Talk:Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)

Issue with the International Criminal Court Section, on the Hazara Massacres

There is an issue with this article, under the International Criminal Court section. There are two entries, "Darfur, Sudan" and also "Massacres of Hazaras and other groups by the Taliban"

The leading paragraph to the section notes " The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on or after 1 July 2002." Essentially the ICC's jurisdiction only extends from after that date. "Darfur, Sudan" is relevant here, the massacres in question started September 2003, as noted in the article, which places them firmly under ICC jurisdiction.

However the portion on "Massacres of Hazaras and other groups by the Taliban" is not at all relevant, it doesn't fit in this section. The ICC had no jurisdiction at the period of time these massacres were occurring, as stated in the article between 1996 and 2001. The Hazara massacres would be appropriately covered elsewhere in this article, but not under the International Criminal Court section. This article should be re-worked and the section on "Massacres of Hazaras and other groups by the Taliban" should be moved elsewhere in the article, in ascending date order under Section 2: the Post-World War II. Probably immediate after Cambodia but before International Criminal Court. - KJS ml343x (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "Ukrainian genocide" claim

Since several have stated that Russia's actions in Ukraine constitute genocide (most prominently US President Joe Biden), we should probably start discussing at what threshold should we affirm that claim and add the Russian invasion of Ukraine to this list. I'm personally on the fence, since while there is a good amount of evidence of Russian war crimes, I'm unaware of any evidence of attempted ethnic cleansing or anything of the sort. While this is a tragedy regardless, we need to not oversell it and become a source of misinformation. What are others' thoughts on the matter? Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the Russians' current actions qualify as genocide. "What Russia should do with Ukraine", an article published by state-owned RIA on the same day the Bucha massacre became known to the world, very explicitly describes Ukraine as a nation with no right to exist and calls for it to be destroyed through partition (all under Russia obviously), widespread executions and other killings through Joseph Stalin-style forced labor, "brutal" censorship, suppression and destruction of all types of cultural expression, and finally erasing the very word Ukraine from existence, which would also kill any memory of it having existed in the first place. Killings in occupied places such as Bucha very much resemble early attempts at this, having been carried out by so-called soldiers on pretty much any civilian they happened to spot, despite this type of mass murder of having little to no positive effect on any war effort.

The things I listed above, all based on verified reports and independent analyses of Russian-published media, go beyond mere ethnic cleansing. I'm averse to misinformation on Wikipedia too and usually avoid controversial topics, but tell me: if these things do not qualify as genocide, what does? Glades12 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I am now more inclined to include it. On May 27, 2022, a report by New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy and Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights concluded that there were reasonable grounds to find that Russia breached two articles of the 1948 Genocide Convention, by publicly inciting genocide through denial of the right of Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a nation to exist, and by the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia, which is a genocidal act under article II of the convention.[1]. As such, it should be in this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving the Tigray War section

Since the Tigray War only started in 2020, shouldn't the section on it be moved to Genocides in history (21st century)? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A proposed reorganization

I think it would be more intuitive to make the "since 1951" section of the article a major section and modify the underlying headers accordingly. That way, it would be clearer that, for example, the segment talking about Tibet is a sub-section of the discussion of the People's Republic of China. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "kaplan":

• From Saur Revolution: Kaplan, Robert D. (1990). Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-0395521328. Retrieved 17 March 2018.
• From Indigenous peoples of the Americas: Kaplam, Lawrence (2002). "Inuit or Eskimo: Which names to use?". Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Archived from the original on 1 March 2009. Retrieved 6 April 2007.
• From Cambodia: Kaplan, Robert D. (1996) The Ends of the Earth, Vintage, 1996, p. 406, ISBN 0679751238.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Something up with the bottom part of the article

For some reason, the bottom of the article seems to have copied much of Genocides in history, along with a redundant section on the Cambodian genocide that was already discussed further up the page. There are also sections that, as written, seem more appropriate for the discussion of genocide prosecution than the actual genocides themselves. Should we remove and edit these parts? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference problems and Attribution

I've fixed a lot of the reference problems in this article, there are a few more to go. It looks like lots of this article was copied from other content by PK2 without mentioning the source article. Remember that we need to attribute copied material, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

When are forced sterilizations genocide?

I see that a couple of sections about forced sterilization were added and subsequently removed, on the grounds that they were not genocidal. However, multiple other forced sterilization campaigns remain listed here. When is a forced sterilization campaign considered an act of genocide, and when is it not? Are there elements that mean some should be listed here but not others? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there sections needing rewriting?

There are a few sections in this article, specifically the ones focusing on the Cambodian genocide, Bosnian genocide and Rwandan genocide that seem to be focusing more on the prosecutions of the perpetrators. This seems to be because they were copied from the main article. Should they be rewritten? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Sabra and Shatila massacre

The section on the Sabra and Shatila massacre was removed due to a lack of broader consensus that it was a genocide and the undue weight given to one source. However, looking at the article, I have seen it called a genocide by other sources. With this in mind, should it be re-added? 204.13.204.194 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestinians

The section on Palestinians has been repeatedly edit-warred out of the article by Dovidroth, an editor working for the National Library of Israel. Perhaps the editor could use his library access to read this recently published book – Bartov, Omer (2023). Genocide, the Holocaust and Israel-Palestine: First-Person History in Times of Crisis. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-33233-1.

This is a highly insensitive time for such an attempted removal, as many public commentators are claiming the genocide of Palestinians is being driven at its fastest ever rate right now.

Applying Dovidroth’s argument that whether the long-term actions against Palestinians constitute genocide is disputed across this whole article would remove about half of it. A large proportion of genocides are disputed. Perhaps Dovidroth could explain whether he has applied the same lens to the rest of this article and why he is singling out Palestinians here?

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey,

First, I would like to point out that the EU and the US do not recognize that there was a genocide committed against the Palestinians. Due to the severity of the accusation, we must adhere to the legal definitions and in reference to UN, US, EU and the rest of the Anglo-Sphere's stance in regards to this position. You may have your own POV, however this case warrants and demands a very objective and neutral view.

Second, in reference to what was written above, absolute majority of these do not recognize there being a Palestinian Genocide.

Thirdly, Wikipedia talk should be done in polite conversation and it seems unworthy to write what may be received as a personal attack (see your writing in reference to National Library). I understand you may have a POV and therefore I try not to judge. Just please take better care in the future.

[2] UN legal def Homerethegreat (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Relying solely on the perspective of Martin Shaw, a scholar with an unorthodox definition of genocide, is inadequate to substantiate such an extraordinary and contentious assertion. Marokwitz (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see Palestine genocide accusation. Homerethegreat and Marokwitz have both characterized the sourcing position here incorrectly. This topic is well covered and excluding it here would be treating the Palestinian case differently to others here which are equally or more disputed.

We cannot randomly invent criteria for inclusion here (i.e. that the claim of genocide must not be disputed), and then apply it to just one case. That would be anti-Palestinian behavior.

Conscious Homerethegreat and Marokwitz have only very recently restarted their editing careers - with fresh eyes perhaps they could explain what criteria they think is appropriate for this article. If they propose a stringent no-dispute approach, we will then need to build consensus, as it would result in deletion of large parts of this article. An RfC would be appropriate.

Prior to gaining this consensus for a changed criteria, deleting the Palestinian section, in the middle of a potential ongoing genocide of Palestinians (see this letter signed by 790 scholars) is distasteful and unacceptable. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing continuously for more than 17 years. Should I report you for personal attacks or are you going to self revert the nasty comment? Marokwitz (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You have made more edits since Oct 11 this year than you have in all of the prior 9 years. Where is the personal attack? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You are making ad-hominem nasty comments about me that I perceive as aggression and incivility; I'm asking you to retract, I won't be asking again. Marokwitz (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you perceive it as such I have retracted it. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop this assumptive behavior toward other editors including myself. This is not promoting good conversation and may be perceived as personally hurtful. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As requested by Marokwitz I have struck the comment about your edit histories.

Can we please now address the point – what broad criteria are you proposing for inclusion of a specific event here? We can then have an RfC to discuss broadly.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

See List of genocides . The inclusion criteria there is defined as follows

DO NOT add genocides that clearly do not meet the UN criteria, i.e., killing of economic or political groups, or "cultural genocides/ethnocides." Provide sources that demonstrate the genocide is recognised as such by significant mainstream scholarship under the most common definition (the legal definition) of genocide. Remember WIKIPEDIA is not a WP:SOAPBOX. For highest and lowest estimates, do not use unreliable sources or sources which give significantly different figures than mainstream research.

Marokwitz (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

per @Marokwitz, we should follow the law in this regards due to severity. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not really invoked in this issue. But if multiple secondary sources call something a genocide, than Wikipedia should repeat that. And if other sources disagree, we should record those as well (as long as not undue). The US officially disagreeing with a genocide can be recorded if there's a good source, but that's not a reason for us to strike a fact from history.Stix1776 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a list of genocides. As well as UN criteria in regards to this which disagree with this. Due to how contentious topic is, I think we must try and be as encyclopedic as possible and follow the book. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"The US officially disagreeing with a genocide" Who cares about United States policies? They have no specific relevance to the topic, and do not reflect scholarly opinions. Dimadick (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

UN, United Nations Homerethegreat (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You said "First, I would like to point out that the EU and the US do not recognize that there was a genocide committed against the Palestinians".

I have no problems with insisting on "significant mainstream scholarship". I just hope that we don't exclude anything that lacks such scholarship. Again, I'm not an expert on this, but IF enough strong sources can be found, then it should be included.Stix1776 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We now need to agree specifically what we think that "significant mainstream scholarship" means, so we don't create an impossible bar. Then we can assess it against the rest of the examples given in this article.

@Dimadick and Stix1776: could you propose a threshold you think appropriate? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile This is 100% a shot in the dark from me, but I propose a secondary source stating that such scholarship exists and it's not fringe, OR 3 or more scholarly/academic sources from historians (people with PhDs and careers in academia). WP:HSC will be helpful. Stix1776 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I just randomly searched Google Scholar. This [3] would fit the category of scholarly work that labels the Palestinian situation as a genocide.Stix1776 (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Even so. Per @Marokwitz It doesn't meet UN criteria. WIKIPEDIA is not a WP:SOAPBOX. He articulated well. You can find good reliable google scholar with a simple search that says that the Nakba is not genocide. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't make the case that it doesn't just by saying that it doesn't. According to the article, "Gaza could soon be uninhabitable". Anyhow, there's plenty of sources that call the Palestine issue genocide at [Palestinian genocide accusation]. There's also plenty more editors arguing for an inclusion. Speaking to the question of a UN definition:

On 2 November, a group of UN special rapporteurs stated, "We remain convinced that the Palestinian people are at grave risk of genocide."

It seems trivial enough, include all viewpoints with sources per Wikipedia:WEIGHT, as long as it's not undue or fringe.Stix1776 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Stix1776 This article is about genocides (1946-1999). What's happening at the moment is for another article. Make sure you don't get this issues mixed.

On the real issue (1948) in reference to UN criteria this doesn't fall in it. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This more than enough fits the bill for pre 1999:

In 2010, historians Martin Shaw and Omer Bartov carried out a debate regarding whether the 1948 Nakba should be regarded as a genocide, with Shaw arguing that it could and with Bartov disagreeing. The former Deputy Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Daud Abdullah, has stated that "Given the declared intent of the Zionist leaders, this wholesale destruction and depopulation of Palestinian villages fit[s] easily with the definition of genocide as cited in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

Stix1776 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Stix1776 (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You're all missing the point. Genocide is genocide if it amounts to such in accordance to international law, the UN code on this, etc.

The leader of the Muslim council can say anything, it doesn't make it NPOV or a fact. That's why WE MUST adhere to international law. I don't see what's so hard to understand in this respect. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

We must adhere to WP:SECONDARY interpretations of international law relating to Palestinian history. Our own primary interpretations of international law are not acceptable on Wikipedia.

There are mainstream scholarly sources which state that the pre-1999 treatment of Palestinians amounts to genocide. They may not be the majority voice, but nor are they fringe authors. These are serious scholars.

There is no good reason to hide this fact from our readers here. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Onceinawhile, but isn't that why we have the Accusations article? Chavmen (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article of The Economist (a credible source).

[4]

1) Quote: "In December 1948, in the aftermath of the second world war, the un adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention defines a genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Contrary to the common understanding of the term, the un says not only killing counts. “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction” does too, as does inflicting “serious bodily or mental harm”, “measures intended to prevent births”, and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Categorising atrocities as genocide has legal implications. The International Criminal Court is able to indict someone for the crime, for example."

2) Quote: By the un definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.

Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill civilians in doing so. And while some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy."

3) Quote: "Neither do the Israelis display any obvious intent to prevent Palestinian births. But those who accuse it of genocide point to the large number of civilians killed, at least 10,000 so far, and claim its blockade of the strip meets the “conditions-of-life” criterion. The Israelis have clearly inflicted “serious bodily or mental harm” on the Palestinians. They have also displaced people from the north of the strip. If those people are not allowed to return, this could be considered a partial destruction of their territory or, as Jan Egeland, a former un head of humanitarian and relief efforts, has warned, a forcible population transfer." Homerethegreat (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi All,

The Palestinian Genocide is not a majority view point in wide scholarship or mainstream media. Providing the comments from the Muslim Council of Britain can equally be refuted by the Anti-Defamation League. As Wikipedia is not just commentary from both sides but an encyclopedia, it is still at best an accusation and there is a page for that here. Chavmen (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal Centre also states: "Such accusations are totally false and extremely reprehensible, turning the victims of barbaric Hamas terror into perpetrators of those very crimes." Again, it would be tit for tat. Chavmen (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been accused of public hate-mongering of Muslims, regular appeals to a neofascist form of Zionism, and relentless provocations to religious war in Israel/Palestine (Swaim 2012). It is not an appropriate source for commentary on Palestinian history. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

And there's my point. If we can't use the SWC because of criticism à la Swaim 2012 (who mind you has his own vested interest as an exec for the IFF), then we shouldn't be quoting or endorsing Daud Abdullah from the Muslim Council of Britain who has supported Hamas in the past. Chavmen (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, in addition to scholarly debate also the issue of international Law, and as stated earlier the accusation does not fall in the category. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is on 1946-1999, not on present war. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

[5] Here is a souce (The Economist) that actually deals directly with the issue in hand.

Quote: In December 1948, in the aftermath of the second world war, the un adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention defines a genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Contrary to the common understanding of the term, the un says not only killing counts. “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction” does too, as does inflicting “serious bodily or mental harm”, “measures intended to prevent births”, and “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. Categorising atrocities as genocide has legal implications. The International Criminal Court is able to indict someone for the crime, for example.

Quote: By the un definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.

Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill civilians in doing so. And while some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, mainstream sources do not consider this a genocide. As such, this does not belong here. Dovidroth (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring WP:YESPOV. To quote fundamental Wikipedia policy: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" and "describe disputes, but not engage in them". Any source stating that it isn't a genocide can be published in the article, but it's not reason enough to delete scholarship in areas that you don't like. Can you please cite Wikipolicy that sourced Palestinian genocide can't go here? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mokedbitar @Salmoonlight @181.13.64.243 @183.102.97.193 @Dovidroth @61.85.205.33 @john_Yunshire, maybe join the discussion if you're all gonna keep reverting. @Onceinawhile, I see you're already here.Stix1776 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems you keep missing the point. WP:WEIGHT. International law dictates something. Genocide is a also a legal definition. Therefore you must adhere to legal definition and follow international law and convention. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful. It is not for us Wikipedia editors to interpret international law. That would be original research. We follow high quality secondary sources. That is all. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I second what Onceinawhile is saying. @Homerethegreat, I specifically asked you "Can you please cite Wikipolicy that sourced Palestinian genocide can't go here?" and I haven't heard a response.Stix1776 (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I and others have repeatedly raised sources regarding this. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Outside of perhaps a cursory mention that select scholars consider this a genocide, this section should not be remotely this long. It feels broadly WP:SYNTH and WP:Undue. 80% of it has nothing to do with Genocide, but OR/SYNTH about how ethnic cleansing and genocide are *perhaps* connected.

It is not internationally recognized as a genocide by any remote majority of genocide scholars, and should not be listed with this much weight. Mistamystery (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed per @Mistamystery Homerethegreat (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to reducing its length. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be open to reducing its length and giving equal (or more) weight to more mainstream views that it is not a genocide. Dovidroth (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

All the content regarding the Palestinian genocide accusation must stop being added until we work here what is added or not, it's clearly controversial and it should not be included until we work things out here. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone, just clarifying that consensus needs to be achieved to add controversial content that has been contested. Please discuss here if you wish to Add the content and achieve consensus per WP:ONUS. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point it's best to have an RfC. VR _talk 02:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Again raising point for editors who wish to insert material per WP:ONUS to please refer here to talk. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I restored the content. Note that Dovidroth has been topic banned and that both Dovidroth and Homerethegreat face further sanctions here [6]

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been done; VR is right, this needs an RfC. I would ask that you self-revert and open one. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I restored the page to the status quo ante bellum. You can begin an RfC if you would like. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS as much as I think this section deserves inclusion. This section was not the status quo by any means. It was added post October 7. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, thank you. It seems to have been added here [7] on Oct 18th and was then removed on Oct 20th.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So it does seem that an RfC is required here. How should it be phrased? I'm thinking: "Does the section "Palestinian Exodus (Nakba)" belong in this article (with or without modification) or should it be removed altogether?" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest:

Should this article include the Nakba? A proposed implementation of this can be seen here.

This RfC is held to resolve an slow-moving edit war that has taken place over three months. ~~~~~

I think the last sentence is useful context, but if you want to make the question more concise I have no objection to removing it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Removal of Ethnic cleansing of Germans

The paragraph only has one minority mention of a scholar saying it constitutes genocide. The parent page also only has one minority mention and otherwise states that genocide claims pertaining to the deportations of Germans in post-war europe is agitprop.

Again - Ethnic Cleansing, while may be connected to genocide in certain circumstances, is *not* genocide. Unless there are sufficient sources to dictate that a majority of Genocide experts and scholars consider this a genocide, it’s going from the page.

This also goes for a number of other claims on this page that go on endlessly about ethnic cleansing but make no significant or substantive argument to the claim amounting to genocide.

Mistamystery (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove. Hi Mistamystery, I was just reading this page and thought the same myself. From research, it was more an expulsion or forced resettlement than ethnic cleansing during the aftermath of World War 2. The Potsdam Conference referred to it as such due to fear of further violence/resentment from Germans after the fall of the Nazi regime. Chavmen (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So the UN, other organizations as well as most scholarship do not refer to it as Genocide? If so then perhaps it really may need to be moved. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove. While the post-war removal of Germans was definitely ethnic cleansing, it hasn't been considered genocide, and shouldn't be on this page without reputable sources calling it as such. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as this is not an RfC and the page is semi-protected, who should make the final decision here? I don't want to be too WP:BOLD and go ahead and simply remove it. I have thrown in my two cents and will wait for someone more senior :) Chavmen (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Genocide in North Korea

Hi all. I'm removing the section on North Korea. The section is only sourced with views from American missionary activists. Per the discussion [8] on the reliable sources noticeboard, they're maybe not the strongest sources.

Not to say that North Korea is great, but we need a better source for "genocide". Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Someone beat me to it lol, but this page has been sent to RPP due to edit warring that seems to show no signs of slowing down. Please refrain from breaking the 3 revert rule everyone! jayhawker6 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: 1948 Palestinian expulsion

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.

---

Should there be a section in this article about the 1948 Palestinian expulsion?

(Note that this pertains to an edit war which was discussed at Talk:Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)#Palestinians)

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

A proposed implementation of this can be seen here. 08:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. The topic of this article is about genocides in history; events where we can say in Wikivoice, per both WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, that a genocide did occur. We can't say that about the Nakba; the position that it was a genocide is a fringe one, held by only a very small minority of scholars. To see just how fringe, look at our article on it; we don't even mention that some scholars have described it as a genocide. BilledMammal (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  "The topic of this article is about genocides in history; events where we can say in Wikivoice, per both WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, that a genocide did occur."

  Actually if you look at the other entries on this page, that is not true. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history_(1946_to_1999)#Ethnic_cleansing_of_Germans, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history_(1946_to_1999)#Australia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history_(1946_to_1999)#Argentina, etc.

  This article's scope is currently quite broad and the article List of genocides even states "Genocides in history includes cases where there is less consensus among scholars as to whether they constituted genocide."

  -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per article scope, the article covers genocides from 1946 to 1999. Actions which are not considered genocides in consensus should not be included. This also includes Ethnic cleansing, transfers, mass movements of people induced following government persecution following WW2 be it of Germans, Jews from Islamic World etc... Per WP:WEIGHT, we should also beware the showing of fringe views as fact per WP:VOICE. I would not personally look at Wikipedia articles to check if considered genocide or not although it can be an indication. Overall I oppose it's placement here as well as other events which are considered genocide only by fringe scholars. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal. Nemov (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Homerthegreat. This is already mentioned in Population transfer. Alaexis_¿question? 08:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  But there were also thousandshundreds of people killed in this case [9] as well as "around 400 Palestinian Arab towns and villages depopulated, with a majority being entirely destroyed and left uninhabitable"[10], making it more than just population transfer. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This RfC should possibly be rephrased as "Should there be a section in this article about the Nakba?" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC) (Edited/rephrased IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC))
• Comment: If you want the scope of this article to just be the academic definitions clustering around that of legal genocide, then no. If your scope includes cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing, then yes (and using those keywords you will find plenty of corroborating neutral academic sources), but you must specify any inclusion criteria very clearly in the lede (a definition quoted from a single 1948 convention is not sufficient). Thus this RfC appears to be dependent on the discussion topic below. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal and Homerethegreat. JM (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Outside the scope of the article and would amount to a POV push and COATRACK on a grand scale. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on the assumption that the scope discussion below will settle on a high bar for inclusion. The charge of genocide is in WP:LABEL territory, so will need to be supported by significant weight of sources, and not just those that approach the issue from a single POV. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Absolutely there should, provided it is factually/historically accurate, be a section discussing the 1948 expulsion. That's where this current Gaza 'saga' began, and it's time there was extensive further international discussion about it. Many genocides are not viewed as such until seen through the lens of history.Coalcity58 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Homerethegreat (noting, like them, that some of the instances already there are rather questionable). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Coretheapple. Risks turning the article into an unsalvageable COATRACK. Tdmurlock (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Homerethegreat and BilledMammal.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Multiple editors are claiming that this article only lists genocides that are "uncontested" and can be "stated in wikivoice". Even a cursory glance at the article proves this notion false; many of the supposed perpetrators are described as merely being "accused of" genocide. The article also describes some of the genocides as "contested". So now that opens the question: what can we include? If we can include genocides that are of scholarly debate, then what's so special about the Nakba? Why can't it be listed? If we can only list genocides with clear consensus, than this article needs a major override. 296cherry (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: This RfC needs more engagement, I'm not sure how that can be achieved or if it can be relisted or something like that. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I relisted the RfC. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2024 (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.

Scope of this article

The content of this article doesn't match its defined scope; in the lede and title it says "genocide", but in the body we include alleged genocides, ethnic cleansings, and massacres.

1. Strictly apply the currently defined scope, in the same manner as we do at List of genocides.
2. Change the scope to "Genocides and alleged genocides"
3. Change the scope to "Ethnic cleansing"

Regardless of what we decide I think we have to remove the massacres - I can't think of a potential scope that would include them. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think per article title this article ought to strictly limited to genocides. However option 2 is also feasible but it should not be fringe but a genocide that is rather widely recognized (the Armenian genocide for example, though of course it does not fall in the timeframe of this article). However this may leave a lot of wiggle room. At the moment I think option 1 is more favorable though option 2 is also alright under certain conditions. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Armenian genocide meets #1; while it is denied by some sources, the consensus is that it was genocide. For #2, I was thinking things like Stolen generation. BilledMammal (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes Armenian genocide should be included in its own timeframe agreed. I will look at the Stolen genocide you sent now, however I do not pretend to know enough about it. However the forcible taking of children is I think one of the UN's genocide clauses. From having looked now there seems to be an academic debate of merit on the topic however, I still feel reservations including it. I think it's best to wait for more voices on the topic in this respect. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the right solution - defining the scope of the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, option #1 with tight criteria and a high bar for inclusion, otherwise it will be a dumping ground for anything where achieving the label of genocide is viewed as a political win. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I would support option 1, as it stands the article is a mess. If we are going to include ethnic cleansing such as the Nekba and explusion of the Germans post WW2 the article should be renamed. I think any list of alleged genocides would have to be handled very carefully, in some case it could involve allegations against living individuals and BLP applies whoever the subject is. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

A similar relevant discussion is happening at List of genocides [11] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the massacres, as no possible scope of this article can include them. I've left ethnic cleansings and alleged genocides while discussion here proceeds. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it contradictory that you've allowed ethnic cleansings to remain in the article but insist on removing the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Massacres can be genocidal. Several genocides are massacres; such as the Srebrenica genocide (also known as the "Srebrenica massacre"). Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not proposing removing events that are genocides even if they are also massacres - only events that are not genocides. BilledMammal (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 -- as Homerethegreat mentions, the title is a constraint here. I do not support option 2 insofar as it contains allegations; as ActivelyDisinterested mentions there's real risk there regardless of whether it's a combined article or if we were to say, split it off into separate ones for confirmed and alleged. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)