial in regards to crimes committed by Nazi regime against Poles that are parallel to definitions of UN Genocide convention on page 80.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

The language in the quotes undermines the point being made. For example: "Hitler wanted to"; "Genocidal intent"; "desire to erase"; "would cease"; "these plans"; etc. A desire to commit genocide is not the same thing as a genocide having been committed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You are assuming genocide never went past planning stage, but we know this to be untrue.Nuremberg Trial confirmed that actions like : kidnapping of alien children ; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals ; forced evacuations and resettlement of populations ; forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; the utilisation of enemy nationals as slave labor ; and the plunder of public and private property were part of genocide in RuSha Trial

From Law Reports of the Trials of War Criminals. United Nations War Crimes Commission. Vol. XIII. London: HMSO, 1949

• "Trial of Ulrich Greifelt and Others, United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 10 October 1947 – 10 March 1948, Part IV".. "[T]he crime of genocide… was taken by the prosecution and the Tribunal as a general concept defining the background of the total range of specific offences committed by the accused, which in themselves constitute crimes against humanity and/or war crime"
• "The methods applied by the Nazis in Poland and other occupied territories, including once more Alsace and Lorraine, were of a similar nature with the sole difference that they were more ruthless and wider in scope than in 1914-1918. In this connection the policy of “ Germanizing ” the populations concerned, as shown by the evidence in the trial under review, consisted partly in forcibly denationalising given classes or groups of the local population, such as Poles, Alsace-Lorrainers, Slovenes and others eligible for Germanization under the German People’s List. As a result in these cases the programme of genocide was being achieved through acts which, in themselves, constitute war crimes."
• In Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes (i.e., war crimes and crimes against humanity) were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonisation by Germans.”Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals ; London, H.M. Stationery Office, 1946, p. 52.
• I disagree with the assertion that we should allow dubious entries into the list, or even into a secondary list, simply because the count would otherwise be too low. If there really are so few genocides then the solution is to ditch this list and merge/redirect it into a section of the genocide article. Otherwise, let's get our inclusion criteria clear (and I think the bar for entry should be high, not low, as this is an emotive and POV topic) and run with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That is also an option. I don't mind.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A merger does sound goodJack90s15 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying the entry criteria and setting a "high" bar seems reasonable to me. Regards, DPdH (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would agree with a merge. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• If the list here goes down below 15 entries or so - yes - a merge would make sense. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• oppose The article about genocide is long enough, merging this list would make it even longer. Genocides may not be few, maybe is a case that new entries aren't supported by relevant sources? Regards, DPdH (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Destruction under the Mongol Empire, Genghis Khan

This list is great!

I've noticed that Genghis Khan's and his sons' cruelties are considered a series of genocides, or one. Collectively they are a major one; on par with Hitlerism. See "Destruction under the Mongol Empire". Let me provide a citation from my library soon.

If that is a genocide, or a series of them, this "List of genocides ..." is missing on it (them). Szozdakosvi 22 October 2018

I was researching statistics on the wars of Ghengis Khan and his sons and was rather surprised it wasn't inlcuded on this list at all. The census of the population of China dropped by as much as 60 million during that time and the Western Xia or Tangut Empire was systematically and completely eradicated. Can somebody a lot smarter than me please include an entry for the Mongols? Bristus (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

North America

What about the North American holocaust? (86.158.252.108 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC))

The California Genocide is included near the bottom which is included in said event. -- Lunderous (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

All of the Americas lost a majority of their indigenous people due to Spanish British and Colonial massacres. More people died than any other listed event here. Wenddix (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas --evrik ^(talk) 03:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

California

California should have location listing as "United States" for congruity and easier reference searching? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4560:BF60:F901:CF31:AAA3:B362 (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

Missing and murdered Indigenous women has recently been recognized as a genocide in Canada in a recent inquiry. Although there is some degree of debate, I am of the opinion that it should be added to the list, given among other things that the Wikipedia page itself recognizes the event as indicative of genocide. Can we not include it in the list in a similar vein? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbjerkec (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC) The government of Canada has recently recognized this as a genocide as well. You should really consider adding it.Gbjerkec (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC) I have provided credible sources that prove that this meets the UNO and Canadian Law definitions of genocide. Instead of ignoring this, please respond.

All of the Americas lost a majority of their indigenous people due to Spanish British and Colonial massacres. More people died than any other listed event here. Wenddix (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Indigenous people north and south were displaced, died of disease, and were killed by Christian Europeans through slavery, rape, and war. In 1491, about 145 million people lived in the western hemisphere. By 1691, the population of indigenous Americans had declined by 90-95 percent, or by around 130 million people."

Why isn't this included? Jisaac81 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Because we need a reliable source that says those events fit the UNO definition of genocide, and this view should be a majority view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Conquest of the Desert, Selk'nam genocide, and California genocide are already included. It is more accurate to address acts of genocide throughout the Americas individually to the time period and regime that committed them; rather than lump of bunch of disparate events committed by different people centuries apart with completely different motivations and intentions together. For example a large chunk of Amerindian deaths by European hands can be attributed to the encomienda system; which is forced labor not intentional extermination...there is a difference see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#Historiography_and_the_term_%22genocide%22
The deaths caused by that system would constitute Crimes against humanity not sensu stricto genocide. However when extermination is one of the goals like the California genocide then the campaign should be included.

References

I just cleaned up the references. I standardized the entries as much as I could. This page has some many articles and notes, it's a mess. A number of the citations are incomplete. I tagged as many as I could, bu left them in place. Good luck to anyone who follows. --evrik ^(talk) 16:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust death toll minimal estimates

The lowest estimate was made by Gerald Reitlinger, who put it at 4.9 million, someone could check and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.108.58 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel so ashamed of opening this topic (which is so close to the discredited arguments of Nazi apologists, I can feel the stench of their Holocaust denial on me).

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but... the Yad Vashem FAQs gives the following figure for the Holocaust death toll.

"All the serious research [on the Holocaust] confirms that the number of victims was [at least] five million".

5 million is smaller than Martin Gilbert's "minimum" estimate of 5.75 million deaths.

I can't see anything in the Talk archives related to why Yad Vashem was rejected as unreliable. Someone must have a reason why we preferred Gilbert's death toll over Yad Vashem.

Now excuse me, I need to wash myself in a bathtub of Febreze. -- Oshah (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I've given myself the following explanation for why Yad Vashem's 5 million figure is considered unreliable.

1. The Guidelines of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:SIZE and WP:FRINGE are relevant
2. Of the sources listed by the Yad Vashem FAQ, only Prof. Hilberg's citation ends up with a death toll below 5.75 million
3. If it wasn't for Hilberg, Yad Vashem's estimates for the death toll would be 5.29-5.86 million
4. This article is not for discussing the historiography of Holocaust Research (per WP:SIZE those discussions belong in The_Holocaust#Death_toll)
5. Nor is this article for including WP:FRINGE theories
6. Sources that cite figures of less than 5m, are rejected by Yad Vashem's FAQ as unreliable.
7. And because Yad Vashem reject such sources, we are within our rights to also reject them
8. Including references based on WP:FRINGE theories violates WP:DUE and WP:RS, and does not belong in general articles on genocides
9. Only the most reliable sources belong in this article
10. Hilberg's reference is more than 50 years old, does not agree with modern estimates, and fails to meet the WP:AGEMATTERS requirement of WP:RS
11. Therefore, Hilberg does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources
12. Yad Vashem's 5.1 million figure, being reliant entirely on Hilberg, also fails WP:RS. QED

-- Oshah (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Genocide of Native Americans?

I don't think the process that provoked a huge decline in the indigenous population of the American continent could be defined strictly as a (pre-planned unique) genocide, but a long process that included disease, mistreatment, slavery, etc, which eventually lead to such a huge population decrease. I don't think it should be included in the list, but maybe I'm wrong. Therefore I'm not going to do reverts, but I would like to hear other opinions. Thanks in advance.--Silveter (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources say. Lots support the term genocide. Bondegezou (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Conquest of the Desert, Selk'nam genocide, and California genocide are already included. It is more accurate to address acts of genocide throughout the Americas individually to the time period and regime that committed them; rather than lump of bunch of disparate events committed by different people centuries apart with completely different motivations and intentions together. For example a large chunk of Amerindian deaths by European hands can be attributed to the encomienda system; which is forced labor not intentional extermination...there is a difference see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State#Historiography_and_the_term_%22genocide%22
The deaths caused by that system would constitute Crimes against humanity not sensu stricto genocide. However when extermination is one of the goals like the California genocide then the campaign should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1501:1890:9D88:228B:AD21:65BC (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing Stalin's death toll

20-40 Million in purges, gulag, holodomor, forced collectivization | NY Times article based on Soviet reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.145.105 (talk • contribs) 20:42, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

Same answer as to Great Leap Forward and Cultural RevolutionAppleadaygirl79 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is "missing"

What a continent, what a history! We don't have reliable sources to call "Genocide": the extermination of "natives" across the globe by variety of European colonizers; we don't have reliable sources for the extermination of Algerians, Libyans, and various North African ethnic groups namely by French and Italians; we don't have reliable sources on annihilation of Iberian Arab Muslims and Jews during "re"-conquista; we don't have reliable sources on annihilation of the Ottoman Muslims of various Balkan's ethnicities from the Balkans between 1820's Greek "revolution", through the Balkan Wars I and II in 1912 and 1913, World War I and II, ending, for now, with the only researched instances, 1990's genocide in Bosnian and "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovo; we don't have reliable sources on destruction of Palestinians; and so on - and since we don't have these deeds researched and recorded in scholarship, at least not in quality and quantity required for elaboration in wikipedia article format, nor stated in resolutions by individual modern nation-states of the West (in most cases retroactively, almost a hundred years later, like in case of "Greek genocide" and "Armenian genocide"), or by some international body like European Union or United Nation, or some organization of researchers and scholars on genocide, or at least by some national or international court of justice, you ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, should please stop with this "missing" this, "missing" that - for crying out loud - every several months someone repeats these same posts over and over.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Queensland Aboriginal genocide and missing Li and Zheng cite

In the Queensland Aboriginal genocide entry, the "proportion of group killed" had extra parens in it and was confusing enough to prevent my fixing it. I've commented out that part.

Also, the "Li and Zheng" (2003) cite needs to be fully identified. Other WP articles refer to a 2001 book by two people of those names, but I don't know if they are the same authors or if this is the correct (or earlier edition of the correct) source or not. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Potato famine was man made

Population estimates of the island of Ireland pre-1840 were as high as 8m, estimates of the death and displacement are roughly 2m/2m. There seems to be some debate as to whether man-made famines should be included here but perhaps that could be a separate page?141.156.187.235 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

read up on Palmerston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.10 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust should show greater numbers

Jews weren't the only victims of holocaust, there were also slavic peoples, homosexuals, gypsies, and the disabled (particularly the mentally disabled). Therefore total death toll should amount to greater than 6 000 000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.42.44.59 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Would the extermination of disabled people count as a genocide?

For example, would Aktion T4 qualify as a genocide, or is it something else? If it isn't genocide, what would it be called?--2A02:C7F:5A24:1A00:3D42:B02E:5F42:92A1 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and Labor Camps

60-80 million people died of non-natural causes, but somehow they are missing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.145.105 (talk • contribs) 20:42, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

The page only considers mass killings recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention. It does not include non strictly-genocidal mass killing (variously called mass murder, crimes against humanity, politicide, classicide, war crimes) such as the Thirty Years War (7.5 million deaths), Japanese war crimes (3 to 14 million deaths), the Red Terror (100,000 to 1.3 million deaths), the Atrocities in the Congo Free State (1 to 15 million deaths), the Great Purge (0.6 to 1.75 million deaths) or the Great Leap Forward (15 to 55 million deaths).Appleadaygirl79 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Communism is by definition murder-robbing by the elite, which take some excuse and heavy punishment to steal property. There was no difference in any form of Communism on that. Due to starving thus the economy recovers after introducing of capital (of the now owned property by the government-elites). You may want to read how to murder-rob a big group, since you need a collapse of an order and harsh force including brainwashing.

the list is a fraud - notice who is #1 and #2 on the list, not sorted by numbers and the communist and bolshevik atrocities are conveniently missing its almost like wikipedia is propaganda (whats the ratio, 1 fingernail = 2000 lives?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.10 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that the Holodomor, Decossackization, the Aardakh and other Soviet genocides are listed (in fact the Holodomor is listed as the third highest).--2A02:C7F:5A24:1A00:3D42:B02E:5F42:92A1 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the totals, you can hardly say that 1.8-7.5 million is on the same level as two genocides whose lowest estimates combined are >10,000,000 and are linked (and with a range of 5.75-6 million and 4.5-13.7 million), as gruesome as it is. 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:C4DA:4D25:D981:5AA1 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Why no mention of the genocide of indigenous Americans?

Millions were killed by invading settlers?

Agreed! I will not give a penny to Wikipedia until I see truth here. Where are the rest of the genocides of the indigenous peoples of the Americas? How does the United States in particular continue to evade the obvious truth of genocide? This genocide meets with every qualifyng feature the U.N. uses to define genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whirleegig (talk • contribs) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, they were not intentional. Can you blame medieval societies for biowarfare? 2A00:23C4:2401:6D00:B495:268F:4600:75E4 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

At the very least the lead should include an explanation for why the genocide of indigenous Americans does not appear in full on the list, and a link to the article section on the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Native_American_Genocide). The fact that the lead contains links to the Red Terror, Great Purges, and Great Leap Forward, none of which even fit the definition of genocide despite being instances of mass death, but does not mention the genocide of indigenous peoples by imperial capitalist nations like the United States, will be viewed by leftists as (further) evidence of liberal-capitalist bias on wikipedia. The previous commenter's obsolete belief that the indigenous genocides were unintentional makes it clear that general-knowledge resources like this wikipedia article are failing to convey the academic consensus on this topic to the general public. the indigenous genocides were very much intentional, disease merely made them more effective. The article on the topic in the link above already says as much. It should be linked in this article's lead too.221.143.19.180 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

structure.

There should be a difference between international recognised genoicides, and events that just some persons/institutions descirbe as genocide. --213.47.49.126 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing and murdered Indigenous women

While appalling, the disproportionate number of homicides committed against Canadian Indigenous woman (16% of all female homicides despite being 4% of the female population) does not seem to meet the UN Convention's criteria for a genocide. To preserve Wikipedia's definitional standards and reliability on this highly-trafficked and important article, I recommend its removal from the list. 2601:646:9401:3660:7D58:E8BD:4FF7:13D (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is not genocide??

I don't understand this removal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_genocides_by_death_toll&type=revision&diff=984912697&oldid=984902574 Hancox (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated inclusion of entries with no referenced death toll

Regarding the repeated insertion (e.g. here and here), entries without referenced death tolls shouldn’t be included because this is specifically the list of genocides by death toll. Such entries fail the inclusion criteria. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The latest edit is simply misleading. Literally none of the cited refs (1, 2, 3) give a death toll estimate for the Uyghur genocide.

1. The first article (2015) says that

   China’s long-running Uighur insurgency has flared up dramatically of late, with more than 900 recorded deaths in the past seven years.

   The 2008-2015 deaths from the terrorist attacks and ethnic fighting in the Xinjiang conflict are not attributed to the Uyghur genocide. It doesn't even mention the word "genocide".
2. The second article (2015) is even less related, only saying that

   Chinese security forces in the far western region of Xinjiang killed 28 “terrorists” from a group that carried out a deadly attack at a coal mine in September under the direction of “foreign extremists”, the regional government said on Friday.

3. The third article (2020) says that

   A Government official in Xinjiang recently told Sidick that, in his county, where there was once a population of 92,000 Uyghur people in 2016, there remain only 20,000 today.

   It is entirely WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to use that as giving a genocide death toll estimate of 72,000 deaths.

A death toll estimate must have an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution (emphasis mine) per basic Wikipedia policy. The reliable source should directly say that a genocide caused X deaths. The Notes from that edit also have similarly misleading citations that do not support the sentences either (e.g. the cited Reuters & NYT articles do not say that At least 1.5 million Muslim Uyghurs are detained in Chinese concentration camps). — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

The Uyghurs genocide should be reinstated immediately. There are so many sources attesting to this. The user MarkH21 is (Personal attack removed).

https://www.westernjournal.com/chinas-uighur-genocide-everything-need-know-ccps-human-rights-abuses/

https://bitterwinter.org/uyghurs-yes-it-is-a-genocide/ NOAA42 (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See the talk page section above. Inclusion requires reliable sources that give death toll estimates since this is the List of genocides by death toll. Both links that you provide do not give death tolls and are also not reliable sources (WP:RSP lists both CESNUR and The Western Journal as generally unreliable).

Also, please refrain from making unfounded accusations and personal attacks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

All the people who could attest to this are dead or brainwashed by China Dictatorship. China is trying to hide this brutalities and it's impossibile to have the right numebers right now. It is important to raise the world awareness about this. Reinstate the Uyghurs genocide asap- — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOAA42 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is really unacceptable

After viewing this article from a NPOV, I am genuinely terrified, this article nether lists the Holodomor, Uyghur Genocide, or indeed the Irish Potato. I don't say this lightly this article genuinely makes me disgusted, this page makes me not want to touch another Wikipedia article in my life. Wikipedia in my opinion is extremely neutral on all topics, this extremely important article is not, I will be adding new sections to hopefully make this article better. Vallee01 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Vallee01. What constitutes a genocide is politically contentious. This article adopts a fairly narrow definition of "genocide", as it explains. Maybe it could do a better job of explaining what it does and does not cover? There are other articles, notably List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, that are more inclusive and you may find of interest. I think the Holodomor, Uyghur genocide and Irish Potato Famine are all very important and Wikipedia has extensive, detailed articles on all of them. Whether there is sufficient consensus that these constitute genocide by the UN definition is a more difficult question. If you can find reliable sources supporting that, please do bring them here so that we can, together, reach agreement on what should be in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The article also includes the 1804 Haiti Massacre which as the title implies, was a massacre, not a genocide. 88.106.233.198 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The massacre resulted in the death of nearly all French Creole people in Haiti at the time. Therefore, historians such as Philippe Girard consider it a genocide.[1] (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A major issue here is that genocide studies scholars have a hammer and therefore a lot of things start to look like nails. In other words, the number of genocides according to genocide studies is much higher than the number that are also generally accepted by historians of the nation and/or time frame in question. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Ancient historians do not consider Battle of Carthage (c. 149 BC) to be an example of genocide, am I correct? I removed it from the list of genocides but another user objected. [2] The article is GA rated and does not mention genocide. Bondegezou, If your position is that the article belongs on this list, there should be mention in the article as well. (t · c) buidhe 09:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, you are correct. I have come across no suggestions of this in the literature. And, to quote from my recent FA on the Third Punic War, which the Siege of Carthage was part of, "Surviving cities were permitted to retain at least elements of their traditional system of government and culture. The Romans did not interfere in the locals' private lives, and Punic culture, language and religion survived". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question gives 5 citations, so, Gog the Mild, when you said I have come across no suggestions of this in the literature, did you mean you'd come across no suggestions of this before you then reviewed the citations given? Because clearly that are suggestions of this in the literature.

The note at the top of this article states, "This list only considers mass killings which are recognized [...] in significant scholarship". If genocide studies scholars consider something genocide, but another body of scholars don't use that term, then it would appear to me that there is "significant scholarship" behind that item, ergo the item meets the requirements given. Buidhe, your dismissal of genocide studies scholars above (A major issue here is that genocide studies scholars have a hammer and therefore a lot of things start to look like nails.) is WP:OR and has no role in how we make decisions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

By no means do I dismiss genocide studies entirely, but you have to be aware of the limitations of the field. As Anton Weiss-Wendt pointed out, "There is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe."

Genocide studies scholars may be experts in one or more generally recognized genocides, (such as Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide, etc.) but otherwise they are drawing their information from secondary sources—and they aren't necessarily good at deciding which ones to trust.

Furthermore, have you checked all five sources to see if they actually support the genocide contention? (There is a major issue with failed verification in this list). (t · c) buidhe 11:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed

The following examples likely qualify according to the list inclusion criteria, but better sourcing is needed which specifically states that they meet the UN definition of genocide, for purposes of verifiability.

• Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles
• Romani genocide
• Genocide of Serbs
• Herero and Nama genocide

(t · c) buidhe 22:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A reminder: definitions of genocide

Multiple definitions of genocide exist. Since this list has inclusion criteria referencing the UN Genocide Convention, it's essential to cite only sources which use the UN definition. Many scholars such as Naimark and Mark Levene do not use the UN definition of genocide. A review of Levene's book The Crisis of Genocide states:

Many may also criticize Levene’s refusal to take as a point of departure the definition of genocide in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide. As is well-known, this definition puts emphasis on the ‘intent to destroy’ and, as a consequence, many cases which are commonly qualified as genocide do not come under this Convention’s purview.

(t · c) buidhe 08:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Again with the original research. This is irrelevant. If anything it shows that the tag at the top of the page leads to confusion. Volunteer Marek 23:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Cambodia

What to do about the Cambodian case? There are some sources which state that it meets the UN definition of genocide. But William Schabas disagrees, even with regard to targeted ethnic minority populations. And the book by John B. Quigley says maybe. Since then, the Khmer Rouge Tribunal found some individuals guilty of genocide against Vietnamese and Chams, but not the majority Khmer. That would suggest that our entry for Cambodia should exclude Khmer victims since it is not proven that their deaths were part of a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We keep it. We have reliable sources to support it. Just like we'll keep most of your other removals. Get consensus. This is long standing material. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, the bulk of RS does not say that the deaths of Khmer in Cambodia was a genocide according to UN convention. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Please obtain consensus for each of your removals. Start an RfC if you must. Volunteer Marek 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change the list inclusion criteria, I think you would need a RfC for that. Otherwise it is actually necessary to cite sources which use the UN definition. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe. You need to slow down. Actually, stop. For the moment. You're removing so much stuff that there's no way to discuss or consider all your edits. You've removed 80k worth of text from the article. Edit warring against multiple editors and coming very close to breaking 3RR along the way. This is all long standing material that has had explicit or implicit consensus for inclusion for a long time.

Slow down and bring up each genocide for discussion. Volunteer Marek 23:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)