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.

Missing and murdered Indigenous women

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

Ethnic cleansing is not genocide??

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

Repeated inclusion of entries with no referenced death toll

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

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

1. The first article (2015) says that

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

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

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

3. The third article (2020) says that

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

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

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

Holodomor edit war

@BritishMarxist, Lenoved3, and Donner60: Please use the talk page in lieu of further reverts. Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella and 7645ERB: also pinging two other editors involved in this dispute. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If the "Holodomor" was a genocide, then so was the Irish Potato Famine and the many famines in British colonies. A famine doesn't equal a genocide.

BritishMarxist (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that there is evidence to suggest that the Holodomor was deliberately engineered in order to destroy Ukraine, and 16 countries recognise it as a genocide, as do many scholars. Tulzscha (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Tulzscha is absolutely right it should stay.7645ERB (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The list does not include genocide against Christians in Iraq and Syria by ISIL and other Jihadist groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozho777 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It does have the other genocides that ISIL has done, we need sources that meet the criteria for Inclusion like as been already stated. Do you have any sources you'd like to share?7645ERB (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is no consensus among scholars whether the Holodomor was genocide (see Holodomor genocide question). Therefore, it should not be included in the list. (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genocide of Native Americans

90 to 95% of the indigenous people were intentionally murdered to steal their land, and the methods employed fit the UN's definition of genocide.

Up to 70 million people were killed:https://www.se.edu/native-american/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2019/09/A-NAS-2017-Proceedings-Smith.pdf

Thornton’s estimate that about 75 million Indigenous people lived in the Western Hemisphere in 1492 and his estimate that more than 5 million lived in what later became the continental U.S. are arguably the most methodologically circumspect and reliable current appraisals for researchers in this field. As James Wilson has suggested, Thornton’s estimate of a total of more than 7 million Indigenous people north of Mexico is probably “the nearest to a generally accepted figure,” and “a figure for the Western Hemisphere as whole of 75 to 100 million” is not unreasonable.32 Future research may disclose an even larger Indigenous population, but Thornton’s carefully considered, mid-range estimates provide a vital starting point for the development of informed and reasonable, if very rough, estimates of the total loss of life in the Indigenous Holocaust.

Up to 55 million people were killed: yesmagazine.org/opinion/2019/02/13/how-colonization-of-the-americas-killed-90-percent-of-their-indigenous-people-and-changed-the-climate/

Up to 8 million people were killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#:~:text=Spanish%20colonization%20of%20the%20Americas,-See%20also%3A%20Spanish&text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20during,genocide%20of%20the%20modern%20era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katpcar (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We already have an article on the topic: Genocide of indigenous peoples. Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the criteria for listing certain genocides by death toll and not others? I know there is another article on the topic of Gencide of indigenous peoples. But that does not take from the need to list this genocide. Magonz (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The article states at the top: "The term genocide is contentious and as a result, its academic definition varies. This list only considers mass killings which are recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention." The key phrase here, I suggest, is "in significant scholarship". So papers like the 2017 Smith paper you cite are relevant. I think what is needed is multiple examples of papers like that. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is really unacceptable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respect BRD

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

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

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

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

Chapter 7 of this Springer book[3] is devoted to the Polish operation and never mentions the word "genocide".

You should be aware that many Polish scholars seem to use a different definition for "genocide". For instance, the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, there is a "scholarly consensus that this was a case of ethnic cleansing as opposed to genocide"[4] but many Polish historians call it a "genocide". (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I am assuming good faith, I am just recognizing that the word "genocide" is a matter of politics as much as history[5] and that, as Evgeny Finkel stated, many countries have tried to had past events recognized as tragedies, "often finding creative ways to reconcile the legal definition of the concept [...] and the historical record."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• that source is not a minority view;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Re the Armenian Genocide, there is nearly universal acknowledgment (outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan) that it meets the legal standard for genocide. The sources I cite are the ones you are looking for, which specifically look at the UN definition of genocide. As opposed to genocide in some national laws which can be broader.[6] (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

A reminder: definitions of genocide

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

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

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

References

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

Better sourcing needed

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

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

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

Cambodia

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

List inclusion criteria

VM unilaterally changed the list inclusion criteria.[7] I, for one, strongly disagree with this change because there are many definitions of genocide used by various authors, but only one definition under international law. (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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