Template talk:Genocide topics

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)