Jump to content

Talk:List of genocides

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before writing a comment please read the comments below, and add yours in the most relevant section, or add a new section if nothing similar exists.

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

[edit]

Where are the active genocides against the Muslim Uyghurs in China's Xinjiang province and against Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet?

To call these atrocities anything other than genocide is a disgrace. If Israel's actions in Palestine can be called a genocide, then the CCP's ongoing attempt to exterminate and sinophy the Uyghur and Tibetan peoples and religions should absolutely be labelled a genocide. Jbak0905 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Uyghur genocide" was previously listed in the article but was removed for failing the inclusion criteria back when we used the UN definition. Now that the inclusion criteria has changed it may be time for another discussion about it. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the new inclusion criteria Uyghur should certainly be included. Tibet is usually characterized as a 'cultural genocide' so would require further discussion to establish clear consensus—blindlynx 14:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Endwise: As the user who removed the Uyghur genocide entry from the list, could you offer an opinion? TRCRF22 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that one of the reasons for removing it was a lack of death toll. Every single entry in the article's list has a death toll. The Uyghur genocide, when it was listed here, was the only entry that did not have a death toll. Given that the article Uyghur genocide itself had its title changed to Persecution of Uyghurs in China, you should first go there and argue for a restoration of that article's title. But you should familiarize yourself with the subject matter and the discussion behind the decision here. JasonMacker (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are considered “cultural genocide” if I am not mistaken, as opposed to genocide in the liter sense here, the mass killing of thousands of people with intent to destroy them The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the situation in Tibet, about which I am totally uninformed, but several experts have described the persecution of Uyghurs as meeting the standard of the Genocide Convention. While it's true that there are no (or very few) deaths, genocide can also be committed by "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", and by "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group", both of which have been documented against Uyghurs. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the article Persecution of Uyghurs in China, the following scholarship is mentioned or cited as it being a case of genocide (as opposed to cultural genocide):
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time in the near future to do the digging myself, but looking for papers published in the following journals concluding it is a genocide would help bolster the argument for inclusion (and should be added to the Persecution article):
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is one other supporting academic source included in the article that you've missed. "The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention" is a paper by the scholar Azeem Ibrahim and includes contributions from dozens of genocide scholars, international law experts and experts on Chinese ethnic policies. The article also discusses a legal opinion from the Essex Court Chambers authored in part by Alison Macdonald KC - an expert in human rights and international law - which found a "very credible case" for there being a genocide against Uyghurs. TRCRF22 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1 As of today, the persecution of Uyghurs article cites eight academic sources which state that there is a Uyghur genocide:
I'd say this is sufficient sourcing to include, especially since there are entries already included with weaker sourcing (such as the Osage murders), but you may have a different view. TRCRF22 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks substantial enough to warrant inclusion in my opinion—blindlynx 17:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no factual basis for the claim that the Chinese government is attempting to exterminate Uyghurs or Tibetans. And that probably has a lot to do with why it's not included here. 2601:645:D00:4B80:7C84:2092:82F3:4E1D (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included just because several governments recognize it as a genocide. ScmHstu (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes back to a question I asked the last time there was a serious dispute over whether to include something in the list (I had this specific case in mind, in fact.) Currently the inclusion criteria says the list contains things that are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides, but this is ambiguous- does it mean "significant scholarship exists that describes this as a genocide, even if it's in the minority, or at least fails to represent a clear consensus across the discipline", or does it mean "the consensus of all significant scholarship on the topic, taken collectively, is that it is a genocide?" Normally I think we use the latter standard for whether to call something a genocide in the article voice or not; we could cover other positions with attribution, but to state something as fact in the article voice (implied by placing it in a list) requires consensus among the sources. I do think that if we go with the former then we need to make it clear when things are disputed (as is definitely the case here.) It's also important to clarify that most scholars refer to it as a cultural genocide - the current wording is strange because it tiptoes around that in a way that gives a casual reader the impression that there's a scholarly consensus that China is trying to murder every single Uyghur, which certainly isn't present. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not as ambiguous as you may think. As the criteria goes on to say, this list includes events around which there is ongoing scholarly debate over their classification as genocide and is not a list of only events which have a scholarly consensus to recognize them as genocide. In other words, as clarified during the RfC on Gaza, an event can be included even if there is a sizable amount of scholarship to the contrary as long as there is a significant body of academic opinion in favour of the contention. As to your point that most scholars refer to it as a cultural genocide, I'm actually not sure that this is the case. In the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article, only five actual scholars are listed as describing the persecutions as cultural genocide as opposed to genocide: Michael Clarke, Adrian Zenz, James Leibold, Kate Cronin-Furman and Azeem Ibrahim. Of these, Zenz and Ibrahim later revised their opinions to state that Uyghurs are experiencing genocide in the literal sense, and Cronin-Furman has also stated that China may be committing genocide as opposed to cultural genocide. [15]. Thus, as far as I'm aware the academic body of opinion that Uyghurs are experiencing a cultural genocide and not a literal one is actually rather small as of this date. TRCRF22 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion, to your point that the Uyghur entry you deleted was wildly out of line with overall scholarship on the subject by presenting one strand of opinion in a hotly-contested subject as uncontroversial, I don't see how this was the case. All that was written was that "Widespread human rights violations by the Communist Party of China against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have often been characterized as genocide", which is true. It did not make a definitive or factual statement, it did not state in WP:VOICE that there is a genocide in Xinjiang. Could you clarify? TRCRF22 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear from both the lead and some of the entries that the former is an inclusion criteria. That is 'significant scholarship exists that describes this as a genocide, even if it's in the minority' not ' scholarly consensus' is the current inclusion criteria. IF this is not clear from this list includes events around which there is ongoing scholarly debate over their classification as genocide and is not a list of only events which have a scholarly consensus to recognize them as genocide what could we do to make it so?—blindlynx 02:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: If you're not going to participate in this discussion and substantiate your problems with the Uyghur entry then I am going to restore it. Blindlynx and I have addressed your arguments and you're just ignoring us. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include Soviet-Afghan War and Hazara genocide

[edit]

Both events have numerous sources declaring them as genocide: Soviet Afghan War

(copied from Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) article) Numerous scholars and academics have stated that the Soviet military perpetrated a genocidal campaign of extermination against Afghan people during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.[1][2] Afghan president Mohammed Daoud Khan was deposed and murdered in 1978's Saur Revolution by the Khalqist faction of People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), who subsequently established their own government, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.[3]

What followed the April coup of 1978 was severe repression of a kind previously unknown in Afghanistan. American journalist and CNAS member Robert D. Kaplan argued that, while Afghanistan had been "poor" and "underdeveloped", it was a "relatively civilized" country that "had never known very much political repression" until 1978.[4] Political scientist Barnett Rubin wrote, "Khalq used mass arrests, torture, and secret executions on a scale Afghanistan had not seen since the time of Abdul Rahman Khan, and probably not even then".[5] After gaining power, the Khalqists unleashed a campaign of "red terror", killing more than 27,000 people in the Pul-e-Charkhi prison, prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.[4]

After Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, deposing and killing Hafizullah Amin in Operation Storm-333 and installing Babrak Karmal as General Secretary, the brutality of communists intensified. The army of the Soviet Union killed large numbers of Afghans, attempting to suppress resistance from the Afghan mujahideen.[6] Numerous mass murders were perpetrated by the Soviet Army during the summer of 1980. Soviet forces also launched chemical attacks against civilian populations.[7] During the 1980s, the communist PDPA regime also killed and tortured thousands of individuals in the Pul-e-Charkhi prison.[8]

One notorious atrocity was the Laghman massacre in April 1985 in the villages of Kas-Aziz-Khan, Charbagh, Bala Bagh, Sabzabad, Mamdrawer, Haider Khan and Pul-i-Joghi[9] in the Laghman Province. At least 500 civilians were killed.[10] In the Kulchabat, Bala Karz and Mushkizi massacre which was committed on 12 October 1983, the Red Army gathered 360 people at the village square and shot them, including 20 girls and over a dozen older people.[11][12][13] The Rauzdi massacre and Padkhwab-e Shana massacre were also documented.[14] Approximately 2 million Afghan civilians were killed by the Soviet military and its proxies during the Soviet invasion and occupation.[15]

Soviet Air Forces perpetrated scorched-earth strategy during its bombing campaigns, which consisted of carpet bombing of cities and indiscriminate attacks that destroyed entire villages. Millions of land-mines (often camouflaged as kids' playthings) were planted by Soviet military across Afghanistan. Around 90% of Kandahar's inhabitants were forcibly expelled, as a result of Soviet atrocities during the war.[16] Everything was the target in the country, from cities, villages, up to schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, factories and orchards. Soviet tactics included targeting areas which showed support for the Afghan resistance, and forcing the populace to flee the rural regions where the communists had no territorial control. Half of Afghanistan's 24,000 villages and most of the rural facilities were destroyed by the end of the war.[17][18] During the Soviet invasion and occupation between 1979 and 1992, more than 20% of the Afghan population were focibly displaced as refugees.[18][19]

Historians, academics and scholars have widely described the Soviet military campaign in Afghanistan as a genocide. These include American professor Samuel Totten,[20] Australian professor Paul R. Bartrop,[20] political scientist Anthony James Joyce,[21] scholars from Yale Law School including W. Michael Reisman and Charles Norchi,[22] writer and journalist Rosanne Klass,[23] Canadian professor Adam Jones[24] and historian Mohammed Kakar.[25] American anthropologist Louis Dupree stated that Afghans were victims of "migratory genocide" implemented by Soviet military.[16]

Sources for Hazara genocide (19th century) Zamani, Ezzatullah (September 2019). "The 'Genocide of the Hazaras' in Afghanistan from 1884 to 1905 and subsequent genocidal campaigns and target killings against them in the 21st century"

Hakimi, Mehdi J. (25 July 2023). "The Afghan State and the Hazara Genocide". Harvard Human Rights Journal. 37.

Ibrahimi, Niamatullah (1 October 2017). The Hazaras and the Afghan State: Rebellion, Exclusion and the Struggle for Recognition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-84904-981-8.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/FAAE/Reports/RP13256076/faaerp27/faaerp27-e.pdf

https://civilrights.org/blog/the-hazara-genocide-and-systemic-discrimination-in-afghanistan/ Vanisherman (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely yes on the Hazara Genocide. The Wikipedia article calls it that. According to that article 'Over 60 percent of the total Hazara population was massacred with some being displaced and exiled by migrating to Quetta (Pakistan) and Mashhad (Iran) and other adjoining areas....320,000 Hazara families killed or enslaved and 80,000 of them displaced'. LastDodo (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I went ahead and added the Hazara Genocide as that seems a clear-cut case. The Soviet one I will leave others to discuss. LastDodo (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kakar 1997:[page needed] "The Afghans are among the latest victims of genocide by a superpower."
  2. ^ Reisman, W. Michael; Norchi, Charles H. "Genocide and the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 October 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2017. According to widely reported accounts, substantial programmes of depopulation have been conducted in these Afghan provinces: Ghazni, Nagarhar, Lagham, Qandahar, Zabul, Badakhshan, Lowgar, Paktia, Paktika and Kunar...There is considerable evidence that genocide has been committed against the Afghan people by the combined forces of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union.
  3. ^ Rubin, Barnett R. (2002). The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System (2nd ed.). New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-300-09519-7.
  4. ^ a b D. Kaplan, Robert (2001). Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Vintage Books. p. 115. ISBN 1-4000-3025-0.
  5. ^ Rubin, Barnett R. (2002). The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System (2nd ed.). New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-300-09519-7.
  6. ^ Kakar 1997:[page needed] "The Afghans are among the latest victims of genocide by a superpower. Large numbers of Afghans were killed to suppress resistance to the army of the Soviet Union, which wished to vindicate its client regime and realize its goal in Afghanistan."
  7. ^ Kakar 1997:[page needed] "Incidents of the mass killing of noncombatant civilians were observed in the summer of 1980...the Soviets felt it necessary to suppress defenseless civilians by killing them indiscriminately, by compelling them to flee abroad, and by destroying their crops and means of irrigation, the basis of their livelihood. The dropping of booby traps from the air, the planting of mines, and the use of chemical substances, though not on a wide scale, were also meant to serve the same purpose...they undertook military operations in an effort to ensure speedy submission: hence the wide use of aerial weapons, in particular helicopter gunships or the kind of inaccurate weapons that cannot discriminate between combatants and noncombatants."
  8. ^ Sarwary, Bilal (27 February 2006). "Kabul's prison of death". BBC News. Archived from the original on 27 February 2024.
  9. ^ "Diplomats report massacre in Afghanistan". United Press International. 14 May 1985. Archived from the original on 3 October 2022. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
  10. ^ Bellamy, Alex J. (2012). Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 281. ISBN 9780199288427.
  11. ^ Bernstein, Richard (1 March 1985). "U.N. Rights Study Finds Afghan Abuses by Soviets". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 September 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
  12. ^ "UN report attacks Afghan massacres". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, New South Wales. 4 March 1985. p. 7. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
  13. ^ Ermacora, Felix (1985). "Report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan / prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Felix Ermacora, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1984/55". United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Geneva: 31. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
  14. ^ "Tears, Blood and Cries. Human Rights in Afghanistan Since the Invasion 1979–1984" (PDF). Human Rights Watch. 1984. pp. 37–38. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 November 2023. Retrieved 6 July 2021.
  15. ^ Klass, Rosanne (1994). The Widening Circle of Genocide. Transaction Publishers. p. 129. ISBN 9781412839655. During the intervening fourteen years of Communist rule, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Afghan civilians were killed by Soviet forces and their proxies- the four Communist regimes in Kabul, and the East Germans, Bulgarians, Czechs, Cubans, Palestinians, Indians and others who assisted them. These were not battle casualties or the unavoidable civilian victims of warfare. Soviet and local Communist forces seldom attacked the scattered guerrilla bands of the Afghan Resistance except, in a few strategic locales like the Panjsher valley. Instead they deliberately targeted the civilian population, primarily in the rural areas.
  16. ^ a b Borshchevskaya, Anna (2022). "2: The Soviet Union in the Middle East and the Afghanistan Intervention". Putin's War in Syria. London, UK: I. B. Tauris. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7556-3463-7.
  17. ^ Goodson, Larry P. (2011). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press. pp. 94, 95. ISBN 978-0-295-80158-2. OCLC 1026403863.
  18. ^ a b Blood-Stained Hands: Past Atrocities in Kabul and Afghanistan's Legacy of Impunity (Report). Human Rights Watch. 6 July 2005. Archived from the original on 24 February 2024. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
  19. ^ "Refugees From Afghanistan: The world's largest single refugee group" (PDF). www.refworld.org. 16 November 1999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 11 December 2021.
  20. ^ a b Bartrop, Paul R.; Totten, Samuel (2007). Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. ABC-CLIO. pp. 3, 4. ISBN 978-0-313-34642-2. OCLC 437198304.
  21. ^ James Joes, Anthony (2010). "4: Afghanistan: End of the Red Empire". Victorious Insurgencies: Four Rebellions that Shaped Our World. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 211, 213. ISBN 978-0-8131-2614-2.
  22. ^ Reisman, W. Michael; Norchi, Charles. "Genocide and the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan" (PDF). pp. 4–6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 October 2016. Retrieved 7 January 2017.
  23. ^ Klass, Rosanne (2018). https://books.google.com/books?id=I2chrSJCW54C&pg=PA129. In Charny, Israel W. (ed.). The Widening Circle of Genocide: Genocide – A Critical Bibliographic Review. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-29406-5. OCLC 1032709528. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help); Unknown parameter |chaGenocides in history (1946 to 1999)Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)pter= ignored (help)
  24. ^ Jones, Adam (2011). "2: State and Empire; War and Revolution". Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 77–79. ISBN 978-0-415-48618-7.
  25. ^ Kakar 1997, p. 215.

Important WW2 genocide is missing

[edit]

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia – a very large subject in Polish press always. Revery (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this briefly recently [[16]]. Scholars seem to be of the mind it's an ethnic cleansing not many call it a genocide. Obviously if you have substantial scholarly sources calling it genocide we can include it—blindlynx 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Africans

[edit]

Please add genocide of Africans by slavers. 76.90.33.234 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any new content will require reliable sources in order to be considered. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Taíno genocide

[edit]

Explanation:

Initially, geneticists and anthropologists focused on studying the DNA of different living communities in the Caribbean that were thought to have stronger Taíno heritage. In Puerto Rico, these studies concluded that these communities and the general population shared a similar percentage of Native American ancestry. In other words, even though they were genetically similar, some communities had maintained a Taíno cultural identity, while others did not.

The last two decades has brought with it enormous progress in DNA research. Now we can obtain and analyze DNA from ancient samples. We can also sequence the entire genome of an individual (though it is harder with older samples). Additionally, we can also sequence mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited just from the mother, and the Y chromosome, inherited only from the dad. Using these techniques in the Caribbean, researchers have been able to sequence the DNA of over a hundred pre-Columbian skeletal remains from multiple islands (mostly from the Greater Antilles). From these data, researchers have concluded that current Caribbean inhabitants are indeed direct descendants of Pre-Taíno and Taíno groups, and that indigenous matrilineal heritage is strongly present today. Indigenous patrilineal heritage, on the other hand, is much less present today than the matrilineal counterpart. What does this mean? It means that non-Taíno men had children with Taíno women. This suggests that Taíno families and communities were destroyed, but individual Taíno people - especially women - survived and had children.

DNA data, therefore, has allowed us to see a more nuanced picture of the “demise” of the Taínos. They may not have survived as a cultural group, but their members did not disappear as quick as historical records suggested.

Censuses of the time did not account for the number of Indians who fled into remote communities, where they often joined with runaway Africans, called cimarrones, producing zambos. There were also confusing issues with racial categorization, as mestizos who were culturally Spanish were counted as Spaniards.


Sources: [1] [2] Navy365 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There are plenty of high quality sources that call it a genocide and neither of the sources you present dispute that it was a genocide. Further, what you are describing is genocide—Taino groups were deliberately destroyed—genetics have nothing to do with this—blindlynx 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources call it a genocide, furthermore it is the second oldest genocide listed (by a huge margin) and is well in line with the common practice at the time. If you wish to call it genocide then you should also include every other early modern or medieval conquest. The process was that of assimilation as pointed out in the previous studies and there was no intentional murder to erradicate the ethnic group.
https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e804#:~:text=1%20Genocide%20is%20defined%20within,or%20religious%20group%20as%20such. Navy365 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy "no original research". Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say.
So if it's true that "plenty of high quality sources call it a genocide and neither of the sources you present dispute that it was a genocide", as Blindlynx has stated, then we will call it a genocide on Wikipedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The taino genocide is not supported by any UN organization and no government officially supports or endorses it.
If you want some sources challenging it:
J. H. Elliott
Book: Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America (2006)
While he acknowledges the brutality of Spanish practices, he argues that the term "genocide" is anachronistic when applied to early colonial violence. He contends that the Spanish Empire’s goal was not necessarily the annihilation of Indigenous peoples, but rather their subjugation and exploitation for labor and resources. Elliott suggests that the colonial powers were more focused on economic gain and religious conversion than systematic extermination.
Anthony Pagden
Book: The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology (1982)
While he does not deny the suffering of Indigenous populations, he argues that the violence experienced by Indigenous groups like the Taino was part of a broader pattern of colonization rather than a specifically genocidal act. He contends that applying the term "genocide" may obscure the more complex social, economic, and political factors at play in the early colonial period.
David Nirenberg
Book: Anti-Judaism: The History of a Way of Thinking (2013)
Nirenberg explores the role of religious and racial ideologies in European colonialism, but he argues that using the term "genocide" for pre-20th-century violence is problematic.
Patricia Seed
Book: Ceremony Before Breakfast: The Legacy of Colonization in the Americas (2002)
Seed discusses the history of European colonization and its impact on Indigenous peoples, including the Taino. She emphasizes the role of disease and the dynamics of early colonial interactions, suggesting that the concept of genocide doesn't capture the complexities of the era. She stresses the importance of understanding the colonial mindset in historical context. Navy365 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources. Can I ask where the summary texts are from? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/06/24/the-rediscovery-of-america/ https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Atlantic-World-Britain-1492-1830/dp/030012399X https://books.google.es/books/about/The_Fall_of_Natural_Man.html?id=t-ux8_ElZLoC&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.es/books/about/Anti_Judaism.html?id=7wJLibiMOekC&redir_esc=y Navy365 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you shared this?—blindlynx 01:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The taino genocide is not supported by any UN organization and no government officially supports or endorses it. Condecorated authors like J. H. Elliott call the usage of the word genocide anachronistic and the only reliable sources you pointed out (David Stannard) are heavily critisized by the majority of experts and colonial era historians. In addition, the classification of the encomienda system as slavery is blatantly incorrect as stated by numerous experts like James Lockhart, John Hemming or Anthony Pagden. In addition I see a heavy bias compared to english genocides, where the word spanish/spain is used 4 times in a single paragraph in contrast to english genocides like the Queensland Aboriginal genocide where australia was still a colony and no mention is made stating that it was still part of britain. In addition you ommit similar authors pointing out genocides commited by the british like the boer genocide where 26,000 Boer civilians (mainly women and children) died in British concentration camps. Unlike the taino genocide this one is supported officially by nations such as South Africa and Russia. https://journals.ispan.edu.pl/index.php/sn/article/view/sn.2274?utm_source=chatgpt.com Navy365 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you are referring too with 'you'. I don't have access to the Stannard paper. I was mostly talking about, Conley & de Waal's and Braun's chapters in Cambridge World History of Genocide.
If your objection is to the inclusion of pre-20c or colonial things in general there is robust academic discussion of genocides in the context of colonialism (with a lot of papers specifically about columbus and genocide), given that the inclusion criteria for this list are 'classified as genocide by significant scholarship' i don't see the fact there is debate about application of the term 'genocide' as grounds for removal especially given that there is debate about the use of the term for nearly ever event on this list.
Also please see WP:OTHERCONTENT what about arguments aren't useful, if there is scholarship calling things genocides we should include them in this list—blindlynx 16:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources you provide are all based in english university historians not significant scholarship, most of them being promoters of the black legend. Universities don't have the legal power to declare something as genocide as per the UN genocide convention and international law. Navy365 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by 'significant scholarship' means that is is taken as a serious academic position ie inclusion is wp:due and the position isn't wp:fringe. UN recognition is not inclusion criteria for this list and only four genocides have been recognized as such by UN bodies: Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and of the Yazidis—blindlynx 00:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On your points raised to this section:
  1. Survivors after a genocide does not prevent something from being a genocide. Genocidal rape is a well documented act that constitutes an act of genocide under both the UN convention and a variety of genocide definitions.
  2. Two general sources discussing firstly the Taino as a general group, and the genetic traces of Taino populations in modern people do not outweigh multiple academic sources that specifically analyse the Taino genocide as a potential genocide.
  3. If you wish to call it genocide - It is not what we wish, it is what reliable sources say.
  4. you should also include every other early modern or medieval conquest - only if there are reliable sources stating such.
  5. Elliott: As we go back further in time the less certainty there is in determining genocide, this does not prevent them from having occurred, nor does it stop academics from using their tools to analyse events and argue their cases.
  6. Pagden: See above, plus, see the arguments of a broad swathe of scholars who argue that the broader processes of colonisation are in fact genocidal processes.
  7. Nirenberg: See Elliott, plus, this is true of ALL terminology historians employ. While Nirenberg says it is problematic, does he say genocides never occurred prior to the 20th century? Did he say the Taino genocide is not a genocide?
  8. Seed: See previous comments on colonisation as genocidal process, and see the literature that discusses inaction in the spread of disease as wanton negligence as in-part evidence for genocidal thinking.
  9. While the court organs of UN determines if something is a genocide per the UN convention, and UN rapporteurs and agencies can warn of genocide and make claims of genocide (sometimes per the UN convention), they are not the arbiter of genocide as a whole.
  10. Whether governments consider something a genocide is beyond useless, it is merely political games under the whims of whatever their current regime is. So, while their statements are worthy of the record on their relevant articles, whether something is a genocide should be based on the analysis and argumentation of requisite specialists.
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above, plus, see the arguments of a broad swathe of scholars who argue that the broader processes of colonisation are in fact genocidal processes.
Ok i revised the article containing the list of genocides
1-The link that supposedly has evidence for it does not work nor does it show any information ( "Raphael Lemkin's History of Genocide and Colonialism". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.)
2-Most of the english historian sources you provided don't specify on the taino but call the whole conquest of the americas as a genocide.
Whether governments consider something a genocide is beyond useless, it is merely political games under the whims of whatever their current regime is. So, while their statements are worthy of the record on their relevant articles, whether something is a genocide should be based on the analysis and argumentation of requisite specialists.
3-Should be but it isn't according to the UN genocide convention and international law Navy365 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your assessment is a based on a single web page of a popular website, and not any actual scholarship such as Wolfe, Adhikari, Moses, etc. As to discussing the broader processes of colonisation are in fact genocidal processes, that is what I said, so I don't understand you pointing to the fact that scholarship does discuss this matter as a "gotcha".
And you don't want to play the Convention game, it's a silly game where you will lose. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I detect an emotionally cahrged message and don't see where i did a gotcha. My assesment is based on more than 7 international authors, UN agencies, international comunity and every recogniced country and their legal systems. Navy365 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of which you have cited none. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you must mean the aforementioned authors. I will repeat my point towards Wolfe, Adhikari, and Moses, along with the dozens of authors in the works they've edited discussing the colonial process and genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Wolfe: Likely views the Taíno's experience as part of settler colonial logic but he does not explicitly discuss them.
Surabhi Adhikari: there is no evidence of her addressing this directly.
A. Dirk Moses: Likely to consider the Taíno's destruction as part of colonialism if analyzed within his broader critique, though he does not explicitly discuss them.
Want more? Navy365 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these scholars have explicitly or extensively classified the Taíno conquest as genocide Navy365 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading what I have written, as I never claimed or insinuated that they had. And you have the wrong Adhikari, maybe look for academics who are well known in the relevant field when searching for info on them, instead of picking a random computer scientist. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the court organs of UN determines if something is a genocide per the UN convention, and UN rapporteurs and agencies can warn of genocide and make claims of genocide (sometimes per the UN convention), they are not the arbiter of genocide as a whole.
The United Nations (UN), particularly the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the primary arbiter when it comes to determining whether an act constitutes genocide. The UN Genocide Convention, which was adopted in 1948, provides the official legal framework for the definition of genocide, and the UN plays a central role in addressing issues of genocide and accountability. Navy365 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the UN convention, as said you don't want to play the convention game. But if you really wish to, we can run the dialogue tree for it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UN convention is not the only part but it's the main arbiter Navy365 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok since you want to run this route. Your argument here says that you do not consider the Holocaust a genocide. Is this correct? Cdjp1 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UN General Assembly Resolution 60/7 (2005) indirectly and the United Nations Holocaust Outreach Programme directly reference the Holocaust as a genocide (and with this the 120 countries that observe International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27) Navy365 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not been decided by the courts, which was your argument. So according to your argument, the Holocaust isn't a genocide and should not be included. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I detect a lack of reading comprehension. My argument is:
1-The taino genocide is not supported by any UN organization and no government officially supports or endorses it (notice how I did not mention the word court). While the holocaust: UN General Assembly Resolution 60/7 (2005) indirectly and the United Nations Holocaust Outreach Programme directly reference the Holocaust as a genocide (and with this the 120 countries that observe International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27)
2-It's the second oldest genocide listed by a huge margin.
3-Some sources provided in the article don't exist anymore. ("Raphael Lemkin's History of Genocide and Colonialism". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.)
4-Anti-spanish black legend bias. The word spanish/spain is mentioned 6 times in a single paragraph, while in other genocides commited by the british it is not mentioned that they were commited by them.
5-I saw you (or one of you) mention that, following this, there would only be 5 genocides in the list. Again, this is not an argument, do you prefer having more text than showing real factual information? Navy365 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to show an ignorance of the page scope, and you seem to fail to be able to grasp analogy of argument. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations (UN), particularly the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the primary arbiter when it comes to determining whether an act constitutes genocide. If we limited this list to only including events which these courts have labelled genocide, we would only have four entries: Srebrenica, Rwanda (per ICJ rulings), Cambodia (per the Cambodia Tribunal), and Darfur (per the ICC — which, by the way, is not a UN institution as you claim). In the case of the Tainó, arguing that neither court ever ruled the campaign genocide is pointless since both of them were founded centuries later: how could they possibly have made a decision? TRCRF22 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed its an UN institution but that it cooperates with it, regarless if its an independent institution. As i said eralier (which i see you have problem reading) is: My assesment is based on more than 7 international authors, UN agencies, international comunity and every recogniced country and their legal systems. Navy365 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply making the point that talking about UN agencies in this context is a pointless exercise because the UN was not in existence at the time of the Tainó genocide. The UN publicly declaring that Spain committed a genocide would be like the ICC indicting Hitler: an empty and meaningless gesture. The same goes for your point about "every recogniced [sic] country and their legal systems" not recognising this as a genocide: the legal system cannot possibly make any ruling on it because it happened centuries ago, so nobody can be held accountable because all parties to any litigation are long dead.
You've also made the point that Universities don't have the legal power to declare something as genocide as per the UN genocide convention and international law. That's true from a legal standpoint, but what you miss is that Wikipedia is not a court and we do not need to wait for an official determination of genocide, which in most cases will never come because international law moves so slowly. Per Wikipedia's policies, if a large number of reliable sources (in this case, scholars and legal experts) have declared something to be genocide, we can call it genocide, even though others such as those you've named may disagree. For example, the Holocaust was never officially declared genocide but there is a near-universal consensus among experts that it was. TRCRF22 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an excellent paper on this topic by George Tinker and Mark Freeland [[17]]—blindlynx 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://orias.berkeley.edu/resources-teachers/societies-americas/ta%C3%ADnos-caribbean-indigenous-peoples
  2. ^ https://ictnews.org/archive/indigenous-puerto-rico-dna-evidence-upsets-established-history

Kafno?

[edit]

Should the Kafno really be here? The wiki article does not explicity say it was genocide, either by the British and French or by the Ottomans, nor do the sources used. In fact the Wiki article says no government, not even that of Lebanon, presently recognises it as genocide. Are there sufficient reliable sources making this claim? LastDodo (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Its classification as a genocide seems to be a somewhat WP:FRINGE perspective, and one not supported by most of the sources included in the article. TRCRF22 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed it's addition initially, we have it in the genocides in history article discussing the time period. I added an overview of it into the article due to the subheading already being present. Looking at our wikiarticle on it, the only mentions of genocide is from Marionite advocacy to have it recognised as such. So, at this point, seems clear to have it removed by both, unless we can find scholarship on the matter analysing it as a genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was only added yesterday, I'd assumed it must have been added a while back. Fool on me. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the only thing scholarship adjacent i could find to this is a policy piece by the Robert Rabil for the Washington Institute [18] so not exactly close to inclusion criteria—blindlynx 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through results in Google scholar the closest I can find are academics reporting on tthe advocacy of Marionites to have it recognised as genocide. I have removed it from this list and from the history article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —blindlynx 19:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I agree with this. LastDodo (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2025

[edit]

For the Masalit genocide, I would like to add a number to the highest estimated killing section: 130,000 killings. This number is based on the following report by Genocide Watch: https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/genocide-watch-annual-report-2024. 197cgb (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LastDodo (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Wars?

[edit]

Should the Beaver Wars be included? Here is a quote from the lede of the Wikipedia article:

As a result of this conflict, the Iroquois destroyed several confederacies and tribes through warfare: the Hurons or Wendat, Erie, Neutral, Wenro, Petun, Susquehannock, Mohican and northern Algonquins whom they defeated and dispersed, some fleeing to neighbouring peoples and others assimilated, routed, or killed.

Here is historian Jeffrey Blick writing in Genocidal Warfare in Tribal Societies as a Result of European Induced Culture Conflict:

In order to corner the market on pelt trading as well as to expand their holdings of lands rich in fur-bearing animals, the Iroquois adopted a new, radical policy in order to achieve their recently acquired goals: exterminative warfare. For example, as early as the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Iroquois had adopted a style of warfare more characteristic of Europeans. As a French explorer, Lescarbot (quoted in Trigger I962: 248), noted eight years before [in 16oo] a large band of Iroquois had lain waste the St. Lawrence valley and wiped out the Laurentian [Stadaconan] population. We may infer that instead of all being killed some were adopted by the Iroquois, while others fled westward to Huronia or joined and were assimilated by Algonquian groups.'...Service (I968:I6 I-2) notes that: 'The Huron were directly in the way and in I649 the Iroquois mustered about a thousand warriors and destroyed the Huron.

Blick has actually written an article on this specific subject but it is behind a paywall. And I dont know if there are a sufficient number of academics willing to call this genocidal to reach the 'significant scholarship' threshold. LastDodo (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Genocide Research is accessible on wiki library so you'll be able to find the fulltext there. [19]. I haven;t had a chance to read it yet though, certainly worth investigating further—blindlynx 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the reading I've done, it wasn't the Beaver Wars as a whole, but specific parts of the war, citations at: Genocides in history (before World War I)#Ontario. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"adopted a style of warfare more characteristic of Europeans" I don't know about Europeans, but expansionist military campaigns and conflicts over natural resources are far from unique to specific continents and regions. Our article on the Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire points out that its campaigns involved the systematic destruction of cities, the mass deportation of captured populations, and the attempted colonization of the captured areas. There have been suggestions that the empire's policies were a precursor to the total war concept, with early uses of the scorched earth policy and collective punishment for attempts at resistance. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irish genocide

[edit]

Include the irish famine as a genocide. quote:A common quote the Irish used often provides the clearest insight to the question: “God gave us the potato blight, but the English gave us the famine.” Referring back to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary for the true definition of genocide, one reads: “the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, religious, political, or cultural group.” The British policy went from a scientific examination, to the refusal to budge on collecting taxes, to the continuation of grain exports that could have fed thousands, to workhouses, and watching millions starve to death. The actions, or non-actions, of Trevelyan and his administration were a deliberate attempt to exterminate a religious, national, and cultural group. One might even think it even more terrible that the Irish were allowed to die slowly and suffer so greatly as they starved to death, rather than die quickly in mass killings. The Irish potato famine is one of the worst tragedies in history. Not only were millions of lives lost, but the spirit of a great nation was lost. https://www.beaconconference.org/site/assets/files/1023/beacon_conference_proceedings_2011.pdf#page=122

quote: In “The Famine Plot,” Tim Pat Coogan argues that the Irish Potato Famine was indeed a genocide based on the 1948 UN Convention definition (Coogan). A source that Coogan uses is the comics degrading the Irish people, and he says that those comics helped develop a view of the Irish as lazy and racially inferior (Politicalworld.org).The propaganda against the Irish may have led to a “learned helplessness,” a condition in which the spirit is so broken that people don’t even want to try to get stronger (Mcintyre). This mindset resulted in delayed marriages and mental illnesses. According to Coogan, the cultivation of such a mindset can be considered mental harm, a part of 1948 UN Convention’s definition. https://bergen.edu/wp-content/uploads/SchJournal2017-webversion.pdf#page=48

In 1996, the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education published a report titled "The Great Irish Famine," which examined the events of the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1852). The report highlighted the severe starvation, disease, and emigration that resulted in the deaths of over a million Irish people and the emigration of another million and a half. It also noted that during this period, massive quantities of food were being exported from Ireland, and a significant number of people were evicted from their homes. Ragged University. The report was included in the Holocaust and Genocide Curriculum at the secondary level, indicating its recognition as a significant event in the study of genocides.

quote: The following is published by the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education on September 10th, 1996, for inclusion in the Holocaust and Genocide Curriculum at the secondary level. 

Between 1845 and 1850, more than a million Irish people starved to death while massive quantities of food were being exported from their country. A half million were evicted from their homes during the potato blight, and a million and a half emigrated to America, Britain and Australia, often on-board rotting, overcrowded “coffin ships”.

https://raggeduniversity.co.uk/2022/09/14/the-irish-potato-famine/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

quote: The consequence of the Famine impacted Ireland for over a century, as the Irish population decreased almost by half. In 1841, the population in Ireland was 8.18 million; in 1861, after the potato blight struck Ireland, there were only 5.8 million people, a 30% decrease in the population. Starvation accounted for approximately 1 million deaths, and emigration contributed to approximately 2 million losses of the Irish population during the famine. The repercussions of the event continued to impact Ireland through 1931 when the population had decreased to 4.21 million: approximately 4 million people had left Ireland.2 Nevertheless, when the astonishing mortality statistics and inhumane acts of the British are considered, this catastrophe, instead of being viewed as a purely natural disaster, can clearly be seen as an avoidable act of genocide by the British. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES The Great Famine: Britain’s Act of Genocide in Ireland? Navy365 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase you for why entries should be excluded: 'No UN organ recognises it as genocide'. Therefore, by your previous argument we should not include it. Glad you understand. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore you have 2 options: 1-You include this or 2-You erase the others that don't fit the argumentation. Navy365 (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as was explained to you by multiple editors, we use the inclusion metric per the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one editor answering this request who happens to be the same that used this exact argument to deny my other posts. Navy365 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two student paper (not even university students) are not good sources. The third resolves to a 403, not to mention that Ragged University is not a an academic institution or a good source.
For what it's worth there don't seem to be a lot of scholars arguing the position that the Famine was a genocide, Francis Boyle is the only one i could find explicitly—and exhaustively—arguing that the famine is genocide. I don't know if that quite counts as as significant scholarship but it's certainly a start.
Further, Robbie Mcveigh, has an excellent paper on the subject genocide in Eire more broadly in The Journal of Genocide Research [20] which basically says that there hasn't been enough research done to come to a conclusion—blindlynx 23:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an episode of BBC's In Our Time on the famine (The Great Irish Famine - 4 April 2019) with three Irish historians: Enda Delaney, Niahm Gallagher and Cormac Ó Gráda. Melvyn Bragg explictly puts the genocide question to them (at 37.38 into the podcast). After Gallager explains how this accusation arose with John Mitchel, Bragg asks if Mitchel was accurate. Niamh Gallagher says "He wasn't accurate, first and foremost he wasn't accurate". Bragg asks "You say that emphatically do you?" to which she responds "Emphatically, yes. Genocide today has a very different meaning in the context of the Holocaust...There is no historical evidence whatsoever that there was intent on the part of the British government to kill the Irish". The other two historians do not demur.
Gallagher's mention of the Holocaust slightly muddies things, as it opens the possibility that with a lower standard of genocide, the famine might qualify, but the 'emphatically yes' and the fact that neither she nor the other two historians wish to qualify this or add nuance, suggest pretty strong consensus amongst them that the famine should not been classified as such. LastDodo (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to read paper by them on the subject but there seems to be a consensus among historians that the term 'genocide' does not fit well—Boyle is a legal scholar not a historian—blindlynx 16:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any papers by these scholars that call it a genocide in the libraries i have access too, not necessarily saying they don't exist mind you—blindlynx 14:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irish genocide should be included, per the article description: "this list includes events around which there is ongoing scholarly debate over their classification as genocide and is not a list of only events which have a scholarly consensus to recognize them as genocide." TurboSuperA+ (☏) 04:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing this academic debate, as noted above historians seem to be in consensus that the term genocide doesn't fit. Could you please provide sources?—blindlynx 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Navy365 lists some quotations where it is called a genocide. I didn't investigate whether the citations were lifted directly from the linked sources, I assumed good faith. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources they list are two community college student papers and a presentation from a meet up group, unfortunately these aren't scholarly or academic and generally they're not good sources. They do not give us a good idea of the state of scholarship on this subject—blindlynx 14:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chetnik genocide

[edit]

Article states that source claims 50000-65000 victims, but source actually just lists all of the estimates without claiming that this numbers are true. It actually claims that those numbers are "guestimates".

Source actually suggests that creator of those numbers is revisionist, who claims totally illogical theory of Communists suppressing investigations of Chetnik war crimes, although Chetniks were fiercest enemy in Communists eyes.

"After all this, in 2012 Dizdar stated that Chetnik crimes were generally suppressed (sic!) after 1945 and that most victims were not registered, so that the exact number of casualties caused during World War II by the Chetniks/ JVuO is unknown, and further claimed that up to the present over 50,000 slain Croats and Bosniaks, mostly civilians, have been documented, researched and registered. However, this figure of casualties caused by the Chetniks/JVuO of “over 50,000” is obviously a “guesstimate”, for he does not indicate the victim lists and similar publications in which such figures were registered, how many casualties are registered in individual lists and whether and how a verification and audit of these data were done."

I believe that number is highly inflated and is consequence of organized efforts of various states and organizations to shine bad light on Chetniks and thus Serbs. Simple source checking will prove my point. Also, any deeper scientific effort to count civilian victims of Chetnik massacres of Muslims and Croats will struggle to get even close to whose numbers.

I am open to discussion, I think that numbers are wrong and thus dangerous. Thank you. 185.37.27.168 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Serious issue here, trying to figure out Balkan conflicts, anything written can trigger hate. It is not irrelevant which number is going to be written here. 109.245.35.170 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: The numbers cited are not guestimates, but estimates based on available primary sources, in line with similar scholarship for other such events. The numbers are published via reliable sources, and are provided by respected specialists. Due to these factors the numbers will remain as they currently are. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source linked to the numbers claims that numbers are "guestimates" as I provided in citation. There are no available primary sources that claim those numbers, you just made that up. Source linked to the numbers claims that author of the numbers is not in line with similar scholarship for other such events.
As per source linked to the numbers: " However, this figure of casualties caused by the Chetniks/JVuO of “over 50,000” is obviously a “guesstimate”, for he does not indicate the victim lists and similar publications in which such figures were registered, how many casualties are registered in individual lists and whether and how a verification and audit of these data were done."
Can you please concentrate, and make reasonable claims why is this article claiming numbers but sourcing scientific paper that claims that these numbers are "guestimate" and not reliable? 109.245.35.170 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I misunderstood the initial comment. Having read through Geiger's paper, I see he is not the source for the numbers, and while he is highly critical of them, does not provide alternatives (from my reading), so, as they are a more recent estimate from multiple authors in this field, it is likely to remain as what is referenced in wikipedia articles.-- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I will have to protest your approach on this matter, apologies are not sufficient but I am thankful for acknowledging my effort. You clearly have not read the source we are talking about.
Source actually provides alternatives and states multiple different numbers, and all of them are smaller than these. These particular numbers are clearly labeled as "guestimate" and source linked here is not just critical, it actually denounces these numbers as non-provable using methods, as you said: "in line with similar scholarship for other such events". Also, source does not claim that other numbers are true. It just lists previous claims. I will remind you that all of the estimates listed in this source are from decades after the war, from 1980s, 1990s and 2000s and some are proven to be influenced by politics and propagandist efforts of reoccurring nationalistic movements. For example, second biggest number of 41000 Muslim and Croat civilian casualties caused by Chetniks, is made by a researcher named V.Zerjavic. Source linked to numbers here is highly critical even with that estimate and notes:
"individual researchers who assert the inevitability of using identification of casualties and fatalities by individual names have raised serious objections to Žerjavić's calculations/estimates of human losses by using standard statistical methods and consolidation of data from various sources, pointing out that such an approach is insufficient and unreliable in determining the number and character of casualties and fatalities, as well as the affiliation of the perpetrators of the crimes."
Serb authors state that Zerjavic intentionally used wrong data in his statistical calculations. He ignored the fact that different communities had different growth rates. So he basically calculated Croat demographic losses using Serb growth rates, which were significantly higher. He then statistically calculated how many of those Croats are victims of Chetniks without proving that his methods are reasonable. Also, none of the authors acknowledged huge number of Croats and Muslims being part of Serb units and dying as part of Chetnik forces, which makes their claims that they made serious research negatable. Just like your claim that you read Geiger's paper is negatable, sorry for being brutally honest. Their tables have groups that numbered 2 or 7 individuals, but totally missed Croats and Muslims who died as part Serb forces and whose casualties are in hundreds. Also, most of them ignore tens of thousands German civilian victims when calculating Yugoslavia's demographic losses. Also, thousands of people changed their national identification between two censuses. It casts a shadow on their research as neutral or independent thinkers.
Nevertheless, numbers stated here are deemed wrong and unreliable even by the source linked to those same exact numbers. Source gives alternatives. Contrary to your claim, there are no additional researches of Chetnik war crimes who came independently to same numbers. You actually made that up also. I will have to protest again your approach. Thank you for your time nevertheless. 109.245.35.170 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geiger does not seem to provide any numbers himself, that is, his on estimation based on the evidence. He seems to instead provide a history of the estimations of other authors, highlighting where he thinks they are over/under estimations, and ultimately concluding a lack of ability to determine the numbers based on the current resources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So claim of 50000 to 68000 casualties is clearly labeled as "guestimate" and unreliable by source linked to the claim. How can we use it then? Shouldn't we change the source then? And explain how is the new source more reliable then Geiger who clearly states that these numbers are not reliable.
I also have question how could you discuss the issue with me without reading the source or my questions and even claim that you read the source but you clearly had not? Also, are you now chasing me on Wikipedia? I see you replied to my question on different article. Again with fabrications. 109.245.35.170 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. without reading the source - I checked the top level details to where we were citing the number to, and every statement I made in that regard is in fact correct.
  2. even claim that you read the source but you clearly had not - I have read the source, your reading of it is different to mine, and so you claim I must not have read it due to our conclusions of the material being different. This is a false assumption on your part.
  3. are you now chasing me on Wikipedia - I went to the Chetnik war crimes in World War II to check what sources we had there for numbers, and saw your comment on talk page, and replied to correct the fallacious arguments of the sources you claimed "scientifically" proved the page was wrong.
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. You clearly did not read the source when you claimed that source did not provide alternatives. You lied about reading the source.
2. You do not have different reading of the source then mine. Source stated following:
Source has this to say about numbers provided on this article:
" However, this figure of casualties caused by the Chetniks/JVuO of “over 50,000” is obviously a “guesstimate”, for he does not indicate the victim lists and similar publications in which such figures were registered, how many casualties are registered in individual lists and whether and how a verification and audit of these data were done."
How could you read it different then me?
3. This should be continued on that page as it has nothing to do with this page. No fallacious arguments and you did not correct them. You misjudged my sources. 77.243.31.56 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is 47,000 the correct lower estimate or 50,000 based on the source? Appears a recent editor lowered it. I do not have access to it and it appears on the original article 50,000 - 68,000 was the range used plus 5,000 victims in the Sandzak region, which should be added for the overall total. OyMosby (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reviewed the source, I have removed the 50,000 number as the lowest estimate and replaced it with 47,000, which Geiger states was given as an estimate by Vladimir Žerjavić. TRCRF22 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you for your effort.
    Do we add all of the victim to the number of victims or only civilians or POWs massacred? Paper does not distinct numbers of killed civilians and fallen soldiers in battles.
    Geiger clearly combines both figures and bothers only with total number of victims on Croat and Muslim side. There were numerous open pitched battles between Chetniks and NDH forces with numerous victims on both sides. Geiger dos not distinguish those victims from civilian victims.
    Geiger's paper we are using and talking about here states even lower number then 47000. Besides V.Zerjavic's 18000 Croats included in this estimate of 47000, it states that Commission on Establishment of Wartime and Post-war Victims of the Republic of Croatia claims that in Croatia’s territory the Chetniks, i.e., the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland, were responsible for the deaths of 4,203 persons, of whom 1,628 were civilians without stating their ethnicity. It states that Croatian Territorial Commission for the Investigation of Crimes of the Occupiers and Their Collaborators registered 1,729 civilians whose deaths in Croatia’s territory were caused by the Chetniks/JVuO, also without stating their ethnicity. Using these numbers, M. Sobolevski, Z. Dizdar, I. Graovac and S. Žarić estimated that the Chetniks/JVuO were accountable for the death of approximately 3,500 persons in Croatia’s territory, without stating were they just civilians or both civilians and fighter and also without stating their ethnicity. This estimate is significantly lower then V.Zerjavic's statistical number of 20000 Croats killed by Chetniks in Croatia. Ethnicity of civilian victims is important, as Chetniks were also involved in inter-Serb civil war and massacred Serbs accused of loyalty to Communists, together with their families. Those Serbs can not be added to the numbers of massacred Croats and Muslims.
    All of the given, Geiger's paper does not clarify previous efforts, it just adds to confusion. Shouldn't we be using some different source? Geiger puts no effort to explain numbers and does not claim that those numbers are civilian victims. It just states ethnicity and perpetrators. Geiger does not say that those victims are massacred ones or fallen in battles. If we are using V.Zerjavic's estimate for lowest number, shouldn't we link his scientific paper and discuss his methods and reliability?
    Also, regarding highest estimate of 65000 casualties made by author named Dizdar, there are higher estimates which are deemed as exaggerations just like estimate of 65000 total casualties made by Dizdar is deemed as "guestimate" and thus unreliable by the source linked to the number. How did we choose to use Disdar's estimate as highest although it is deemed unreliable by the source which claims that Dizdar did not put any list, document or method he used to make estimates and is actually recycling V.Zerjavic's work who is using statistical methods to count Croat and Muslim victims and then attributes them to Chetniks, while not attributing any of the victims to Partisans although this source we are using strictly claims that Partisans killed more Croats and Muslims then Chetniks? If we are using Dizdar's estimate, shouldn't we link his work to the number and then discuss his reliability and methods?
    Again, as per my reading of the source linked to the number, V.Zerjavic's number is not lowest estimate. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood you, but source has more numbers, some of which are lower. So as per your reading maybe there are no other estimates, but as per the source there are. I admit that source is highly complicated but that does not let us not investigate. So Geiger does not claim that V.Zerjavic's number is lowest estimate as indicated by this article. If 47000 is lowest estimate, we need to link some other source as Geiger's paper clearly states lower estimates. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding V.Zerjavic's estimate which we use for lowest estimate, if you look at the table 15 at the page 117, Mr Geiger clearly states 41000 total civilian victims caused by Chetniks among Croats and Muslims estimated by V.Zerjavic. Table actually gives numbers of civilians killed by Chetniks in Croatia to be 12000 Croats and in Bosnia 6000 Croats and 20000 Muslims which is 38000. Same number is stated in article on page. I am not sure how Geiger came to 41000 when clearly stated 2 times figures that add on to 38000.
    When discussing Mr Zerjavic's work, author of paper we use claims on page 103:
    " However, individual researchers who assert the inevitability of using identification of casualties and fatalities by individual names have raised serious objections to Žerjavić’s calculations/estimates of human losses by using standard statistical methods and consolidation of data from various sources, pointing out that such an approach is insufficient and unreliable in determining the number and character of casualties and fatalities, as well as the affiliation of the perpetrators of the crimes, i.e., those who caused the loss of lives.
    Basically, Geiger claims that Zerjavic used wrong statistical methods in calculating number of deaths, and then attributed them to perpetrators without any logic needed for such attribution. It means that Zerjavic had no right or logical reason to attribute some of his unreliable numbers of victims to Chetniks.
    Also, regarding Dizdars number we use as highest estimate, we clearly see that Mr Geiger proves it is unreliable and even states that:
    " .. in both original sources and in the secondary literature, the crimes perpetrated by the Italian and German armies, and even the Partisans, are ascribed to the Chetniks/JVuO.
    And proceeds to link work of Mr Dizdar as an example of a researcher who ascribes German, Italian and Partisan war crimes to Chetniks. You can check this on page 88 of Geigers work.
    So my claim is that as per paper linked to the number, V.Zerjavic's estimate is not 47000 but 38000 and this number should be used if V.Zerjavic is our source for lowest estimate (although we have lower estimates in Geigers paper and in other papers).
    My second claim is that Dizdar's estimate is totally unreliable and should be excluded from any discussion or statement in this article as Mr Geiger clearly says it is a "guestimate" and that Dizdar did not give any lists or document to prove his statement. As per Geiger, Dizdar only recycles V.Zerjavic's numbers and is even ascribing German, Italian or Partisan war crimes to Chetniks. As Dizdar is recycling Zerjavic's numbers, which are also deemed unreliable, it is easy to assume that Geiger totally disapproves Dizdar's numbers. Therefore, we can not use Geiger as source linked to Dizdar's numbers. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Difference of 9000 casualties from two tables may be from estimated number of Serbian and Montenegrin Muslims killed by Chetniks. But it is not clearly stated in article and 9000 is clearly not lowest estimate for Sandzak region. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn’t it be (50,000+5,000) 55,000 to (68,000 + 5,000) 73,000 since the total would include the 5,000 Sandzak victims? The article Chetnik war crimes in World War II has the same mainstream figures. I haven’t seen 47,000 before as the lower estimate. Doesn’t Geiger conclude 50,000 as the lower end? OyMosby (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Geiger does not conclude 50000 as the lower end in any part of his paper. Also, Geiger does not conclude 47000 as lower estimate. Geiger lists all 8 Science papers from Croatia that dealt with Chetnik victims in NDH, without dealing with Sandzak. Out of those 8, V.Zerjavic's estimates are at higher end together with Dizdar's estimates. Geiger claims that both Dizdar and V.Zerjavic's estimates are unreliable and not backed by documents and sources. For Dizdar's claim he says that they are recycled from V.Zerjavic's estimate and increased without explanation so those two estimates are same high end estimate. For V.Zerjavic's estimate, Geiger concludes that V.Zerjavic used statistical method when calculating victims and proceeds that:"
    "individual researchers who assert the inevitability of using identification of casualties and fatalities by individual names have raised serious objections to Žerjavić’s calculations/estimates of human losses by using standard statistical methods and consolidation of data from various sources, pointing out that such an approach is insufficient and unreliable in determining the number and character of casualties and fatalities, as well as the affiliation of the perpetrators of the crimes, i.e., those who caused the loss of lives."
    V.Zerjavic used wrong statistical method to calculate victims on all sides and then used wrong method to attribute those victims to various war sides. That is why, Mr Zerjavic is first researcher to come to 38000-47000 victims of Chetniks massacres in NDH, although previous researches who used historical documentation concluded much lower numbers. Regarding how V.Zerjavic attributed victims, we see by looking at Zerjavic's work that he puts all of the Chetnik victims among Croats to civilian casualties. He did not use any of available sources that show numerous battles between Serbs and Croats in NDH and numerous other researches that concluded that much more Croats were killed by Chetniks in battles rather then in massacres. It shows his inappropriate method when attributing inappropriately made numbers of victims.
    Geiger's table 15 on page 117 and text on page 102 concludes that V.Zerjavic's estimate is 12000 Croat victims in Croatia, 6000 Croat victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and 20000 Muslim victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is 38000 in total. That very same table, counts this total as 41000, without indication where those 3000 victims were added from. So, Geiger's low end estimate made by V.Zerjavic is 38000 for NDH. But Geiger tries to prove that V.Zerjavic is not reliable. It is easy to conclude by reading the paper that Geiger does not think that V.Zerjavic can be used as source for low end estimate.
    He gives significantly lower estimates from Territorial Commission on War Crimes of the People’s Republic of Croatia (1945), F. Tuđman (1989), M. Sobolevski, Z. Dizdar, I. Graovac, S. Žarić (1993),M. Sobolevski, (1999/2000), I. Graovac, (1995/2000/2011) and Commission on Establishment of Wartime and Post-war Victims of the Republic of Croatia, (1999). Those figure go in range from 1,372 to 4,203 for Croats in Croatia which is at least around 3 times lower then V.Zerjavic's estimates of 11000-18000 Croats killed by Chetniks in Croatia.
    Geiger does not deal in details with number of Muslims killed in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Sandzak. If we stick to V.Zerjavics unproven and unreliable estimate according to Geiger that 20000 Muslims civilians and 6000 Croat civilians were killed by Chetniks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and we stick to 5000 Muslims killed in Sandzak by Chetniks and add low end numbers of 3500 Croats in Croatia according to other researchers, we get total number around 35000 civilian victims.
    Geiger does not conclude 50000 as low end number, he gives other low level numbers that when added together give total amount of 35000 but Geiger did not go in depth with number of killed Muslims in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Sandzak. Low end numbers for those areas are lower then V. Zerjavic's statistical method, especially for Bosnia and Herzegovina. 188.120.118.85 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What happened in the Yugoslav civil war was ethnic cleansing. It was committed to some degree by Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks.
I have started a talk topic on the issue Talk:List_of_genocides#Is_ethnic_cleansing_considered_genocide? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Bosnian genocide is part of that conflict as well—blindlynx 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about the Yugoslav Wars -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right! My apologies. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

[edit]

I'd like to change the following: and nearly 40,000 confirmed deaths by July. Most of the victims are civilians

I think that the world "Confirmed" is mistaken because according to the source it was told by Hamas (Conflict of interest source), and Also, according to BBC, Hamas is suspected to add up also Natural death (e.g. Cancer) as part of the casualties.

The word "confirmed" gives the viewer a sense of absolute truth, while this might not be the case.

Source of BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjvl4klzweo TsimoOscar (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Gaza's health ministry may be Hamas-run but its figures are widely accepted as reliable. The BBC article makes no mention of natural deaths; in fact, it says that the health ministry is undercounting the number of deaths. TRCRF22 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why a non democratic listed terrorist organization is considered a reliable source? And you know what? Why not mentioning it in the article itself instead of an absolute world "confirmed"? BTW I meant to sent this link: https://www.foxnews.com/world/hamas-gaza-death-toll-questioned-new-report-says-its-led-widespread-inaccuracies-distortion ? I went through other articles talking about the war and there is no such determination of "confirmed" as you say.. TsimoOscar (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS - "There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Hamas is reliable? I still don't get it.. As a reader, when I was reading "confirmed", it gave me the sense of an absolute truth, like math and physics equations that have been discovered... Also, to Israel it took months to get the accurate number of casualties on the Israeli side, while Hamas just needs few minutes to determine... TsimoOscar (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your edit request and it has been declined. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is any help, here is the original report by the Henry Jackson society referred to by Fox News, and here is their short article summarising it. Fox News can be ignored. LastDodo (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an indepth discussion about this source at Talk:Gaza Health Ministry. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roger. LastDodo (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The HJS is a laughable outfit, who have been radicalising over the past decade. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
those both seem to be dead links—blindlynx 01:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links resolve in Firefox and it's forks, plus in Edge, they seem to get stuck in chrome at trying to resolve with Cloudflare. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was my error, apologies. They should work now. LastDodo (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For what it's worth it was giving me 404s in Firefox —blindlynx 15:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing mentions of relevant country's recognition

[edit]

As the article stands currently, the classification of the listed events as a genocide is usually backed up by reputable, but seemingly arbitrary academic sources. Because of the the extremely important conversational and - arguably more importantly - material impact a government's recognition has regarding the impact of these events, I would like to suggest adding a small line of text to the "description" cell of the table containing information on the affected countries' stance. As an example of what this may look like:

"The Circassian genocide was the Russian empire's [...] and allowed their soldiers to rape women.[source] Recognised by Georgia (2011)[source] and Ukraine (2025)[source], denied by Russia[source]."

"The Armenian genocide[sources], carried out by the Young Turks, [...] targeting all of the Christians in Anatolia.[sources] Recognised by Armenia (1988)[source] and 33 others, denied by Turkey[source] and two others."

"The Genocide in German South West Africa was [...] considered one of the first genocides of the 20th century. Recognized by Namibia (1990)[source] and Germany (2015)[source]." RayanWP (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or atleast separate them based on UN, country and/or academic recognition. The current model only leads to missunderstandings. Navy365 (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are reputable sources arbitrary? Academic sources are the WP:BESTSOURCES so we should base our articles in them—blindlynx 01:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, I definitely agree that we should base our articles and especially this one on academic sources. What I meant was that the academics‘ opinions are effectively meaningless to those AFFECTED by the topic of the article, namely genocide, which is why highlighted the importance of the countries‘ recognition of these events as genocide. RayanWP (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In near all cases of country recognition, the recognition is based on political whims unconnected to any analytical assessment of whether events are genocide. So you often get cases where a country [their legislative body] votes to declares an event genocide because it is violence committed by a group they don't like, but will deny an event is a case of genocide because it is committed by a group they do like. I can also point to the case of the Stolen generations in Australia, where investigations and assessments by government organs, which included staff with the requisite skills to assess whether it is a case of genocide, determined it to be a case of genocide per the UN Convention, and yet Australia still does not recognise it as a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all cases it is based on political whims. The coiner of the term genocide Raphäel Lemkin decided not to point out british genocides because the british empire was a dominant global power and a key player in the United Nations, so criticizing British actions could have alienated a major ally. Asuming academic sources are neutral is just wrong as the real power is in the hands of the political and economic elite and academics will always try to make their sponsors look good. Navy365 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for what it's worth we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No one is assuming academics are neutral, but they're the best we've got. Not mention wp:or is categorically worse—blindlynx 15:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, scholarship is still a better metric for assessment than government legislation declaring a position. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Genocide

[edit]

Hey all Wikipedia:WikiProject Genocide was recently started! Big thanks to @Sellotapemaskingtape: for setting it up.

Hopefully we will be able to have more centralized discussions there rather than using this page as the de facto talk of the genocide topic area—blindlynx 23:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! It's my first time starting a WikiProject, any help or advice is welcomed Sellotapemaskingtape (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine

[edit]

Is there consensus to include Ukraine Ecpiandy (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: added it at the beginning of December 2024. Last discussion about it's inclusion was in December 2023, though since then there has been changes to the article scope. While the article on Ukraine doesn't have them incorporated yet, it does show academic scholarship in the further reading section that come to the conclusion it is genocide, so I take no issue with it's inclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This text was previously created by several other users and included by them after discussion on this talk page. I only reinstated it because it fits the current criteria for inclusion on the page: "As there are varying definitions of genocide, this list includes events around which there is ongoing scholarly debate over their classification as genocide and is not a list of only events which have a scholarly consensus to recognize them as genocide." This is why "Gaza genocide" was included and some other items. There is no scholarly consensus it was genocide, but there is indeed a scholarly debate/claims. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Include Yavapai Wars?

[edit]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yavapai_Wars Vanisherman (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide evidence of significant scholarship detailing it as a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is ethnic cleansing considered genocide?

[edit]

From Britannica: "Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide."[1]

I am currently undecided, what do others think? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 14:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're usually treated as closely related but not the same, that said there is rarely a clear line---it's best to defer to scholarship on a case by case basis—blindlynx 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a case by case basis, are they referred to as a genocide in significant scholarship? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I want to find out!
"Gregory Stanton, the founder of Genocide Watch, defines “ethnic cleansing” as a “euphemism for genocidal practices” used to cover up events that should be prosecuted as genocide and to dehumanise its victims. In other words, the use of the term “ethnic cleansing”, if done intentionally, is part of genocide denial, which is the last stage of this crime."[2]
"Ethnic cleansing has not been defined and is not recognized as a crime under international law, according to the U.N. And in reality, the lines between ethnic cleansing and genocide are often blurred."[3]
"Ethnic cleansing is not recognised as an independent crime under international law. Although the term has been used in Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, it has not been defined in international law."[4]
A tricky issue, to be sure. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 20:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the proposes of inclusion of this list i think we need peer reviewed scholarship that explicitly says 'genocide'. Beyond that this is not the place for conversation with such a wide scope (as fascinating as it is)—blindlynx 20:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Slavs

[edit]

During World War II, Nazi Germany murdered millions of Slavs, with estimates ranging between 5 million and 11 million dead. For some reason, this has not been included. Editor3125 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have sources for this?—blindlynx 23:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing
  2. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/6/2/it-is-not-ethnic-cleansing-it-is-genocide
  3. ^ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing
  4. ^ https://unric.org/en/international-law-understanding-justice-in-times-of-war/
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_genocides&oldid=1271626285"