Template talk:Genocide sidebar


Inclusion criteria

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

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

The business of determining what is or is not considered a genocide is not something that Wikipedia can answer considering NPOV. I explain why above. That's why all individual (alleged) examples should not be allowed in templates. The format inherently allows no nuance as to different views on whether it is a genocide. If we must list them, it should only be those not significantly disputed. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the trouble we have is that as a template, there is not much room for nuance or explanation. If we have an article listed on this template under, for example, "Contemporary Genocides" it will read to many readers like a Wikivoice conclusion to that effect, and that is the greater WP:NPOV problem than what you describe.
One option is to take a strict view and say if the article does not have "genocide" in its title, it does not belong in the template. This has appeal to me, because articles involving allegations of genocide often have hotly contested titles requiring RfCs and so forth, so we could have a measure of security that the positions have been vetted and discussed at length. This is also good because article titles that have been couched in terms of "allegations" or "questions" (like Israel-Palestine, Holodomor, predictions in Ethiopia, and others) -- readers will understand at a glance that in those instances we are not taking a Wikivoice stance. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only two options that make sense to me are: 1.) Including indisputable genocides only 2.) Including all cases where a significant minority allege it 3.) Include none at all @JArthur1984: @Buidhe:.
This could be done by:
  • Including indisputable genocides only. Meaning that they fit under both a "narrow" and "loose" definition of the term. (The Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide)
  • Including events that are heavily contested and may even fall under a narrow conception of the term. (California, Holodomor, Congo Free State, etc.)
  • Including events that a minority — but not majority — of scholars hold as genocide. (Allegations of Ukrainian/Transgender genocide; discussions surrounding the European colonization of South Africa, Americas, and Oceania.)
I do however worry that only include "indisputable" cases, could, as mentioned above, also introduce a bias of its own towards a "narrow" conception of the term. KlayCax (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am concerned about your last point as well . Which is why I'm against including any examples because there is no way to do it and follow NPOV.
Note that the title does not work as a cop out. There are cases where there is consensus to use genocide in the title but not in wiki voice (ie Uyghur genocide). There are cases where only a minority of sources about the event mention genocide but editors decide to make it the title based on the sources that do (Libyan genocide) (t · c) buidhe 21:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m becoming more interested in your position. But what would the template look like if there were no specific instances? Would it essentially be the ‘issues’ section?
On the specific example you cite here, the title of the article concerning China’s maltreatment of Uyghurs is now Persecution of Uyghurs in China following an extensive RfC. So at least this instance was fixed and the article is no longer named after the minority view. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the template should focus on genocide studies topics such as different types of genocides, different aspects, definitions, the legal aspects of the genocide crime (such as incitement, complicity, intent, and denial), and broader questions such as the causes and effects of genocide, rather than mainly being a list of historical events that are often characterized as genocide. Some of these articles are already listed in the first segment of the template, "issues". Another issue with the focus on events is that it can lead to the misleading assumption that genocide can be separated from the wars and other conflicts during which it usually takes place. Increasingly, this is a paradigm that is questioned by genocide researchers. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all. Tagging @Buidhe: and @JArthur1984: to see if this is alright.
Alternatively, we could make a "tier-ed" system, with "indisputable", "sometimes", and "minority" sections. I removed all for the time being however. KlayCax (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the approach of your change better than a "tier" approach. your approach seems consistent with what @Buidhe suggested as well. I have no objection to this approach JArthur1984 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with removing all the examples, which the infobox is meant to reflect and cover. I think maintaining the status quo or implementing a "tier" approach is more appropriate. I've restored the last stable version until a firm consensus is reached. Archives908 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What examples should be kept, @Archives908:? KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the "indisputable" and "sometimes" cases. "Minority" ones can get the cut if everyone else agrees to it. I also like your "tier" suggestion. Archives908 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we determine each authoritively? Should allegations of transgender genocide be included? Allegations of Ukrainian?
It seems to me that this will just become an unending battle ground. We already have a list of genocides article we could link too. I don't see the point of listing every possible one. KlayCax (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the tier-idea. I just don't see how there's a way to do it. What is a majority, disputed, and a minority opinion isn't always so clear, and there's not many reliable sources to give a definite list on each.
There's also been so many events in history that at least a minority of scholars consider as such: a full list will likely evolve to become just clutter. Having a simple link to a "list" works much better.
At least imo. KlayCax (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any way to implement tiers without breaching WP:NOR. In many cases you won't be able to find a source that says explicitly whether something is a minority view or not. Let's say Dersim massacre—how would you classify it? (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, I agree with you. At best, this is going to lead to endless Wikilawyering and misinterpretations. At worst, it's going to actively mislead people. KlayCax (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that is precisely why I am not opposed to maintaining the current status quo (at least for the time being). We could also wait, and give other editors the opportunity to chime in and provide feedback. Perhaps there is an alternative that neither of us have yet considered. A possible "tier" system can be ironed out/developed here on talk or on a willing participants sandbox. The proposal template with the new "tier" system could then be reviewed and adjusted accordingly per community consensus. For possible conflicts which may arise, an WP:RFC can be launched to obtain a WP:3O. It'll take time, and perhaps a much lengthy case-by-case discussion will need to be had, but it's not an impossible task. Regardless of how this proceeds, I don't believe blanket deletion is the best scenario here, when we haven't exhausted these other options, and certainly not while there is no consensus for it. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to hearing alternative & more ideas. But if we have to choose one of the current options: a simple link to list of genocides seems to the best option to me.
There's been, unfortunately, so many genocides in history that I think any "listing" only serves to crowd out the most important parts of the template. KlayCax (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example tier-list, @Archives908:, @Buidhe:, and @JArthur1984:.
This list seems right to my mind. However, there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources on what is or is not generally considered to be, outside of specific instances.
It's either something similar to this or none at all. Which seems better? (Unless someone new suggests something.) KlayCax (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can however see the Maafa as a minority opinion as well. But this once again stresses that there's no real way to say what's a majority or minority opinion in many instances. Roger Garaudy and Adam Jones have argued that it could be classified as such. (Note that Garaudy is a Holocaust denier and is discredited. Adam Jones is however a well-regarded scholar of genocide.) KlayCax (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to curate that. I have no objections to its implementation. Archives908 (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft shows why the entire concept is WP:OR. For example, if I go to the Residential schools in Canada article I can't find any mention that genocide is a minority view. The article seems to imply the opposite, suggesting that cultural genocide is accepted and "the debate about whether the Canadian government also committed physical and biological genocide against Indigenous populations remains open". Most of the others covered there also don't have sources that support the "tier" they have been placed in.
Furthermore under Universal you have "
However, I could cite significant disputes about several of these (depending on whether you are talking about academic, political, or other controversy). While we can talk about an academic consensus with regards to the Armenian genocide, its acknowledgement is hardly universal. Worse, none of these articles contain any claim that they are universally acknowledged as genocide. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best we can do, @Buidhe:. (Without getting into the weeds on why I chose to place one event here or another there.) It's this or nothing.
Settler colonialism as a process in of itself being genocidal is a minority opinion. Whether certain events were genocidal may be majority opinions. KlayCax (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the infobox is (in my mind) implicitly reflects the opinions of historians. Rather than politicians, commentators, or the opinions of the general public. (e.g. In Turkey, there may be a reason to downplay the Armenian genocide. In Ukraine, a reason to upscale the Holodomor beyond the historical consensus, and so on and so forth.) KlayCax (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect this analysis as an intellectual exercise, but I am becoming increasingly convinced by @Buidhe‘s perspective that the only way to avoid OR and SYNTH, and therefore comply fully with our policies, is to avoid specific examples and focus on the broader aspects of the topic and studies. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. Archives908 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? We are not allowed to put original research into reader-facing templates, per policy. Even so, the Armenian genocide is not universally acknowledged among historians either, and many of these on the "universal" list have less consensus behind them than that. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the favor of it remaining, either, @Buidhe:, but if other editors are going to contest removal than "perfect is the enemy of good". KlayCax (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And OR is the enemy of the encyclopedic... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The version you reverted to also does WP: OR. Because it "ranks" genocides as disputed or not.
If this version doesn't work, then let's just delete it and redirect to list of genocides. KlayCax (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that I oppose both versions. If they both contain WP:OR, the only solution is to go to a version that does not contain the policy violation. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's do that, @Buidhe:. I know several editors here have stated they'll revert any attempt to remove it, however. KlayCax (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone" does not agree that your version is superior. HEB and I both disagree with that proposition. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it inferior to the previous version? Both versions use some form of WP: OR. I assumed it was reverted based off of WP: OR.
There's likely no way to make a list like this (without excluding things). I'm okay if it's removed entirely. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible that both have some amount of OR, but in my opinion it is much more severe in your version. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just remove everything. Far easier. KlayCax (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this removal. The template has already been reduced significantly. I don't see any issue maintaining a few of the more prominent/ near universally recognized examples for reference. I think its best not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Archives908 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're correct that there is no consensus for inclusion of the list of examples, I would agree that they should be removed. Wikipedia:ONUS means we should not include the list without consensus, even if it may be verifiable that some people have called these events genocides. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Buidhe:.
I'm of the opinion that the usage of genocide in general needs to be significantly restricted on Wikipedia. The term itself is without consensus. Yet we're weaving articles such as the Cambodian genocide (which while horrendous arguably didn't target people based on the necessary characteristics to meet it), "settler colonial genocides" such as Australia/America/Canada (which often fails the "exterminationist" definitions of the term), and the Ukrainian Holodomor as genocide in Wikivoice.
Even among the present list: many scholars do not consider the events genocide. (Even in mainstream historiography/non-denialist historians)
For instance, the well-respected historian Peter Cozzens argued in 2016 that:

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

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

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

and that:

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

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

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

Despite this, the Cambodian genocide is presently classified as "genocide" in Wikivoice without context, which is sloppy scholarship at best.
No one (rightfully) wants to be seen as a genocide denier. So the scope of the term has ballooned on Wikipedia over the past five years. If one scholar uses the term: articles are being entirely rewritten in light of that to prevent any form of "genocide denial" from being expressed.
I don't know the solution to this. But it's a real problem... and getting worse. (See my comments on Native American genocide in the United States, Holodomor, California genocide, and Cambodian genocide above.) None of these things are a historical consensus.
Or, if there is a consensus, it's a "yes under one definition but no under the other". A lot of articles need rewritten to inform readers of the differing definitions of genocide. Right now, the problem is getting worse and worse, and there's no resolution in sight. KlayCax (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I've been arguing for years that any list of genocides will inherently fail NPOV. If we pick a particular definition, that's a form of bias as well. Instead these lists should be modeled off the ethnic cleansing list which does not make the claim in wiki voice. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like pearl clutching... We just link genocide where all the nuance you just mentioned is disussed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that fixes the problem of labeling events as "genocide" when this is often a "seriously contested assertion" per NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

break

  • I reverted back to the more inclusive template as templates are meant to be useful for navigation purposes. Ultimately, whether something is truly a genocide should be a question for the article. The template should include topics that a reader may be reasonably construed to be looking for in connection to genocide.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, by listing them in the template like so we are putting the claim that these events are genocide in wiki voice. I suppose that the wording could be changed to avoid any such implications. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's no consensus for any of this. The large majority of editors here affirm that it's a WP: OR problem and want it removed. The list now once again implicitly asserts that some things are genocide while others aren't.
    Can you revert your edit in the meantime, @Vice regent:? KlayCax (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worse than that, @Buidhe:. It also implicitly argues that things aren't genocide in Wikivoice. A ranked tier or removing everything is the only possible options per Wikipedia rules/guidelines.
    The present template is a walking violation of Wikipedia policy. KlayCax (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they need to revert their edit? Clearly, there is still no general consensus on what to do, yet you insist on maintaining your preferred version. A gentle reminder, that no one WP:OWN's this template. Per WP:BRD- your "B"old edit has been "R"everted more than once since the last stable version of the template (as of 16 May 2024). No new changes should be made until a consensus has been reached. If one cannot be found, I endorse launching an RFC for more feedback. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there was a clear local consensus for your version, archives, that doesn't override the core content policies. (t · c) buidhe 16:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD is also policy- which some seem to be forgetting. Also, any feedback on my RFC suggestion? I had previously suggested it on 21 May in this very thread, but was totally ignored. For the record, I agree with Vice regent on this matter. Templates are meant to be useful for navigation purposes and whether an atrocity should be classified as a "genocide" is an issue that should indeed be discussed, but on that respective article's talk page- not here. Archives908 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD is not a policy. It's not even a guideline, it's an essay. Templates are content in mains pace and are therefore required to follow content policies. (t · c) buidhe 18:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a strategy used by many to build consensus, to civilly discuss, and to help avoid making a total muck on edit histories.
    Per WP:TMP, templates are primarily used as a tool for readers to navigate between articles. Whether every single atrocity in the history of humankind may or may not constitute as "genocide" is not a debate to be held on this particular talk page. Archives908 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, your interpretation is contradicted by WP:NPOV, which states explicitly that it applies to templates, categories, and other content displayed in mainspace. (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: "I suppose that the wording could be changed to avoid any such implications." Can you please suggest alternate wording? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have List of ethnic cleansing campaigns, which makes clear that the scope of the list is events that are called ethnic cleansing by at least one reliable source. The issues that led to the list's scope are similar to what we see with genocide related lists. So if the template had a header specifying events called genocides, that would fix the pov and or issues, although it would be unworkable for other reasons. (t · c) buidhe 16:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe:, why would it be unworkable? Is it that it would be too long? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of events that have been called genocide by at least one reliable source is very long, and it is not at all obvious why that is a useful list for navigation purposes. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the inclusion criteria at List of genocides and Genocides in history? Could we use one of those criteria here? VR (Please ping on reply) 05:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of genocides claims its criteria is "significant scholarship" stating something is a genocide. But what does that even mean and how could we determine that objectively? As pointed out in that discussion, there is often no historical consensus about which events are genocides. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe so are you then suggesting that List of genocides article runs afoul of NPOV? Because for this sidebar we have two options an both options have List of genocides at the very top. I do think we need some list of genocides.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were in charge, I would re-do the list to match the criteria on list of ethnic cleansing campaigns (described as such in at least one reliable source). I would make it clear that an entry on the list doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia endorses the view that it was a genocide. I would try to make sure, as much as the sourcing allows, every entry gives some idea of how widespread the genocide view is and any explicit dissent if noteworthy. The existing list is not perfect, but it does capture some of this nuance: for example, one entry states, "Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war." None of this nuance is possible to include in a navigation template. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems we need an RfC to resolve this. In the meantime can we go to the last stable-ish version (say this one)? Before we start the RfC, we should agree upon ourselves to limit the possibilities to 2-3 versions and then present these versions to the community for input.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed- the last stable version should be reinstated until consensus is established following the RFC. And thanks for starting the discussion below! Archives908 (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

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

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

Pre-RFC discussion

Here are what are I think the two competing versions.

Competing versions

Criticism of above versions

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

I agree with your suggestion. Since there has been no other feedback, shall we proceed with the RFC? Archives908 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908 sorry for being busy. I want to conclude my discussion with buidhe above first. Please ping me again in a few days? Thanks for your patience.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, VR. Just following up to see if you want to begin the RFC now? Archives908 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image for sidebar

Hello everyone! I've seen that there have been conflicting opinions on the image for the sidebar for a little over a year.

The original image is here:

Other proposed images have included:


For now, I have placed back the original image that was added by Red-tailed hawk and has been present since 29 March 2022. In my opinion, this image is of higher quality than the other images and provides a more universal image on genocide with the imagery of various human skulls.

For this reason, I've placed the image back. Do we need to have a more broad discussion on which image to use? If so, please provide a way for us to do this. WMrapids (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The skulls images are inherently misleading because they reinforce the popular perception that genocide = death. Whereas most things that cause large scale death are not genocides and genocide according to most definitions can occur without anyone being killed.
It is wrong to suggest that skulls are "a universal image on genocide". There are not any universal images of genocide, according to my research; all of the concrete features that could be pictured vary widely. I am skeptical that any decontextualized image can accurately depict the topic, so I would prefer no image. After all, the entire point of the sidebar is supposed to be... navigation. (t · c) buIdhe 23:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: While I somewhat agree, the image of skulls resulting from a genocide is an accurate representation of a "destruction of a people through targeted violence", though it may be extreme display. What I mean by "universal image" is that those unidentified skulls of a people could be anyone, that the image does not have any political connotations surrounding it and that this photo is of good quality. Simply put, it shows the results of a "destruction of a people". While it may not capture all the elements of genocide (it's difficult in general to have images that capture the totality of a subject), I do believe it represents genocide well.
Having no image is a good option too, but I'd like to see if further discussion brings about any other ideas. WMrapids (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, because there is no cause of death shown. Large numbers of skulls are statistically more likely to be a result of a deadly disease, military battle, famine, or even a non-genocide mass killing. (t · c) buIdhe 19:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Genocide