Wikipedia:Genocide

Starting as a notes page with the idea to turn over to others to develop as needed. See WP:PROPOSAL. In particular: Most commonly, new policies or guidelines document established practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

Background

This began from this comment:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1320107277

Maybe it's time for a specific guideline-level thing for what, if N standard is met as a Wikipedia rule, we can safely in "our voice" call an event a genocide.

No one article or incident should have a unique carve out or local factors and editors deciding. For something this sensitive, there should be a working definition. If the threshold is crossed, based on WP:V and WP:RS, we can then call the event a genocide, and the matter on that event for us is editorially 'closed' pending new data coming to light.

I would defer to smarter people on what such a thing would look like if it's a good idea. WP:GENOCIDE should be the standard that would apply to anything from the current Gaza genocide article, to things like List of genocides and anything listed there.

This comment affected my idea:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1320085093

To be clear... WP:NPOV does not allow for or even mandate that we include or hold up all sources as equal on a topic, and never has. That determination is part of NPOV, as it lines up with WP:WEIGHT.

We don't even seriously argue some Robert F. Kennedy Jr. type anti-vaccination positioning anywhere, for instance, or for moon landing hoax or flat earth theories. Those are extreme examples, but even on the spectrum of those to the Gaza genocide, the same basic formula and calculus applies. The conclusion of an article under WP:NPOV on anything contentious is always inconvenient for someone. That's neither a bug nor a feature. It's a mirrored reflection of consensus reality.

This comment was my suggestion of how to achieve and develop such a policy if needed:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1320097556

If we wanted to really, really button this down to the level of airtight, would a prudent step be to weigh whether individual states (countries) were all equal in their positioning of it as genocide? That simple question:

Are the positions of all nations equal, as far as Wikipedia is concerned?

That lets you weight the nations amongst themselves based on that concensus.

Then you ask: how do we rank states vs NGOs vs international bodies vs academics vs other social construct "levels".

Then you know, from those consensus, who IS authoritative, by our reading. Everything kind of flows downhill from that. Logically, based on the way the entire precedent of this is going, the "it is not genocide" side of the debate may not find that level of scrutiny to their advantage.

RfC sequence

It may be prudent (and wise) to not just throw all these live at once. Do question 1, first. Resolve that. Then figure out what to ask for question 2, which is informed by the consensus outcome of question 1.

Question 1

Are the positions of all nations equal, as far as Wikipedia is concerned?

Question 1 notes

The idea here is the simple question of, there are a lot of countries in the world. If country A says that an event is genocide and country B says the event is not a genocide, how to reconcile that? How does or may one nation outweigh the other? What if either country is the claimed aggressor or victim? WHat if they're allies or adversaries? What if it's a "great power" like the USA or China, as opposed to New Guinea or Grenada?

We also have to consider the fact that any actually legitimate government is transient, and will be time-limited due to democracy. What if that country's past administration(s) had a different position than the current one? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No state position should be considered when making editorial decisions, as none of them are reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd just note that even if that is factually or by custom and precedent even the guaranteed outcome, we should still run it anyway for purposes of thoroughness. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree in using governments and countries for assessment of a genocide. But, for including their opinions/positions etc. within the article, all countries should be held of the same weight, even the country potentially being accused, though it may be considered MANDY. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Governments (by definition, and in practice) are not WP:RS for genocides. Boud (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A government has to worry about not saying heavy stuff that may draw ire from the international community first, has to worry about not pissing off trade partners and strategic allies first, has to worry about not drawing ire from political supporters with its statements and positions first, before it can allow itself to be objective and unbiased and uninvolved in its appraisal of a controversial subject. Governments do not matter here. BarntToust 01:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, governments aren't reliable sources on this matter, so their position on whether something constitutes genocide might be interesting (Gaza genocide recognition), but doesn't having bearing on how we discuss in on Wikipedia outside of descriptions of their positions. Katzrockso (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Governments are dubious sources. I might stretch myself to say that entirely uninvolved governments might be used as sources, but even that is a stretch. This assumes we can even speak of "uninvolved" governments. This gets extra interesting when we consider governments that no longer exist, for example as a result of a coup or from being voted out of office. Such governments are no longer able to speak for themselves. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

We need to show both the views of the perpetrating country and the victim country or population. The victims say X and the perpetrating country say Y.

And this extends to the allies of each country as well. Allies of X say Y and allies of A say B. LDW5432 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The opinion of governments/their officials should be considered unreliable, regardless of their perceived relationship to the genocide. Outside of not being subject matter experts, they are also inherently non-neutral due to their stance being a matter of politics i.e. self-interest. Notable government perspectives can be mentioned where appropriate, but they should carry no weight outside their attributed opinions. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that "no WP:WEIGHT" means we shouldn't mention it at all.

It sounds like your view is that a government/political statement doesn't matter for determining the fact of whether genocide happened (compare: the Sun is the center of our solar system; this is true regardless of whether any given person believes it), but it does matter for describing the political response to a dispute (e.g., scholars in previous centuries didn't believe this, and their beliefs are worth mentioning in the article about the Galileo affair). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct, that was what I was intending to convey with my comment, that states' positions shouldn't factor into determining what is/isn't a genocide. As you say though, their actions, positions, & responses should still be included where relevant however.

Apologies if my original comment was unclear, but thank you for accurately interpreting it nonetheless. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Genocide is a crime and defendants deserve to have their voices heard. The reader can determine if the argument of the defendant is valid or not. That is NPOV. LDW5432 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that their perspective should be represented, only that a denial shouldn't factor into determining whether or not we refer to something as a genocide in wikivoice. As you say, that's NPOV & it's only appropriate the alleged perpetrator's position be adequately represented.

(There is academic debate over the differentiation between genocide & the genocide convention, but that may be besides the point for this discussion) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A direct answer to the main question: Yes, as far as Wikipedia should be concerned, we should not privilege the views of any particular country in a general sense. Countries should be treated as non-neutral observers who have conflicts of interest and thus should not be treated as, nor should they be expected to be, neutral sources. Instead, the views of governments, as noted by Wikipedia, should be primarily attributed to that particular country. This is in contrast to news organizations or academic organizations that strive for neutrality and impartiality in their reports and assessments of the world. So, specifically when it comes to genocide, whether or not a country or group of countries recognizes or denies a genocide should have minimal impact on how we on Wikipedia should describe events as genocides or not. Instead, we should focus on reliable sources that have (or are expected to have) impartiality and neutrality. Drawing from what I wrote in Talk:Genocide, we should consider facts and (legal/scholarly) opinions. As far as facts are concerned, news organizations should be reliable sources for reporting on what is happening. As far as legal/scholarly opinion is concerned, academic scholars should be reliable sources for drawing conclusions through the synthesis of facts. And just as a reminder, editors should avoid WP:OR, whether that is through reporting facts, or through synthesizing facts. Leave reporting to reporters and leave synthesis for scholars. JasonMacker (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The statements of governments are reliable for their opinions and positions, but not for statements of fact. They should be included in articles as appropriate and attributed as needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Another issue is what classifies as a country here. If we take it from recognition by other countries, that raises issues. Take the Gaza genocide for example: Israel and their allies don't recognize Palestine as a state. I would imagine that this pattern would be common in genocides. There are also quasi-states, should we count their opinion? What if they're a terrorist organization, like ISIS? I just think it's too messy and too embedded with politics to consider countries as reliable. Governmental or public agencies, on the other hand, I think should be evaluated in terms of the extent of their politicization and connection with the government or political parties. BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a point that needs to be clarified. It is correct that countries are not "reliable sources", but they are something else: they are opinion holders, and their opinions are the ones that define those things. Unlike natural sciences, here there is not a pre-existing truth that someone may find with scientific method. If an event is a genocide or not, depends on the legal definitions of genocide, the analysis of the actual events and if those definitions apply, and who has the authority to decide that. The countries do not define this by themselves, but their opinion has immense weight to influence the outcome. And yes, when we say "countries" we mean just the great powers, the opinions of all the others are irrelevant. Yes, that may not be fair, but that's the order of things, and Wikipedia must reflect the way the world works, not try to right great wrongs. Cambalachero (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we're confusing again between reliable and partisan. Governments need to be measured on both. Either way, the government of Switzerland will probably be quite reliable and more neutral than Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria. I'm not sure how would you rank it but the solution is not necessarily to ignore the problem and state that NGOs are better. Far too many NGOs were found to be unreliable. Bar Harel (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Question 2

How should we rank states versus NGOs, international bodies, academics and other social construct "levels"?

Question 2 notes

This would likely need to wait until question 1 is resolved, but can be setup concurrently. Knowing how we rank nations affects how we rank these against nations. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe that only scholarly sources from relevant fields (including scholarly associations) should be considered wp:rs for this question. We may include the position of states and NGOs per Wp:due but otherwise I think we should limit their use. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am aligned with buidhe, that scholarly sources (peer-reviewed published) should be prioritised, and NGOs should not be the basis, but due weight for their position in the article. As to intergovernmental organisations, UN directed inquiries and reports, I would rank higher than NGOs, but less than scholarly. As to other intergovernmental organisations, I would probably hold them as the same level as government statements. The only other group, that is linked here, is cases of courts and tribunals, which, while I loathe the legalism of it, are the bright line for calling something a genocide for the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

My only contention is that NGOs and scholars are still biased and partisan in a way. Particularly advocacy NGOs who would have a certain agenda and have systemic bias in evaluating the conflict. I hold more weight if international courts and tribunals have determined as such.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think scholars should be lumped in with NGOs; scholars are expected to be neutral with respect to the facts, like courts are, while some NGOs aspire to neutrality and others lean more in the direction of advocacy. Scholars have critiqued the bias of courts, other scholars, and NGOs with respect to genocide and genocide prevention, so perhaps none of these three groups should be able to outweigh the other two alone. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a good point with respect to NGOs that are fronts for governments. If you're an NGO and 100% of your funding comes from your government, are you really an NGO? LDW5432 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

This question seems to be about states versus all other sources. If there is consensus that states are irrelevant as WP:RS, then this question is moot. Boud (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we can "rank" source in this way, but I do know academic sources tend to carry more weight. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources over NGOs. But all should be included. NGO X says Y and NGO A says B. LDW5432 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Academic sources are preferred. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This question has made me wonder whether there could be a List of genocide allegations with comparison of various groups/scholars, like this:

Is it a genocide?

Event	Alice	Bob	Chris	David
European contact with the Americas	–	No	Yes	–
Transatlantic slave trade	No	No	Yes	–
1824 Ruritanian incident	–	No	Yes	No
1894 African war	Yes	No	Yes	–
Second Sino-Japanese war	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Holocaust	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
1965 land war in Asia	No	No	Yes	No

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like a chart like that but by legal body. Convicted of genocide? Yes, no, to be determined. LDW5432 (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

List of convictions for genocide might not be a terrible idea Kowal2701 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The number of columns would likely become impractical. I also don't think you can boil down a lot of views around genocide to a simple yes/no answer. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The only ones that should count are international bodies with a political clout similar or higher than that of world powers (such as the European Union), and criminal courts who can rule that someone commited genocide and with such rule being binding. Although a country is not a biography, WP:BLPCRIME says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[d]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." The same principle should apply, within its own context, in this topic: someone accused of a crime (and genocide is a crime) is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Yes, I know: trials may take years to reach a verdict, or perhaps never do. But why would that be our problem? If it takes years to reach a verdict, we'll define the event as a genocide when those years have passed, and if they never get to a verdict, then we'll never do. Not here to right great wrongs, remember?

As for NGO, academics, scholars and the like, no, their positions mean nothing. For two reasons. One, their role is only to watch and report the events that have happened in the real world, not to be involved actors in it. They don't get to say what is and what isn't a genocide, only to explain a historical event, including if it was defined as a genocide or not by the proper authorities and why. And second, there are multiple genocide definitions and proposed definitions rejected by the current legal definition (such as cultural genocide, paper genocide, etc). It's kind of an umbrella term. Of course, scholars and academics are valid as references for the content of the article, but not to provide definitions that only international bodies or courts can provide. Cambalachero (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME applies to individuals, the reason for it is to comply with defamation laws (ie. avoid even the most frivolous of law suits). Defamation laws don't apply to governments. By this logic we could practically never say a country historically committed a war crime or whatever minor infraction, because international courts aren't functional and favour the powerful. For instance as of 2024, all 31 cases being investigated by the ICC were in Africa. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Defamation may apply only to individuals, but the principle of presumption of innocence applies to every entity that can be accused of a crime. And by including it in a policy, it seems clear that Wikipedia endorses that principle as well. And yes, if due process gets in the way of filling articles with unsubstantiated accusations, as I said, so be it. Wikipedia is not in the business of righting great wrongs. Cambalachero (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

From our definition, bold mine, The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. There's a lot to unpack here, but to sum it up, that would be grossly impractical, and not in the spirit or function of BLPCRIME at all Kowal2701 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The article should be improved then, because the presumption of innocence does extend to organizations, corporations, and anyone who can stand trial before a court of law, regardless of what does the Wikipedia article says or implies. Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME needs to be updated. Companies sue each other and win for defamation. See: Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network LDW5432 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You're taking the side of the purely legal definition of genocide as defined by the genocide convention, but that perspective is a contested one within the field of genocide studies. As you yourself note, genocide is an umbrella term referring to a variety of subjects & it isn't our job to take a stance on which interpretation is the most legitimate. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

We can include both definitions when talking about genocide accusations. LDW5432 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and there can hardly be a claim more extraordinary than "X commited genocide" (I'm not sure if there's a crime worse than that). A "purely legal" definition of genocide would have a lot of background process to back it up: a denounce, an investigation, X's right to defense, an impartial judge, etc. What is there behind an academic's opinion? "This guy thing this", and little more. Being an academic places it a bit higher than just "a random guy that wrote a book", but little more; and certainly not enough for an accusation of this caliber. They may still be used as references for everything else in the article, just not thing point. There are many definitions, and how to choose which one is more important than the others? FALSEBALANCE would apply... except that, in this case, academics would be at the other side of the equation than usual. Cambalachero (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Question 3

How should we rank NGOs, international bodies, academics and other social construct "levels" against each other, separate from the question of them versus states/countries?

Question 3 notes

This could likely run at the same time as question 2, but it may be better to just do these all sequentially for hygene and cleanliness? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

International investigations and courts, such as the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine, will likely have an influence on academic views and on Wikipedia editing, but on a much slower time scale (many years instead of a few years), and not in all cases, because of the tiny budget and power of the International Criminal Court, and the limited (though legally significant) power of the International Court of Justice. It's also likely that broad academic consensus will disagree with the courts in some cases, since courts have different ways of seeking truth than academics.

It's unlikely that we would want a strict ranking, but rather comments on different types of sources and how they are likely to be viewed. Boud (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what other social construct 'levels' could be referring to here, but the relative weight of these institutions will vary depending on the topic in question. I don't think it would be prudent to provide any guidance on this question. Katzrockso (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

For the term construct levels, I couldn't think of a better general bucket for things like religious and political groups, things below the sort of formalized NGO levels that would weigh in on these things like the UN, ICJ, major international humanitarian ones... more like the local level "political influence sphere" perhaps? I may have been overthinking it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this might all qualify as NGOs, but you're trying to get at the distinction between a more openly political NGO with a broader focus (e.g. Heritage Foundation or Center for American Progress) and a non-partisan NGO that may e.g. specialize in human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch)? Katzrockso (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

International bodies with a judicial system should have the highest level. Genocide is a crime and a ruling from a court should take priority. LDW5432 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My recommended order is, subject matter experts/academics > international bodies > NGOs > states.

Note that this order is flexible as reliability, expertise, relevancy, & bias are all factors that must be considered first & foremost in determining the sources quality & thus supersede my above ranking.

I put academics above international bodies only because there are many international bodies that aren't legal/academic in nature, however relevant international bodies like the ICC & ICJ are exceptions that hold greater weight. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree on high consideration of ICC and ICJ rulings as they go through a legal review process. LDW5432 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Only international bodies and courts count, as I explain earlier (and in the case of sub-organizations, only those who can speak on behalf of the larger organization). In addition to what I said earlier, scholars and academics may have biases and agendas, the very thing that would make them unable to serve as judges. Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Question 4

What events are unambigulously genocides that we have called genocides in Wikivoice historically, and there is little to no likelihood of that changing?

Question 4 notes

Simply: identify control cases and articles. What ARE the unambiguous genocides, that no one reasonably can argue against? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This question should be settled on an article by article basis, not by a generalized RfC. Many people would comment without taking the time to study each event and the evidence/sources surrounding it. (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would be unlikely to be a good way to develop a draft, but my understanding is that this page is not meant to be for an RfC - it's rather a raw source that could become a Wikipedia: space guideline. Though maybe an RfC would be needed to decide if the draft is acceptable once it has become mature enough. Boud (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The thinking of an RfC was because this was potentially SO contentious, that we could then know the boundaries the community would or may accept for a "genocide" policy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Rwanda, Cambodia, Srebrenica, and the Holocaust are the ones immediately to mind. The first three, have the legal backing of the Genocide Convention, and the Holocaust is the archetypical genocide (with all the problems that causes), which has had UN resolutions recognise it, some people found guilty of genocide for their part in it in national courts, and scholarship is unanimous in it being genocide. Now, should we use the case of the Holocaust for determining what counts as genocide, we are presented with an issue that genocide studies has long been contending with (as I mentioned it being the archetypical genocide). Where editors being referred to the Holocaust as our standard (even if they may already be doing so due to our cultural environment) may argue that and edit in ways where if a potential genocide does not exactly match the Holocaust, it will be treated as "obviously" not genocide. Outside of Wikipedia, we see this occur even in cases that have mass support in being viewed as genocide (Cambodia, Srebrenica, Rwanda), because they are not the same as the Holocaust. I will leave more discussion at this moment to the side. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Aren't Cambodia and Srebrenica often cited, respectively, as a democide and a genocidal massacre? Which is not to say that these are considered by those authors as lesser crimes than genocide, but that they are sometimes categorized as different crimes. Of course other sources would feel it quite appropriate to include all of these directly under the genocide label. Pharos (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

That's right, the court in Cambodia found some defendants guilty of genocide against specific ethnic minorities (Vietnamese people and Chams), but the scope was far narrower than our article on the Cambodian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This is correct, while in the popular imagination the Cambodian genocide includes auto-genocide, the court found defendants guilty of genocide against other ethnic groups, so it is on that Cambodia has the backing of the legal definition even if it is not the scope most people believe it to be. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The ICTY found Srebrenica to be a case of genocide, but did not find that the wider Bosnian genocide had occurred. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This is in and of itself a political question - we can only determine if something is an "unambiguous genocide" with respect to a particular definition of "genocide". Christian Gerlach argues that genocide is an "analytically worthless concept made for political purposes" and many scholars argue the concept has become politicized. To declare which genocides are "unambiguous genocide" just answers a political question, rather than a substantive one. Katzrockso (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a very useful observation because everything is political. I've seen some editors speak of certain things being facts, not realizing facts are socially constructed. Not even data are safe from politics, since what data we have are itself the result of political processes. WP as a whole is a political project, and to deny that it is is in itself political. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This is true, but it is particularly relevant in this context - it is not helpful for this potential genocide guideline/information page/essay to be making this distinction between ambiguous/unambiguous genocides. Katzrockso (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

But it would be useful for editors writing an informative page about genocide to know which incidents could be safely given as examples, without a lot of other editors saying "No way, that mass killing wasn't actually genocide". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment The page Persecution of Uyghurs in China used to be called "Uyghur genocide" until last year when there was a page move: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=160170052 LDW5432 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this can be properly settled outside individual article space. We could set in in stone Rwanda, Armenia, the Holocaust, & the several genocide of indigenous peoples across the world, but I don't think putting specific events on a plinth would benefit this guideline.

It may also lead to arguments over what other genocides should be listed as "unambiguously" genocides that may risk weakening the guideline in the eyes of the community. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

What is or is not a genocide should be determined by RS and not Wikipedia's editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a loaded question. Genocide is determined by international bodies and courts, not by mere civilians (meaning, not academics, and not us). Of course, I'm talking about the legal figure of genocide, not the colloquial use of the term, which is similar to Fascist (insult). Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of issues around this:

1) The term genocide is a fairly recent invention, and there was no legal process surrounding this before the 20th century. So any definition relying on legal recognition would exclude any events before the 20th century even if there is no controversy around their status as genocides with our modern definitions, for example the actions of the Mongol Empire

2) Prosecution for genocides tends to take a very long time for a number of reasons:

• Trials would require the perpetrators to be in custody, if a genocide is perpetrated by a government or quasi-government organization they are unlikely to face any consequences if they can hang on to power.
• Trials require evidence to be gathered, which is difficult to do if the evidence is the territory of a perpetrator.
• Governments may oppose trials for political reasons, either because they want to have good relations with the country involved or they are afraid that it would set a precedent that would allow some of their actions to be called a genocide, or the country where the genocide was perpetrated is unstable with tensions still running high and a high profile trial of leadership who might still be popular among some people would make the situation worse, for example a combination of these factors led the Khmer Rouge Tribunal for the Cambodian Genocide didn't start until decades after the event.

Whether legal proceedings have happened is an important point to consider, but it can't be the only factor. Giuliotf (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Question 5

For events definitively and broadly accepted as genocides, what common factors do they all share?

Question 5 notes

Of the consensus answers to question 4, what do they all have in common? What are the N conditions that if enough of them apply, an event is unambigulously a genocide?

The answers to 1-5 basically would tell us exactly how to make a policy of what, and when, to label an event a genocide in Wikivoice. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't and shouldn't decide this based on any criteria besides the coverage in RS. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but notability standards beyond Wikipedia:Notability have all manner of breakout ways to consider and review topic-specific notability. That's what this would be, broadly. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I also think that basing the criteria on uncontested genocides would ensure that we would end up with criteria biased in favor of the view that genocide is rare. The scholarship varies, but if anything is trending in the opposite direction. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to defer to the subject matter experts. I'm not familiar at all with that scholarship. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that it's the WP:RS that should decide this. Listing the criteria for a genocide (actions and intent) on a guideline page increases the risk of WP:OR. We're not going to stop people mentioning sources showing that they (the Wikipedians) understand the definition, but Question 5 as written should be removed, since it's encouraging WP:OR. Boud (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I will note this was an issue with the former criteria for the List of genocides articles, where it was determined by scholarly sources that were "in line" with the Genocide Convention, which required us to assess the scholarship against the Convention to determine if it counted. Eventually it was agreed upon, though not unanimous, to remove the "in line with the Genocide Convention", and state "significant" scholarship, so it had to be more than just one mention of it being genocide for inclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

And this is the issue of OR I was worried about. If we are looking for specific conditions in cases of genocide for how to determine what we should call a genocide, instead of follow RS naming and labelling, I would argue that such actions are a great example of OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't try to draw our own criteria for genocide based on existing events, that would be WP:OR. Instead, we should rely on whether RS characterize an event as genocide.

I disagree with the very premise of this question, which accepts this as an implicit prerequisite and only asks how we should implement it in the specifics. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with @Buidhe and @Chaotic Enby but I think some further clarification is required as to what is considered RS in this context. It should probably be a stricter standard than what is permissible in general for on-site use, right? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

True, the one aspect in which I see such a WP:GENOCIDE as being advantageous is in figuring out how much weight we should give to each kind of sources (genocide experts, governments, media outlets, legal proceedings, ...) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't consider this to be a standard for all cases. A tyrannical government or junta. The victims being stigmatized as other. Complacency or outright support by civilians and military. BarntToust 01:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

? One thing that has been reevaluated in the field of genocide studies is the assumption that genocide was committed by tyrannical authoritarian regimes, and could not be committed by democracies. This was widely believed during the Cold War and afterwards (for example Samantha Power was criticized for "distort[ing] the role of the US by assuming it was necessarily a reluctant liberator rather than active agent"), but is now discredited due to increased understanding of settler genocide and more recently events in Gaza. However, if you only looked at events where there is zero controversy, I think you would still be stuck in the outdated research paradigm. (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. "Non-problematic, non-hostile democracy" is distinct from, well, places like Israel. Heck, arguably Democracy can be levied and abused and subverted and ignored in the pursuit of establishing a genocidal regime. I concur, but the idea that democracy is removed from the practice of tyranny is something worth further discussion, I think. BarntToust 02:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the criticism is more fundamental than your comment suggests. There is no contradiction between a "liberal democracy" providing political representation, civic freedoms, and state protection to its citizens, who often ignore or support violent oppression and even genocide being committed in their names against some disfavored out-group. Indeed, research has found that increased democracy does not reduce the chance that non-citizens and unpopular minorities are victimized by torture. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Starvation as a crime in the Bengal famine of 1943 included deliberate British policies: March 1942: Denial policies and 1942–1944: Refusal of imports; and the Iranian famine of 1942–1943 was under Anglo-Soviet occupation; researchers such as Nicholas Mulder, Boyd van Dijk, Bridget Conley and Alex de Waal may sooner or later find these (and other famines of European colonies/occupied territories) to be genocides by democracies (partly by a democracy in the Iranian 1942–1943 case, since the USSR was a dictatorship). Per the starvation crime article, there is very little systematic research so far on how to classify these famines in terms of modern crimes of IHL definitions, but the result may conceivably be that many of these famines were crimes against humanity or genocides by democracies. A crimes against humanity case (not genocide) was submitted a week or so ago to the International Criminal Court investigation in Libya against 122 EU officials.

In any case, the relation between democracy and lack of genocide is interesting, but getting somewhat offtopic for a WP: space guideline for genocide/suspected genocide articles. Boud (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC) (minor edits Boud (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Boud (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC))

Additional to this I would point to Mohamed Adhikari and the other authors in Civilian-Driven Violence and the Genocide of Indigenous Peoples in Settler Societies which provides arguments for a litany of cases where civilians perpetrated genocidal violence (if not full genocide) against groups where the government policies ranged from nominal opposition to apathy to minimal support. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not off-topic since the original suggestion was that "tyranny" is a defining characteristic of genocide. However I think we have suitably rebutted it. (t · c) buidhe 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My experience so far is that it has been difficult to get people to agree on what the word "genocide" even means, which is important for getting anywhere. Before you can set up criteria for calling something X, we have to agree on what the meaning of X even is. Regarding the word "genocide" there is at least two meanings of the word:

• the narrow definition used in the Genocide Convention (legal)
• the various meanings of the word used in genocide studies (academic)

The legal definition has the benefit that there's less risk of "overstepping". It's not likely to change any time soon. The academic definitions are more varied, and at times they border on Holocaust trivialization and outright denialism. See Historikerstreit. Some aspects in which the academic definitions differ from the legal one include:

• not requiring mens rea
• equating nation and class
• equating nation and political affiliation
• equating nation and church

I am personally of the opinion that the meaning of the word "genocide" should not be diluted, since this serves Holocaust denialist purposes. Genocides are deliberate, and they are directed against peoples. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This would appear to be taking a side in the Functionalism–intentionalism debate, which is a central, unresolved question in genocide and Holocaust studies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Does it? Or does it suggest instead that if humans were to someday travel to Mars, discover that there are Martians living there, and accidentally infect Marvin the Martian and his compatriots with germs that kill them all off, then that might be better described as "negligent manslaughter" than as "genocide"?

I can easily imagine someone saying that genocides requires a deliberate intent to kill off a cultural/ethnic/racial group, and that there was enough evidence of intent that the Holocaust counts. After all, one doesn't "accidentally" arrest millions of people on the basis of their ethnoreligious identity and then kill as many of them as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Er, WhatamIdoing, have you read up on the academic debate in question? I would recommend p.2 (14 in the PDF) of The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda by David Welch for a quick overview. Welch himself espouses the synthesis position, i.e. Hitler’s intentions were crucial for developments during the Third Reich, but the conditions under which these intentions became reality were not totally controlled by Hitler. Or for an example of how this is a living debate with direct implications for the question of Gaza, there's this paper. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My point is that not everyone's thinking confines itself to the academically defined boxes. It is therefore possible to hold the view that "Genocides are deliberate, and they are directed against peoples" and for that view to be orthogonal to (neither agreeing nor disagreeing with) the Functionalism–intentionalism debate. For example, one can take the view that genocides are deliberate, that the Holocaust was a deliberate genocide, and not take a view on what percentage of the initiative for that deliberate genocide came from Hitler vs his underlings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

My point was that privileging intent as being a necessary criterion in a list for defining genocides precludes the functionalist position, which would be that intent is not central, or that it doesn’t even meaningfully exist on the level of a society. The Martian example is further facile because it ignores the context that mass violence occurs in: even in genocides where disease played a major component, it’s not just the introduction of a pathogen, it’s the creation of living conditions on a societal scale that allow the pathogen to spread and undermine the victims’ access to healthcare. These conditions do generally require some level of at least indifference to the conditions of the oppressed group, but they don’t require explicit genocidal intent by the participants. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Since genocide is a crime, the factor of intent is 100% required to be evaluated.

And we could require a marking of the functionalist view of a genocide and the internationalist view of a genocide on every genocide. Neutrality means including all major viewpoints. LDW5432 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I'm of the opinion that attempting to abstractly define a genocide is an OR fool's errand, and that neither the intentionalist nor functionalist literature is particularly interested in that question (they care about the "how" and "why" of genocide, not the "what"). As far as calling things a genocide in Wikivoice, we should simply be following the description of the highest quality available sources, much like any other contentious label. If a preponderance of the highest quality sources call something a genocide without equivocation, so should we. If they equivocate, so should we, and if they don't call it a genocide, neither should we. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Functionalists do not argue against intent on the part of the perpetrators of the Holocaust. That would be silly. The F-I debate, as I understand it, is about where the intent lay. The Holocaust was not some kind of oopsie-whoopsie, nor a mysterious act of God's love. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This would obviously be putting our fingers on the scale in favor of one definition of genocide contrary to how RS treat the subject.

Additionally, there are far more RS arguing that treating the holocaust as a paradigmatic example of genocide has led to denial and justification of other atrocities (see Holocaust uniqueness debate and the Problems of Genocide) , than that calling other events genocide is a form of Holocaust trivialization (which is probably wp;fringe in academia). (t · c) buidhe 14:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Before you can set up criteria for calling something X, we have to agree on what the meaning of X even is. - I'm not sure this is really the case in Wikipedia. We don't have to agree on the meanings of words. Sources don't have to agree. Sources may not precisely define what they mean by a word when they use it. And we don't have access to what a word means precisely to a reader when they see it. Isn't our role to ensure that we don't corrupt things when we sample and summarize sources? A valid reason for using a word is that the reliable source uses the word. We don't need to know what they mean by it precisely, or whether that source is using precisely the same definition as another source. If two sources say something is 'not neutral' or 'right wing', we don't need to know exactly what each of them mean by 'neutral' or 'right wing' to include their statements in an article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Much of the discussion among academics is whether particular events constitute genocide in the legal sense as defined by the Genocide Convention. Katzrockso (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This question is asking for WP:OR. As genocide is a crime, we should show users the current and past legal status of a genocide accusation. Leave the determination of the crime to the court system, not the Wikipedia community. LDW5432 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Outside of the vague & generally accepted colloquial understanding of "targeted destruction of a people, in whole or in part, because of their membership of said group.", a rough definition with several caveats (what defines "a people", how to determine intent, what is the threshold for "in part", does negligence count, is it still a genocide if it's not legally determined, etc.) no.

Every genocide is unique & it isn't our job to independently determine what is or isn't a genocide, only to convey if the majority of relevant reliable sources say it is. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with Butterscotch Beluga. Wikipedia should definitely not attempt to override genuinely knowledgeable academic consensus with our own definitions. David A (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This is something that should be determined by RS and definitely not Wikipedia's editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Trying to come up with a definition and use it ourselves is only the recipe for disaster. We have to say what international bodies and courts say... and if they say contradictory things, so be it. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

As well as presenting the contradictory statements in order to maintain NPOV. LDW5432 (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

No if we use attribution. X and Y may be contradictory, but "A says X, and B says Y" makes perfect sense. Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Per-event prior debates table

TODO: Please add some of the events from list of genocides and/or Category:21st century genocide as well as events that have been proposed as genocides on Wikipedia but failed (or were never proposed) for the list. Columns:

• Listed? - currently listed at list of genocides
• Cat XXI C genocide - currently categorised in Category:21st century genocide
• Genocide in title - the word "genocide" is in the current title (whether as the result of intense debate or due to passive consensus with no objections)
• Genocide in Wikivoice - something like "is a genocide" or "was a genocide" is in the lead and is the current consensus
• ICC/ICJ case - case specifically for genocide at International Court of Justice and/or International Criminal Court, or request for/rejection of a case
• Discussions - links to the main talk page sections, AFDs, RMs, and/or RfCs related to genocide in the title or wikivoice
• Comments

Atrocity event	Dates	Listed?	Cat XXI C genocide	Genocide in title	Genocide in Wikivoice	ICC/ICJ case	Discussions	Comments
Gaza	2023–present	Y	Y	Y	Y	ICJ pending decision	...TODO..., RM Feb 2024, RfC first sentence, talk (Jimbo)	"allegations" removed from title, many editors
Uyghur	2014-present	Y	N	N	N	ICC declined case	AFD Feb 2020; RM June 2020, RM April 2021, RM 12 Jan 2024, RM 24 Jan 2024	reversed from "genocide" to "persecution"; many editors
Tigray (section) vs (standalone)	2020–2022	N	Y	Y (standalone)	Y (standalone)	Ethiopia and Eritrea not party to the ICC	talk 1	few editors
Yazidi	2014–2017	Y	Y	Y	Y	Not a party to the ICC	talk 1, talk 2, talk 3, RM 1	almost uncontested
Darfur	2003–2005	Y	Y	Y	Y	ICC guilty verdict	never contested	apparently no AFD, RM, RfC, nor even talk dispute
Amhara	XX+XXI C	N	N	N	N		talk 1, RM 1, talk 2, RfC 1 (Wikivoice?) and bold move to Massacres, RM 2 (to Persecution ...))	reversed from "genocide" to "persecution"
Hazara	XX+XXI C	N	N	N	N	ICJ genocide proceedings proposed		few editors/sources
Sectarian violence against Sunni Arabs in Iraq	XXI C	N	N	N	N		RM from "Sunni Arab genocide in Iraq"	few editors/sources
Effacer le tableau	2002–2003	Y	Y	N	N (genocide in short description)	ICC requested to review case	short description uncontested	few editors/sources
Rohingya	2016-present	Y	Y	Y	Y	ICJ pending decision	talk 1, talk 2	no AFD, RM or RfC
Hazara	XIX C	N	(pre-XXI C)	Y	Y			few editors/sources
Ukraine	2014–present	Y	Y	Y (allegations of)	N	ICJ pending decision	talk 1, talk 2	reversed from "Ukrainian genocide" to "Allegations of genocide"; meta article
Indonesia	1965–66	N	N (Asian genocide)	N	N ("sometimes described as")		talk 1 2 3 4	scholarship may evolve, possibly politicide

See my comments above on why the list of genocides inclusion criteria make it unreliable for wiki voice discussions. (t · c) buidhe 19:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I made your table sortable to allow different ways of considering the combinations. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Added Effacer le tableau (2002–2003 genocide against Congolese pygmies), which saw little talk page discussion, and weirdly isn't called "genocide" in the article's prose but is in the short description. Not sure if that should be counted as "genocide in wikivoice" or not. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's weird - it's just the effect of a low number of editors and media attention. Boud (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"Persecution of Amhara people" used to be called Amhara massacres and there was a page called "Amhara genocide" which became "Massacres of Amharas". And now all of these pages redirect to Persecution of Amhara people. LDW5432 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@LDW5432: True. But I don't understand the 'aye' in the Listed? column. It's not in the list. OK to revert to 'nay'?

We could add another column for XXI C Category?, in case we want to know how people who work on categories decide this, but the Amhara persecution is not currently in that category. This would get complicated for pre-XXI C, because the overall Category:genocides includes genocide-related topics, and we don't have XX C or XIX C categories. Boud (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I checked "aye" because it was previously titled "Amhara genocide" and there is scholarship which classifies it as a genocide. LDW5432 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@LDW5432: The aim of the table is descriptive, to make it easy to find what the current consensus is, not to debate what editorial decisions should be made, so I still don't understand. Nothing in the table stops individual articles listed above from being updated (it just may require the table here to be updated). If you can convince people who maintain or are willing to edit list of genocides that you can add the Amhara case there, then please do so, and then 'aye' in the "Listed?" column would be justified. Otherwise, I don't see how aye can remain in the "Listed?" column.

previously titled – true, but we currently have reversed from genocide to persecution in the Comments column for both the Uyghur and Amhara cases.

scholarship which classifies it as a genocide – again, this page is not the place to decide what the editing consensus should be for any particular case; it's to list the current consensuses and possibly see if it's possible to summarise the range of actual results of discussions. If those consensuses change, then the table here should be updated.

I've added definitions of the columns to make things clearer.

OK to revert to nay in the "Listed?" column for the moment for the Amhara case? Boud (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood the column headings. LDW5432 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

OK :).

I added the XXI C category column; this almost, but not quite, matches the Listed? column. Boud (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

"Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian war" used to be called "Ukrainian genocide during the Russian invasion of Ukraine". LDW5432 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This is actually a meta article, roughly equivalent to academic + legal + NGO + governmental analyses and POVs for the Gaza case, without the split into three separate articles. I don't think we should add too many meta articles, but this case is clearly useful, especially since it shows how consensus evolved from an "is-a-genocide" title to a meta titled article, better matching the actual content. Boud (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I added it because it's listed here: Category:21st century genocide LDW5432 (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure. It's also in List of. I guess what I meant is that even if people who work on List of decide to remove it and people who do categorising/decategorising decide to decategorise it, it will remain useful on this table (but need updates betweeen aye and nay). Boud (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)