Template_talk:Genocide_navbox

Template talk:Genocide navbox

Template talk:Genocide navbox

More information WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:, Associated task forces: ...
More information Further information ...

Removal of Halabja chemical attack

While I agree that the genocide template should be proscribed, I've noted that the Halabja chemical attack was removed as a one-off incident. The question this throws up is that of what it is that constitutes a notable genocide. The Halabja incident was deemed to be a genocidal attack by RS, so what are the criteria for whether incidents are suitable for inclusion in this template? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Indigenous Australian children (1900–69)

The article itself describes not genocide but removal of children generally based on concern for their welfare, and indeed, concern among their own people for them. Why would it be included in genocides? Avocats (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So far as I can see, this template is seriously problematic and crawling with WP:SYNTH, full stop. In the case of the Stolen Generations it's a conflation of Cultural imperialism and using 'Genocide' as an emotive value-laden WP:LABEL as the template WP:TITLE. The template needs a thorough clean-up to separate terminology and events/instances. I can't see how it can be cleaned up without subdividing it into a number of templates (i.e., per subject), and would suggest that it's probably a candidate for WP:TFD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This template sucks, a lot. We should just include recognized genocides. Most of these "genocides" are not genocides by the legal definition. @Iryna Harpy: --Monochrome_Monitor 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Monochrome Monitor: Yes, agreed. It's been one of those things on my 'to do' list for some time. The only thing I've actually been involved in to this point is questioning blatantly WP:OFFTOPIC entries, but there's certainly evidence of there being general consensus that this template as being way off base.
There have been discussions about the overall subject matter on the top level articles defining various terminology (i.e., see this discussion on the Cultural genocide article).
To my mind, the title of the template is the clue. If it's "Genocide topics" then it should not depict actual recognised genocides, but only list the relevant topics such as "Types", "Methods", and "Issues". From there, articles falling into those categories need to be evaluated as to whether they're WP:FRINGE or mainstream as some of the articles are a bit on the 'iffy' side of things.
We have a Template:Genocide which is where actual WP:RS genocides are listed. There's also a Template:Genocide of Indigenous peoples. All of these templates are stepping on each other's toes and some shifting of any WP:DUE data is in order.
I'm just thinking on which top level talk page it would be best to start a discussion. For a start, however, I'm adding 'WikiProject Ethnic groups' banner to all of them as only the 'Genocide of Indigenous peoples' seems to have been included into the scope of the project. Given that genocide, cultural genocide, and genocide topics is directly related to that project, it strikes me as a good place to start. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to reconsider what we call genocide in general, like in genocides in history, and come up with a policy on the subject. I tried to clean up the List of Genocides by Death Toll Article by separating recognized genocides from largely unrecognized "genocides"... but it's silly that wikipedia takes the position that genocide is not the legal definition of genocide. Genocide was coined to mean a certain thing, yet people try to redefine it. We have other words for that! Politicide, democide.... The article definitions of genocide doesn't help, in fact, I don't even think it should exist. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've seen your clean up of the List of genocides by death toll article, and I do have a few issues with what you've done with it. In general, it's an improvement, but I think that your interpretation of 'fringe' is actually off the mark (international recognition is WP:OR method by which to proscribe the lists as we're both aware that international political interests in terms of recognition for more contemporary incidents are not a good benchmark, therefore creating a subheader "Proposed and Unrecognized Genocides" doesn't fall under any RS definitions but is, again, a breach of NOR).
As it stands, the list a piece of tendentious WP:SYNTH in the first place. It's off the Wikipedia radar (i.e., it was never an approved article as the talk page has never been submitted or evaluated as carries no starting info in its history demonstrating the fact of its approval). I'm not entirely convinced that it should exist, full stop. You're already aware of the fact that, outside of questions of cultural genocide and other definitions of ending with a 'cide', Genocides in history is problematic merely for the fact that there's been no consensus as to whether the larger the number of nation-states recognising the killing of an ethnic group makes it 'genocide-ier' (just substitute that with 'truthier'). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah there's definitely some problems with it. What if we used one source? Like a realllllly realllly official one? That says "genocides that have occurred in history? Or the like? Or we could retitle this article "list of mass killings by death toll" and then have a column for genocide/politicide/crimes against humanity/whatever. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be hesitant to use one source as that would be a WP:POV choice. I'm still thinking on where there's a higher traffic 'crossroads' article that would be appropriate for starting a discussion that would bring in more editors from across the various involved projects. Any thoughts? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed all the bullshit. @Iryna Harpy:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian Genocide Unanimous Recognition

The European Union says "ISIS persecution = genocide".
The United States says "ISIS persecution = genocide".
Wikipedia says "ISIS persecution is not genocide".

And the EU/US votes were unanimous. What am I missing here? Progressingamerica (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Can I have a source please? I believe they meant Yazidis, not christians. Christians can pay jizya (continue to practice their religion). Yazidis can simply convert or die. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, this is a Wikipedia article/list. It is WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, and is subject to the preclusion of WP:RECENTISM. Even if there are media pundits and politicians crying "genocide" at the moment, such an interpretation would beg the re-evaluation of the term by academics. In this instance, it is most certainly a field proscribed by what the experts have to say on the subject.
While there are variations on the academic consensus as to what constitutes genocide, the underlying theme is always that of 'genocide' applying specifically to ethnic groups. The only ethnic group that is co-defined by their religious practices (being Judaism) are the Jews. Outside of Jews, the majority of ethnic groups can practice any given number of religions, but it does not make them members of different ethnic groups. That merely constitutes a diversity of religious adherences within the given ethnic group (i.e., Christians are not an ethnic group). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Ding! geno= people. The killing of a people. Jews were killed for their "race" (of course it's not a race but an ethnicity) rather than their religion. Christians are not. Yazidis are, they are an ethnoreligious group. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that as editors we can make the decision that an event should/shouldn't be classed as a genocide. If valid and reliable sources refer to a particular event being classed as a genocide then unless other equally reliable sources can be found denying this status then they should be considered as such. Ebonelm (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
A reliable source isn't enough, it has to be a represented in significant scholarship.Also, Iryna was right about recentivism. All of the genocides on this template (except really old ones) have been recognized by at least one state and many are backed by trials which established them as genocide under international law, which is the way it should be.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Then under that logic shouldn't we also remove the Yazidi genocide from the list? Ebonelm (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ebonelm: I think that Yazidis does fall under WP:CONSENSUS for the purposes of this template. As has already been touched on in this discussion, Yazidis are one of the handful of internationally recognised ethnoreligious groups and, as such, fall into a category of an entirely different nature to simply 'religious group' or 'ethnic group'. If you are dubious as to whether they qualify as an ethnic group, I'm open to discussion with other editors as to their status for sake of this template. Ultimately, such qualifications come down to what reliable sources say on the matter over and above recent news source descriptions about Christians and Yazidis somehow being parallel as ethnic groups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:: maybe I didn't explain my position very well. My point was that the Yadizis, Shia Muslims, and Christians persecuted by ISIL have all had the same level of recognition. The EU, UK, and US all consider genocides to be taking place against all three of these groups. This article for example is a reliable source which states the US government's position that ISIL is committing genocidal acts against religious groups. Ebonelm (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree there is the same level of recognition. Genocidal persecution of Yazidis has long been deemed as such by statesmen, while most media outlets who refer to "christian genocide" are right-wing US news outlets. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Barbara Lerner Spectre and Noel Ignatiev?

Why are these two in the same group as Hitler and Pol Pot? I have removed the names from the "Notable Figures" section for now. Suomi13 (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It's more than a little OTT. They may be obnoxious, but they are not central figures in actual genocides. At best, the template could be expanded to include 'denial' and 'fringe' theorists, but my position is that such a subsection would be WP:OFFTOPIC for the scope of this template. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Notable Figures

To clarify, are we only including people here if the genocide they are connected with is listed in the template?

If so, we should probably remove Mussolini, since the Libyan Genocide is no longer listed. Suomi13 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will be removing Mussolini, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Min Aung Hlaing until we answer the above question.Suomi13 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Polish genocide(s) in the USSR

In regards to diff, none of these items are accepted by mainstream scholarship as genocide (as opposed to ethnic cleansing). By placing these items in the template, we are violating NPOV in suggesting these are accepted as genocide while mainstream scholarship indicates otherwise. Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Provide support for your assertion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS on you to include actually. Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–1946) has no support for being a genocide - inclusion is really quite baseless here. Katyn massacre is a massacre of POWs, not a genocide outside of some political elements. Polish Operation of the NKVD - outside of Polish politicians and some Polish scholars, this is not supported otherwise by scholarship - e.g. Ellman,[1] Naimark,[2] Martin,[3] and McDermott.[4] Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia likewise has some support from Polish politicians and scholars but supported otherwise by scholarship - e.g. Katchanovski,[5] Rudling,[6] and McBride.[7] Items should only be included here if the preponderance of scholarship on the topic classifies them as such, and this is very far from the case here. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. [1]
    Ellman, Michael. "Stalin and the Soviet famine of 1932–33 revisited." Europe-Asia Studies 59.4 (2007): 663-693.
  2. [2]
    Genocide: A World History, Norman M. Naimark
  3. [3]
    Martin, Terry. "The origins of Soviet ethnic cleansing." The Journal of Modern History 70.4 (1998): 813-861.
  4. [4]
    McDermott, Kevin. "Stalinism ‘From Below’?: Social Preconditions of and Popular Responses to the Great Terror." Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 8.3-4 (2007): 609-622
  5. [5]
    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.
  6. [6]
    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.
  7. [7]
    McBride, Jared. "Peasants into Perpetrators: The OUN-UPA and the Ethnic Cleansing of Volhynia, 1943–1944." Slavic Review 75.3 (2016): 630-654.

This is discussed at the list page. Anyway, I'd support marking all events which are described as genocide only by a (reliable, scholarly) minority with a symbol, as done on some other template, and nothing that that symbol denotes events for which there is no consensus (just ongoing debate) on whether to call them genocide. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • As suggested in the recent revert, I removed the disputed entries: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @K.e.coffman: I think that's a fair compromise. I've reviewed the current list and I only have one concern: Holodomor. From it's lead: "some historians dispute its characterization as a genocide". I'd also suggest that we can add all disputed genocides to another line of the templated, called for example: Disputed genocides, or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

New section

I replaced the OR-like section on "Notable individuals" with a more relevant section on "Legal proceedings", as they directly investigated charges of genocide: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Trial of Slobodan Milošević

I did not find the arguments for the removal to be compelling: CTY said there was insufficient evidence in that case that Milošević had supported plans to expel non-Serbs from Serb-held territory in Bosnia during the 1992-95 war. The court's findings were about a different case. In any case, as Milošević was indicted on the charges of genocide; his trial fist with the template's purpose. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved Template:Genocide topics → Template:Genocide navbox, Template:Genocide → Template:Genocide sidebar. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


– Standard template naming. I have no idea what "topics" is supposed to mean in this template. buidhe 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose first, support second. You've shown above there are two templates that are called "Genocide", switching the primary name isn't how you make it better. Will support moving the side bar. --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment to be clear, both should have types attached, so {{Genocide sidebar}} and {{Genocide navbox}} -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose first, OK with any of the alternatives presented. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Novermber 2022 edits

@XTheBedrockX: in re: this edit summary: "...i'm still a little confused. as far as I'm aware, nearly all of these have been described as genocides in the text of the articles, or have been put in Categories that designate them that way" , please note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Categories may have been added by editors without regard for them being defining. Please consider self-reverting per WP:BRD & discuss instead. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman before I do that, are there any entries in particular you think don't qualify to be on here? (genuine, not trying to start a fight) XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
For example, in the Conquest of the Canary Islands article, the word "genocide" only appears in the reference section, as source names, and in the categories. The page Alhambra Decree has one occurrence of the word "genocide", and that is in the categories. In general, many things have been called "genocide", but often this is a matter of debate. Only unambiguous entries should be included in this template, as its format does not allow for nuance. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Removed some entries that probably don't fit this criteria. I will mention, though, that non-English version of articles for the Conquest of the Desert and the Pacification of Libya go into more detail about the accusations of genocide than their English counterparts do, and i'll defend my inclusion of the Albigensian Crusade, as it's been called a genocide by modern historians and by Raphael Lemkin, the guy who coined the word. XTheBedrockX (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I reverted the edits per WP:BRD; there are still many entries that do not warrant inclusion. Articles on other wikis are not material to en.wiki's inclusion of articles on this template. Please discuss here before restoring. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Correction of date range and citation (about Palestine)

The template lists Genocide against Palestinians but restricts it's date range to (1948). If we were to merely cite the Nakba this would be consistent with the date range of (1948) but if we are to be accurate in the description as listed in the linked article, the link ought to be listed as "Palestinians (1948-)" I recognize that this description may be controversial to some but internationally there is likely at least equal consensus in the case for calling the collective actions by Israel towards Palestinians "Genocide" as there is consensus in calling the actions of China against Uyghurs "Genocide". Therefore, I think for the sake of consistency in style and in pursuit of a NPOV it ought to be corrected. Transvex (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it's a contentious topic, and since no real discussion was made, and no consensus was reached, please avoid adding this. Nableezy please kindly self-RV to avoid edit-warring, and reach consensus. TaBaZzz (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It was removed as an EC violation, my edit takes responsibility for the insertion. If somebody wants to delete it or modify they are welcome to. But the template includes accusations, see the Ukrainian example at the end. nableezy - 18:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Why do you think the Ukrainian example is comparable here? TaBaZzz (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
They are accusations related to an ongoing conflict. nableezy - 18:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Please link to the discussion and resolution/consensus about that. TaBaZzz (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The consensus is based on it remaining in the template. See WP:EDITCON. The point is that the template clearly includes things that are at best "accusations", making that these are "accusations" not a reason for removal. nableezy - 20:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
See my reply below in regards to WP:EDITCON Homerethegreat (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
So no similarities, no discussion, and no consensus on a contentious edit in a contentious topic. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand the WP:EDITCON. Therefore you ought to build consensus. Start a topic on acquiring consensus. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Should we include the Palestinian genocide accusation in this template?

Include. Lots of reliable sources are calling it a genocide. Over 10,000 indigenous Palestinians have been exterminated in just a month, and the invasion is still in its early stages. Israeli leaders have shown genocidal intent multiple times. We already include other disputed genocides, like the Uyghur and Ukrainian ones, so there is no good reason to exclude this one. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Trilletrollet: The Uyghur genocide is not disputed. Parham wiki (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Not true. Most people agree that the Uyghurs are being oppressed, but many deny that it can be called a genocide. (I'm not denying it though) —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Trilletrollet: I agree Parham wiki (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
That seems more like a personal opinion rather than a policy-based argument. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence - this you are expected to present multiple reliable, mainstream sources in order to argue for inclusion. There are numerous wars with high death tolls that are not classified as genocides. For instance, the Vietnam War resulted in millions of deaths, yet it does not meet the definition of genocide as set by the United Nations Genocide Convention, which requires evidence of the intentional destruction of a people. If Israel had intended to destroy a population, they had the means to do so without resorting to a dangerous ground invasion. 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Marokwitz (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Include Of course, this is not even a question. Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is this not even a question? Why are you implying that there is no question? We must be as open-minded as possible. Following that we must also adhere to conventions in regards to such serious accusations. And all considering that almost all democracies in the world do not recognize the Nakba as genocide or the current Israeli actions as genocide; it begs the question why this is not a question? It is fine and noble to note scholarly research, however this is in regards to International Law. So we must be referring to Legal matters in our editing. To be open-minded, to ask questions, to seek the truth. That is an essential part. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
"almost all democracies in the world do not recognize the Nakba as genocide or the current Israeli actions as genocide" This suggests that these so-called "democracies" support genocidal policies against the Palestinians. I am not surprised that there are pro-Palestinian protests in several European countries at this point, by people opposed to the official support to Israel. Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
In any case, whether or not it is ultimately adjudicated as genocide, a template is just another means of navigation to related articles and opposing that is just nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Huh? I don't see how you jumped from what I said to ---> "Almost of all these so called democracies support genocide." Where did I say this> You're making conclusions that fail to stand and address what I wrote.
What I was referring to is Selfstudier's statement in regards to "Of course, this is not even a question" which raises issues in regards to open minded discussion in this forum. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
No - In accordance to the United Nations, international law, US, EU etc. the Nakba is not recognized as a genocide. WP:WEIGHT. Therefore it cannot be referred to as genocide. In reference to current events, it is not deemed genocide, no UN resolution passed deeming it genocide. US, EU do not recognize as genocide. According to most legal experts, the war is conducted in accordance to the Law of War and the Geneva Convention, with Israeli Prosecution closely on tabs on the issue. The International Court of Justice (in the Hague) has referred to Israeli Justice System as reliable and placed its trust on Israeli institutions. If you wish to speak of war crimes committed, then this is not the forum. This is about genocide, and in accordance to the UN, US, ICJ, EU etc, Nakba or current war are not acts of genocide. WP:WEIGHT. Refer to international law.
I include here sources in regards to Legal parameters. Also in reference to current Israel-Hamas war Note that almost every website refers to Hamas actions as potentially within the scope of genocide. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Include: The template includes a range of disputed and/or possible genocides - the designation if always a prospective one short of a conviction, which to date has been an exceptionally rare event. It would be deeply questionable to exclude pages that plainly have genocide in their title. The association and relevance could not be any clearer. Parham wiki (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Include: The template includes a range of disputed and/or possible genocides - the designation if always a prospective one short of a conviction, which to date has been an exceptionally rare event. It would be deeply questionable to exclude pages that plainly have genocide in their title. The association and relevance could not be any clearer. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, I'm trying to understand how it happens that two editors write the exact same message? And 3 minutes apart... Eladkarmel (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ask @Parham wiki: I'm assuming the imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and they just liked by response so much that they decided to copy it, but maybe I'm kidding myself. You'd have to ask them. But to be clear, my response came first, and then it was replicated, seemingly in a thoroughly manual edit, by Parham. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
really odd. @Parham wiki Is there a reasonable explanation for this act? Eladkarmel (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Take this to editor talk page please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Eladkarmel and @Iskandar323: Because it was a bit irrelevant and the current comment is better. Parham wiki (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
No. The template indeed includes a number of questionable genocides, like the Amhara (Persecution of Amhara people), Ukrainian (Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and the Uyghur ones. However it doesn't mean that we should just add other more questionable pages to the template (this is similar to the OTHERSTUFFEXITS argument). Alaexis¿question? 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS is about deletion arguments. This is a navbox template, and there is every reason for it to be internally consistent over how it treats material of similar levels of relatedness. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment I see @Parham wiki has added the Palestinian Genocide to the navbox. We haven't reached consensus! You were in the discussion, you need to wait!
Second, you added a link to Second Holocaust (1948-) that's not NPOV. Second Holocaust is about fear of another large scale genocide against the Jewish People. It doesn't serve NPOV. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Homerethegreat: I didn't add the Palestinian genocide. Parham wiki (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah sorry, my mistake. Second point still stands though. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The statement 'This is not even a question' does not adhere to WP:NPOV. Given that the this is one of the most controversial topic nowadays, it lacks a clear consensus. As the Director of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights in a Newark University explains, while accusations of Israel committing genocide exist, there are also accusations of Palestinians committing genocide against Israel. Since both sides' supporters make these accusations without a clear consensus, this can not be included. As another editor claimed above me - it may be that some Israeli leaders showed intent to do so (source?), yet also some Hamas leaders showed intent to destroy Israel. As well as their founders; as stated in their charter, one of the main themes is eliminating Israel and establishing an Islamic theocracy instead. However, genocide is not defined by intentions.

The bottom line is that, as of now, this content still falls within the realm of political propaganda, which is not in line with what Wikipedia is, as per WP:NOTADVOCACY. Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not extended confirmed, so you can't vote here. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'm still getting confused about what is exclusively open for EC and what isn't. Since the topic was labeled as 'Discussion' I wrongly assumed it was allowed. Apologies! Sunshine SRA (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries. More info can be found at WP:PIA. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
No. Even more inaccurate than the 'apartheid' or 'colonial' labels. Fringe theories used to expand the definition, undue weight. Not supported by serious scholars on the genocide topic. Also if we add this link to template, per balance we should add another article on anti-Israel genocide (per numerous declarations by Hamas and other groups, incitement, terrorism, massacres, etc). Dovidroth (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not a label, it's a navbox, and the language has been decided on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
No. Article neutrality is disputed. It shouldn't be listed with other occasions that are definite. TaBaZzz (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality issues don't mean that the topic is in question; that would be a notability issue. Neutrality issues just mean that some editors, whether right or wrong, think that all sources are not reflected fairly. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Wrong impression is a problem. Wrong information in a navbox is a problem. Neutrality dispute comes from the wrongful idea this article presents. Disputed articles shouldn't be in that navbox. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much every genocide ever is disputed by someone of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
No. An extreme claim whose supporters are on the fringes of academic research in the field. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The 'No's' claiming "fringe" need to read the article and the article talk page, where such claims are dispensed with, the accusations are anything but fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Include: far too many people are trying to argue completely the wrong thing here. The question being asked is not whether this genocide is a real thing. It has already been established that - although disputed - the accusation of genocide - the subject of the article - is real and covered by numerous mainstream legal and academic sources. It is far from being WP:FRINGE. If it were, the proper course of action would be to delete the article. If the present article fails to neutrally present the whole topic - including the main arguments of the 'defence', then the approriate course of action is to correct the article not banish it from the topic area. the template includes a range of disputed and/or possible genocides … It would be deeply questionable to exclude pages that plainly have genocide in their title. The association and relevance could not be any clearer per Parham and there is every reason … to be internally consistent in what is in/out of the navbox. per Iskandar323. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
It is not "deeply questionable to exclude pages" that explicitly include 'genocide' in their title - There are many such articles, for example, Black genocide in the United States and White genocide conspiracy theory. Navigation boxes are not expected to cover all pages related to a certain broad topic. Marokwitz (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Black genocide in the United States ... worth discussing. The conspiracy theory example, no - for the obvious reason self-contained within the use of that terminology in its title, which refutes it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Applying your own logic ( correction - the logic in the above reply )- 'the accusation of genocide' is a real accusation, and 'white genocide conspiracy theory ' is also a real conspiracy theory. Both are broadly related to a topic of genocide, but they do not belong in the same category of the genocides listed in the Navbox, which are all mostly undisputed in mainstream scholarship. Marokwitz (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Not by my own logic; by community consensus here on en.wiki. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Include. There is no argument to be made here. These constant requests to meet some history-negating consensus are only made by revisionists to distract editors. Salmoonlight (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, you have made no argument. Marokwitz (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
No. Per the inclusion criteria in List of genocides:

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

Marokwitz (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Killing members of the group: over 11,000 Palestinians have been killed just in one month since the start of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: along with the above, 28,695 Palestinians have been injured in Gaza and the West Bank combined;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: "It is aggression against a people who are illegally occupied that denies them their right to self-determination in manner that has been ongoing for more than sixty years. These actions are also significant evidence of the Israeli government's intention to destroy Palestinian as a national group in whole or in part." straight from the UN itself in 2009. Salmoonlight (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
'destroy Palestinian as a national group' falls under 'killing of economic or political groups' which is explicitly excluded from the scope of our List of genocides , read again ... Marokwitz (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stop quoting List of genocides. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm quoting it as evidence to current consensus within Wikipedia. The facts are that 'cultural genocides/ethnocides' that ' denies their right to self-determination ' are not considered genocides by the UN criteria. Marokwitz (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Evidence to the contrary is right there as I linked. "Israel’s aggression against the Palestinian people of Gaza constitutes genocide". Salmoonlight (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I guess you should read more carefully. This is an 'NGO statement (North-South XXI)' , not 'straight from the UN itself'. Marokwitz (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Better make https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Genocides_in_Asia your next mission. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea, but honestly, it just wouldn't be the same fun without you and the rest of the gang here :) ... And I think I'd seen enough genocides recently. Marokwitz (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
'destroy Palestinian as a national group' falls under 'killing of economic or political groups' which is explicitly excluded from the scope of our List of genocides What? When exactly did 'Palestinians' cease to be a national group (defined by common ancestry and shared national identity) and become an 'economic or political group' (defined by, income, social class or political creed). That is grotesque!
Also, why do the criteria for a list - which are clearly needed, defined and stated - why do they also apply to a navbox, whose purpose is to navigate betweeen related topics. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, trying to define a genocide by Wikipedia-ordained rules for a list is completely absurd and silly. And the thing about Palestinians being an "economic or political group" instead of a national identity is just reaching at this point. Salmoonlight (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
That's why we're referring to United Nations Genocide Convention. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
They are a both national and political group, but "denying a right to self-determination" does not consist a genocide by the definition established by the United Nations Genocide Convention, which is accepted by mainstream scholarship. Marokwitz (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The "evidence" you linked above was written by an NGO that was sponsored by the Gadaffi Regime in Libya. UN Watch reported on this. The Libyans have also openly admitted the NGO is under their umbrella. Now, I don't think we can trust the Gadaffi Regime on having a good record of human rights and anti-Semitism Homerethegreat (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
UN Watch has been described as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel" whose main objective "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel" (see UN Watch). The organisation is as far from being an impartial, reliable source on the subject as it gets. — kashmīrī TALK 22:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
The organisation that wrote this Nord-Sud XXI, according to UN Watch, this organisation was created by the Qaddafi regime, if you don't recall, an authoritarian regime that ruled Libya. "Libyans’ open acknowledgment of North South 21 being a part of the Qaddafi Prize organization"
I don't think anyone will consider an NGO sponsored by Gadaffi's regime as reliable on this topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear what I wrote before I'll clarify. This report is not from the UN like you said. It was written by Nord-Sud-XXI which is an NGO sponsored and founded by the Gadaffi regime. It is not a reliable source in this topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
We probably don't want to take too many queues from UN Watch either given that this is an advocacy platform with not particularly effectively disguised close ties to Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Include under the name "Palestinian genocide accusation", which clarifies the status of the claim as less definite (to address an objection above), and thus allows the event to match others already listed, per Iskandar323. The accusation is also not fringe, per Pincrete. Lastly, there's an argument right above about Per the inclusion criteria in List of genocides, but clearly, Template:Genocide navbox does not exactly match the list, so why should we stick to the list? List of genocides acknowledges many different definitions of genocide exist. starship.paint (RUN) 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • No Keep only actual genocides and cases where there's enough consensus, not mere fringe accusations. Otherwise we'll have to include literally every country that has ever gone through war, like the Ukrainians. Etc. The Palestinian accusations of apartheid and genocide are mere propagandist terms to draw international attention. –Daveout(talk) 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    To clarify: I do think cases like the Ukrainian one should be removed as well. Along with some others. –Daveout(talk) 18:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    Scheming, propagandist international law and genocide scholars. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    The best way out of this is probably to create another Navbar named "Accusations of genocide" or something like that.
Also, scholars can defend fringe theories. It's not up to us to interpret international law. –Daveout(talk) 19:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support adding another row to the navbox, directly below "Genocides (list by death toll)" -- call it something like "Alleged genocides", and include all the disputed cases there instead. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    +1. Seems like a sensible approach. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree Parham wiki (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    I agree : This should be the least contentious path forward. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • For consistency, either Include (as per Pincrete and Alaexis) or Remove other challenged examples. I'm not on board with the label myself, but this template already contains mass atrocities where the label "genocide" is highly contentious (ex. Ukraine (2022-present), the Anfal, the Holodomor and the persecution of Amhara) or massacres/war crimes otherwise excluded from the List of genocides article. Given accusations of genocide have already moved beyond the fringe, I don't see why the situation with Palestine should be viewed any differently than other contentious examples already listed. Either include Palestinians or clean up the template and remove examples without consensus. Anoldsegacount (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    Not certain regarding Ukrainian genocide since I do not know enough about it. Again we should follow UN law etc, to make sure things are clear. Also since Russian action against Ukraine (the kidnapping of 20,000 children) from the brief I saw appears very different in nature. I think it merits a different discussion. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    Except for Security Council resolutions, the UN doesn't make binding laws. UN only expresses its opinion, which is the outcome of vote count. But vote count has nothing to do with science or facts. — kashmīrī TALK 06:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • No because this Nav template lists genocides not accusations or allegations of genocide. I agree with Daveout that "the Ukrainian one should be removed as well", but I haven't carefully considered if there are others that should also be removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The template sure includes allegations (Ukrainian allegations) as well as plenty of events to which there is no academic consensus for the genocide badge (eg, Polish Operation of the NKVD). — kashmīrī TALK 06:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


  • Comment. Can we try and pull a final decision on this? As right now the list of included genocides includes many which are contentious, and have little support from the relevant literature and sources to call them genocides, while not including other cases where there is a much greater wealth of literature and sources declaring and justifying the labeling of the cases as genocides. (Like including Caesar's conquest of Gaul, while not including the Albigensian Crusade) -- Cdjp1 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. CarmenEsparzaAmoux has BOLDly added Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza to the template (a more narrow article than the subject of this RfC). With the International Court of Justice recently issuing an unusually explicit order for Israel to stop violating the Genocide Convention, I believe we should accept that the accusations are sufficiently founded and accepted by top legal bodies to warrant including them in this template. — kashmīrī TALK 23:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

La Matanza is missing the year(s) next to it like the others have. 104.228.9.173 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Liu1126 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus required in effect

@Dovidroth, Cdjp1, Homerethegreat, and BlakeIsHereStudios: A consensus required restriction is now in effect for all parts of this template that pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 05:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin Could you please point me to the ArbCom decision designating Consensus Required restriction under ARBPIA for related content? I could only find an agreement on applying Extended Confirmed restriction. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 17:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Kashmiri. Thanks for inquiring. WP:PIA § Definition of the "area of conflict" includes related content. The following section designates the area of conflict as a contentious topic. WP:CTOP in turn, lists consensus-required among the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator. In other words, this isn't a standing sanction like the ECR or 1RR, but rather a discretionary CTOP action. I hope that clears things up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Tamzin, ok, but I argue that this reads differently. A standard editing restriction such as Consensus Required can only be applied to articles falling under CT; because CTOP does not permit applying GS to extended content. Even in the broadest sense, "Genocide navbox" in its entirety does not thematically falls under PIA editing area. To apply sanctions to extended content, we need to refer to the relevant ArbCom decision. And so, under the decision you linked to, ArbCom has provided a list of three general sanctions that can be applied to articles and/or related content falling under ARBPIA. That list does not include the Consensus Required sanction.
I find the CR sanction as, effectively, giving a veto to any single editor over template content. For instance, an editor is now able to undo any edit that has added any PIA-related entry to the template, and nobody else would be allowed to restore it without a lengthy consensus-building exercise. Are you open to consdering a different sanction, one from the ARBPIA list? Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 19:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: Yes, the case allows three general sanctions, and one of those is WP:CTOP, which includes discretionary application of CR. In my opinion, this template was a good place to use CR, and requiring "a ... consensus-building exercise", of whatever length is necessary, is just the idea. And there isn't really an option to pick a different one from "the ARBPIA list": The two standing sanctions for the topic area, ECR and 1RR, are in effect here regardless of what I do. I could downgrade the CR to enforced BRD, or lift discretionary page sanctions entirely, but I haven't seen any evidence that the CR is not working as intended. If you would like to appeal this page restriction, you may of course do so at WP:AE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, let's read the decision as it goes:

ARBPIA General Sanctions

5) The following set of sanctions will be considered the "ARBPIA General Sanctions".

  1. Contentious topic designation: The area of conflict is designated as a contentious topic.
  2. Extended confirmed restriction: The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on the area of conflict.
  3. One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict. Reverts made to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator.
I don't see any sign of ArbCom authorising the full set of GS to be applied to PIA. Or, am I missing something? — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
§ 5.1 makes this a CTOP, and everything in WP:CTOP § Standard set applies to all contentious topic areas unless stated otherwise by ArbCom. In the PIA cases, ArbCom has added two sanctions to the standard set, but has not removed any. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
OK I see now, thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 01:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous Australian genocide

A new article has been created detailing Genocide of Indigenous Australians. We should include the Black War as a subtopic of this article. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Template_talk:Genocide_navbox, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.