Talk:List of genocides/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Respect BRD

Buidhe, I would ask that you respect WP:BRD. You have removed a large amount of content from this article recently. I respect your right to make these bold edits. I have reverted you on a couple of points: as per WP:BRD, this should be a cue for you to come to Talk and establish support for your edits. Instead, you have just immediately reinstated your edits. We are discussing material that has been in the article for a lengthy period of time unchallenged and which has multiple citations given.

We will achieve a better article through WP:CONSENSUS if you slow down and have more respect for what other editors have done. Put forward your case, let's discuss it and see what editors in general think. Until we have been through that process, I think it is reasonable to leave the article in its WP:STATUSQUO state. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I tend to see it the opposite way—that content out to be justified if challenged. This list tends to attract lots of people whose perception of the issue is clouded by their genuine belief that some event or another is a genocide. As for the Polish operation,

The testimony shows that the Polish operation was a blind strike against potentially hostile elements. People with any sort of foreign ties, including many non-Poles, were arrested and shot in this operation. ... These numbers show that many of the victims of the Polish operation were not ethnic Poles. Thus the Polish operation was not a systematic attempt to cleanse the Soviet Union of Poles. In fact, the Polish population of the USSR shrank by only 1.0% between 1937 and 1939 at a time when the total Soviet population grew by 4.1%. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4147481

Chapter 7 of this Springer book[1] is devoted to the Polish operation and never mentions the word "genocide".

You should be aware that many Polish scholars seem to use a different definition for "genocide". For instance, the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, there is a "scholarly consensus that this was a case of ethnic cleansing as opposed to genocide"[2] but many Polish historians call it a "genocide". (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I see you are continuing to re-impose your edits when challenged by other editors. It is clear you believe strongly you are right. An atmosphere more conducive to collaboration would be created if you, nonetheless, slowed down and came to Talk rather than insisting your version must stand, and if you came to Talk willing to engage with other editors rather than dismissing concerns with comments like This list tends to attract lots of people whose perception of the issue is clouded by their genuine belief that some event or another is a genocide. (see WP:AGF). Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, I am just recognizing that the word "genocide" is a matter of politics as much as history[3] and that, as Evgeny Finkel stated, many countries have tried to had past events recognized as tragedies, "often finding creative ways to reconcile the legal definition of the concept [...] and the historical record."

Please let me know if, for the Annexation of Hyderabad, you can find and scholarly source that discusses it as genocide in depth. Otherwise, it was clearly appropriate to remove. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is straight up WP:OR original research. You have one source which does not mention the word genocide. You have like half a dozen sources which do. You have NO sources which say "it wasn't genocide". Yet you choose to go with the fact that one source fails to use a particular word, which does NOT imply it wasn't. Please stick to using sources rather than interpreting subjects yourself. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe please stop edit warring. You've made 6 or 7 reverts in last few weeks (and even more if we go further back), while removing tons of material, much of it long standing and well sourced, while failing to achieve or even try to achieve any kind of consensus. You've been reverted by others and yet failed to engage in BRD. For example, the Polish Operation in NKVD section is very well sourced to academic journals and scholars. There is no reason for its removal. Regardless, it's up to you to convince other editors that your edits have merit. Volunteer Marek 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all obvious to me that the Polish operation is generally recognized as a genocide overall (not just in Poland). That is the minimum requirement for inclusion on a list of genocides. So I suggest you start by presenting some evidence that it is indeed generally considered a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

First, you need to stop the edit warring and engage productively with other editors.

Second, whether it's obvious to you personally or not is irrelevant. What matters is what sources say.

Third, it's simply not true that this is regarded as a genocide "just in Poland". Simon Montefiore is not Polish. Michael Ellman is not Polish. Timothy Snyder (who should be added here) is not Polish. These are all top scholars and experts in the field. Why is it that we always see this "only Poles think this" argument over and over again and in cases where it's blatantly not true? Volunteer Marek 19:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

But "mini-genocide" is not a legal term. Montefiore does not say that it meets the definition in the UN Convention, which is what is needed. And Ellman just says it "may constitute" a genocide, which is not sufficient—in order to be counted on the pro-genocide side, he would have to definitively take a stance on exactly that question.

Scholars who reject the genocide label for a particular event, in most cases, will just not label it a genocide. In order to show that something is a genocide, it would need to be the majority of RS actually calling it one. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We can also add Norman Naimark to the list. As far as your quibbling here, that, again, constitutes original research. "Mini" refers to scale, not the definition. Ellman obviously thinks it did meet the legal definition and is just noting that there has been no legal ruling in the matter (which is true for many instances of genocide). He is taking a stance himself.

The contention that scholars "who reject the genocide label" "will just not label it a genocide" is pure original research. If a source says "not X" then we can say "source says not X". If the source instead says "Y", we CANNOT say "the source says not X". Please follow sources rather than your own original research. What you need here is to find sources which specifically state that this WASN'T a genocide, especially since we DO HAVE sources which state the opposite.

(btw, the standard "the majority of RS" is meaningless. What is the population of reliable sources from which we would calculate whether or not this is a majority? The fact is that we have TOP scholars in the field calling it such. That is all that is needed here). Volunteer Marek 19:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Naimark states in his book that he does not use the UN definition of genocide: he defines it more broadly as killing of any group as defined by the perpetrator. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It is well known that, in addition to the legal definition of genocide, there are other definitions, which are used by scholars, and they are much more loose (sometimes, deliberately loose); thus, "genocide scholars" use that definition very broadly. Therefore, it is quite necessary to prove that:

• it was the UN definition that was used by the source cited;

• that source is not a minority view;

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a major problem with that article.Please, take a look at the artcile's lead. It says:

"This list of genocides by death toll includes estimates of all deaths which were directly or indirectly caused by genocide, as it is defined by the UN Convention on Genocide. It excludes other mass killings, which may be referred to as genocide by some sources ..."

Not only that implies, that means that all items in the list do fit the UN definition. In reality, during that discussion, you guys agrues imply that if some event was described as genocide by at least some sources, the inclusion criterion is met.

In reality, just few events from that list are universally recognized to meet the UN definition (I was surprised to learn that even Cambodian genocide is not universally recognised as such). Therefore, there are two options:

• First, the lead must be rewritten to bring it into accordance with that inclusive list;

• The events that have not been universally recognised as genocide must be removed from that list.

If that will not be done, I am going to nominate the article for deletion, because it contains a false claim that all these events are universally believed to meet the UN definition of genocide. Remember, genocide is a crime, and UN genocide definition is a legal definition, which means it is very strict.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement does not include the word "universally". Nothing is recognized "universally". Some people think the earth is flat. So what? Yes, the phenomenon listed should be judged to fit the UN definition. But this judgement is to be made by reliable sources. And here it's not just one source. We have several. And they're all top scholars. If it was just one source by some unknown author, then sure, you'd have an argument. But that is not the case here.

Likewise, while I'm sure there are some folks out there who don't believe the Cambodian genocide was a genocide, it's pretty clear that that most reliable sources do consider it as such. So of course it should also be included. Volunteer Marek 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

And Paul, if you're looking for points of comparison then take the Armenian genocide. Obviously there are people out there, certain governments of course, but also even some scholars, who deny the fact that this was a genocide. So it's also not "universal". But this doesn't matter, since top scholars in the subject and many reliable sources DO consider it a genocide. Hence, we include it, as we well should. Volunteer Marek 20:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The statement implies it is agreed that they fit. If the lead does not implies universally, I don't understand what are the criteria for inclusion. I see some deporations were included, but they definitely do not fit, and there are some RS that clearly say that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Armenia, yes, I agree. But it seems you don't understand my point. Imagine some list article that includes, e.g. all homicides, and the lead says "only those homicides are included which fit a lega definition of homicide as described in the US law. What does it mean? Is some scholarly article where the author argues "yes, the murder of X fits a definition of homicide described in the US penal code" sufficient for inclusion? If not, what is sufficient? Remember, the UN definition of genocide is a legal term, and "genocide" is a crime. What can serve as a proof that some act fit a definition of some crime? Is an opinion of one scholar (or scholars) sufficient? Or only a court decision is? If the opinion of one scholar is insufficient, how many opinia are needed to claim the criterion was met? And what is fome scholars agree, but others disagree (or say otherwise)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Those are all interesting question but before we even get to them we'd have to see some sources which say it wasn't a genocide (i.e. which "disagree"). Volunteer Marek 21:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Re the Armenian Genocide, there is nearly universal acknowledgment (outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan) that it meets the legal standard for genocide. The sources I cite are the ones you are looking for, which specifically look at the UN definition of genocide. As opposed to genocide in some national laws which can be broader.[4] (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol, now with moving the goal posts. First it was that it must be "universal" recognition so that you can exclude one genocide. When it's pointed out that by that standard many obvious cases would also be excluded you change it to "near universal". And there are certainly scholars outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan who would claim it's not a genocide. They're wrong. But the point is that there will ALWAYS be some dissenters, disagreers etc. We still include it because lots of reliable sources say it was. But the same is true for many other genocides you're trying to remove. Volunteer Marek 23:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It has to do with the list inclusion criteria, which requires "significant scholarship" that specifically states that it was a genocide according to the UN Convention. If you can show that significant scholarship exists, without that being a minority view, I and other editors would be happy to restore any challenged entries. (t · c) buidhe 23:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The significant scholarship is already in the article! I don't have to show that it's "not a minority view". You have to show that it's a minority view, since you're the one making that claim. I have sources which say it was genocide, you have ... nothing really. You have some sources which simply don't mention the genocide aspect of it. But you have no sources which state "this was NOT a genocide".

If I say "LeBron is a great basketball player" and show you sources which say that and you come back with "well, I found this one source that doesn't actually use the word "great" so it means that he's not", then... we go with what sources say. Volunteer Marek 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)!

As stated above, the sources cited don't appear to be using the UN definition of genocide. It's analogous to putting somebody on a list of basketball players who have won a specific award, citing a source that says "he was a great player"! (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

References

List inclusion criteria

VM unilaterally changed the list inclusion criteria.[5] I, for one, strongly disagree with this change because there are many definitions of genocide used by various authors, but only one definition under international law. (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And Buidhe tried to remove EIGHTY THOUSAND KILOBYTES of longstanding material from this article. She was using the tag on top as an excuse to so. My change to the tag on top CLARIFIED the inclusion criteria, based on past consensus, current practice and the topic's treatment in the literature. Volunteer Marek 23:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• based on... the topic's treatment in the literature No, that really isn't true. If you look at studies of international law, you will see that all sources use the same definition: the one in the UN Convention. Scholars in the field of genocide studies may use either the UN definition or any number of different definitions. But since they can't agree on what criteria is used, it makes it impossible to collect a list of genocides that meet any one definition, other than the UN one (which is surely the minimum requirement for a cohesive and coherent list). See also Weiss-Wendt's remarks quoted above about the shaky underpinnings of genocide studies as a field. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, you really need to slow down, please. At that pace of data removal, I can't grasp your objectives and justifications for it anymore. Could you discuss each segment before removing it from now on? That would be a helpful and proper way of doing it. I'm planning to restore some of what you have removed, but first, I need to think about it, and I would like to hear more from you later ...Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think that there needs to be a balance between preparing a list based on a somewhat common definition for all cases and the fact that there will never be a common definition. Human suffering and victimhood have been instrumentalized to such an extent by all states involved that it's impossible to find an undisputed min defintion. Now, I don't think that the Genocide Convention should be used as the baseline, because the UN is a political organization affected by the state POVs of its members. As the Genocide Convention is the product of international diplomacy, its use might lead to WP:SYSTEMIC issues and marginalization of non-state groups, native communities etc. Instead, a simple WP:N criterion may be used. If an event or series of events is broadly discussed in relevant bibliography as a "genocide", it should be included.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

100% agree. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think this approach is highly problematic. To apply your reasoning to a different case: the legal definition of fraud is also the result of political bargaining. So let's ditch it as problematic and start labeling people "fraudsters" without waiting for a conviction. We can start with Donald Trump because there are a lot of sources saying that he committed tax fraud.[6][7][8] I'm sure you see the pitfalls of such an approach.

  Likewise, the different definitions of genocide are irreconcilable. If you made a "List of genocides according to William Schabas" and "List of genocides according to Norman Naimark" the latter list, I guarantee, would be several times longer. Because Schabas uses the legal definitions whereas Naimark uses a much broader definition invented by himself. You can't reconcile that into a list with reasonably concrete inclusion criteria.

  The Genocide Convention was a product of political debates, but it is now a major principle of international criminal law. That's the reality. However, perhaps this list could be split into "List of genocides according to the legal definition" and "List of events called genocides" (essentially the proposed change). (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If several highly respected scholarly sources called something “fraud” then so would we, conviction or no conviction. Only question would be whether to attribute it. Volunteer Marek 10:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've reverted the text to the status quo ante as clearly there is no consensus on talk yet. Surely this article has to be consistent with the article Genocides in history, so that should be the place to have this discussion. --Nug (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nug, Actually, if you look at the intro to this article it states "The article on genocides in history discusses cases where there is less consensus as to whether they constituted genocide." (t · c) buidhe 07:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You have removed articles from the list that unambiguously and uncontroversially have the term "genocide" in the article name. --Nug (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nug, I'm afraid it's more complicated than you make out. The inclusion criteria for this list is events that meet the legal definition of genocide in the UN Genocide Convention. There are events popularly called "genocides" (such that it is the COMMONNAME), where it is either not clear if it meets the legal definition, or the bulk of sources state that it doesn't. (t · c) buidhe 08:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

But no one’s trying to include events that are “popularly” called genocide. What is being included is events that are called genocide by highly respected academics and scholars of the subject. Volunteer Marek 10:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For example, in an article arguing that the Cambodian genocide does not meet the legal definition in the UN Convention, the scholar of international law William Schabas states, "Admittedly, the term “Cambodian genocide” may have entered our human rights nomenclature irrevocably"[9] (t · c) buidhe 08:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And? Volunteer Marek 10:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Btw, Schabas denies that Srebrenica was a genocide even though that was the finding of the United Nations International Court of Justice Obviously he is not using the UN’s genocide definition but one that’s his own (and about as narrow as you can get). Volunteer Marek 10:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Striking BLP violation: it is simply not accurate that he denied the Bosnian genocide[10] Please provide some evidence that he is using some alternate definition. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yea... I'd appreciate it if you left my comments alone and did not make any edits to them. They're my comments, not yours. If you feel there is some issue with my comment then please raise that issue by writing your own words in response rather than messing around with my words.

Now, to the issue at hand. Yes, Schamas does state that Srebrenica wasn't a genocide. For example, here (pg 47). He is widely known - and has been criticized - precisely for that position. This is noted by other sources, for example here. Or here (although he seems to have accepted that the Court ruled the way it did) (note that he also denies that the murder of Rohingya constitutes a genocide). That he holds this position is a well established fact, so there's no BLP vio in pointing it out.

Now, what about the source you linked [11]? Have you read it? It actually says nothing of the sort you claim. In it he does not say that it was genocide. In fact, in that source he is criticizing the decision made by the International Court of Justice which found that Srebrenica was genocide. Why are you providing a source and then claiming it says the OPPOSITE of what it actually says? Volunteer Marek 23:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

He formerly disagreed that the atrocities at Srebrenica met the legal definition for genocide. Now that the court has ruled on it, he accepted that was the ruling and moved on. That is actually quite distinct from genocide denial which involves denying historical facts, rather than legal interpretations. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yes, but what you were arguing is that he didn't consider Serbrenica non-genocide. Are you reversing your position now? Good. So we can drop this matter and acknowledge that Schabas uses a much narrower definition of genocide than the UN. I'd still like you to explain why you claimed the utpjournals article said one thing, whereas in fact it said the opposite. Volunteer Marek 00:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am astounded that no one can see the issue with using a non-legal definition for a crime. For example, one of the entries on this list is Rohingya genocide even though there's an ongoing litigation as to whether it meets the legal definition of genocide. Many sources have called it a genocide, it's likely the common name and used for the article title in accordance with WP:POVNAME. However, putting it on this list is equivalent to putting someone on "list of murderers" before they have been convicted of a crime. (And there *are* BLP issues with more recent examples, considering command responsibility.) For the non legal definitions of genocide there is already an alternate list Genocides in history. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  The article genocides in history is much more appropriate for "A, B, and C, using definition X, called the event genocide. But D, using a different definition, said it wasn't. And most histories of the topic don't use the word "genocide" at all." Such nuance just can't be captured in this list. (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, whether you're personally astounded or not is irrelevant. We go by what reliable sources say. Volunteer Marek 23:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, if RS state that someone killed someone else, we report that. But we don't say someone is a murderer until there's a conviction.

Any disputes about what is a genocide—and there are very many of them—cannot be captured on a binary list and create a serious issue with NPOV, excluding the view that some event is not a genocide. If it is very much a minority view, then it's not a serious issue with NPOV, but in other cases there *is* significant disagreement. (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If some case was indeed a "very much a minority view" then yes, of course we'd exclude that. But that is NOT what is being discussed here. Indeed, what is under discussion is the OPPOSITE case - were something is "very much a majority view", yet you want to remove it because it doesn't fit your own original research definition of what genocide is. Volunteer Marek 00:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

My definition is not OR, it relies on the definition of genocide in international law. The problem with YOUR proposal is that it, without a consistent definition, it becomes a dumping ground for any event called a "genocide". That's exactly what happened at genocides in history—which includes everything from the Holocaust to extrajudicial execution of drug dealers.

(BTW you misunderstood my comment. If the perspective that an event is not a genocide is an extreme minority view, then there's less concern about putting it in a "list of genocides". However, if there is a significant debate, then it is POV for Wikipedia to decide it is a genocide). (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Using a legal definition of genocide based upon a 1951 UN Convention means that any past genocides that has not been litigated in the ICJ (which was founded in 1945) can never be included in this list, that's just nonsense. --Nug (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's not accurate. For example, there are legal analyses (see above) which conclude that the Armenian genocide meets the legal definition, and there are others stating that the Seyfo meets the legal definition. Admittedly it's not justiciable because the Genocide Convention is not retroactive, but such events do meet the legal definition for genocide. (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a legal analysis sufficient if it hasn't been contested in a court of law? A scholar contends that the annihilation of the Carthaginians by the Romans meets the UN Convention's definition of genocide, do we need to get a lawyer to give us a legal analysis too? --Nug (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, buidhe. Hope you're well. We've agreed with each other in some discussions and disagreed in others. In my opinion, the problem with using the UN definition as the only criterion is that it turns a social and historical event into a legal issue. Now, international law mostly expresses existing relations of power so we run the risk of substituting bibliography with the products of international state diplomacy. Whether the Rohingya genocide is recognized or not as a genocide by UN bodies has to do with diplomatic bargaining. The end result may or may not affect how the event is perceived in bibliography, but ultimately that decision will be made in time by an emerging consensus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Maleschreiber, Whether it is accepted by UN Assembly "has to do with diplomatic bargaining". I totally agree. But whether it is ruled to be a genocide by the International Court of Justice is not political bargaining, that is a question of international law. The ICJ is probably as independent from political interference as most any other court.[12]

  As I suggested above, one possible solution is splitting into a list of genocides according to the legal definition and another list of genocides according to alternate definitions. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  A list of legally defined genocides would be very small, it would be better to have them listed in the subsection of the article Genocide_Convention#Breaches, while this article would list genocides described by scholarly sources. --Nug (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  I am referring to events that, according to reliable sources, meet the definition of genocide under international law, NOT events that have been determined to be genocides by an international court. The first list is considerably longer. (t · c) buidhe 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I would consider Kiernan's statement, or one like it, a sufficient source, if it was backed up by others:

Rome decided on ‘the destruction of the nation’.12 Its policy of ‘extreme violence’, the ‘annihilation of Carthage and most of its inhabitants’, ruining ‘an entire culture’, fits the modern legal definition of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention: the intentional destruction ‘in whole or in part, [of] a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’.

It explicitly makes reference to the definition. However, as Gog the Mild stated above, this interpretation is not accepted by historians of the period. Kiernan's paper starts with incorrect facts, such as the statement "Carthage Must be Destroyed!" which is considered a modern forgery. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If we say "[t]his list of genocides by death toll includes estimates of all deaths which were directly or indirectly caused by genocide, as it is defined by the UN Convention on Genocide", then we ought to use this legal definition only. Either way, is there an actual literature about genocides by death tolls? I am curious about all events that have been called genocide under some definition of the term, but if the article says "as it is defined by the UN Convention of Genocide", then Buidhe was right in their removal. I do not think we should list any event that has been called genocide by some scholars; we should only list genocides under the legal definition and genocides for which there is overwhelming consensus among scholars, not any event that has been called genocide by one or few scholars, especially if they use ambiguous wording such as "may constitute genocide" or "mini-genocide", or it is simply one scholar saying that rather than reporting the consensus, if there is any, among scholars about a specific event. Davide King (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that in some instances whether or not a particular genocide fits the UN definition is either a) disputed by sources (for example with the Srebrenica massacre where the UN's ICJ ruled it was a genocide, but Schabas disagrees with the ruling) or b) some sources say it's (roughly) in line with the UN definition but others sources don't say anything at all (the issue with the NKVD's Polish Operation).

Additionally, the requirement that only genocides which fit the UN definition can be listed is somewhat arbitrary and opens up the can of worms mentioned above. Going by WP:V we should simply list all genocides which are described as such in multiple high quality scholarly sources. If it's just one guy or something and if other sources disagree then no. If it's multiple prominent scholars in the field of genocide studies and there isn't much dissent, then yes.

Volunteer Marek 09:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Again the claim about Schabas is false. He never denied that the ICJ ruled that it was a genocide. So I would not count him as dissenting on that point especially since he stated that he accepted it: "I am not arguing with anybody about whether genocide took place in Srebrenica. That has been decided."[13] Please stop repeating this misinformation. (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I note we already have List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, which also include ethnic cleansing and other forms of repression that we list here but are more appropriate there. This article should be about the legal definition only, otherwise it is a duplication or coatrack of the aforementioned article. Perhaps this article should be renamed List of genocides according to the United Nations, or something similar to highlight the legal definition, while keeping the table and the death tolls which are still useful. I do not get why by death toll is in the title when we may simply make one article about genocides according to the legal definition of genocide and the other about anthropogenic disaters, ethic cleansing and wars, with death tolls in the table as simply the way to order them. Again, is there an actual literature about anthropogenic disasters and genocides by death tolls? If there is not, then it is synthesis and we should drop the wording while keeping the table order by death tolls. We already write that Genocides in history is about "cases where there is less consensus among [reliable sources] as to whether they constituted genocide", so it makes sense to make this article about the legal definition only. Davide King (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, the problem here is with the words "less consensus". If there's an active disagreement then sure, although we should be mindful of WP:DUE (for example with Srebrenica and Schabas - one guy disagreeing with ICJ and multiple other scholars shouldn't be sufficient to disqualify it). But what Buidhe is trying to argue here is that unless ALL sources on the subject say it was genocide by UN definition we exclude. Typically what we have is that SOME sources will say that, but others just simply don't bring up the issue. Volunteer Marek 09:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I think what should be required is a) at least 1-2 sources state explicitly that it is genocide by the UN definition b) dissent from this position is small, minority view in the world of academic scholarship. The burden of proof, per WP:ONUS, is on the person who is seeking to add to the list, so they should be able to cite sources proving both a) and b).

If historians discuss the event in terms that are incompatible with genocide, then that has to be considered as dissent from the position that there was a genocide. (Otherwise we would have a problem with the Siege of Carthage, since I am not aware of any sources that say "it wasn't a genocide".) (t · c) buidhe 09:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, the lack of sources saying "No, the Moon is not made of cheese" does not mean some source saying that the Moon is made of green cheese expresses a mainstream viewpoint. If majority of sources characterise some mass killing not as genocide, there is no need to provide a source that explicitly say: "No, that event was not genocide".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Claimed Nazi genocide of Poles/Slavs

I propose everybody to re-read the lead:

This list of genocides by death toll includes estimates of all deaths which were directly or indirectly caused by genocide, as it is defined by the UN Convention on Genocide. It excludes other mass killings, which may be referred to as genocide by some scholars and are variously also called mass murder, crimes against humanity, politicide, classicide, or 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 and the famine which followed it (15 to 55 million deaths). A broader list of genocides, ethnic cleansing and related mass persecution is available. Genocides in history include cases where there is less consensus among scholars as to whether they constituted genocide.

The lead clearly says that only a limited set of mass killings are included in this list. I am pretty sure that majority of examples presented in the lead are characterized as genocide by one or several authors. Therefore, we need much more solid evidences for some mass killing to include it into this list. I think several, or even a single publication in a reputable secondary source that challenges the applicability of the term "genocide" to some mass killing is sufficient for exclusion of that event from this list.

As it follows from the preamble, this article list the most outstanding events, not those events which have been characterized as genocide in a colloquial meaning of that word. In connection to that, the correct usage of the existing sources must be carefully checked. This, the cited source does not support the claim that genocide of Poles meet the UN definition. Moreover, the source tells about genocide of Poles AND Ukrainians, and it is clear from the context that the applicability of the UN convention is not discussed on the page 393. When I was trying to look for sources (Nazi + genocide + Poles), majority of sources discuss Vohlynian massacre. In general, I would like to see more solid evidences that demonstrate that killing of Poles by Nazi had more genocidal nature than, for example, killing of Belarussians in Belorussia (whiich lost a quarter of its population).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you writing about the Soviet operation or Nazi Genocide against ethnic Poles? In case of ethnic Poles the Nazi genocide covers deliberate operations fulfilling (a) Killing members of the group(AB Aktion, Operation Tanneberg; Intelligenzaktion),(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group(hundreds of thousands of Polish captives tortured in places like Stutthoff or Auschwitz), (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part(reduction of food rations);(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group(forced abortions for Polish women used as forced labour);

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group(Kidnapping of circa 200,000 Polish children, dealt with in so called RusSHA Case at Nuernberg Military Tribunal, you can read more on it Nuernberg [sic] Military Tribunal, Vol. IV, Kidnapping of Children of Foreign Nationality: 3. Polish Children page 993: "The RuSHA Case[14]). I do note that in the above comment you make the common mistake of limiting genocide to killings, which is not the exact definition of UN definition-forced kidnappings, preventing births or causing mental harm to the group is also considered part of genocide.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The list includes killing of Poles by Nazi. I know about forcible assimilation of Polish children, and I know that that was considered as a trait of genocide by some authors. The title of the article is "List of genocides by death toll", and I am not sure if all Polish deaths are considered genocide deaths (as defined by UNO) by majority of sources. And, again, I am not sure the sources really stress the difference between treatment of Poles and other Slavs, especially, East Slavs, by Germans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not true that 200,000 Polish children were kidnapped. The actual figure is more like 20,000,[15][16] I already fixed this misinformation in the article Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany. (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am actually willing to believe that ethnic Poles, Belarusians, and other Eastern Europeans were the victims of a genocide during World War II. It does potentially meet the definition depending on how the criteria of "intent to destroy" and "in part", are defined, which is the real sticking point between interpretations of the Genocide Convention. The issue is the lack of RS that make this claim. It seems to me that most sources I've read that discuss the German occupatio of Eastern Europe, do not talk about a genocide besides the Jewish and Romani ones. When looking for a source to back this up I immediately found a book by Jan Gross (Polish Society Under German Occupation) which states on page 49[17] that the Nazis planned a genocide of Poles but did not have the chance to carry it out. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reading Czesław Madajczyk, Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce (Politics of Third Reich in Occupied Poland), Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1970 who is an expert on the subject.Otherwise Tadeusz Piotrowski Poland's Holocaust or The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation, 1939–1944 by Richard C. Lukas --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that most sources I've read that discuss the German occupation of Eastern Europe, do not talk about a genocide besides the Jewish and Romani ones. The UN Convention is directly based on Nuremberg principles and trials, which declared the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others."' For more see Genocide and Nuremberg by Henry T. King in The Criminal Law of Genocide: International, Comparative and Contextual Aspects', by Ralph Henham and Paul Behrens (Eds.) Sloan, J. (2008)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

On "Soviet genocide"

In a critical review of Naimark's book Stalin's Genocides, Lennart Samuelson, a noted economic historian of the Soviet Union, notes that Naimark's definition of genocides is far from the majority view: "In recent years, few Western historians have argued that any series of events, except for the famine in Ukraine in the fall of 1932 and spring of 1933, can be termed genocide as defined by the UN convention. In order to accomplish his reinterpretation of the Stalin era, Naimark reasons along two contradictory lines concerning the very concept of genocide."[18] And in Journal of Cold War Studies roundtable on his book, attended by several well known historians of the Soviet Union, it becomes clear how little consensus there is about "Soviet genocide"/"Stalinist genocide" and which, if any, events fall into this category. 10.1162/JCWS_a_00250

Ellman comments:

However, [Naimark] fails to point out the boomerang effect of such [a liberal] interpretation [of genocide]. According to a recent book by a U.S. specialist on genocide, which also adopts a liberal interpretation, the massacres of some of the native Americans by European settlers, the Atlantic slave trade, the use of a nuclear bomb against Nagasaki, and economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s through 2003, should all be considered genocides. This would make the United States a country founded on two genocides and guilty of two more. In view of this boomerang effect, my advice to Western governments is to stick to a strict constructionist interpretation of genocide. Hence, I disagree with Naimark’s wish to classify Stalin’s mass murders as genocide.

Jeffrey Rossman states:

Naimark is also on shaky ground when he categorizes attacks on “enemy nations” as genocide. He inadvertently acknowledges the weakness of the argument when he states that such attacks in “some cases took on genocidal characteristics” (p. 135). Here, again, the use of the adjective “genocidal” has the effect of conflating repressive measures that should be distinguished by historians and that are distinguished in international criminal law. The forced relocation of “enemy nations” was a crime against humanity. Although Naimark cites evidence showing the Stalin regime’s hostility toward these groups, he ignores evidence from equally high levels of the party-state (e.g., telegrams from Beria to Stalin) suggesting that the security police made efforts to reduce casualties during the process of forced relocation. This evidence needs to be taken into account when determining whether relocations constituted genocide or instead should be seen as crimes against humanity.

Proponents of the idea of Soviet genocide often focus on the national and ethnic deportations and operations in the 1930s and 40s. But if you do a Google scholar search it doesn't seem like most academics who study these events are using the word "genocide". Compare:

• "Stalinist genocides" 17 vs. "Stalinist deportations" 309
• "Soviet genocides" 54 vs. "Soviet deportations" 978

Now, it's not mutually exclusive for an event to be both a deportation and a genocide, however, I hope we all agree that no event should be listed here unless it can be shown that the view of "genocide" is the majority one. (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Some people may think it somewhat disingenuous to title the section "On Soviet genocide", then give us a google scholar search for the plural term "Soviet genocides" with 54 results. Note that searching for the singular term "Soviet genocide" yields a significantly larger 865 results. --Nug (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And this search doesn't exactly support the idea of "Soviet genocide" as the only mainstream position.

On the first page I find a source complaining about "abuse of historical memory is explored by describing the process whereby the memory of the deportations and repression that occurred during 1940-41 and 1944-53 in Lithuania has been transformed into the state-supported remembrance of a" Soviet genocide."" (He argues it was not). [19] (t · c) buidhe 07:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Polish operation

I found two academic sources which explicitly dispute that the Soviet ethnic operations, including Polish operation, were a genocide, instead classifying them as ethnic cleansing:

• McDermott, K. (2007). Stalinism “From Below”?: Social Preconditions of and Popular Responses to the Great Terror. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 8(3-4), 609–622. doi:10.1080/14690760701571239
• Martin, Terry. 1998. The origins of Soviet ethnic cleansing. Journal of Modern History 70, no. 4: 813-861.

It therefore seems that the view that this event was not a genocide is not a FRINGE view, but a legitimate one (whether majority or minority, I am not sure). Thus, it should not be put on the list. (t · c) buidhe 16:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links and quotes. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In regards to Soviet operations this paper[20] by Karol Karski(Habilitated Doctor in Law (University of Warsaw).Chair of Public International Law at the Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Warsaw and a Member of the Executive Board of the International Law Association—Polish Branch) discussess them in full in terms of genocide classification.Interestingly it also points out that Russian historian and jurist committee of experts set up by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation onMarch 17, 1992 has declared Katyn Massacre a genocide--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't deny that some sources indeed refer to this event as a genocide. However, since per the sources I cited, it is clearly disputed. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should not take sides or try to decide this matter. BTW Karol Karski is a PiS politician, which does not help establish this as the only significant point of view worth noting. (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You have NOT cited any sources where it’s disputed, clearly, or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I cited three: the two above and Ellman. (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Um, what??? *Im the one who cited Ellman*!!! Because he says it was a genocide. Why... how... what??? Not only were you not the one who cited Ellman, but now you’re pretending he says the opposite of what he actually says.

For the other two sources, I’ve asked you to provide quotes and links. Page numbers too. You haven’t done that. Until you do, you can’t actually claim that these sources support what you claim they do. Volunteer Marek 08:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Morris, quoted above. Ellman just said it "may constitute" a genocide. Do you have any info whether he made up his mind?

The sources have page numbers. If you can get a copy, I don't know if there are any free ones online, you could search through for "genocide" and easily verify. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Currently the word “Morris” appears only once in this page... in the comment you just made. Try again. How are you getting so confused over your own comments and sources?

And for the two other sources (McDermott and Martin) you only provided the entire page span which gives their page numbers within their respective journals. What I’m clearly asking for is the *specific* page where the text that you claim supports your contention occurs. Since you posted these sources as if they supported your argument I assume that you have readily available access to them so I’m not clear on why you’re refusing to provide the quotes or the specific page numbers. Volunteer Marek 08:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not hard to find a dissenting view for a lot of issues, particularly controversial. It is much more difficult to conclude whether the prevailing (or at least the majority's) consensus supports one side or the other. I'd suggest adding the views, for both and against, to List_of_genocides_by_death_toll#cite_ref-81, and preferably also to the article's in question. Right now the footnote cites at least 5 reliable scholars who call it a genocide (and we are still waiting for quotations from scholars who are supposedly disagreeing with their view?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Martin discusses the Polish operation as an example of "Soviet ethnic cleansing" and states, "Ethnic cleansing is probably best understood as occupying the central part of a continuum between genocide on one end and nonviolent pressured ethnic emigration on the other end. Given this continuum, there will always be ambiguity as to when ethnic cleansing shades into genocide, or pressured emigration into forced relocation."

McDermott states, "These examples of Soviet ‘ethnic cleansing’ [including the Polish operation] have led some scholars to compare Stalinist and Nazi exterminatory policies. The terminology of ‘Stalinist genocide’ employed by one or two specialists implies a close relationship and moral equivalence between Nazi and Soviet terror." <- this indicates that the view of genocide is not the majority one. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No.

You claimed that you had, quote, "sources which explicitly dispute that the (...) Polish operation, (was) a genocide"

NEITHER of the two quotes you provided "explicitly dispute" that the Polish operation was a genocide.

The Martin source:

Does not even discuss the United Nations definition of genocide. It's not even mentioned. And this is the standard that YOU chose.

It is not even about the Polish operation but rather about ALL the "national operations" in the Soviet Union. Indeed, most of these were NOT genocides and mostly involved deportations. The Polish operation however involved immediate mass executions of those arrested. It was different than the national operations/deportations of Tartars or others. Martin is referring mostly to the deportations in his discussion of ethnic cleansing.

Martin's view that ethnic cleansing is "on a continuum" between voluntary "non pressured ethnic migration" (<-- this also indicates he's talking about the deportations, and NOT the mass murders) and genocide is in a ... FOOTNOTE. And it's not even a mainstream view and it's certainly not the UN's view. According to James Silk of Yale, an event can be BOTH ethnic cleansing and genocide [21]. These two are not mutually exclusive categories. In fact, genocide very frequently if not always involves ethnic cleansing.

You conveniently omitted the sentence which precedes the one you quote which states "When murder itself becomes the primary goal, it is typically called genocide." And that was indeed the case with the Polish operation

The McDermott source DOES NOT "explicitly" or otherwise "deny" that the Polish operation was a genocide. It's also clear that you had to add the "including the Polish operation" yourself since it's not in the source. Your conclusion "this indicates that the view of genocide is not the majority one" is WP:OR and frankly, I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from what's actually written.

So neither of these sources actually states what you claim. This is the SECOND time, on this page alone that you've attempted to misrepresent sources. And I'm not even counting your misrepresentation of Ellman above or this... phantom Morris source which you claimed you had quoted above but which appears nowhere on this talk page.

Please adhere to what sources say, avoid original research, and definitely avoid misrepresenting them. Volunteer Marek 07:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ellman states, as quoted below, apparently, he disagrees with the term "genocide" for any of "Stalin’s mass murders".

I haven't misrepresented any sources. Any sources that dispute that the label "genocide" is applicable should be considered when evaluating if the interpretation as other than a genocide should be considered a legitimate position or a FRINGE view. (The non-legal definitions of genocide are usually broader than the legal ones anyway). (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. We've been over this. *I* quoted Ellman, not you. And he does call it a genocide. Why are you trying (repeatedly) to completely turn what sources say upside down? And who's this "Morris" fellah that you claim you quoted but who never appears on this talk page? Volunteer Marek 07:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quotes. I support adding those sources to the footnote here and in the relevant articles, with a note that such and such scholars refer to this as ethnic cleansing. Please remember that this is a blurry spectrum, and ethnic cleansing is not far from genocide. A good reading is [22]. Also, the sources you found support adding this incident to the List of ethnic cleansing campaigns, so I suggest copying the section there too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

See this quote from James Silk of Yale:

"Your motivation may be that you want the people out, but if in doing that you intend to destroy the group, then it’s also genocide,” said James Silk, a human rights professor at Yale Law School." [23]

Ethnic cleansing and genocide are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, genocide often involves ethnic cleansing.

Anyway, the point is that NEITHER of the sources Buidhe provided "explicitly dispute that the (...) Polish operation, was a genocide". At least not from the quotes provided. And in fact the Martin sources DOES NOT EVEN discuss the UN definition of genocide. On top of that, that source is mostly about Soviet deportations, a different topic altogether. Volunteer Marek 07:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, those sources indeed do not explicitly say this wasn't a genocide, and per the source I cited, something can be both. Most genocided are also ethnic cleansing (just escalated further). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

I would like to add the indonesians genocide of 1965-1966 that Deaths 500,000 to 13,000,000 Tozip (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I know at least two sources that call it "genocide". Do you have sources confirming that that event is recognized as genocide (as defined by the UNO convention) by majority of authors? Remember, the burden of proof is on those whop proposes to add some content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a specific mention of the UN convention in the source. Genocide is not solely defined by the convention, for example, Lemkin's definition is also valid and is wider. If the source is academic quality and says that it is genocide, then it should be fine for inclusion. I agree that two good-quality sources is probably a reasonable threshold. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 are not generally considered a genocide. Our article cites this[24] 2018 Princeton U Press book as stating that there is no agreement that it was a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe about. Not generally considered. That is it.109.93.170.220 (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)