Talk:List of genocides/Archive 2

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 4

Archive 5

A discussion about The Holocaust row has been developing on my talk page which may be of interest to other editors. So I moved everything from there to here. Carlotm (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Please try to edit instead of reverting, your last revert removed other sourced material also. Also, to restore unsourced material you should find WP:RS to add for that statement. If there is WP:RS for the statement it should be added, but there is no need to remove other content - you are correct that "European Jews" and "Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe" are different populations, so if both statements can be sourced, they should both be included. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Or you could ask me, I've restored the 80% figure with a Cambrige source and removed the 50%. The 80% figure is for non-German Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe so I corrected the unsourced statement as well. CUP is considered an extremely reliable publisher. The 17,000,000 figure was added earlier by another editor, and I restored it after finding a Columbia University Press source that was clear that it was intended as a figure of Holocaust deaths. I don't think multiple citations is necessary for the statement, but would not object if others wanted to restore the original two citations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, now that you are coming to your senses again, you may also reconsider your first reversion of my edit, where I substituted "Polish Catholics" with "Poles" and reverted the position of the two sentences, for the following reasons:

• the Jewish genocide comes first for consistency with the sorting of the column and the original meaning of The Holocaust;
• Jews were persecuted primarily for their ethnicity; your specification of "Polish Catholics" is certainly confusing: catholic Jews were also persecuted.

Alternatively, if your desire to keep in the fore the Polish Catholic as such is so compelling, you may allow a change along the lines of "Around 45% of Holocaust victims were non-Jews, including many Poles and leading members of Polish Catholicism."

The current sentence about Jews is also quite confusing and contradictory. I'd like to restore the simpler "80% of Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe" although the figure may be wrong and should be corrected. Carlotm (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The "simpler" version is not only unsourced, it contradicts the Cambridge University Press version. We can't really expand it anymore because of the table format - any longer and it looks really bad, though the additional details can (and should) be added to the footnote. Catholics are emphasized because the Church was a major target of Nazi persecution and this is well-documented in many WP:RS. Alfred Rosenberg was considered the architect of Nazi's racial ideology (and he was executed at Nuremberg) - his book was banned by the Catholic Church, he considered Jews and Catholics enemies of the "Nordic" people. Martin Bormann was a "sworn enemy of Christianity" - many Nazis left the Church as became Gottgläubiger - some sources have made claims that the Church was anti-Semitic but other sources provide evidence disputing this claim, citing many contemporary Christian writings in opposition to Nazism. Jean Améry was a Jew who survived Auschwitz, but he was imprisoned and tortured for distributing anti-fascist pamphlets - he never told anyone he was a Jew. Are you saying that he is not a Holocaust survivor? That would be an extraordinary claim. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, Polish Catholics are specified because one of the major books on the Einsatzgruppen singles them out as being one of main targets of the massacres in Poland. As for denying Jews the right to convert, you are correct, and that is discussed in other articles, however for the purposes of this article they are counted amongst the Jews that were killed. Don't you think it is juvenile to fight over who comes first on the list? Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, if something is puerile is your way of pretending to change things without any precise reason. This is a sortable table where the last column figure must present the percentage of "genocided" (murdered) people in relation to the total of that same group. Your figure of 45% has absolutely no meanings in this sense, and that's why the first sentence must refer to the Jews, because that's the group most beleaguered by Nazi's utopian and wild racism. Unless you want to replace them with the Polish Catholics, against the whole historiography developed since the end of WWII. Anyway important changes should be discussed in the main page, not inserted here surreptitiously.

On a more general level this listing page offers on each row a direct link to the respective main page and its abundance of references and citations. So there is no need here to duplicate things ad infinitum. Carlotm (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your reason, thank you for explaining it. Your comments come close to personal attacks, please focus on content. If English is not your first language please let me know and I will not be offended - I am having difficulty understand some of your comments like "pretending to change things." Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please, forgive me, Seraphim System, if I replayed to your personal attack. Carlotm (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

What I asked you was a question. It was directed at you, but it was a question about content changes we are discussing. I do not feel like fighting over who comes "first" - personally, I don't think it really matters who is listed first. I do not think one life lost is Auschwitz is more or less valuable then another life lost in Auschwitz. I don't always invoke Stalin, but when I do it is to say that one death is a tragedy. What you said, on the other hand, was an ad hominem attack calling me puerile and casting WP:ASPERSIONS for edits that I made based on extremely WP:RS. That comment is directed at me and not the content. I hope you can see the difference. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no difference between my questioning "over who comes first", which you considered juvenile, and your "way of pretending to change things....." which I considered puerile. Anyway, we should allow this little quarrel to evaporate. I would like to read some other opinions on the merit of the last column content. Carlotm (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You never answered me - if English is not your native tongue this is understandable, but otherwise describing an edit as "pretending to change things" is not meaningful. I always maintain civilty and if there is something you are concerned about, I will make a reasonable accommodation for your concerns, however, I can not really respond to a complaint that does not make sense. I am worried this will make communication between us difficult. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine Famine a genocide, but the Irish and Bengal Famines not? Why wouldn't the Bengal Famine (up to 4 million dead) and Irish Famine (1 million dead, 1 million displaced) not be considered due to purposeful mismanagement of the British? In the case of the Irish Famine the genocide question is already discussed in the relevant Wikipedia page: [1] 90.163.208.36 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is 1943 Great Bengal Famine left out of this list? http://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/vindictive-genocide-most-foul-1943-great-bengal-famine-kills-5-2-million-deliberate-starvation-of-a-gentle-race-rothschild-stooge-amartya-sen/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.114.232 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland) is considered genocide by some scholars. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe this should be included. It would be the 3rd largest on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.33.129 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bengal famine most definitely should be included. It is one of the biggest atrocities committed by the British Empire in its colonies. Churchill even diverted food that were sent from Australia to Bengal towards Europe to secure backup ration for the second world war in Europe, while the Bengalis were dying like flies in Bengal. There are a number of resources for this available online that talk about this incidence. Experts should look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.50.53 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 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.

Dtar (talk) 05:11, 21 September 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. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This should be corrected so that the low estimate is "26,000 to 300,000" and the high estimate should be "3,000,000". The current split gives credibility to a 26,000 number that no one actually respects or believes, the only sources of these are Pakistan at the time of the genocide and another biased author. Readers should not be confused that the range of death is between 26,000 to 3,000,000.

The Wikipedia page on the genocide itself says that the numbers for debate are 300,000 to 3,000,000. Having 300,000 as a high estimate just lowers the rank of the crime when sorted and confuses readers - how can a high estimate be between 300,000 to 3,000,000. If nothing else, the high estimate should be just 3,000,000, and do not show 300,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneandeleven (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

In the 1st column, it should be written that, the genocide was done by Pakistani Army (Former West Pakistan). Also, that "26,000" figure was also a propaganda put by Pakistani Government's investigation team. It should not be counted as an estimation in any way. As source, this paragraph will be helpful. It is taken from the book "Death by Government" by R. J. Rummel:

"The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel’s “death by government”] are much lower — one is of 300,000 dead — but most range from 1 million to 3 million. … The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every sixty-one people in Pakistan overall; one out of every twenty-five Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)"

Hope, this will be corrected in accordance. Thanks Shubro42 (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702174523/https://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/22/idUS104971%2B22-May-2009%2BPRN20090522 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS104971+22-May-2009+PRN20090522
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130227054740/http://savechechnya.org/archives/410 to http://savechechnya.org/archives/410
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003143755/http://historyton.pl/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=11729 to http://historyton.pl/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=11729

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No mention whatsoever of the series of for-profit famines under British rule in India, including the Bengal Famine, although Wikipedia does have a white-wash article about it (Great Bengal famine of 1770.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.34.175.99 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources discussing it - and other 'for-profit' famines - as genocide? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Right now it's under "health disasters" which seems to be more appropriate. Deeming things like famine to be genocide requires a lot of sources to show significant scholarship holds the view that the famine was man-made with intent to cause excess death.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, MM. I'm also in agreement with the categorisation as it stands. From my recollection of scholarship on the subject, the BEIC's governance has not been discussed as bearing hallmarks distinctive to genocidal intent. If 'for profit' was deemed to be a hallmark of genocide, there's barely an event in history that isn't underpinned by an economic impetus. Unless there is serious scholarship on any incident as being 'genocide/genocidal', it's original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As of now the end date is out to 1944, which clearly doesn't make sense for one event. The note on the event seems to indicate that the main event lasted about 4 years, but if this is supposed to be a collective entry for a series of events, then it needs to be made more clear. Shanen (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost and the killings done under it were absolutely genocide. The nazi's explictly targeted the slavic people as "Inferior races" exactly as they did for the Jews. Their plan listed very clear plans for large extermination of those races upon their colonisation. According to the UN, "Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such"". Since they did plan to kill off in part (~70%) an ethnic group, it is clearly genocide. There is no doubt about it.

Whoever keeps removing it, please provide reasoning. It clearly matches the UN definition of genocide and is seperate to the holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirusNotSirius (talk • contribs) 11:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:NOR. Not only have you been adding unsupported original research, but you have been refactoring the Holocaust entry to accommodate it as WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been copying this stuff almost word for word from the generalplan ost page. None of it is my own research. All but one of the sources were also copied from that page. I have no idea what you are talking about. That is also anyway no reason to completely remove the entire entry considering it the actual event still matched the definition of genocide, but removal of content you think is not properly backed up. SirusNotSirius (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SirusNotSirius: I actually do agree with the reinstating of content from the long standing version prior edit warring over the meaning of 'Holocaust' in legal terms. This list reflects mainstream scholarship, not proscription according to personal interpretations of what the term 'Holocaust' encompasses. Mainstream scholarship certainly discusses the term as a broader concept than was being presented, therefore the note for readers is informative and WP:DUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Generalplan Ost should not be listed with the current limited sources. As the estimated death toll of 13,7 million includes deaths of natural causes, disease and famine within the postwar years up to the 90's. The lower estimation are also in question and probably a outright fabrication. Copy&paste from the Generalplan Ost article:

The Soviet Extraordinary State Commission formed in World War II in order to investigate the Nazi crimes,^[1] which was tasked also with compensating the state for damages suffered by the USSR,^[2] reported 8.2 million Soviet losses,^[3] (4.0 million in Ukraine; 2.5 million in Belarus; and 1.7 million in Russia) as the result of German occupation. However, many reports prepared by the Commission are now considered outright fabrications, such as the shifting of blame for the Katyn massacre perpetrated by the Soviet authorities themselves.^[4][5] The commission figures of 2.4 million losses in annexed lands included citizens of prewar Poland trapped along with inhabitants of other states occupied by the Soviet Union.^[6] The overall statistics included Russian victims of Stalinist terror as well.^[7][8]

The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 estimated that the World War II casualties of the Soviet Union totaled 13.7 million civilian dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR. This included 7.4 million victims of Nazi policies and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3 million famine deaths in areas of the USSR not under German occupation. To support these figures, the Russian Academy of Sciences cited sources published in the Soviet era. The losses were for the entire territory of the USSR in 1946 to 1991 borders, including territories occupied by the Red Army in 1939–1940.^[9] Russian historian Viktor Zemskov maintains that the Russian Academy of Science estimate for the civilian war dead is overstated because it includes about 7 million deaths resulting from natural causes, based on the mortality rate that prevailed before the war, and that reported civilian deaths in the occupied regions included persons who were evacuated to the rear areas. He submitted an estimate of 4.5 million civilians who were Nazi victims or were killed in the occupied zone and 4 million deaths due to the deterioration in living conditions.^[10]

Any corrections or additional information on the death toll should be added to that catagory, instead of merging the entirety of the death toll of GPO and the holocaust into one section. The Two genocides were, regardless of real figures, quite clearly seperate as they were targeting different demographics and were planned on different occasions, given different names by the german high command. Please do not just delete the previous entry as that removes more information than it provides.

131.227.33.141 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Mongols, under Genghis Khan, wiped out up to 90% of the population of Persia. Reference This was the systematic murder of an ethnic group but I can't find any source claiming it was "genocide". Should it be included? And if not, should it be included in the body of the text that it is explicitly *not* a genocide?

Thanks, Jam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamgoodman (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it fits with the definition 90.74.151.161 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)C

Should this be included at the top of the list with the Holocaust? (probably depends on your definition of the Holocaust of which there are several definitions)

Is it part of the Holocaust? After all under that heading we are informed that 45% of the victims of the Holocaust were non-Jews, so are the Romani already included here? The dates do differ - the Porajmos running from 1935-45 whilst the Holocaust does not start until 1939.

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part." So should the non-Jews killed in the Holocaust be included here - perhaps make it clearer here exactly how many Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and the number of people of any other groups of people (eg the Romani, Catholics etc) the Nazis wished to destroy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.56.243.111 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This statement is misleading, because some events listed in the table are not "recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention". This, a whole Holodomor genocide question article is devoted to the question if Holodomor was genocide. I think either the preamble or the table should be modified to avoid misleading a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I know that Holodomor is a bit of a hobby horse with you, Paul Siebert, but in what way is the statement misleading as to the event known as 'Holodomor'? You don't think there have been years of debates and scholarship on the subject, and that omitting it would be gross negligence as to something which is still debated ad nauseam by scholars and governments? Certainly, it meets with "... only considers mass killings recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship...". What is your personal problem with it? You don't believe to be a 'genocide' in any sense of the UN Genocide Convention or the legal definition in significant criteria? The article you're referring to only scrapes the surface of how protracted and painful the debate has been (and still is), so I'd suggest reading WP:WINARS. Wikipedia is not about either of our opinions, but what significant scholarship has to say on any given subject. If we follow your complaint through, half the 'genocides' listed here would be tossed despite 'the legal definition in significant scholarship' being meet in spades. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object the removal of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost, the biggest planned genocide commited in history, by the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Binksternet.

You can't have Holodomor in this list and omit the master plan East of Nazi Germany. Anything else strongly smells censorship, extremely strong bias and the explicit attempt of rewriting of history.

I urge strongly to return the contribution back to the page. Brzko

P.S. I have no idea about User:Accopulocrat and what is the story behind this. I still need clarification why one of the most bloody (if not bloodiest) genocides, listed in corresponding Wiki article, is not present in this list. 141.113.3.32 (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 18:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brzko (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, on 25 August 2018 I added the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar to the list. On 26 August, Binksternet reverted multiple edits (including mine) without giving a reason. I am very opposed to the removal of the Rohingya genocide from the list, and am confused as to why it was removed, but I am assuming it was done either by accident or in good faith. I would highly appreciate an explanation for this. Thank you, Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that you are a sockpuppet of User:Accopulocrat. Whether or not that is a correct assumption, the Rohingya genocide should be listed.

One of the problems caused in this article by Accopulocrat and the socks is that the reference section is jammed with unnecessary text. This kind of list article is not the place to make long descriptions of each entry. Binksternet (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'm not a sockpuppet of Accopulocrat, although I guess I don't have any way to prove that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't even know who that is or what their edits were. That said, thank you for responding, and based on our exchange I'm assuming we're both fine with me re-adding the Rohingya genocide.

Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are these genocides listed below not mentioned in this list?

They are mentioned in this wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples

Wikipedia is contradicting itself. Looks bad for an encyclopedia to contradict itself. To those that argue that Eurasian disease killed off the indigenous peoples, I challenge to produce reliable sources of that historical whitewashing story. These genocides should be at the top of the list. The colonists killed/enslaved the natives to a point that they had to bring Africans to replace them as slave labor. here is a recent source http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-native-american-slavery-20160505-snap-story.html DTMGO (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. European genocides of native Americans and Africans belong on the top of the list. That they are not included is a blatantly POV, and quite frankly openly racist, attempt to whitewash/deny every genocide Europeans have committed against non-European populations. It is quite odd to see a list of supposed genocides by death toll without a single genocide committed by white people against non-white people, even though the history of genocides is completely dominated by such genocides over a period spanning centuries. --Tataral (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The double standards do not belong in encyclopedia that claims to follow any intellectual rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTMGO (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I too agree that these genocides should be included, and that their absence seems strikingly POV. The genocide of indigenous peoples in California and the genocide of aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania are listed now, but there are still numerous genocides of indigenous peoples that are missing and should be added.

Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The West Papua conflict has caused the deaths of up too 400k (mostly) innocent people... why isn't it mentioned? Is it because it's currently going on? Or is it to do with controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.173.22 (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe whether or not this is an internationally agreed upon fact that a genocide had happened or is on-going in Tibet. The word genocide is much too overused and ill defined, and I believe this is especially the case when applied to what has happened or is happening to non-western countries.

Three explanations are usually used as to why this is an on-going genocide, I will list them and explain why it's not:

1. When People's Republic of China first took over Tibet, there were minimal military resistance from the Tibetans as far as history of invasions goes, and no civilian casualty to speak of. By most credible accounts, less than 200 KIA and wounded on either side.

2. There are certainly many casualties during the the many cultural revolutions that happened in China since then, especially THE Cultural Revolution, yet no evidence exist that points towards Tibetans were singled out and targeted for prosecution because of their ethnic/race/religion. If anything they suffered less because of the lack of popular support in a ethnic minority region. However, this last point is my own conjecture.

(If this was the criteria we're sticking to for what constitute genocide, there's be thousands of different genocide just in the last 100 years alone, and for every ethnic groups out there. No.)

3. Sinicization of Tibet, while likely supported by the Central government, it again, does not target specifically the Tibetans ethnicity in China, nor does the Chinese government aims to wipe out Tibetans or any of its ethnic minorities as a people. Tibetan is universally taught in primary schools along side Standard Chinese, and used in daily lives. It's just not used in any administrative capacity

If loss of uniqueness of a culture/people is caused by administrative standardization of a central government is what counts as genocide, we should then be calling on Canada and the US to stop genociding each of its hundreds of tribes, Mexican government to stop genociding its Nahuatl and Mayans, the French their Basque and Occitans, the English their Scots and Irish... honestly the list goes on... if we adopt these criteria.

I propose to remove the mention of this "genocide" from this list. The source listed as the organization while accusing China of committing genocide provides no number, and sources and authors listed for the numbers of numbers killed (no confirmation by the way), named no genocide. They are weak sources and biased no less.Gw2005 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

-No edits have been made to the actual article, please discuss whether this should be done. I will however move to remove these information I find questionable if there are no discussion in the short term. I will keep watching this page.

p.s. I don't suggest that what happened in Tibet should be removed from the sister page: Genocides in history, as in there, more genocide and potential genocide are listed and more information is given for the readers to formulate their own opinion. I fear too many simply comes to this page to copy its information wholesale (ahem parliamentarians around the worlds) to make a point without making an effort of discussing the nuance of history. We should leave the listings that are controversial off to this specific page.Gw2005 (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

-It has been a week, listing of Tibetan genocide removed, as per discussed above.Gw2005 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The estimates of King Leopold's death toll deserves a mention in the list as it is in the millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.26.137 (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It is in the lead under "non-genocidal mass killings in the strict sense" along with the Great Leap Forward

"This list of genocides by death toll includes death toll estimates of all deaths that are either directly or indirectly caused by genocide. It does not include non strictly-genocidal mass killing (variously called mass murder, crimes against humanity, politicide, policide, classicide, war crimes) such as the Thirty Years War (7.5 million deaths), Japanese war crimes (3 to 14 million deaths), the Red Terror (100,000 to 1.3 million deaths), the Atrocities in the Congo Free State (1 to 15 million deaths), the Great Purge (0.6 to 1.75 million deaths) or the Great Leap Forward (15 to 55 million deaths)."

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/01/17/586008/UK-Iran-famine-book-Dr-Majd

The deadly famine in Iran, which was caused by the British presence in the country during World War I, is ignored by almost all recent history books.

Dr. Mohammad Gholi Majd’s “The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia 1917-1919” is perhaps the only book that extensively documents the genocide.

According to the book, the widespread famine coupled with a disease epidemic killed around 8-10 million Iranian between 1917 and 1919, nearly half of the country’s population back then.

Majd, who has a PhD in Agricultural Economics from Cornell University, writes in his book that after invading Iran at the beginning of 1916, the British used all means of transportation for war supplies to the front-lines.

That effectively prevented imports of wheat and other foodstuff into Iran from India, Mesopotamia, Asia, and also the United States -- which was back then a rival of the UK.

Majd argues that Brits even kept ships loaded with wheat from entering the southern port of Bushehr in the Persian Gulf.

He also writes that significant amounts of food were confiscated by the British to supply British troops both within Persia and in the region. Further aggravating the situation was the refusal of the Allies of WWI – France, the UK and Russia –to pay Iran for using its oil reserves during the war, the book says.

Majd argues in his book that the UK intentionally caused the genocide conditions to weaken Iran and effectively take control of the country out of fear for its interest in India, which was then a component of the British Empire.

"According to the American Charge d'Affaires, Wallace Smith Murray, this famine had claimed one-third of Iran's population. A famine that even according to British sources as General Dunsterville, Major Donohoe, and General Sykes had claimed vast numbers of Iranians," reads the book.

Major Donohoe describes Iran of that time as a “land of desolation and death.”

As it has been the case with many other crimes committed by the British Empire, London has long tried to cover up London’s role in the deadly famine.

Historic documents released by the British government over the past decades overlook the genocide. The UK Foreign Office did not even mention the famine in its 1919 “Handbook on Iran.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:9734:6B00:132:D2A1:6001:AE59 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The famine, which was broader than Iran, is an important topic, but Press TV is not a reliable source. Do you have any other sources? Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, Persian famine of 1917–1919 is linked to from List of famines. Majd's work is discussed, but the article comes up with a lower death toll of about 2 million. The article discusses the causes of the famine, with most scholars not describing this as a deliberate act of genocide. So, can we say there is sufficient reliable source consensus that this should count as genocide? Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2019 (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.

the Armenian genocide ended in 1917, not 1922 1922 was the collapse of the ottoman empire -7th item on the table Thediamondpiston (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: According to the Armenian Genocide page, the span of the genocide varies significantly across source to source, but the span used in the infobox is 1915–1923. Unfortunately, the note saying that the years varies from source to source is unsourced itself.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Under UN definition "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group," Nellie massacre of 1983 against ethnic Bengali muslims should be considered genocide. Emakalam (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source or sources saying that? Bondegezou (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The official investigation of this massacre is a classified document and not available to public. The wiki link to Nellie massacre should contain plenty of independent links. Emakalam (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Any plans to include this?

Also interesting would be the genocide of millions of German citizens due to "moral bombing" during WW2. --188.106.104.31 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

that is not a genocide that was deaths from bombingJack90s15 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If we leave aside the issue of the bombing of civilian targets, the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) is an important topic in history. It is included at List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Whether it should also be included here, I'm not certain. What we need as reliable source citations using the term genocide in this context. Do those exist? Bondegezou (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Holodomor killed approximately 7.5 million and the minimum is 4.5 million and the maximum is 15 million. Way above the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSovietYankee (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

you were removing information from a Source and reversing the low and high estimate that will lead to a banned and it showing the range that is used by reputable historians and POV pushing is not ok on wikiJack90s15 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

This clearly was not intentional genocide, as compared with, say, Nazi genocides. It was a horrible stain on British rule - a deeply callous act of omission - but it should be included as "democide" rather than genocide. It makes absolutely no sense for Stalin's Terror and Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (20th century crimes) to be excluded from this list, but not the Famine (a 19th century crime). This needs to be removed for the list to be credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.107.144 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with this comment. Under no definition does the Irish Potato Famine count as a genocide. This should be removed immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpinna (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

its in the blue link next to it there are historians who say its genocide just like the holodomorJack90s15 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This quote is not the potato famine. In such case, the Highland Potato famine which occurred at the same time should be added to genocides? There are no sources referred to for the details or any of the numbers used. --Alexpinna (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

on the notes in the blue link it says The Irish Great Famine/Genocide refers to the British creating a Man-Made famine in Ireland from 1845-1849, causing a steep population drop due to mortality and emigration. It is disputed whether it was a genocide or an unintentional famine by many historians.Jack90s15 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Just like the Holodomor says characterization as a genocide is disputed by some historians.

I will add sources to it to fix situationJack90s15 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - opening a new section. Per my understanding of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia - recognition as a genocide (as opposed to ethnic cleansing - which it was) is limited to the Polish parliament, IPN, and some Polish scholars. It has not gained acceptance elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See for instance -

1. Katchanovski, Ivan. "Terrorists or national heroes? Politics and perceptions of the OUN and the UPA in Ukraine." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 48.2-3 (2015): 217-228.
2. Rudling, Per Anders. "Historical representation of the wartime accounts of the activities of the OUN–UPA (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists—Ukrainian Insurgent Army)." East European Jewish Affairs 36.2 (2006): 163-189.
3. McBride, Jared. "Peasants into Perpetrators: The OUN-UPA and the Ethnic Cleansing of Volhynia, 1943–1944." Slavic Review 75.3 (2016): 630-654.

who discuss the ethnic cleansing vs. genocide question and do not support genocide. Nor does it seem that the Polish Sejm always considered it genocide, e.g. in 2010 - "the Polish Senate declared the anti-Polish actions of the UPA and the OUN during World War II to be ethnic cleansing with “elements of genocide” (Sejm, 2010).". Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

And what's wrong with some Polish historians claiming that? Now, I am not saying we should include fringe views, but how fringe is it? Ex. Wiktor Poliszczuk: "This genocide of the Polish population of Volhynia falls under Article III, paragraph (d) of the UN Convention of the...". Or Paweł Naleźniak Ukrainian nationalists tried to de-polonize the South-Eastern Borderlands by means of mass genocide. And here's a paper discussing this from a University of Ottawa: [2]. Or Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe, who is described as not just Polish but Polish-German: [3].

Now, I grant that there are scholars who disagree with this, and call it ethnic cleansing. The issue is, what do do when sources disagree? Should we include such events here, with some note? How many scholars are needed to for a claim to be added to this list? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"discussing this" (e.g. Ottawa) - yes discussing and taking the opposing viewpoint. You could have attributed stmt on the relevant article, or discussion on whether it was or not. However the list criteria here is "This list only considers mass killings recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention" - in this case calling this something other than ethnic cleansing is a distinct minority position and thus does not meet the list criteria.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I will note that Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe -[4] - supports the opposite position (he does however see the OUN as being a major assisting force in the Jewish Holocaust) - he refers to massacres of Poles and ethnic cleansing and notes OUN's intentions to drive Poles out as opposed to wholesale destruction.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Grzegorz Motyka, who is probably the foremost scholar and authority on these massacres in the world (though unfortunately his work is mostly known in the West through Snyder) initially did not consider these massacres to be genocide. However after new archival documents came to light in the past 10, 15 years, he's revised his position and believes that the massacres in Volhynia were indeed a genocide, although the ones in Eastern Galicia were not. *This* is the mainstream view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I think Motyka is a highly reliable source. Could you give us a ref in which he says this? I'd hope this would end this issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It would not, as multiple other scholars - who have acceptance in wider circles - contest this (e.g. see list above - including a number of sources you've brought up yourself Piotrus). You can certainly present an attributed viewpoint(s) with Motyka, the Polish Parliament, and others - but that's not sufficient for us to state this as fact when other sources disagree. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually confused Motyka with another scholar. I still think he is reliable, through I wouldn't say 'highly', just 'reguarly'. Could you provide quotes from the scholars who disgree? I think you are right, but it would help to see it clearly. Now, this leads me back to the original qustion: what do we do in the case where scholars disagree? I think this list should include such disputed cases, but with a very clear indication they are disputed. This can be done by color coding, a bolded text in the entry, or by moving such entries to a separate sublist (but that is least preferable, IMHO, as it removes them from the sortable by toll table). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the list criteria at the top of the page - "This list only considers mass killings recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention", I removed the Polish Operation of the NKVD, which is not considered a genocide, by the legal definition, by most scholars in the field. The supporting footnote contained many op-eds/interviews in right-wing Polish media as opposed to actual scholarship (no - an op-ed written by a far-right activist[5] who per the SPLC has "wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt."" - is not a RS). Other than said op-eds the footnote contained alleged support for this from Simon Sebag Montefiore. In fact, Montefiore has a passing mention of this - "A total of 350,000 (144,000 of them Poles) were arrested in this operation, with 247,157 short (110,000 Poles) - a mini-genocide". Ignore that "mini-genocide" is an undefined concept, Montefiore does not discuss the legal definition.

To top it all off - Michael Ellman allegedly supports this. However, Ellman's paper while stating it "may qualify", lists three reasons as to why it may not qualify, and concludes by saying "there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38." - see pages 24-25 (686-687) in the reference.^[1] Furthermore, additional sources contest this terminology - Norman Naimark^[2], Terry Martin,^[3] Kevin McDermott (who also notes Moshe Lewin and Ian Kershaw in objection).^[4]

In addition, the removed entry inaccurately referred to "Polish genocide" (a third of the victims were not Polish - in Belarus, actually most of the victims were Belarussian), and incorrectly ascribed 250,000 as an upper estimate for the "Polish operation" (numbers for which are fairly well known) - the "Polish operation" was the largest of a number of such "operations" - per Ellman - "The ‘national operations’ were directed against the following ethnic groups (in each case the number of victims arrested by 1 July 1938 is given in brackets after the name of the group): Poles (148,000), Germans (65,000), Latvians (24,000), Iranians (16,000), Greeks (16,000), Finns (11,000), Chinese – Koreans (9,000), Romanians (9,000), Estonians (9,000), English (3,000), Afghans (3,000), Bulgarians (3,000), and others (7,000) (see Danilov 2006, p. 157). (Ellman cites arrest figures - around 80% of those arrested were executed) - the 250,000 figure possibly refers to the total of all "national operations" (and that is clear also from the cited source for this - on arlindo-correia.com), but is incorrect for the "Polish operation"Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That probably is fine to remove. But Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia seems to meet the criteria a bit better. Why did you remove it as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• All "ethnic" operations by Soviet NKVD fall under modern day definition of genocide. One just need to find good sources. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  That is an interesting opinion - however the vast majority of sources covering the Great Terror and the national operations in particular - do not consider them to be genocides (they are ethnic cleansing). We follow mainstream sources - not say Sommer who is not a historian (he was (is?) a political candidate/spokeperson for several parties (that did not pass the threshold or had very low seat counts), as well as a journalist - mainly in Najwyższy Czas! where he is now editor in chief. Nczas is very far from a mainstream publication - see [6], Racist Extremism in Central & Eastern Europe, along the way he did receive a phd for Ways of tax justification in the light of ideology of human rights (nczas is anti-tax among other things)) - furthermore the cited source source here is a tabloid. You can find sources saying anying anything - e.g. sourcing for Flat Earth is easy to find - in Wikipedia, however, we follow mainstream sources as opposed to WP:FRINGE.Icewhiz (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Can anybody explain me what does "modern day definition of genocide" mean? Taking into account that there are several reliable sources that say that genocidal studies is notorious in the lack of any commonly accepted terminology....--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria on the article is "This list only considers mass killings recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship and criteria by the UN Genocide Convention" - so one would expect to see sources not describing something as "genocidal" in passing, but rather sources analyzing the applicability of the Genocide Convention to the specific mass-killing / ethnic-cleansing. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Here is source calling such operations "genocide". It does not explicitly name Poles for some reason. That one does. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)