Talk:List of genocides

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.

Gukurahundi?

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

Meas_Muth,_Ta_Chan,_Armenian_Genocide!

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

Spanish genocide (i cannot publish it)

during war, systematic extrajudicial executions done by the coup army, and during the francoist repression or white terror done by civil guard and others. 500,000+ refugees 130,199 summary executions 114,226 cases of enforced disappearance 30,960 cases of stolen children 2,382 mass graves 180 concentration camps http://globalstudies.msu.edu/events/contexts-can-spanish-genocide-speak/?fbclid=IwAR0Ww_7ffnDJYFJLvFzhaLG0ZbHI_2uWuvfpWlYuo4jWxUq6uOVQM9LvUqo

Central and South American genocide (i cannot publish it)

the largest genocide so far, it's involved the Vatican, Karl V of the Augsburg royal house and german bankers Jacob Fugger and Welser family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welser_family

Remains from previously existing section 'Native American genocide'

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

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

Order by date

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainian genocide

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

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

I suggest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 2023-04-27, “the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has voted that the forced detention and deportation of children from Russian occupied territories of Ukraine is ‘genocide,’ at a session on Thursday.”[1][2]  —Michael Z. 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Definition of genocide and Holodomor

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

Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as

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

(a) Killing members of the group;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent historiography unequivocally tells us that “For the past two decades, this scholarship has largely been dominated by the debate about whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide.”[3] It does not tell us that anyone considers it “denialism” of the Holocaust. In fact, Holodomor studies has become a mainstream part of genocide studies (cf. a section in Naimark 2016, Genocide: A World History,[4] and a major section in Oxford Bibliographies’ long article “20th Century Genocides”).[5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

In "See also" section add:

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

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

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

American Indian genocides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Holodomor Deaths

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

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

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

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

Tamil's genocide in Sri Lanka

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

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

References

Alied Genocide 1944-1946

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typos

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

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

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

Uyghur Concentration Camps

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

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

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

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

Change “31,107–39,199” into “156,500”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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