Wikipedia:Genocide

Case-by-case consensus

Achieving consensus on the use of the word "genocide" to represent a mass atrocity event in Wikivoice or in an article title is likely to vary for two main types of reasons. First, scholars of genocide are continuing to debate definitions of genocide, some that go beyond the 1948 Genocide Convention. Second, there is geographical bias on Wikipedia in terms of editors and in reliable source availability. For example, the Masalit genocide and Gaza genocide both started in 2023, but as of late December 2025, the Gaza page has about 20 times as many edits as the Masalit page, and the Gaza talk page has about 50 times as many edits as the Masalit talk page. Individual editorial debate is likely to vary a lot from case to case for both of these reasons, ranging from no debate at all to thousands of talk-page edits. Despite this variation, several recurring arguments tend to lead to very similar consensus.

Threshold of consensus

There is no formal threshold defining what fraction of the best (preferably scholarly) sources constitutes consensus; this requires editorial judgement. The use of "genocide" in Wikivoice or for an article title should be based on the WP:WEIGHT of the ensemble of reliable sources. WP:NPOV may block these if the minority opinion is considered strong enough, to be judged on a case-by-case basis. The inclusion of a minority opinion that an atrocity event is not a genocide may constitute WP:FALSEBALANCE (see also: WP:FRINGE), and in some cases might in effect be genocide denial.

Arguments and sources to use

Scholarly opinions

The strongest short-term (less than a few years) argument likely to achieve consensus is a significant body of scholarly opinion published in reliable sources. In the short term, this may include public statements reliably attributed to genocide scholars or scholars in related disciplines. In the longer term, peer-reviewed research articles or books by scholars will have more weight.

If the list of scholarly sources is long, then creating a list such as {{Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate}} may help provide an overview of the sources, but scholars' own summaries, such as those of the IAGS or the International Network of Genocide Scholars, are likely to take precedence over Wikipedians' own summary of the scholarly sources.

Court decisions

The strongest long-term (many years) argument likely to achieve consensus for Wikivoice usage of "genocide" (but probably not for modifying a title debate; example: Srebrenica massacre) is a a decision by an international court such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court, or the International Court of Justice.

Human rights investigative bodies

Human rights investigative bodies, whose expertise may include not just international human rights law (IHRL) but also international criminal law (ICL), are likely to be seen as weaker sources than scholars and courts, but may be accepted. These include, for example, United Nations (UN) bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN special rapporteurs, or human-rights non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.

Genocidal intent

While Wikipedians' opinions of the intent of the alleged perpetrators is irrelevant, debate about what the reliable scholarly sources say about genocidal intent is relevant, especially since intent is more difficult to establish than the atrocity itself.

If these sources use their assertion of genocidal intent to infer that the overall event is "genocide", then this is likely to be accepted as an argument in favour of the use of the word "genocide" in Wikivoice.

Arguments and sources to avoid

Governments

The opinions of governments, especially the government of the country allegedly responsible for a mass atrocity, are irrelevant for debates on the article title or the use of Wikivoice to state that a genocide occurred or is occurring. The opinions of governments can be used within an appropriate section of the article to describe their opinions (such as a "Reactions" section), or split off such as Gaza genocide recognition.

Media

Mainstream media that are reliable sources are usually considered as poor sources for deciding on the use of "genocide" in Wikivoice (one semi-exception was for the Rohingya genocide in January 2021; in this case, human rights organisations agreed on the term "genocide"). This is primarily because of an empirical pattern of pro-government bias in the mainstream Western media, likely similar pro-government biases in the media of non-Western democracies and low reliability in the media of non-democracies.

However, mainstream media reliable sources may be acceptable for the use of "genocide" in title debates, for seeking the English-language common name of an event.

Wikipedians' opinions of genocidal intent

While sources that establish genocidal intent can be used to refer to "genocidal intent" in Wikivoice, they cannot be used to establish "genocide" in Wikivoice, unless those sources also present their own interpretation of the overall event as "genocide". Making this inference by Wikipedians would be original research, which is not acceptable.

Similarly, sources should not be excluded just because they do not discuss genocidal intent. Especially if they are scholarly ones that interpret the event as a genocide.

Ongoing court decisions

The fact that an ICL legal case is still ongoing is unlikely to be accepted as an argument against the use of "genocide" in Wikivoice or a title debate. The WP:BLPCRIME policy applies to individuals accused of genocide, but is unlikely to apply to an overall atrocity event prior to a court decision, since the scholarly source consensus on an event as a genocide rarely attributes direct responsibility to a single individual. The scholarly sources will often attribute political or moral responsibility to the seniormost person politically responsible for the suspected perpetrators, in which case WP:BLPPUBLIC is likely to apply.

Personal opinions

Structured Wikipedia decision-making uses WP:!VOTEs, which should based on wp:RELIABLE SOURCES or policies not personal opinions. In a debate about the use of "genocide" in the title or in Wikivoice about the mass atrocity against the people of XXXXX, the uninvolved person who closes a debate will discount !votes of the form "There is no XXXX genocide" or "What's happening to XXXX is terrible, I think we should call it a genocide".

Further, personal opinions about similarity of events such as "Wikipedia calls YYYY a genocide which is a lot like XXXX, so XXXX is a genocide" or "XXXX isn't a genocide because YYYY isn't" are not productive.

Personal opinion also includes perceived bias in sources – or lack there of. While this may well be be true in some cases we must follow reliable sources and are not here to wp:RIGHT GREAT WRONGS.

Expect your !VOTE to be ignored if this is its only contribution.

Title and Wikivoice arguments overlap but differ

While many of the arguments to use or avoid in this context strongly overlap, some differ.

For titles, the question of whether a WP:COMMONNAME exists will be debated. This may include debate whether XXXX genocide is a WP:POVNAME, a common name that is acceptable despite being non-NPOV (such as antigravity or Alexander the Great), versus evidence justifying XXXX genocide as an NPOV descriptive name under WP:NDESC. The balance between WP:POVNAME versus WP:NDESC may fail to achieve consensus, in which case the strength of sourcing may be the decisive factor.

Evolution of Wikipedia consensus

During the early stages of an atrocity event, or the early stages of its documentation in Wikipedia, the use of "genocide" in Wikivoice or in the article title may change. Some may also change many years after the event starts. Often, consensus will initially be achieved by the expression allegations of genocide by XXXX in YYYY in Wikivoice or a title, or XXXX genocide may be changed to Persecution of the XXXX-an people. Making proposals (WP:RMs or WP:RfCs) such as these may help cut short otherwise lengthy debates on a case which lacks consensus on what the sources say.

Prior debates

Previous debates on specific mass-atrocity articles, a non-systematic selection of which are listed below, do not constrain future debates about the use of the word "genocide" in mass atrocity articles. However, they may give useful predictions of arguments and sources that are likely to be accepted or rejected.

• Listed? - currently listed at list of genocides
• Cat XXI C genocide - currently categorised in Category:21st-century_genocides; if the event occurred pre-XXI-C, add a text note if it's in another genocide category
• 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
Masalit	2023	N	Y	Y	Y	Y ICJ case rejected	RM 2023 RM Feb 2025 RM Oct 2025	genocide to massacre to genocide
El Fasher	2025	N	N genocide of indigenous peoples in Africa	N	N	Y ICC collecting evidence		as of Nov 2025, too recent for much editorial debate
Darfur (2023–present)	2023–present	N	Y	Y	Y	N nothing in article; see Masalit + El Fasher	created as "genocide" in SPLIT	overview including Masalit + El Fasher
Gaza	2023–present	Y	Y	Y	Y	ICJ pending decision	..., RM Feb 2024, RM May–July 2024 to title without allegations + MR July 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)	2003–2005	Y	Y	Y	Y	ICC charges	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 sources list, talk 3	no AFD, RM or RfC
Srebrenica	1995	NCurrently described as a massacre within the Bosnian genocide	N(pre-XXI C)Bosnian genocide	N	Y	NICTY case	2009 RM, 2021 RM, May 2024 RM, June 2024 RM+MR	title stayed "genocide" under WP:COMMONNAME; genocide in Wikivoice
Hazara	XIX C	N	N(pre-XXI C)	Y	Y			few editors/sources; estimated as a 60% genocide
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
Anfal campaign	1988	Y	N (Asian/indigenous peoples genocide)	N	N	Local trials with convictions	2021 RM (genocide to campaign)	reversed from "genocide" to "campaign". Minimal participation in RM