Template talk:Genocide sidebar

LGV Reversion

The current state of the Template:Genocide sidebar is excessively egregious, it omits mention of numerous genocides significant in number and notoriety to a mere 'footnote' at the bottom of the page questioning the veracity of its genocidal nature (Holodomor). Naturally, as POV pushing has assumed high priority and Soviet genocides have been relegated to the 'dust bins of history', those genocides that are arguably less well known, more questionable as genocides and less significant in number still keep a key position on the sidebar. For example how is it that Nazi Crimes Against the Polish Nation committed during the context of war, outmanoeuvres the inclusion of the ethnic cleansing of Poles in the Soviet Union during a time of peace and for no reasons other than to remove them. How is it that the Cambodian Genocide orchestrated by Paul Pot who belonged to the same nation he exterminated is kept in the genocide sidebar but the Holodomor is left only to a brief mention literally at the bottom of the page, and instead of a link to the genocide itself a slap in the face to the victims by a link only to the 'question' of whether it occurred. These brutal and arguably far more genocidal events cannot be outcasted while population transfers and ancient crusades are kept. The version I motion and hope to restore had provenance of months and its 1,039 characters removed in an edit in May of 2020 with a referral to 'per discussion at Template talk:Genocide'. There was no discussion, at least not a bilateral one, according to the Oxford Dictionary, a discussion connotes a verbal transaction between two or more people, this did not occur and hence WP:CONACHIEVE was not achieved.Η γνώση είναι δύναμη123 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Η γνώση είναι δύναμη123

Restoring Portion of Sidebar to LSV and Mentioning Events Inalienable to the Discussion of Genocide and Examples of it in History

On the 9th of May 2020, an edit was made to remove the entire section of Soviet Genocide from the Template:Genocide sidebar this was done without any consensus and removed a sizeable portion of a version that had been been there for dozens of months. In the Soviet Union, there was the strategic elimination and removal of Polish, Greek and Latvian communities through violence, the Holodomor was conducted by forced grain requisition squads whilst the Potato Famine happened because the infection of potatos. No country recognises the Irish Potato Famine as a genocide, numerous countries especially within the EU recognise the suffering of the Polish, Latvian and Greek communities of the USSR and more than 15 including the majority of Western democracies consider the Holodomor as a genocide, unbelievably some countries included in the current version of this sidebar are recognised by one state as a genocide. These deserve to be mentioned and were mentioned for many months before being removed in an edit without consensus. I hope to return the page to the version made before the edit of the 9th of May 2020, in a diplomatic way and look forward to working in a proactive way with those concerned.Η γνώση είναι δύναμη123 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Η γνώση είναι δύναμη123

• That's why we look at scholarly sources rather than political decisions. Political decisions are influenced by many factors, of which (being generous) historical accuracy is only one, if indeed it's considered at all. In scholarly sources there is no agreement that Holodomor was a genocide. I will quote just one example to disprove your ridiculous claim that no one is comparing Holodomor to other famines:

  Stalin’s intentions and actions during the Ukrainian famine, no matter what sensationalist claims are made by nationalists and anti-Communists, were not the extermination of the Ukrainian people but were related perversely to the collectivization campaign, the destruction of any form of resistance to the dictates of the ruling party, and the absurdly high targets for requisitioning grain. Incompetence and callousness were as much culprits as fear of potential resistance, anger at the failure to deliver grain, and deep-seated hostility toward peasants and nationalists.5 Like the Irish Famine of 1845–1852, the Bengal Famine of 1943, and the Chinese Famine of 1958–1961, so in Ukraine the government was culpable in the deaths of millions.

  (t · c) buidhe 17:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That source is not about the Holodomor though and I don't see anywhere in that quote where it refers to the question of genocide. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

More generally, the events you are removing are most certainly described as genocides in numerous sources. For some, like the Holodomor where there's lots of controversy perhaps a note should be added, but since the purpose of the template is to direct potential readers to articles related to the topic, all of these belong in there. Volunteer Marek 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe. An infobox of this kind is intended to ease the reader's navigation around related articles - it is not intended to provide a definitive statement of evemts which have been labelled "genocides". Anything else might appear an endorsement of a particular point of view or stray into WP:FRINGE. Better to have a smaller and more focused list in my opinion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your stated rationale actually supports my and other editor's edits, not Buidhe's, and restoring these events to the template. Including them is exactly what eases reader's navigation around the topic - I 100% agree with you here. There's no indication that these are endorsements.

Also, most of these ARE in fact described as "genocides" in sources.

Buidhe, yelling "ONUS" while edit warring and trying to force your way in a dispute is not exactly productive editing. In particular claiming "WP:ONUS" in this particular dispute, concerning a template is out of place. "WP:ONUS!!!" is not suppose to be a way to justify any and all reversions of information. By invoking ONUS you are acknowledging that these events ARE indeed described as genocides in the sources. If this was an article on genocides then I guess I could kind of see how there's some reason why these would be excluded due to WP:DUE (though no, I really couldn't see that either). But this is a template. If events are described as genocides in sources or are directly related to the question of what is a genocide then very obviously they should be included. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with VM. I think at the very least Holodomor and Uyghur genocide being restored as genocides on the sidebar since they are definitely large scale enough. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, is this a joke? The Uyghur persecution is comparable to the Holodomor? Millions died in the latter, there isn't even a death statistic for the former. For the sake of not minimizing these horrendous events, the Uyghur link should be placed on the bottom of the sidebar, and not next to actual massacres such as by ISIS and against the Rohingya. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:74C3:41AE:6B1B:FB6A (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What would be useful is taking out some general books about genocide, and seeing which events are commonly and consistently described as genocide which would then have due weight for inclusion in a template which is supposed to be about genocide generally, and can't possibly include every event that someone has called a genocide. One review of six such books (10.1017/S004388710002089X) even has a handy table which could serve as a starting point. The Holodomor is indeed commonly described as a genocide but not consistently as such, since there is considerable academic disagreement that it is in fact a genocide. I find your misrepresentations of my position to be laughable and not worth replying to. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you, but Oranjelo.... 2601:85:C101:C9D0:74C3:41AE:6B1B:FB6A (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

If what happens to the Uyghurs is qualified as genocide, then the "atrocities" during the Congo Free State surely need to be classified as genocide in this table listing genocides, it is certainly much more appropriate to this case than to the policy of internment and political indoctrination that the Uyghur population is subjected to, whose qualification as "genocide" is debatable. 176.139.81.223 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Gukurahundi

Currently, this template lists Gukurahundi as a genocide. However, the edit that included it [1] justified it by pointing out that the article itself calls it a genocide. However, the only citation provided for this claim in the article was to a Guardian article which actually doesn't include the claim of genocide! [2] [3] The citation was incorrect, and so the article (and therefore this template) has been calling it a genocide potentially erroneously. Either someone with more knowledge of the history should find an actual citation for this claim and add it into the Gukurahundi article, or someone with edit access to this template should remove this event from the it. 86.130.142.238 (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

Right under related topics, add Japanese war crimes. It is listed in genocides through history and is often called one. 2600:1700:C0:2680:18AD:4013:4FCE:5CF4 (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The articles for e.g. the Nanjing Massacre or Japanese war crimes in WW2 don't describe them as referring to genocides unequivocally in a way that would satisfy WP:NPOV for us to include here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Kazakh Genocide?

Should we add the Kazakh Genocide in the WW2 Section? Dunutubble (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sikh Genocide

Can I add the Pogrom of Sikhs that occured in India during 1984? See here: 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. Dunutubble (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Add Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66

Anti-communist genocides by right-wing paramilitaries, militias, and death squads ought also to be listed, such as the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZvZisTrash (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 11, 2021 (UTC)

Noting for visibility that the the extended-protected template was added by 71.191.48.126 and not ZvZisTrash. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove controversial "Uyghur genocide" from list

The view that the alleged civil rights abuses of Uyghur people in Xinjiang by the Chinese government constitute genocide is without international consensus and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.48.126 (talk) 23:54, August 15, 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sirdog9002: There was an RfC at Talk:Uyghur genocide that determined that calling the "Uyghur genocide" a "genocide" in Wikivoice is POV, and therefore not allowable. Including "Uyghur genocide" in this list strongly implies, in Wikivoice, that it is indeed a genocide. As the RfC determined, this is unallowable, and the article should (really, must) be removed from the list. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link to the RfC, so that you can see the discussion and the result. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be vastly overstating the consensus of that RfC and imagining entirely its relevance to this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not overstating the RfC. The reason why the RfC (as well as a more recent one here) came to that conclusion is because there exists a disagreement among scholars and even human rights organizations on whether the abuses committed against the Uyghurs qualify as genocide. It is not to deny that there have been abuses committed against Uyghurs that can be considered tantamount in severity to genocide - this is merely a dispute in terms of labeling. There's a reason why atrocities such as the Holodomor, the Residential Schools in Canada and the US, the Nanjing Massacre, the Bengal Famine, or the Russian government's current invasion of Ukraine (none of which are included despite often being characterized as genocide even by various scholars) are not included in the list despite their heinousness (that said the Black War is also included in the list despite the genocide label being disputed). Dankmemes2 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A tool or event can't be a genocide, we have articles for residential schools and then we have articles for the California genocide for example and Genocide of indigenous peoples for the overarching topic. We actually have so many pages about the genocides of indigenous peoples that we've made it its own sidepiece {{genocide of Indigenous peoples}}. The Nanjing Massacre is held by some scholars to be an act of genocide but the larger genocide was theoretically against the Chinese people writ large, if there is more scholarship on that and we have enough for an article on the larger claims of course it should be added to the list. There is an open discussion below to add the Bengal Famine to the page. Curious, do you also want to remove Uyghur genocide from genocide of Indigenous peoples or just this template? Also note that besides for the Rwandan Genocide there is at least some level of disagreement among scholars for all of the ones currently listed under Contemporary ethno-religious genocides, is the intent to challenge all of them or is there a reason we're grinding this specific axe? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there should be no mention of it in the sidebar altogether as there is still a significant amount of scholarship that has opined in favour of the genocide label. My biggest issue here is that this particular genocide template (not the "Genocide of indigenous peoples" one which I am also aware of, which also includes many ethnocide examples) appears to only list ones where there is a clear consensus of genocide among scholarship to the exclusion of similarly contested examples like the ones I listed (ex. Holodomor, the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 or the ongoing invasion of Ukraine). If we are going to include highly disputed examples, we would also have to significantly expand the list and include such examples which many other people in this talk page seem to be strongly resisting or only allowing it in the Related topics section. Dankmemes2 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said before with the exception of the Rwandan Genocide every single genocide under "Contemporary ethno-religious genocides" is disputed to some extent. That is not a condition unique to the Uyghur genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dankmemes2: please don't edit your comment after it has been responded to, especially in a way which significantly changes its meaning as you did here[4]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I was actually making those edits and hit the Reply button before I realized you replied.

In any case, "consensus" does not mean "zero dispute", it means that there is near unanimity among nearly all sources and where any dissenting voice is considered to be fringe. You can find some scientists who oppose anthropogenic climate change but that doesn't mean there isn't consensus that it isn't a thing. The Turkish state continues to deny the Armenian Genocide in defiance of scholarly consensus, but that doesn't mean scholarship isn't nearly unanimous that it was a genocide. In addition to denying genocide allegations, the PRC government goes a step further and denies any serious state-perpetrated human rights violations against the Uyghurs - the latter of which is a fringe view in defiance of consensus among reliable sources and even the UN.

My issue with inclusion here is not so much that I don't personally agree with people labelling the persecution of Uyghurs as a genocide or that it isn't as bad as one, but rather with the inclusion criteria for this template. The RfCs in question highlighted that while serious state-linked human rights abuses are well-documented, whether or the label "genocide" in this case is highly contentious among WP:RS and is not just the domain of fringe groups or apologists like Holocaust denial. I'm not sure what the exact criteria for inclusion in this template is given that many other similarly disputed (as in without near unanimity, not just some fringe groups or apologists objecting) are either put in the Related topics section or entirely excluded. Dankmemes2 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you're confusing minority viewpoints with fringe viewpoints, those are different things. The Rohingya genocide is as highly disputed as the Uyghur genocide and it is included. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that all of the things listed here had consensus (minus minority or fringe viewpoints) for the term "genocide" as I mentioned earlier with the Black War example. I was questioning the criteria for inclusion in this particular template and why some events controversially labelled as "genocide" are included while others with equal or more recognition are excluded. The views that the Holodomor and the current invasion of Ukraine qualify as genocide are also not fringe viewpoints, yet they are not included in the list. I really don't know why some editors here seem to be fighting to keep certain highly disputed examples while excluding others, especially when the Genocide navbox already includes most of the examples I listed and more. Dankmemes2 (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's long been my opinion that no "list of genocides" can meet WP:NPOV. If one follows the policy that Wikipedia may not state as fact any seriously contested assertion, then only examples that are not seriously contested could be placed on the list. However, that would instead create bias in favor of more restrictive definitions and conceptions of genocide. Thus, I believe that genocide-related templates should focus on topics that are common to multiple genocides and avoid having a list of examples. Mainspace lists of genocides should follow the example of List of ethnic cleansing campaigns (which is structured as "list of events called ethnic cleansing") and not make a definitive determination which qualify. (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Genocides in postcolonial Africa

I've been wondering, since the genocides in this category overlap with both "Cold War" and "Contemporary ethno-religious genocides," should the African genocides be merged into these respective categories? Maybe with pre-1990s genocides being placed under "Cold War," and 1990s-onward being included as "contemporary." I know, for instance, that plenty of folks consider Rwanda and Darfur as examples of modern-day genocides, so I think it would still make sense to include them there. DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Add Bengal Famine?

I believe that the Bengal famine of 1943 has enough proof to back it being (potentially) a genocide. Since the Holodomor is allowed on this template, I think it right to have the Bengal famine of 1943/genocide question too under the Related Topics section. Piotr Heat (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestine

Removed:

section: Longstanding contemporary ethno-religious genocides (1940s–present) [doesn't need a new section, even if appropriate for the nav]

sole entry: Genocide against Palestinians (just-created page, seems not common enough for its own article, conflates many different things including apartheid, fears about the future, analyses of the 1940s)

@Buidhe: Something like the current material in G.a.P. might better start as an entry in List of genocides (where other editors would want better sourcing than a few pundits) and a section in Israel and apartheid (which is less a neologism and already mentions some of the discussions of how apartheid can relate to cultural genocide). – SJ + 23:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Genocide Watch take, though not updated for the war. – SJ + 23:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add it to the sidebar as I oppose all listings of specific events/genocides in it for reasons I stated above. (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add it to the contemporary genocides section? Scientelensia (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe: understood. Sci: That isn't supported by sources; still a fringe perspective, not supported by groups that track global genocides (though some warn that of an ongoing + near future risk). The sidebar should only summarize [a subset of] what's in the longer article. – SJ + 20:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, however what Israel is doing meets 3 of the UN requirements for a genocide, such organisations do not say so as it is controversial to go against Israel: https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide. Only 1 of these thresholds needs to be crossed for a genocide to be invoked.

What are your thoughts? Scientelensia (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Usage should reflect usage in reliable sources beyond op-eds, summarizing those sources' assessment of meeting those criteria: for instance when orgs such as the ICC, the UN, or Amnesty use the term. This can change quickly, but WP should be downstream to those sources updating. Much of what is currently happening in Gaza is covered in Allegations_of_war_crimes_against_Israel#2023_Israel–Hamas_war, terrifying but a different standard than being classed as a contemporary genocide. – SJ + 02:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, which is why it is only presented as ‘alleged genocide’. Also, I am talking about the whole conflict (1948-present) rather than just the latest war. Scientelensia (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey all. I think today's proceedings - South Africa's case in the ICJ accusing Israel of genocide, supported by the Arab League, Brazil, Colombia, and Pakistan, among other countries, should warrant the Palestinian genocide accusation page a mention in the sidebar. I think this makes it more than just a fringe perspective. clangridge (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If that ICJ case is going to be the reason it seems to make sense to at least wait until there is an update on the case. Those countries hardly make up a global consensus. ~~ Gargarlinks (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024

Adding the article "Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine" to the "Related Topics" section. RadioactiveRadiant (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Per WP:NOTABLE (Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and the already-linked "Palestinian genocide accusation".
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 21:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

What exactly is the present criteria for this sidebar regarding events that belong in the "genocide" section v. "related" section? Is it a majority of scholars thinking so? A significant minority? I recently made a WP: BOLD edit to include every event in the sidebar that a significant minority of scholars classifies as genocide. In reality, almost every action that is labeled a genocide by a significant minority of scholars could be classified as such, as the definitions of genocide vary so widely.

Shouldn't we include all allegations where a significant minority say so per WP: NPOV? KlayCax (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The business of determining what is or is not considered a genocide is not something that Wikipedia can answer considering NPOV. I explain why above. That's why all individual (alleged) examples should not be allowed in templates. The format inherently allows no nuance as to different views on whether it is a genocide. If we must list them, it should only be those not significantly disputed. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the trouble we have is that as a template, there is not much room for nuance or explanation. If we have an article listed on this template under, for example, "Contemporary Genocides" it will read to many readers like a Wikivoice conclusion to that effect, and that is the greater WP:NPOV problem than what you describe.

One option is to take a strict view and say if the article does not have "genocide" in its title, it does not belong in the template. This has appeal to me, because articles involving allegations of genocide often have hotly contested titles requiring RfCs and so forth, so we could have a measure of security that the positions have been vetted and discussed at length. This is also good because article titles that have been couched in terms of "allegations" or "questions" (like Israel-Palestine, Holodomor, predictions in Ethiopia, and others) -- readers will understand at a glance that in those instances we are not taking a Wikivoice stance. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The only two options that make sense to me are: 1.) Including indisputable genocides only 2.) Including all cases where a significant minority allege it 3.) Include none at all @JArthur1984: @Buidhe:.

This could be done by:

• Including indisputable genocides only. Meaning that they fit under both a "narrow" and "loose" definition of the term. (The Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide)
• Including events that are heavily contested and may even fall under a narrow conception of the term. (California, Holodomor, Congo Free State, etc.)
• Including events that a minority — but not majority — of scholars hold as genocide. (Allegations of Ukrainian/Transgender genocide; discussions surrounding the European colonization of South Africa, Americas, and Oceania.)

I do however worry that only include "indisputable" cases, could, as mentioned above, also introduce a bias of its own towards a "narrow" conception of the term. KlayCax (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned about your last point as well . Which is why I'm against including any examples because there is no way to do it and follow NPOV.

Note that the title does not work as a cop out. There are cases where there is consensus to use genocide in the title but not in wiki voice (ie Uyghur genocide). There are cases where only a minority of sources about the event mention genocide but editors decide to make it the title based on the sources that do (Libyan genocide) (t · c) buidhe 21:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m becoming more interested in your position. But what would the template look like if there were no specific instances? Would it essentially be the ‘issues’ section?

On the specific example you cite here, the title of the article concerning China’s maltreatment of Uyghurs is now Persecution of Uyghurs in China following an extensive RfC. So at least this instance was fixed and the article is no longer named after the minority view. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the template should focus on genocide studies topics such as different types of genocides, different aspects, definitions, the legal aspects of the genocide crime (such as incitement, complicity, intent, and denial), and broader questions such as the causes and effects of genocide, rather than mainly being a list of historical events that are often characterized as genocide. Some of these articles are already listed in the first segment of the template, "issues". Another issue with the focus on events is that it can lead to the misleading assumption that genocide can be separated from the wars and other conflicts during which it usually takes place. Increasingly, this is a paradigm that is questioned by genocide researchers. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed all. Tagging @Buidhe: and @JArthur1984: to see if this is alright.

Alternatively, we could make a "tier-ed" system, with "indisputable", "sometimes", and "minority" sections. I removed all for the time being however. KlayCax (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the approach of your change better than a "tier" approach. your approach seems consistent with what @Buidhe suggested as well. I have no objection to this approach JArthur1984 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing all the examples, which the infobox is meant to reflect and cover. I think maintaining the status quo or implementing a "tier" approach is more appropriate. I've restored the last stable version until a firm consensus is reached. Archives908 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What examples should be kept, @Archives908:? KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, the "indisputable" and "sometimes" cases. "Minority" ones can get the cut if everyone else agrees to it. I also like your "tier" suggestion. Archives908 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

How do we determine each authoritively? Should allegations of transgender genocide be included? Allegations of Ukrainian?

It seems to me that this will just become an unending battle ground. We already have a list of genocides article we could link too. I don't see the point of listing every possible one. KlayCax (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to the tier-idea. I just don't see how there's a way to do it. What is a majority, disputed, and a minority opinion isn't always so clear, and there's not many reliable sources to give a definite list on each.

There's also been so many events in history that at least a minority of scholars consider as such: a full list will likely evolve to become just clutter. Having a simple link to a "list" works much better.

At least imo. KlayCax (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to implement tiers without breaching WP:NOR. In many cases you won't be able to find a source that says explicitly whether something is a minority view or not. Let's say Dersim massacre—how would you classify it? (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, I agree with you. At best, this is going to lead to endless Wikilawyering and misinterpretations. At worst, it's going to actively mislead people. KlayCax (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And that is precisely why I am not opposed to maintaining the current status quo (at least for the time being). We could also wait, and give other editors the opportunity to chime in and provide feedback. Perhaps there is an alternative that neither of us have yet considered. A possible "tier" system can be ironed out/developed here on talk or on a willing participants sandbox. The proposal template with the new "tier" system could then be reviewed and adjusted accordingly per community consensus. For possible conflicts which may arise, an WP:RFC can be launched to obtain a WP:3O. It'll take time, and perhaps a much lengthy case-by-case discussion will need to be had, but it's not an impossible task. Regardless of how this proceeds, I don't believe blanket deletion is the best scenario here, when we haven't exhausted these other options, and certainly not while there is no consensus for it. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to hearing alternative & more ideas. But if we have to choose one of the current options: a simple link to list of genocides seems to the best option to me.

There's been, unfortunately, so many genocides in history that I think any "listing" only serves to crowd out the most important parts of the template. KlayCax (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's an example tier-list, @Archives908:, @Buidhe:, and @JArthur1984:.

This list seems right to my mind. However, there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources on what is or is not generally considered to be, outside of specific instances.

It's either something similar to this or none at all. Which seems better? (Unless someone new suggests something.) KlayCax (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I can however see the Maafa as a minority opinion as well. But this once again stresses that there's no real way to say what's a majority or minority opinion in many instances. Roger Garaudy and Adam Jones have argued that it could be classified as such. (Note that Garaudy is a Holocaust denier and is discredited. Adam Jones is however a well-regarded scholar of genocide.) KlayCax (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to curate that. I have no objections to its implementation. Archives908 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This draft shows why the entire concept is WP:OR. For example, if I go to the Residential schools in Canada article I can't find any mention that genocide is a minority view. The article seems to imply the opposite, suggesting that cultural genocide is accepted and "the debate about whether the Canadian government also committed physical and biological genocide against Indigenous populations remains open". Most of the others covered there also don't have sources that support the "tier" they have been placed in.

Furthermore under Universal you have "

• The Holocaust
• Armenian
• Poles
• Romani
• Rwandan
• Dzungar
• Yazidi
• Herero and Nama
• Iraqi Turkmen
• Circassian
• Moriori"

However, I could cite significant disputes about several of these (depending on whether you are talking about academic, political, or other controversy). While we can talk about an academic consensus with regards to the Armenian genocide, its acknowledgement is hardly universal. Worse, none of these articles contain any claim that they are universally acknowledged as genocide. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the best we can do, @Buidhe:. (Without getting into the weeds on why I chose to place one event here or another there.) It's this or nothing.

Settler colonialism as a process in of itself being genocidal is a minority opinion. Whether certain events were genocidal may be majority opinions. KlayCax (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And the infobox is (in my mind) implicitly reflects the opinions of historians. Rather than politicians, commentators, or the opinions of the general public. (e.g. In Turkey, there may be a reason to downplay the Armenian genocide. In Ukraine, a reason to upscale the Holodomor beyond the historical consensus, and so on and so forth.) KlayCax (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I respect this analysis as an intellectual exercise, but I am becoming increasingly convinced by @Buidhe‘s perspective that the only way to avoid OR and SYNTH, and therefore comply fully with our policies, is to avoid specific examples and focus on the broader aspects of the topic and studies. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. Archives908 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

? We are not allowed to put original research into reader-facing templates, per policy. Even so, the Armenian genocide is not universally acknowledged among historians either, and many of these on the "universal" list have less consensus behind them than that. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in the favor of it remaining, either, @Buidhe:, but if other editors are going to contest removal than "perfect is the enemy of good". KlayCax (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

And OR is the enemy of the encyclopedic... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The version you reverted to also does WP: OR. Because it "ranks" genocides as disputed or not.

If this version doesn't work, then let's just delete it and redirect to list of genocides. KlayCax (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

All I can say is that I oppose both versions. If they both contain WP:OR, the only solution is to go to a version that does not contain the policy violation. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Then let's do that, @Buidhe:. I know several editors here have stated they'll revert any attempt to remove it, however. KlayCax (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Everyone" does not agree that your version is superior. HEB and I both disagree with that proposition. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

How is it inferior to the previous version? Both versions use some form of WP: OR. I assumed it was reverted based off of WP: OR.

There's likely no way to make a list like this (without excluding things). I'm okay if it's removed entirely. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's possible that both have some amount of OR, but in my opinion it is much more severe in your version. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's just remove everything. Far easier. KlayCax (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. The template has already been reduced significantly. I don't see any issue maintaining a few of the more prominent/ near universally recognized examples for reference. I think its best not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Archives908 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're correct that there is no consensus for inclusion of the list of examples, I would agree that they should be removed. Wikipedia:ONUS means we should not include the list without consensus, even if it may be verifiable that some people have called these events genocides. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Buidhe:.

I'm of the opinion that the usage of genocide in general needs to be significantly restricted on Wikipedia. The term itself is without consensus. Yet we're weaving articles such as the Cambodian genocide (which while horrendous arguably didn't target people based on the necessary characteristics to meet it), "settler colonial genocides" such as Australia/America/Canada (which often fails the "exterminationist" definitions of the term), and the Ukrainian Holodomor as genocide in Wikivoice.

Even among the present list: many scholars do not consider the events genocide. (Even in mainstream historiography/non-denialist historians)

For instance, the well-respected historian Peter Cozzens argued in 2016 that:

Cozzens is determined to debunk the main thrust of Brown’s one-sided book — that the government’s response to the so-called “Indian problem” was genocide. He documents a string of gratuitous massacres of Native Americans, much to be deeply regretted, but insists that official Washington never contemplated genocide. “It is at once ironic and unique,” Cozzens declares, contra Brown, “that so crucial a period of our history remains largely defined by a work that made no attempt at historical balance.”

It raises a bigger question: What the heck is the definition of genocide being used in the articles? The Rome Statue? 1948 Genocide Convention?

As BBC notes:

Some say there was only one genocide in the last century: the Holocaust.

and that:

Others say there have been at least three genocides as defined by the terms of the 1948 UN convention:

• The mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks between 1915-1920, an accusation that the Turks deny
• The Holocaust, during which more than six million Jews were killed
• Rwanda, where an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died in the 1994 genocide

While additionally noting:

There is disagreement over the fact that many of the victims of the Khmer Rouge were targeted because of their political or social status - putting them outside of the UN definition of genocide.

Despite this, the Cambodian genocide is presently classified as "genocide" in Wikivoice without context, which is sloppy scholarship at best.

No one (rightfully) wants to be seen as a genocide denier. So the scope of the term has ballooned on Wikipedia over the past five years. If one scholar uses the term: articles are being entirely rewritten in light of that to prevent any form of "genocide denial" from being expressed.

I don't know the solution to this. But it's a real problem... and getting worse. (See my comments on Native American genocide in the United States, Holodomor, California genocide, and Cambodian genocide above.) None of these things are a historical consensus.

Or, if there is a consensus, it's a "yes under one definition but no under the other". A lot of articles need rewritten to inform readers of the differing definitions of genocide. Right now, the problem is getting worse and worse, and there's no resolution in sight. KlayCax (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is why I've been arguing for years that any list of genocides will inherently fail NPOV. If we pick a particular definition, that's a form of bias as well. Instead these lists should be modeled off the ethnic cleansing list which does not make the claim in wiki voice. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems like pearl clutching... We just link genocide where all the nuance you just mentioned is disussed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that fixes the problem of labeling events as "genocide" when this is often a "seriously contested assertion" per NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

break

• I reverted back to the more inclusive template as templates are meant to be useful for navigation purposes. Ultimately, whether something is truly a genocide should be a question for the article. The template should include topics that a reader may be reasonably construed to be looking for in connection to genocide.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  However, by listing them in the template like so we are putting the claim that these events are genocide in wiki voice. I suppose that the wording could be changed to avoid any such implications. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, there's no consensus for any of this. The large majority of editors here affirm that it's a WP: OR problem and want it removed. The list now once again implicitly asserts that some things are genocide while others aren't.

  Can you revert your edit in the meantime, @Vice regent:? KlayCax (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's worse than that, @Buidhe:. It also implicitly argues that things aren't genocide in Wikivoice. A ranked tier or removing everything is the only possible options per Wikipedia rules/guidelines.

  The present template is a walking violation of Wikipedia policy. KlayCax (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why would they need to revert their edit? Clearly, there is still no general consensus on what to do, yet you insist on maintaining your preferred version. A gentle reminder, that no one WP:OWN's this template. Per WP:BRD- your "B"old edit has been "R"everted more than once since the last stable version of the template (as of 16 May 2024). No new changes should be made until a consensus has been reached. If one cannot be found, I endorse launching an RFC for more feedback. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Even if there was a clear local consensus for your version, archives, that doesn't override the core content policies. (t · c) buidhe 16:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:BRD is also policy- which some seem to be forgetting. Also, any feedback on my RFC suggestion? I had previously suggested it on 21 May in this very thread, but was totally ignored. For the record, I agree with Vice regent on this matter. Templates are meant to be useful for navigation purposes and whether an atrocity should be classified as a "genocide" is an issue that should indeed be discussed, but on that respective article's talk page- not here. Archives908 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  BRD is not a policy. It's not even a guideline, it's an essay. Templates are content in mains pace and are therefore required to follow content policies. (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is a strategy used by many to build consensus, to civilly discuss, and to help avoid making a total muck on edit histories.

  Per WP:TMP, templates are primarily used as a tool for readers to navigate between articles. Whether every single atrocity in the history of humankind may or may not constitute as "genocide" is not a debate to be held on this particular talk page. Archives908 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, your interpretation is contradicted by WP:NPOV, which states explicitly that it applies to templates, categories, and other content displayed in mainspace. (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: "I suppose that the wording could be changed to avoid any such implications." Can you please suggest alternate wording? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  We have List of ethnic cleansing campaigns, which makes clear that the scope of the list is events that are called ethnic cleansing by at least one reliable source. The issues that led to the list's scope are similar to what we see with genocide related lists. So if the template had a header specifying events called genocides, that would fix the pov and or issues, although it would be unworkable for other reasons. (t · c) buidhe 16:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe:, why would it be unworkable? Is it that it would be too long? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  The number of events that have been called genocide by at least one reliable source is very long, and it is not at all obvious why that is a useful list for navigation purposes. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  What is the inclusion criteria at List of genocides and Genocides in history? Could we use one of those criteria here? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  The list of genocides claims its criteria is "significant scholarship" stating something is a genocide. But what does that even mean and how could we determine that objectively? As pointed out in that discussion, there is often no historical consensus about which events are genocides. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe so are you then suggesting that List of genocides article runs afoul of NPOV? Because for this sidebar we have two options an both options have List of genocides at the very top. I do think we need some list of genocides.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  If I were in charge, I would re-do the list to match the criteria on list of ethnic cleansing campaigns (described as such in at least one reliable source). I would make it clear that an entry on the list doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia endorses the view that it was a genocide. I would try to make sure, as much as the sourcing allows, every entry gives some idea of how widespread the genocide view is and any explicit dissent if noteworthy. The existing list is not perfect, but it does capture some of this nuance: for example, one entry states, "Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war." None of this nuance is possible to include in a navigation template. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• It seems we need an RfC to resolve this. In the meantime can we go to the last stable-ish version (say this one)? Before we start the RfC, we should agree upon ourselves to limit the possibilities to 2-3 versions and then present these versions to the community for input.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed- the last stable version should be reinstated until consensus is established following the RFC. And thanks for starting the discussion below! Archives908 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Template documentation

See also

Related violence templates:

• {{Genocide of Indigenous peoples}}
• {{Genocide navbox}}
• {{Indian Removal}}

Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (edit | diff) and testcases (create) pages.
Subpages of this template.

112.221.138.147 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Pre-RFC discussion

Here are what are I think the two competing versions.

Criticism of above versions

How can we improve the above versions? Ideally once the RfC has started, we should refrain from updating the versions. For example, I would suggest that version 1 has a lot of categories. We should be able to merge "Cold War (1940s–1991)" and "Contemporary genocides" into "Post WWII genocides".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. Since there has been no other feedback, shall we proceed with the RFC? Archives908 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Archives908 sorry for being busy. I want to conclude my discussion with buidhe above first. Please ping me again in a few days? Thanks for your patience.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, VR. Just following up to see if you want to begin the RFC now? Archives908 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)