Talk:List of genocides/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of genocides. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

We must be very precise when adding values to the list to ensure we are comparing the same thing. It makes no sense to compare X deaths from starvation of which was partly intended by Y government with A deaths from formal execution by gunshot from B government. One example is comparing the deaths from aggressive agricultural policies in british-controlled india (Approximately 54 million according to wikipedias article), to bad agricultural policies plus partial intent for 45 million in the PRC, with the 6 (if only Jews) to 11 (of other minorities) million absolute intended deaths by systematic execution in the holocaust.

Sources I have used have been put to back the 11 million figure! The first reliable sources do not mention 11 million! The last to are not reliable websites i.e. sources. Writing 5,290,000 according to reliable sources. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Why is the lowest number 8330 when even in the Hague tribunal they estimated the number of killed on 4970? There are even lower estimates, as low as several hundreds to 1000. Some UN officers estimated 2000 killed. The highest estimate of 25000-39700 makes no sense, since NOWHERE one talks about all the killed Bosniak civilians as result of "genocide". NOWHERE (except in Bosniak's propaganda). Why talk about killed Bosniaks and not about killed Serbs and Croats? We don't care? Wikipedia shall not be used as a tool of Bosnia's Muslims propaganda.

The article on mongol conquests says that the mongol conquest of Persia reduced its population from 2,500,000 to 250,000. That would definitely qualify as a genocide and one of the largest.

Also, what about the 17 million deaths from Tamerlane's conquests in Asia? And what about adding a column to show what percentage of the world population that was killed? 2600:8801:0:1530:45ED:CA1:98D9:FC93 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC) Yes no mention of thr Mongols with some estimates saying the killed 80 million people (some are a lot lower - 20 million)

45 million people in four years - shouldn't this be included? Zambelo; talk 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There was an entry but I removed it, and others, per the reasoning you can find in the preceding talk section titled Scope in regards to both intent and affect. The human catastrophe that accompanied Mao's tenure atop the Party is certainly notable but it doesn't really fit into the scope of this article as a genocide. There is another article, List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, which contains an entry on the Great Leap Forward and related disasters. GraniteSand (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

according to http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/ukraine_famine.htm the death toll was around 10 million...not 2.5 million. 2.5 million were killed directly by the Soviet government, but 10 million died from the intentional starvation and famine of the Ukrainian people. They began by deporting the kurkuls, the most effective and productive farmers, causing a forced famine of millions of ethnic Ukrainians. Soviet brigades would go to the villages and take any hidden food from the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.92.138 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Second Congo War should be somewhere on this list. Can't find an estimate on the exact number of pygmies killed. They were hunted and cannibalized with the goal of extermination. "DR Congo pygmies 'exterminated'" (Tuesday, 6 July, 2004). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3869489.stm Colbert Sesanker (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Could Algeria - France and Vietnam - USA wars be considered systematic and deliberate attempts at destruction of ethnicities? The Algerian War of Independence has an even higher casualty ratio than the Armenian Revolt, with the main distinctions being that (1) the Armenians failed, and the Algerians succeeded, and (2) that in one case the perpetrators are Muslims and in the other Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.208.36 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What about the Mongol Empire genocide? maybe the largest in history. They killed more than 50 million people in China, Persia and many other countries. And what about the genocide of the folks living in Hispania (now Spain and Portugal) during the Moorish?

Link some articles on these Colbert Sesanker (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Moorish conquest of Iberia can hardly be counted genocide, given the remarkable amount of religious tolerance exercised by the Moorish, rarely seen in history. However, the Christian re-conquest of Iberia could classify as genocide, precisely because of the forceful conversions, expulsions and massacres of Moors and Jews in Iberia.90.163.208.36 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Found this list on the website of the "Genocide Watch", but I don't know how reliable is this source... Someone can say something about? http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/GenocidesandPoliticidessince1945withstagesin2008.pdf ClaudioUEC (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the genocide of the indigenous peoples of america excluded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diroisha (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed it saying it was "too controversial". Doing some research it is has been admitted to by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, so it should be included according to my opinion. I'm just going to leave this scholarly article here http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates02.htm so doubters can know the Bureau of Indian Affairs has admitted to it before it is put back on the list. Stidmatt (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wonderful educational tool but I strongly believe that it is being used by many for propaganda purposes and for propagating the American opinion over the world. A lot articles portrait this. I tried to put in certain factually correct articles on "Higher Education Accreditation in the United States" 99% of which were instantly removed. They played the game of 99% v/s 1% against me. Do think that Native Indian mass murders will be allowed inside Wikipedia???? No way. Just look at the way the response has been framed. It says "someone" removed it. Who is "someone"? You will never get your way out with "these" wiki-editors.

Information about this exists on Wikipedia (sparsely) and certainly should be incorporated here. Genocides_in_history#United_States, which also has some sources. --22:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.12.61 (talk)

The Congo Free State mass killing, the Japanese War Crimes and the Indonesian Killings of 1965-66 were NOT genocides according to the UN Convention. I believe that a new list named "List of mass killings by death toll," including genocides and non-genocides, should be created to list those. Also, the Nazi crimes against the Slavic peoples should be included, since the Nazis had the intention to destroy them. The death toll is about 10,547,000. See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandrocaracol (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Holocaust - the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941-5. More than 6 million European Jews, as well as members of other persecuted groups, were murdered at concentration camps such as Auschwitz.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/holocaust?q=Holocaust

the Holocaust : the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust

The systematic destruction of European Jewry is completely different than events like the rape of German women at the end of World War II (largest rape in history at 2 millionhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106687768) or wartime civilian victims ex. Soviet citizens or the World War II losses in Estonia, estimated at around 25% of the population, were among the highest proportion in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_in_World_War_II). So I will be removing the flagrantly broad and abused number of 17 million from the list. I will cite The War Against the Jews, Bantam, 1986.p. 403 for the systematic destruction of Jews and the mentioned death toll of 5.93 million.RudiLefkowitz (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The term Holocaust and the official death toll

Yad Vashem What was the Holocaust? The Holocaust was the murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators.

How many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust? How do we know? Do we have their names? There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million. (http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/faq.asp)

Oxford English Dictionary - Holocaust . The mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941-5.

Wikipedia Policy & Guidelines to illustrate the point

WP:BALASPS Balancing aspects: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view, by selectively presenting one point of view from a source that actually includes two or more that conflict with each other. WP:CONTROVERSY - Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view. WP:RS/AC - Academic consensus- reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. WP:FRINGE -A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.

If all, or nearly all, high-quality sources agree with each other, it is appropriate to omit the information in the lower quality sources, per WP:GEVAL, or the rare minority source, per WP:DUE. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust "the Holocaust : the killing of millions of Jews and other people' by the Nazis during World War II" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/holocaust "Also called: the Churban, the Shoah (usually capital) the mass murder of Jews and members of many other ethnic, social, and political groups in continental Europe between 1940 and 1945 by the Nazi regime" 79.136.52.183 (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The sister page's (List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll) Holocaust entry is much more balanced: "The low estimate is the minimum number of Jewish deaths, to which some authors limit the definition of "The Holocaust." The upper estimate includes all racially and politically motivated German killing policies during the war, as well as both indirect and direct deaths." 79.136.52.183 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If the litmus of this article is the provided CCPG definition of "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" there are several entries here which do not fit the definition of genocide. Those entries which do not define any national, ethnic, racial or religious group targeted for destruction in whole, or in part, include the Cultural Revolution, the killings of Mengitsu Mariam, the communist purges in Serbia from 1944-1945, the Katyn massacre, and the apparent original research statistic on Leopold's abuse of the Belgian Congo. Those entries which do not make clear the intention, or have credible claims of intention or affect, of antagonistic parties to affect this definition include the fringe Afrocentric concept of "Maafa", the Massacres in Khoshut Khanate, the political repression in East Timor, and the Samar Massacre. I'm going to either transfer or remove these entries if another interested editor can't find reliable sourcing to address these issues. GraniteSand (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As no interested editors have had any input, I've removed the aforementioned sections. GraniteSand (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I missed the original question here, but I have to say that those seem like very good candidates for inclusion. While there are a few obvious cases, e.g.the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwanda and Darfur genocides, the choice of what makes the list and does not seems pretty arbitrary for the smaller cases. For example, I'm not sure how indiscriminate killing at the scale of single city is genocide in the case of Srebrenica, but not in the case of Stalingrad, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc. KLuwak (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is the People's Republic of China left out of this list? 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The incidents under Communist China cannot fit into the definition of "geno"cide. They are more likely to be called ideocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.1.44.117 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no need to separate genocide into smaller sections like ethni-cide, ideo-cide, race-cide, or other. Genocide should always include any and all intentional indiscriminate killings of a part of any group of people perceived as different for any given reason (race, religion, ideology, ethnicity, social status) by the perpetrators.193.145.230.3 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes clearly shows that China committed serious atrocities. With estimates of a couple million to tens of millions 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

100,000,000 million on the max estimate for the colonization of America is absurdity. I checked the link and he states that the estimate is 2,000,000 to 15,000,000 maximum whereas he also notes it is doubtful because the estimates of Native Americans below those numbers. This article is being vandalized 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the bio part of the colonization part reads something like including disease, genocide has nothing to do with random spread of disease unless it was intentionally spread by a government i assume. For example, a biological weapon used by a government to kill people. This entire article is ridiculous 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The biological warfare refers to intentional spread of deadly diseases to the natives of America, who were particularly prone to them because they had never been exposed to them previously. So, in this context the use of the expression "biological warfare" is correct.193.145.230.3 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to actually check these links. 68.50.119.13 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Common sense check needed-

If the purpose of this article to to make relative comparisons of these genocides, this article needs to be checked for objectivity and that the data points have been collected in a way that can be used for comparison. It sounds manipulative to call a civil war a genocide, and "widely considered" is not objective grounds to call something a genocide, and a website spouting hundreds of millions of deaths is probably using questionable assumptions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.29.60 (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The rows of the table also need reordering. If this is a list of genocides by death toll, shouldn't the rows be ordered by death toll? Or if not that, then by date, or by alphabetical order? I don't see any ordering at all of the rows, and any ordering would be more useful than that. Andylatto (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the columns are sortable - click on the icon in the column heading to sort the table by the values in that column. - Rod57 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Only a few values. Would be interesting to see more estimates. - Rod57 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The columns in the table need reordering.

How/why ?

It would be slightly easier to edit if the 'event' was the first column. - Rod57 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What about the Balkan war and the Israeli atrocities? Where are the facts about those "incidents"?Ogionite (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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 List of genocides by death toll'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 "Jay":

• From Persecution of Falun Gong: Jay Nordlinger (25 August 2014) "Face The Slaughter: The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem, by Ethan Gutmann", National Review
• From Ethan Gutmann: Jay Nordlinger (25 August 2014) "Face The Slaughter: The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China's Secret Solution to Its Dissident Problem, by Ethan Gutmann", National Review

Reference named "orgharv":

• From Persecution of Falun Gong: David Kilgour, David Matas (6 July 2006, revised 31 January 2007) An Independent Investigation into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China (free in 22 languages) organharvestinvestigation.net
• From Ethan Gutmann: David Kilgour, David Matas (6 July 2006, revised 31 January 2007) An Independent Investigation into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China (in 22 languages) organharvestinvestigation.net

Reference named "moses":

• From Herero and Namaqua Genocide: A. Dirk Moses (2008) Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation and Subaltern Resistance in World History, Berghahn Books, NY ISBN 978-1-84545-452-4
• From Armenian Genocide: A. Dirk Moses. Genocide and settler society: frontier violence and stolen indigenous children in Australian history. — Berghahn Books, 2004. — p. 21:"Indignant that the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide had largely escaped prosecution, Lemkin, who was a young state prosecutor in Poland, began lobbying in the early 1930s for international law to criminalize the destruction of such groups."

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⚡ 02:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

eg. holocaust, 'congo free state', Decossackization, and many others - Prevents seeing enough rows at once - eg when sort by different columns. When (as usual) the row has link to description of the genocide the notes should be limited to just a few words to explain how to interpret the other entries in that row ? Can we move most of the note text to the relevant genocide articles ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently, the Notes column is too narrow. If it could be made wider, that would also help to accommodate the amount text that exists and allow more lines to be visible at once on the screen. I think it is okay to have the added text in the Notes column to help explain each event. However, the revision made on 4 December 2015 at hour 16:56 by user 188.24.229.60 has created a problem with the column widths. There are too many references listed in that edit (Line 83--the Herero and Namaqua genocide in Namibia) causing that column width to increase and crowding the remaining columns. Does this number really need that many references to verify the accuracy? MusicTree3 (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I like how no genocides geared towards Natives and Africans via European, Arab and Turkic imperialsim(all three for Africans that is) isn't listed. 100+ million Natives at the very least and itleast by European hands 250+ million dead Africans at the very least. Then ofcourse the 700 year head start Arabs and later on Turks had at genocidal acts against Africans. Those should definitely be listed at the very top.

2606:6000:60C1:1D00:40C:E19C:FD24:F5D8 (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

These are not considered genocides because a population decline (the vast majority due to diseases), while indirectly caused by Europeans, can not be called deliberate extermination. As for Africans, there are no reliable estimates of the population of the continent (and 250+ million is FAR too high, it's estimated that during the atlantic slave trade some 10 million were enslaved and 1 million died) so it's all speculative. In both cases, there are often intermittent massacres which could be considered genocidal, but they don't match the modern definition of genocide which implies some intent to exterminate a people. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to strongly agree with the OP of this section that the Transatlantic and Arab Slave "Trades" were genocides.

I have to disagree. Slaves were a high-price commodity, and the Europeans didn't really intend to purposefully exterminate them as a people. They sought to exploit them and use them for forced labor and replace them if they died on the fields (which they often did), but they never meant to eliminate their people; they needed them to make money. I mean, we even fought a war over it. (Note: This comment is about African slaves only; an argument for genocide could very well be made for Native Americans) 24.211.154.54 (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

With regards to, most West and Central Africans in fact had better resistance to more diseases (like sleeping sickness, malaria) than most Europeans, which either completely or almost completely lacked immunities to these diseases: Hence, it was not until modern healthcare technology (quinine, basic sanitation and vaccines) appeared in Europe that it was able to penetrate beyond the ports of most of Africa, enabling the so-called "Scramble for Africa" and such atrocities as happened in Belgium's Congo Free State and in German South-West Africa. Furthermore, the Australian Frontier Wars, and much of the Western Invasion of the Americas would indeed constitute genocide as well: Even given the general lack of immunities among the Indigenous Peoples of Australia and the Americas before sustained contact with the Old World, it's hard to see how the Black War or the Trail of Tears could be considered anything but genocide - ; for that matter, most any major war before the Modern Era, certainly in Europe, had most of its death count from diseases, as well as many major modern wars, like the American Civil War: Does that mean we should therefore consider them plagues or epidemics, instead of military conflicts? Of course not. Finally, all the aforementioned genocides have copious written records describing the atrocities and the situation in general, so the "total population decline" argument is frank moot (see "Conflict in the Early Americas: An Encyclopedia of the Spanish Empire's Aztec, Incan, and Mayan Conquests" by Rebecca Seaman for further reading if you are curious as to why the Spanish Invasions were genocides). Jamutaq (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

where is Indonesian genocide from 1965? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.146.225.66 (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Valid point, that should be here. Is anyone sufficiently well-versed on the subject to add it? Exercisephys (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be here. Estimates are as "low" as 500,000 and as high as 1,000,000 killed. The documentary "The Look of Silence" on Netflix covers the material. Not sure of what books are available on the subject. Unfortunately the military dictatorship that committed the atrocities is still in power in Indonesia today, which I'm sure contributes to the silence of those who suffered.jlcoving (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of genocides by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130427000031/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121028151719/http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20061121.163131/public/02Whole.pdf to http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20061121.163131/public/02Whole.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct x 1 +redirect capture x 1. Redirect replaced with actual capture. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of genocides by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.potocarimc.ba/_ba/liste/nestali_a.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the Hyderabad massacre of 1948 here? 40,000-200000 Muslims killed by the Indian army. Hammad.511234 (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of genocides by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

18 to 46 million of victims acording to the page.Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Famine was the result of the collectivisation, the other one was the expulsion of peasants to Siberia and Kasakhstan, many died during the transport or later. Many peasants were imprisoned in Gulag camps and died there. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So people shot are victims of a democide and members of the same family starved are victims of a genocide. Wow!

The UN definition was influenced by the Soviet Union, so why only this definition is accepted here? According to Snyder the Soviets themselves "made sure that the term genocide, contrary to Lemkin's intentions, excluded political and economic groups". The convention entered into force on 12 January 1951 and Stalin died in 1953. Did Lemkin know the whole Soviet crime? No, he didn't, so he wasn't able to comment it. Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I haven't encountered complaints about how empty the column of the table is and, secondly, encyclopaedic resources do not fill out columns in order to appease someone's aesthetic peculiarities.

I could see some sort of justification for reliably sourced figures for the population of an ethnic group at the time of the event. Given, however, that the lowest and highest figures are already compromises from the main space articles due to edit warring (so do not actually necessarily represent anything other that Wikipedia articles which are unreliable in themselves per WP:WINARS), creating figures based on the median from a compromised range does not meet with WP:CALC, but with WP:SYNTH. Census statistics, percentages and related information taken from reliable sources are fine when attributed, but taking stats, percentages and related information from multiple sources that disagree with each other and conflating them to produce an interpretation is WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I dont have an account on wikipedia but i am the user who reinstated native american genocide on 3rd october. I put a reference to a book which deal with this. Its a complex issue and i hope there is a better dealing with this than just erasing it. The numbers are potentially wrong but i hope someone takes the time to critically review this without just deleting the whole table row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3FA:9700:7CD1:E941:621B:37A4 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Gulag repressions (1918-1953) intended in part to destroy ethnical groups, religious elites and ideological groups. According to a 1993 study of archival Soviet data, a total of 1,053,829 people died in the Gulag from 1934–53 (there is no archival data for the period 1919–1934).^[1] Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the number at 30,000,000.^[2] Today, most historians seem to have settled on a total of about 20,000,000.^[3][4] The most accepted estimation ranks Gulag first in the list, disputed only by Mao (40,000,000 killed).^[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Neither are considered genocide by the legal definition. The former is a gross exaggeration and the latter is over 75% famine victims. In neither cases was there an attempt to destroy a people in whole or in part. We aren't including post-communist atrocity propaganda like the "Black Book of Communism" as reliable sources.

--Monochrome_Monitor 20:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Genocide_vs_other_types_of_mass_killing At least conform this page to other pages on wikipedia. It is, afterall, an encyclopaedia. This is especially important on an issue with loose definitions. There are things listed in this article that don't conform to other pages on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333

What I gather from these articles is, at the very least, that the soviet (and related) famine was nothing more than bad politics and bad weather Now from what I know of Socialist/Communist transformations is A) They often suck, B) They're sometimes corrupt like any politics can and C) Don't target any national, ethnic, racial or religious group because that's not their goal. There were strict rules by the west and the USSR that restricted food and would certainly be covered under crimes against humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.252.41 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of genocides by death toll has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Native American genocide. Brookel34337 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2017 (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. Gulumeemee (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've noted that there have been to and fro changes to the use of the term 'Nazi-controlled Europe' to 'German-controlled Europe'. At the moment, the Holocaust reads as 'German controlled Europe'. I'm afraid I'm probably out of touch with what's de rigueur in PC terms, but my reading and studies made a distinction between German and Nazi. I'd be obliged if someone could assist me in qualifying why German-controlled is preferable to Nazi-controlled. Thanks, in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Check your talk. I don't think either term is great... it's not really nazi-occupied europe because it includes pro-nazi regimes like Italy... --Monochrome_Monitor 03:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Nazi controlled is probably better. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also agree with that. It allows for the scope of collaboration, etc. German-controlled explicitly pinpoints the mentality as being exclusively upheld by 'Germany', disregarding fascism and extremist, right wing nationalism (plus, plus, plus) within Europe. I know 'Nazi-controlled' isn't ideal, either, but - short of having to write a mini-treatise - it serves the context better. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Monochrome Monitor: Any thoughts on the use of 'German-occupied Europe' in the location column for the Holocaust? I'd go for Nazi-controlled for parity throughout the article unless other editors have arguments for retaining the current nomenclature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I would too. It's more accurate. I know the Jews killed represent jews in places not german-occupied but german-alligned. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I think it's the best compromise unless someone stumbles across another RS term that covers ideological alignments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fascist europe? --Monochrome_Monitor 15:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a thought... but I feel that it's probably too generic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Poles of that time didn't know about any Nazism, Poland was invided and occupied by Germany (+Austria+Volksgermans). Did any Jew write Nazis rather than Germans? I don't know.

Romania nad Hungary (Arrow Cross Party) committed genicides and they weren't Germans. Vichy France and Slovakia collected and expelled Jews to Auschwitz. Were the four nations Nazi? I don't see any trace of Socialism there, rather extreme right anti-Semitism. Italy was fascist but the fascism was supported by a number of Jews. Fascism was also a Soviet propaganda word to describe everyone independent from Moscow, including Socialists.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As it was clearly stated above (with proves against using of the term) that term "Nazi-controlled Europe" is inadequate to describe the Holocaust, why is it still used in the page ?? Should not be replaced with "German-occupied Europe" or "Nazi-Germany occupied Europe" ?? Even the link from term "Nazi-controlled Europe" points to the wiki page "German-occupied Europe"--Marcus19771107 17:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs)

As there is no response for half an year I assume silent confirmation for the change--Marcus19771107 12:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs)

No, you set your personal conditions as to when you get to change content (see WP:OWN). The fact of there being no reply is not tacit consensus to the conditions you've laid down and played a waiting game on. No one replied because they did not feel that there was any more to discuss. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not set any personal conditions as when to get to change to content. It's logical when the arguments were strong to support one of the version and no one responded to them, the conclusion is the agreement was reached.

Anyway, backing to the historical background, there was no participation in Holocaust of local non-German government or councils without consensus or request from German Nazi government. Therefore, term "Nazi-controlled Europe" is quite inaccurate, as it would suggest there existed any NAZI government who would act on their own in this topic (which is not truth). French, Hungarian, Romanian governments or local Ukrainian councils (where the actions against Jews ending with their death were the severest) were requested or even forced to participate in Holocaust.

So the term "Nazi-Germany controlled Europe" fits better.

Ps. Please do not be so emotional :)--Marcus19771107 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus19771107 (talk • contribs)

It's a mouthful. Personally, I think that the current descriptor is nuanced enough... and is borderline WP:OR as it stands. Perhaps other editors want to chime in (per WP:CCC). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, the current version does not reflect the historical reality. Iryna is right, we should ask other editors about their opinion on the topic. Marcus19771107 (talk) --Marcus19771107 12:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So far, no response from any other expert and the result is - one expert is for change and no one against. Let's wait another week and if the results are still positive, I will change the term.Marcus19771107 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There have been much more than 5-6 millions victims during the Nazi genocide but this table refers to the Holocaust victims (reporting the Jewish name HaShoah even given in Hebrew) and not to all victims of Nazism.

I add that the current interpretation in the article to reach the 11,000,000 is not supported by any source:

By extending the definition of the Holocaust to include other victims of Nazi crimes against humanity and war crimes, such as the Romani genocide, Germany's eugenics program, and the murder of Soviet POWs, Poles and other Slavic populations, political opponents, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and civil hostages and resisters from all over Europe.

That's pure WP:OR.

Tow things are to be done:

1. An additional line should be added to the table to refer to the Nazi genocide (<> Shoah)
2. Sources should be given.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Pluto2012, you cannot say that "the current interpretation in the article to reach the 11,000,000 is not supported by any source". In The Holocaust page, "Victims" chapter, the first table, which summarizes the Holocaust victims as per the enlarged interpretation, has for each row at least one source, and a total amount of 10,504,500 to 12,172,000 Nazi victims. Some scholars (eg R.J. Rummel ) consider this figure even too low.

To make some order in the table the Holocaust row may be split in four sub-rows: Final solution / Shoa, Slavic peoples (civilians and POW), Porajmos (Romani genocide), and German victims (Aktion T4, other groups victimized for political or ideological reasons).

But also the current organization has its pros, with two rows for the numbers. It needs only a specific title for each row. Ie:

Holocaust: ---> 9,384,500 --- 12,222,000

Shoa ---> 4,900,000 --- 6,200,000

Others (excluding Romani) ---> 4,484,500 --- 6,022,000

Carlotm (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said, that is *not* the same Holocaust.

• If Holocaust refers to the Shoah, the number is 5 min 6 max
• If Holocaust refers to Nazi extermination, the number is around 11, depending on the sources.

But I agree with your proposal to have 2 lines.

By the way there are no source about this in this article. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: Please read WP:OVERCITE. The main article on The Holocaust - which more than adequately clarifies the understanding of 'The Holocaust' - is rife with reliable sources. This is a list article, and recreating massive numbers of sources needs to be considered as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. The consensus version, as it stood, provided a more than adequate note to understandings of how 'The Holocaust' is broken down by various scholarship. Long, convoluted lists of sources are counterproductive to the readability for readers, and it is this that takes precedence to following policies and guidelines as if they were law (per WP:IAR). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Pluto2012, my hastiness led me to misread you before; sorry about that.

I concur with Iryna's considerations. Though the root of the question may lay in "What is the master category here, Holocaust or genocide?" (A. Dirk Moses, "The Holocaust and Genocide" in The Historiography of the Holocaust). If you prefer to keep the original sens of Holocaust, then table could have:

Nazi genocidal acts:

Shoa

Against Slavic nations and others (excluding Romani)

By accepting the, today more common, extended sense, the already suggested way could be taken instead.

Carlotm (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As stated several times: Shoah victims amount 5 to 6 millions.

• whether the word "shoa[h]" has to be removed in the first column
• or the number of 11,000,000 removed in the 4th one.

If you are good faith provide a single source that would claim there were 11,000,000 victims to Shoah per the 2nd pillar of Wikipedia. But you know as well as me you can't and should WP:DROP.

I fear we face here a mix of WP:LAWYERING and WP:PUSH from Iryna Harpy to hide a king of WP:OWN in this article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the last few months edits because they started to dump everything considered by one or two scholars as genocide. This list was cleaned up earlier with the express purpose of only including the intentional destruction in whole or part of racial, ethnic, and religious (as applied by the UN particularly ethnoreligious) groups. We should gradually add recent edits if they are appropriate. Particularly egregious was adopting the view of post-cold war Eastern European states (and 1990s american anti-communist historiographers) that the Soviet Union was a giant genocidal machine, rather than the accepted term used for the purges, politicide, and calling nazi democide equivalent to genocide. I'm tagging @Iryna Harpy: since I have done the aforementioned cleaning with her. Annoying how this happens to pretty much all genocide topics, like how shia and christians were included in "ISIL genocide" (despite being able to convert or pay jizya, not offered to Yazidis) because "John Kerry said so." --Monochrome_Monitor 15:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't one clan in particular: "Government atrocities inflicted on the Hawiye were considered comparable in scale to those against the Majeerteen and Isaaq". AcidSnow (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am ignorant about whatever you are talking about. When I made the reversion I wasn't singling out particular cases (except the ones I mentioned). If its determined to match the legal (not academic which is broad and subjective) definition of genocide there's no reason not to restore it.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to what the user had added. Plus, most of it was already covered on the Somali Rebellion article. Can you link to the legal definition for me? AcidSnow (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The legal definition of genocide can be found here, with a summary available here. I would be cautious of using the Wikipedia definition per WP:WINARS. Anything else would have to be considered on a case by case basis, dependent on the calibre of reliable sources. WP:RECENTISM and retroactive application is extremely problematic. There is an article on Genocides in history which accommodates broader scope interpretations but, even there, the list has grown at an unchecked rate as the result of breaching WP:NOR. Genocide has been applied to a lot of articles never actually discussed as 'genocides' (perhaps genocidal in nature) with the WP:COMMONNAME having been changed. Suddenly, every article on anything meeting with being 'genocidal' post-Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide being presented as a 'genocide' as if these events have been acknowledged to be such according to the proscriptions of the definition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have relocated this discussion to the articles deletion page. For those interested it can be found here. AcidSnow (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, AcidSnow. Further to that, the removal of genocides not deemed to be genocides seems to have renewed the insertion of unrecognised genocides into the list. The list is proscribed by the title, and that does not include anything deemed to be genocidal by editors. The Genocides in history article (which started life as a list) serves that purpose explicitly, but only where deemed to be genocidal by scholars according to various definitions of genocide. (Oh, and, yes, that is the Holocaust as figures vary according to the sources). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made some clarification with regards to the Isaaq Genocide page here, I understand both @Iryna Harpy: and @Monochrome Monitor: were not aware of the issue in relation to the Isaaq, and I hope my post gives you some context, based on official reports by UN investigators, Human Rights Watch's Africa Watch, scholarly work and coverage in international media (both at the time and more recently). As well as the inclusion of the Isaaq genocide in the Encyclopedia of Genocided as edited by genocide scholar Israel Charny, the executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem. Worthy of note is that in the Encyclopedia of Genocide, The Isaaq are one of three groups mentioned in the Africa section of the tables (others being the Tutsi of Rwanda, and the Dinka, Nuba and Shilluk of Sudan). This is certainly not a case of one or two scholars writing on it or describing it as genocide. This was a systematic and targeted operation against a distinct group, namely the Isaaq, with aims of intentional destruction. I have sourced all quotes with links and page numbers. Thus I hope you find the inclusion appropriate. This is not a case of WP:RECENTISM and retroactive application as you will find the term applied in provided examples of coverage at the time, no breaching of WP:NOR. Please understand that we are still dealing with the ramifications of the war, it is more recent than other equivalent events and thus emotionally divisive, both for and against. I was very surprised not to find an article on Wikipedia on the subject which is why I started the article. Some groups from the Somali peninsula benefit from the dilution of an event of this magnitude, estimates ranging between 50,000-200,000 civilian deaths, and causing some 800,000 people to flee their homes. The sheer scale of this calamity is unprecedented in East Africa. This might explain why some editors are persistent in WP:VAND of the page by blanking and using redirects, and now trying to nominate it for deletion. I hope you understand. Kzl55 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: Please refrain from ad hominem attacks on editors, and read the vandalism policy properly before invoking it (see WP:NOTVAND). Note, also, that the deletion discussion is being held in the appropriate forum, not here. Again, it is policy that article talk pages are not for advocacy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. AcidSnow (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagreed. What about answering on the *content* of the comments instead of hiding behing what is seen as personal attacks. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55. Feel free to come back to your version if you don't get satisfying answer. Pluto2012 (User talk:Pluto2012) 11:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pluto2012 thank you, would you mind taking a look at some of the sources? There is a very extensive discussion here with additional citation of scholarly work, I have picked a few of the quotes and summarised them for editors who do not have the time to read the additional content. I would like to add the Isaaq genocide entry back into the list, it is already included in Encyclopedia of Genocide by genocide scholar Israel Charny, as well as a long list of scholarly work, the citations in the talk page include official reports by a UN investigator, Human Rights Watch, World Bank, scholarly work and coverage in international media, I would really appreciate your thought on this summary of quotes:

1. Quote: "Based on the totality of evidence collected [...] the [United Nations] consultant firmly believes that the crime of genocide was conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali Government against the Isaaq people." (1) ^[1]
2. Quote: "Although the barre government had also targeted other resistance groups and their followers during the period of insurgency, 'no other Somali community faced such sustained and intense state-sponsored violence' as the people of former British Somaliland [read Isaaq]." (3b) ^[2]
3. Quote: "The trained refugees took part in the military dictator's policies of extermination and genocide of the northern population [read Isaaq]." (4) ^[3]
4. Quote: "In Somalia, the Isaaq clan is the target of government genocide." (27) ^[4]
5. Quote: "Siad Barre's response was genocidal: days of aerial and ground bombardment of both towns by the Somali Armed forces, backed up by South African mercenary pilots..." (15) ^[5]
6. Quote: "By 1988, the Siad Barre regime waged a war against the Isaaq, which acquired genocidal proportions." (16) ^[6]
7. Quote: "Survivors of genocide, that is, people belonging to the group targeted for genocide. In Somalia this was the Issaq tribe, in Rwanda the Tutsi, in Burundi also the Hutu." (19) ^[7]

I hope you can see this is not a case "considered by one or two scholars as genocide". Many thanks. Kzl55 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to List of genocides by death toll has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I think the word exterminated should be replaced by the word killed or murdered. The use of the word exterminated is not a suitable when referring to humans and may be seen as offensive. 151.170.240.10 (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done genocide is offensive, and extermination was the intention, so the use is correct - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I should make an edit request for this? I added the genocide of Palestinians as a genocide, and it has been undone twice by TheTimesAreAChanging

After I asked TheTimesAreAChanging to please stop deleting my edits, they deleted again and gave the following reason:

"The question is what reliable sources say. The Armenian Genocide is commonly described as a genocide by most RS. Few or no RS say the same about the Palestinian refugees; your own sources use the terms "expulsion" and "ethnic cleansing."

1. I am very troubled by the response "The question is what reliable sources say." It is patently false that "Few or no RS" call the Nakba, Sabra/Shatilla and Operation Protective Edge genocide. I know Ilan Pappe is controversial because he has called it "incremental genocide" but he is not one of my sources. There is a growing body of scholarly work that explicitly calls it "genocide" under the Convention definition.
2. My sources include the UN resolution A/RES/37/123, Martin Shaw, Francis A. Boyle, Naomi Wolf, Al Haq, and Jewish survivors and descendants of Holocaust victims.
3. I have already asked once that the user stop undoing my edits and am unsure what to do next. It does not seem productive to engage in a back and forth edit war. If there are no serious objections, I would like to know if there is some way to protect my edit from vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimsystem (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging is correct. When/if the 'growing body of scholarly works' [sic] has become mainstream, there will be something to discuss. In the meantime, please do not cast aspersions about other editors, and acquaint yourself with what vandalism actually means in Wikipedian terms. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are biased Iryna, and your comment that the sources I cited are not "mainstream" enough is racist ipse dixit and is not WP:IMPARTIAL. There are other sources including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the MacBride Commission and the Russell Tribune. If this article can not WP:BALANCE viewpoints, then it should be nominated for major revision or deletion.

Seraphimsystem (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Seraphimsystem

I am flagging this article as expert needed and having neutrality problems for the following reasons:

1. Editors are not using a consistent definition of genocide. Since this is a list, with no context or discussion of scholarship and criticisms, editors make arbitrary decisions on what is and is not genocide and that undermines WP:NPOV and is possibly WP:OR.
2. Editors also make arbitary decisions about what sources are "mainstream" enough. Rejected sources include the United Nations, international law scholars, independent commissions of experts, Holocaust survivors, and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. WP:BESTSOURCES WP:RS
3. Listing "genocides" by death toll necessarily requires some interpretation by the editor. It might be better to make a list of "Genocides that have been tried" because that does not require any editorializing. In a full article we can discuss all the scholarship and its criticisms, but this list format requires the editors to make a binary decision about which genocides count. WP:BALANCE WP:IMPARTIAL WP:OR
4. This list has many significant omissions, including Sudan and Yugoslavia. WP:OUTRAGE

I am willing to give it a chance to be improved and adhere to WP:NPOV. I have serious concerns that making a "list of genocides" without any context or discussion of scholarship requires too much interpretation on the part of the editors. I want to suggest that this page may be suitable for deletion. Seraphimsystem (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem including Holodomor, but I found that the citations were not very helpful to me in doing further research. Some primary sources are cited, but it is not shown that the view of the Commission to Congress or the political positions taken by various countries has been accepted by scholars of genocide or international law. I have asked editors to please address this and I do have a problem with editors applying inconsistent standards on what should and should not be included on this list, and forcing their preferred changes through by botting, without being WP:CIVIL or responsive on talk pages. I am still waiting for clearer secondary source citations for Holodomor.

Further, Palestinian genocide is extremely well-sourced, and it's not ok to delete it just because you don't like it. I am willing to try to find a way to make this page workable, but I will nominate this page for deletion if it can't adhere to WP:NPOV. It is not ok for editors to decide on nothing but their own authority, without any consensus, that cited sources are not "mainstream" enough to be considered WP:RS, especially not when those WP:BESTSOURCES include the United Nations, Holocaust victims, international law experts, peer reviewed scholars and CCR (an organization that files amici briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court).

Editors have made the same claim about Native American genocide, and this is also demonstrably false, there are many WP:RS for this.

Al-Anfal campaign should be better cited. There are a lot of sources to support the findings of the HRW report, including the ICC and the Iraqi Court, so I will add some citations for this.

The Greek Genocide is disputed by significant scholarship. It was part on an ongoing invasion and war. This is discussed on its main page.

Finally, while there are three genocides by the Ottoman Empire listed, the editors of this page have not bothered to list Sudan or Yugoslavia, which have been acknowledged as genocides by formal international law processes. This also calls WP:NPOV into question,. It seems the decisions on what to include here are motivated more by politics then scholarship. Also the attitude of some editors on this page is not WP:CIVIL, it is not ok to try to bully other editors around because of your personal politics. Seraphimsystem (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)