Talk:List of genocides/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

List looks very inconsistent and biased

From a brief look it includes also deported peoples in the numbers (like in genocides by Russia/USSR), and it doesn't include the largest genocide in history - by settlers of Americas, where 12 - 20 million people died

== Native American genocide While the huge a number of deaths of Native Americans is tragic, this is not genocide according to the UN definition, "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." You cannot sum up the acts of various individuals and groups acting independently and for different reasons over hundreds of years as having some intent to destroy the culture, even if that was the result.

You are certainly correct in that simply pointing at the huge death toll and broadly stating that "this is all a genocide" would be incorrect and inaccurate, it is absolutely incorrect to imply that many of the instances which took place during America's westward expansion after the revolution did not rise to the definition of genocide. There has long been a decided lack of scholarly work done on this very subject, in part the result of agency of American exceptionalism and a collective unwillingness to confront some of the more unpleasant aspects of the American historical record. This, along with attitudes, is beginning to change and a growing body of scholarly work is now being done in an attempt to give a voice to the millions of poor souls who never had one. The details of the American/California genocide have been well documented and certainly rise to the definition of genocide. It was also the first to be widely recognized as such because it was rather low-hanging fruit in the genocide field, so to speak;

• California governor Peter Hardeman Burnett is on record calling for the extermination of the "Indian race" on the floor of the state legislature - multiple times
• The state of California had established bounties and paid set rates for proof of death of men, women and children
• The US federal authorities also paid these bounties to hired killers in California, receipts of which still exist today
• US federal forces were loaned out for use by California state officials for use in their extermination campaign
• California history records a litany of small, local conflicts during the era, called names like "The Mendocino County War" and so on, which were little more than euphemistic names for what in reality were acts of slaughter, usually against unarmed elderly, women and children, in native settlements where the men were away in resistance groups.

All of this, of course, was fueled by explosion of unrestricted mercantilism in the context of the gold rush which was taking place in the newly won state, recently and forcibly taken from Mexico. And yet in spite of the glaring evidence in support of this affair being a genocide, it was completely covered up or ignored by historians for decades. Its characterization as a genocide is still hotly resisted by many today who refuse to believe it or who believe that the quotes attributed to Burnett were "faked" along with receipts and legal/historical documents, etc. It is interesting to note that men like Peter Hardeman Burnett are still held in high regard as great historical figures and patriarchs, even in the official historical record of California. In just about every other nation on earth, Burnett would have been stripped of any historical accolades and called for what he was, a bloody, murderous architect of genocide. But American exceptionalism being what it is, this did not happen and probably will not happen. Any official change in the way which Burnett is viewed will be done as quietly and discreetly as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daystrom (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I have to disagree. The extermination of the local population was an intended consequence of the colonization of the Americas. This is evidenced by: bounties put on the scalps of natives (Penobscot, Abenaki, et al), intentional distribution of smallpox infected items (Iroquois, Abenaki, and several other peoples), local government campaigns of extermination (King Philips War, Lenape Wars, Jamestown campaigns, et al) and US Government campaigns of extermination (Trail of Tear, Seminole Wars, Plains Wars, Western Campaigns and many many many more). The undisputed purpose of these actions was to eliminate the local populations to make the land available to the colonists that resulted in the deaths of 90% if the native population...a classic definition of Genocide. The only argument that can be made (and was made by the colonists of the time) is that the natives weren't "people" so it doesn't count...not a great argument. You can't brush off the truth just because it is uncomfortable. We need to include the lengthy and, in some cases, continued extermination of native peoples in the Americas on Wikipedia. Hawkeye762 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Hawkeye

Other Indigenous American genocides to add?

• Indian Removal or the Trail of Tears

Following the Indian Removal Act of 1830 the American government began forcibly relocating East Coast tribes across the Mississippi. The removal included many members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, among others in the United States, from their homelands to Indian Territory in eastern sections of the present-day state of Oklahoma. About 2,500–6,000 died along the Trail of Tears. Chalk and Jonassohn assert that the deportation of the Cherokee tribe along the Trail of Tears would almost certainly be considered an act of genocide today. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 led to the exodus. About 17,000 Cherokees, along with approximately 2,000 Cherokee-owned black slaves, were removed from their homes. The number of people who died as a result of the Trail of Tears has been variously estimated. American doctor and missionary Elizur Butler, who made the journey with one party, estimated 4,000 deaths.

Historians such as David Stannard and Barbara Mann have noted that the army deliberately routed the march of the Cherokee to pass through areas of a known cholera epidemic, such as Vicksburg. Stannard estimates that during the forced removal from their homelands, following the Indian Removal Act signed into law by President Andrew Jackson in 1830, 8,000 Cherokee died, about half the total population. copied from: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Indian_Removal_and_the_Trail_of_Tears

though there is some dispute...

Historical views of Indian removal have been reevaluated since that time. Widespread contemporary acceptance of the policy, due in part to the popular embrace of the concept of manifest destiny, has given way to a more-somber perspective. The removals have been described by historians to paternalism, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. Historian David Stannard has called it genocide, while Guenter Lewy has rejected this characterization. ... Andrew Jackson's reputation has been negatively impacted by his treatment of the Indians. Historians who admire Jackson's strong presidential leadership, such as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., would gloss over the Indian Removal in a footnote. In 1969, Francis Paul Prucha wrote that Jackson's removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the hostile white environment of the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved them. Jackson was sharply attacked by political scientist Michael Rogin and historian Howard Zinn during the 1970s, primarily on this issue; Zinn called him an "exterminator of Indians". According to historians Paul R. Bartrop and Steven L. Jacobs, however, Jackson's policies do not meet the criteria for physical or cultural genocide. copied from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Indian_removal#Changed_perspective

• Decimation of the Taíno

Acts of brutality and systematic annihilation against the Taíno People of the Caribbean prompted Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas to write Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias ('A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies') in 1542—an account that had a wide impact throughout the western world as well as contributing to the abolition of indigenous slavery in all Spanish territories the same year it was written. Las Casas wrote that the native population on the Spanish colony of Hispaniola had been reduced from 400,000 to 200 in a few decades. His writings were among those that gave rise to Spanish Black Legend, which Charles Gibson describes as "the accumulated tradition of propaganda and Hispanophobia according to which the Spanish Empire is regarded as cruel, bigoted, degenerate, exploitative and self-righteous in excess of reality". Historian Andrés Reséndez at the University of California, Davis asserts that even though disease was a factor, the indigenous population of Hispaniola would have rebounded the same way Europeans did following the Black Death if it were not for the constant enslavement they were subject to. He says that "among these human factors, slavery was the major killer" of Hispaniola's population, and that "between 1492 and 1550, a nexus of slavery, overwork and famine killed more natives in the Caribbean than smallpox, influenza or malaria." Noble David Cook, writing about the Black Legend conquest of the Americas wrote, "There were too few Spaniards to have killed the millions who were reported to have died in the first century after Old and New World contact." He instead estimates that the death toll was caused by diseases like smallpox, which according to some estimates had an 80–90% fatality rate in Native American populations. However, historian Jeffrey Ostler has argued that Spanish colonization created conditions for disease to spread, for example, "careful studies have revealed that it is highly unlikely that members" of Hernando de Soto's 1539 expedition in the American South "had smallpox or measles. Instead, the disruptions caused by the expedition increased vulnerability of Native people to diseases including syphilis and dysentery, already present in the Americas, and malaria, a disease recently introduced from the eastern hemisphere." from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

References

Possibly the biggest genocide in history 50-100 million lives yet we appear to have stumbled. HuttonIT (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The Holocaust (1941-1945)

The minimum estimated number currently listed is too low. It was revised downward by X-Editor on Jan. 8, 2022. However, contrary to what the editor stated, this estimate is outdated. In fact, Yad Vashem's Jewish victims names database has amassed a list of 4.8 million names and most modern estimates actually have revised upward to over 6 million. Therefore, the original 5.1 million should stand as the low estimate and the edit reverted.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/01/25/archivists-are-racing-to-identify-every-jewish-holocaust-victim

--theraefactor (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

About Kazakh

please Kazakh genocide add Kazakh famine of 1931-1933 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilkhan Utepov (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Indigenous people in USA

130 million Indigenous people in USA were killed by Europeans through slavery, rape, and war, making it the largest genocide in history despite authorities refusing to call it one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.82.254 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no question that within the framework of the colonization of the western world, i.e., North, Central and South America, there occurred the largest collected assemblage of genocidal acts in the history of mankind, all of which were rooted in the same general cause, namely said colonization. In fact if one were to back back out the focus, away from just the so-called 'New World', acts of European colonization in general throughout the globe (Africa, Asia, etc) resulted in a global death toll of staggering proportions with numbers which would be hard to get your head around. All of this was a result of a perfect storm which consisted of the birth of the age of mercantilism coupled with the invention of gunpowder-based firearms and advancements in seafaring technology. In fact, it is interesting to note that for all the deservedly bad press that the institution of aristocracy gets, it was the waning and the ultimate failure of these archaic institutions which led directly to the rapid rise of European colonialism, underpinned by the rapidly expanding wealth of the merchant classes and a nascent middle class, agencies which were completely new to the power dynamic in most European countries - and this could be traced back to the power shift which began taking place after the apocalyptic Black Death. But I digress...

You are quite correct that there has been both a concerted and an unconscious effort to obfuscate responsibility for what took place by European and local North American polities. All of this coupled with the agencies of national loyalty, jingoism, American exceptionalist, etc, have conspired to quite thoroughly and completely sweep the unpleasant truth about the horrible crimes which took place neatly back into the ashbin of history. And while these agencies are still very strong, things and more importantly, attitudes, are beginning to change. It is important that we are now beginning to deconstruct what occurred in an organized and scholarly way, identifying the individual acts of genocide which took place and providing peer-reviewed research and data to in order to support the history of these forgotten peoples. For too long it was convenient for those who were in power to simply try and hide the crimes which occurred by just placing them within the sweeping context of "bad things will happen" but it was mostly the other guy (Spanish, British, etc). Both Europeans and the new nations which came after must own their part in these horrific crimes. And I am confident that they will, although it will take time. But at least things are moving in the right direction.

Daystrom (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Native american geocide

Where is the number of native american people lost in the genocide? 74.211.60.165 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What was agreed above is that what happened in the Americas is treated as multiple different genocides. So, there isn’t a single row for the Native American genocide, but there are rows for the California genocide etc. I think some Native American genocides haven’t been added yet, even though we’ve talked about them here. Bondegezou (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Holodomor

Add Holodomor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7d8e:5300:8487:c9d6:b8a7:44a9 (talk)

Holodomor and the Soviet deportations are not considered genocide by most Historians. Holodomor could be moved to a list saying it is disputed since a minority of scholars like Timothy Snyder and a number of Ukrainian historians have recently argued against the consensus, but the deportations are not considered genocides by any scholars that I'm aware of, and are usually considered ethnic cleansing without genocidal intent, and would more properly belong in a section on ethnic cleansing or forced population transfers.Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant to put this under this section rather than the native American one. Taking the liberty of moving it. I've read some of the modern literature on this and they indicate that the labeling of the famines as genocides is historical revisionism equivocating fascism and Leninism, and downplaying the Holocaust. There is an archived discussion where I go further into this. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora has long labeled Holodomor as genocide and some scholars started putting forward this perspective in the 1980s but after the opening of the Soviet archives Robert Conquest retracted his claim that there was intentional killing of Ukrainians, and both the terror-famine thesis and those explicitly calling it genocide have been in a minority ever since. There has been a recent revival by academics at Harvard's Ukrainian Research Institute who rely on memoirs of survivors to try to rehabilitate the genocide claim, but this has been much more impactful on public opinion than academia. As it stands you have Harvard's program (heavily funded by conservative Ukrainian NGOs) where many (but not all, Hiraoki Kuromiya iirc is a notable exception) claim that the Holodomor is genocide, while almost every scholar outside of Ukraine disagrees. (And Ukrainian scholars hold heterodox views on many other things relevant to nationalism).

The Stalinist deportations on the other hand, are not really considered genocides by anyone. They're considered clear-cut ethnic cleansing, but not genocide. As it stands both Holodomor and the deportations are on the list despite this not conforming to the consensus of historians. Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That is closer to the arguments of Douglas Tottle than any indication about academic consensus on the subject. The propaganda argument is based on labelling and demonizing “Ukrainian nationalist diaspora,” while ignoring academia with false statements about “consensus.” Holodomor studies is a legitimate and established field within genocide studies. —Michael Z. 19:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We cannot compare Tottle, a propagandist who insisted the famine itself didn't happen, to the large body of work by scholars in several countries who have tried to use archival evidence to come to an accurate characterization of the famine. Many scholars have commented on the existence of this divide between Ukrainian scholars, and the majority of non-Ukrainian specialists. You might try to make an argument for why Ukrainian scholars might be better authorities, but that would still not make them a majority of the field.

There is academic writing on how Ukrainian diaspora NGOs, many with WW2 era Fascists among their founders, have played a heavy role in the formation of nationalistic mythologizing of Ukrainian history in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution. Per Anders Rudling and John-Paul Himka have peer-reviewed materials on this topic. Ukraine is far from alone in having nationalism influence their historiography.

Do you have any similar objections to my point on the fact that the Stalinist deportations are not considered genocides? Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't like the "mixing of the cards" that is trying to attach the genocide label to any great dying, since it waters down the term. We should be very precise, and in particular I think we should follow the UN's definition which crucially requires intent. For example I've seen texts calling the US invasion of Iraq a genocide for killing over a million Iraqis. But the US' intent, however horrible, was never to wipe out the Iraqi nation. KetchupSalt (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

There are three categories of important definitions of genocide: academic, political, and legal. The genocide convention is not retroactive, so academic definitions become more important pre 1948, and political definitions for the modern implications.

That said, there are solid academic sources citing historical evidence about the intentionality of the Holodomor (e.g., Roman Serbyn’s 2007 “Smoking Gun” article).[1] —Michael Z. 16:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting source. It supports the point about incompetence that I have raised here previously, as for example Kossior does not have accurate information about the situation on the ground until it is much too late. Stalin's criticism backs this up. Unless both Kossior and Stalin are lying, which is possible. It also serves as a useful critique of Stalin's view on the national question, as Ukrainization seems to have made the situation worse. That also makes this a rather strange genocide, since it begins with a strengthening of the Ukrainian nation.

The herding of the peasantry into kolkhozes is certainly a recurring theme in the USSR under Stalin. How different is the Ukrainian SSR compared to the other SSRs in this respect? Was the establishment of the kolkhoz system in the RSFSR an attempt by Stalin to eliminate the Russian people "as such"? KetchupSalt (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don’t infer those things from the article.

You seem to disbelieve some accepted facts: have you read the Wikipedia article on the Holodomor? —Michael Z. 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland be added to this list?

With an estimated death toll of between 200,000 to 600,000, the vast majority of which were Irish Catholics, it would be one of the larger ones.

It is considered a genocide by some historians, and ethnic cleansing at the very least. Irish Catholics owned 60% of the Island at the time he arrived, and when he left he had confiscated all but 8% of it.

He targeted only one group, Irish Catholics, and through war and famine killed 400,000, according to his own surveyor William Petty, out of a population of 1,600,000. 40% of the entire population. Modern estimates vary but the figure still usually stays between 20-40%. 89.124.30.78 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the main article on the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, a number of modern historians have described this as an ethnic cleansing campaign. Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the Ingrian Genocide be added?

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genocide_of_the_Ingrian_Finns The population of the Ingrian Finns went from 143437 in 1939 to 92717 by 1959, then steadily sinking to 67359 by 1989, and then once again swiftly cutting in half to 34364 by 2002, and further down to 20708 by 2010. Iarmethodil (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Iarmethodil. I think that'd be fine. I think any article with "genocide" in the title should be OK to add to this list. Thanks for checking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

Between 1492 and 1600, 90% of the indigenous populations in the Americas had died. That means about 55 million people perished because of violence. 2001:48F8:704A:CFB:19E8:D37B:97B9:2331 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There was an RFC about this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ranking

The biggest genocide in human history is Persecution of Hazaras but is not mention here. It started in 1880s and has continued till now. Near one million families have been persecuated in this horrible genocide (>65%) and now this ethnic group are liviving mostly in Central Afghanistan, Quette in Pakistan and other countries. Zaki Frahmand; 19 August 2022, 12:13 AEST.

Link to article? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It is clear, the alticle is genocide by death toll and talking about that too. ZakiFrahmand1 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Request to add "Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66"

@ScottishFinnishRadish:@ZakiFrahmand1:

Hi everyone.

I think that the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 should be added.

Let me know, thank you. LucaLindholm (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Is it commonly referred to as a genocide in reliable sources? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

General Inquiry

Why does the Spanish Inquisition not appear in the list of Genocides? 2603:3001:196D:6000:60FA:7703:D5A9:A058 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources that call the Spanish inquisition a genocide? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Dorset peoples subject to genocide by the Thule people of Canada's north

Can someone publish facts about the genocide that took place in Canada's north in and around the 1400s (pre-European contact). There is some literature written on a plaque in Resolute Bay, NWT and in other northern communities recalling those events of the distant past. From what I've read and heard, the Dorset peoples came over from Europe in and about 6000 years ago from Europe, following the retreating icecap in and around Greenland and Iceland. Then were later wiped out by the bow and arrow carrying Thule peoples who now claim heritage to the north (the Dorset peoples, of whom there is very little physical evidence, were carriers of the spear and could not put up a proper defense against the Thule. 198.163.150.16 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

Change link for "cannibalism" in the Moriori genocide section from Cannibalism to Human cannibalism, as the latter is the specifically human topic while the current article refers to the act of cannibalism as a whole NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 05:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 07:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2022

Suggested edit for List of genocides: Holodomor, part of the Soviet famine of 1930–1933.

It make sense adding that the more or less commonly used number of victims is 3.9 Millions. This is a scientific estimation based on the the state archives data.

"Ukraine’s aggregate demographic losses as a result of the 1932—34 famine totalled 4.5 million persons,including 3.9 million excess deaths (Table 2) and 586,000 lost births, with 90% of the losses in 1933. Direct losses of the rural population reached 3.6 million persons, or 92.7% of the total excess deaths in the Ukrainian SSR in 1932-34. Urban losses due to excess deaths in Soviet Ukraine totaled 287,600 persons, which is 12.7 times less than the rural losses." https://holodomor.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Levchuketal_TranslatedArticle.pdf

Same number is used by Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor

The University of Minnesota also uses 3.9 Millions, but states 3.5 Millions as the lowest estimate for the victims and name 7 Millions as the highest one. https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor

Another argument for using 3.9 Millions as a reference is the following part of Kyiv Court Appeal Resolution that recognises "Holodomor" a genocide. "The Conclusions of the forensic court demographic expertise of the Institute of Demography and Social Research of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, dated November, 30, 2009, state that 3 million 941 thousand people died as a result of the genocide perpetrated in Ukraine." https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/resolution-of-the-court/

And this is also matches the estimates used in the current press: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/03/12/holodomor-famine-ukraine-stalin/

Additionally, Princeton blog also references the source stating that "During 1933 at least 3.5 million people died of famine in Ukraine alone." https://blogs.princeton.edu/cotsen/tag/holodomor/#_ftnref10 Krispe13 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Given that the article provides the highest and lowest death estimates (which are higher and lower than 3.9 million), it is not clear how your change could be implemented without changing the whole article. You probably would need to seek consensus for such a change. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Mass murder of the Old Prussians

Should the mass murders committed by the Teutonic Order against the Old Prussians be added? From what I know, they were responsible for the killing of about a third of the population of Prussia at the time. Sex9billion (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you suggest some citations on this topic supporting calling this genocide? Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Slavery

Why was the transatlantic slave trade left out? Atrocities that caused unmentionable deaths by countries as England, France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, America, Belgium to name a few against the African continent 190.213.143.166 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP unfortunately has a persistent US-/Eurocentric and liberal bias. Belgian Congo comes to mind, and of course the North American genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Remember that slavery goes back further in history than just those injustices brought on by Europeans. Many of the pre-Christian civilizations used slavery, not only in Africa. Where to start with that historical account? In Africa, many slaves were taken by neighboring tribes and later sold off to the Europeans as spoils of war or as part of the slave trade. 198.163.150.16 (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Slavery was not intended to wipe anybody out, because dead slaves can't work. Genocide requires specific intent to wipe out the targeted group.--Tulzscha (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of intent has not hindered other tragedies from being added to this list, most notably the '32-'33 famines in Ukraine, though I would not call the slave trade lacking in intent. You also seem ignorant on the absolute brutality of chattel slavery, where slaves were indeed worked to death earlier than would make economic sense. Sven Lindqvist for example made a direct connection between slavery, imperialism and the Holocaust (Exterminate all the Brutes), pointing out that it merely brought the logic of slavery to bear on a people otherwise considered "white". What anonymous is lacking is academic sources that make this connection, and explicitly calls it out as a form of genocide. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing about the Holodomor is that there is evidence, albeit debateable, of the Soviet government's intent to kill Ukrainians through starvation; for example, it was official Soviet policy set out in Stalin's decree "Preventing the Mass Exodus of Peasants who are Starving" that Ukrainians specifically should not be allowed to leave areas where there was no grain, and the Soviets had continued to confiscate grain from the areas even after the extent of the famine became known. It is also legally recognized as a genocide in 15 countries, and was declared genocide by a U.S. Congressional report. Meanwhile, slavery has been called genocide by a few people. The fact that slaves often died before it would make economic sense is not the point; as a whole, there was no policy to ensure this outcome, and no conspiracy to destroy the African race.--Tulzscha (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Add genocide at Leningrad perpetrated by Finland and Germany

As per the sources on Siege of Leningrad as well as the recent court ruling. The death toll is at least 2,059,881. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The Petersburg court ruling does not constitute a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Says who? It is also not the only source. All sources taken together form a picture. The (White) Finns' complicitness in Generalplan Ost bears mentioning. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it was the only source. We can consider other sources. But the Petersburg Court is clearly not a reliable source: it is an organ of an involved state, a state with little regard for facts. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

it is an organ of an involved state

This is simply not true. Neither the Russian SSR nor the USSR exist any more. If you have court rulings demonstrating the opposite position then please present them. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha. Bondegezou (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Arrogance. How lovely. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian Federation (the renamed RSFSR) considers itself the continuator state of the USSR, controls its courts, and considers itself involved. The court ruling is in line with Russian memory laws and propaganda. The St. Pete court is a subject, not a source.  —Michael Z. 00:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to drop the court case as a source then. Either way there is ample support for my case. KetchupSalt (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

References

"Lowest estimate" of Guatemalan genocide is not an estimate

Currently this list claims that the lowest estimate of the death toll of the Guatemalan genocide is 32,632, while the highest estimate is 166,000. However, the 32,632 figure is the number of identified and documented Mayan victims of "human rights violations and acts of violence" during the Guatemalan Civil War. Citing this number as an estimate of the Guatemalan genocide death toll is misleading. Nosferattus (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Add "present" to the most recent Chinese column

Other genocides to now feature "present", except the current Chinese one. Can this be solved? _{56independent/notacoworcat}^Talk 20:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56independent (talk • contribs)

Soviet Civilians, Non-Jewish

Shocking and unfair, that Nazi Germany's genocide of 5.7 million Soviet civilians, Non-Jewish, is totally missing. Being "subhuman" Slavs, they were murdered for ethnic reasons, according to the Nazi Gerneralplan OST. Please add!

• http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Holocaust_victims
• http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

I am against this form of Holocaust denial. There is no fair justification for it, and Wikipedia should not be a channel for the dogma of propaganda. Also I am against grouping of people at the top level, it seems divisive, unethical, almost like a written form of Apartheid. I believe there should be a grand total for each event, and then it should be broken down after that. For example for the Holocaust the grand total (civilians only) would be about 17 million.

Let's not perpetuate historical under-counts which have long been disproven for the sake of saving the face of past errors and the nonsense found in some modern politics. Wikipedia should not republish fake news and lies which distort the number of Holocaust victims by undercounting them. Please reflect modern research in this article (US Holocaust Museum victim research for example) to the full extent possible even though it conflicts with prior blind guesswork and "Western" anti-Soviet propaganda. 160.86.236.118 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost alone is on the order of 27 million. If you want an inkling of how likely it is to be added then see the section above about the siege of Leningrad. Ideally each event would be broken down, with motivation, perpetrators, victims and locations listed. KetchupSalt (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I am the original poster and disagree with this comment. 160.86.240.59 (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Mao's China 1943-1976

Nothing on Mao's China 1943-1976?

Those were classicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.21.128 (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the list un the article is quite disgusting as it ignores both Slavs and Chinese. I can't imagine the motivation, besides keeping up the status quo of stupidity in certain countries. The list in the article reeks of propaganda and divisiveness, and lacks basic ethics. 160.86.240.59 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding the Ingrian Genocide

I've previously asked whether this should be done, and it was given the greenlight.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genocide_of_the_Ingrian_Finns

Iarmethodil (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Could you help with estimating the lower bound for the death toll? I established a time range of roughly 1929-1938 where 45k-60k were deported, but I can't find much about the actual number of deaths. TimSmit (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: A response has not been forthcoming after 10 days, so because user input is needed to continue the edit request qualifies for procedural closure. Aside from that, edit requests need both what prose should be inserted exactly and reliable sources to go with it. —Sirdog (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide

2014–present 2600:100E:B023:B85:11ED:C1FD:CE69:CE4D (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have added it, without details or reference. I think it’s important to have here, and brings attention to the fact that “by death toll” puts an emphasis on certain genocidal acts and not others. —Michael Z. 20:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

People are here to share knowledge and learn, not to provoke hatred and spread political propaganda irresponsibly. FactCheckFirst (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I have added it, without details or reference.

Are we just adding unsourced claims now? There's not even a death toll, which is the main point of this page. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no Uyghur genocide let's not minimize the meaning of genocide which means an actual extermination of a certain group of people for some immutable characteristic; while Uyghur Muslims rights are being violated as I think the same would have been done for Han Atheists who oppose Xi like all dictatorships there is no evidence of any genocide Nlivataye (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes, aka the "Asian Holocaust"

Japanese war crimes, also known as the Asian Holocaust, may be worth adding, if it fits the criteria. The article states that between 3 and 14 million civilians and POWs were killed by the Empire of Japan. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This type of qualification needs one wide acceptance and agreement/consensus in the academic community, by legal experts, historians, to huge majority (consensus) of them see it and recognize it as that. Its clear to and widely accepted as war crimes. 79.101.193.72 (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes we should add Japanese genocides in WW2 and pre WW2 from 1931 to most notable 1937 which they did in Nanjing Nlivataye (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sikh Genocide ( Ghallughara) 1984-1998

Hello I would like to request you to add sustained Sikh Genocide 1984-1998 . It is referred to as Third Ghallughara in Sikh lexicon. More details have been documented here. ThirdSikhGenocide.org Regards, H 2607:9880:1C40:9D:A903:868C:E436:7E27 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing the flag icons

The flags should probably be removed from the “Location” column. MOS:ICON tells us that “Icons can represent a specific entity and should not be re-purposed to represent something else.” These national flags identify states, not locations, and are very easily inferred to mean a perpetrator. Many have crept into grey areas and beyond.

A Nazi flag is being used to represent “Nazi-occupied Europe.” It also decorates the massacre of Poles in Volhynia, which was perpetrated by members of the UPA. The Indonesian flag is next to the name “East Timor,” which has a different flag. But the genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani army in Bangladesh has a flag of Bangladesh.

Location should have specific locations, as well as references to modern borders for clarity. It should not have national or régime flags.

I’ll remove these, if there are no solid objections in line with the guidelines. —Michael Z. 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, there’s also a very specific guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not use flags in genocide-related lists and articles: “Flags are typically poor or simplistic representations of the sides in such conflicts, and do little to aid understanding. Any value they might have is outweighed by the excessively inflammatory nature of flags in such contexts.”

Anyway, since there was no objection, I’ll remove the flags now.  —Michael Z. 02:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The largest Genocide is The American Indians and it’s not even mentioned on here

You don’t even mention the biggest genocide in world history. 100 million American Indians. Hitler studied the US government killings the American Indian and used their tactics. 2600:6C67:487F:AA0B:DD85:EC07:BA2A:2677 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of genocides by death toll/Archive 8#RFC: Include Native Americans in the list of Genocides by death toll. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It is doubtful that that can be classified as a single genocidal act.

There are a few New-World genocides listed, in the Americas and Oceania. Undoubtedly there are a number of others that are still missing, if someone can collect the info and cite sources, we should absolutely add them.  —Michael Z. 03:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Christian Percecution

Why doesnt anyone talk about the Christian Percecution by the Soviet Union? During WW2 its estimated that upwards of 12million were killed. 2600:387:F:4932:0:0:0:8 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that categorize this as a genocide? That is the inclusion criteria for this list.  —Michael Z. 17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Residential schools

OWould the indigenous residential schools in Canada be considered a genocide? It was a deliberate attemptto erase indigenous culture in children, there were high death counts,I don’t see why they wouldn’t be included.64.114.197.196 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, since the Canadian prime minister referred to it as a genocide. If you can, please find some reliable sources that say it is a genocide according to the legal definition in the Genocide Convention, and post here.  —Michael Z. 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved: I find that there is a consensus to move this page. The arguments against the move were that: the list is not strong enough, another article fits the proposed name better, and that the word "genocide" does not properly describe events that are listed. However, as noted in the discussion, the list can be improved, the other article is not a "list" article, and individual events can be added or removed from the list per community consensus on criteria. I therefore find that the arguments in favour of the move are of stronger weighting in line with WP:CRITERIA. It is also important to note that the proposed title already redirects here anyway, which did weigh into my decision. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

---

List of genocides by death toll → List of genocides – This is the only list of genocides, and the additional descriptor serves no purpose.

The emphasis on death toll defies WP:DUEWEIGHT, as it may be inferred as diminishing the significance of, for example, a larger proportion of a smaller group killed.

The emphasis on both absolute numbers and proportions is inappropriate anyway, as the UN convention defines genocide as intentional destruction of a group “in whole or in part,” and of a group “as such,” and only two of the five acts that are potentially genocidal are “killing” or “calculated to bring about its physical destruction” in whole or in part (see Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide).

The ideas that only killing or only complete extermination can constitute legal genocide are wrong, and our title shouldn’t imply either.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify the first point: the text “by death toll” is an unnecessary disambiguator, and defies the titling WP:CRITERION of concision.  —Michael Z. 17:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 

• Support: In addition to what the nominator said as the above rationale, I see that although the default ordering is by death toll, the data is presented as a table and the reader can click on columns to change the presentation order (e.g. to sort by alphabetized location, starting date or ending date), so the article content is more general than its current title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to the reasons laid out by the nominator, many genocides have widely varying estimates as to the death tolls. Attempting to organize this list by death toll creates a false impression of certainty around the numbers. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. per everyone above—blindlynx 00:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Strong oppose (for now). Not so sure this is right. There are other pages covering genocides (including other democides and mass deaths, which are debatable as to classification), which seem to me to the better list. This one seems to be a rather abbreviated and incomplete list, with the criteria of inclusion/exclusion a little unclear. My guess is this started as someone's static list ordered by size, and then somewhere along the line someone made the table dynamic. I don't mind there being a "List of genocides" page, but I am not certain this is it. Would be supportive if it was improved. Walrasiad (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  Which do you mean is the better list? We should certainly improve this one, and I’m glad to talk about the inclusion criteria.

  This is the only list of genocides. The extra text in the title defies naming conventions, and should be removed regardless of any of that. The speculative article history is irrelevant. Even my own main rationale is secondary, as long as this is the only list of genocides.  —Michael Z. 18:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm switching my vote from weak to strong oppose, until the motivation for the proposal become clearer. They seem a bit too POVish. Walrasiad (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If the title were List of genocides by toll of bodily and mental harm, List of genocides by toll of births prevented, or List of genocides by toll of forcibly transferred children, would you also oppose the move as too POVish? It is the undue emphasis on only part of the definition that represents a popular stereotype (that genocide only equals extermination) and non-neutral POV of the subject that is defined in the lead.

Chronological order is a neutral way to present a series of historical events. Magnitude of one cherry-picked aspect is not.  —Michael Z. 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Walrasiad's reasoning. The various Genocides in History articles are already essentially Lists of genocides and are more comprehensive than this article. Nettless (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is the only list of genocides. The others are historical survey articles. —Michael Z. 17:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Genocides in history is the more high-quality analysis of overall genocides, arranged chronologically. This list here is specifically ordered by death toll so the title should reflect that.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We should at the very least be free to pick whichever ordering is the default without being tied down by the title of the page. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: List of genocides was a list article (see here) prior to being WP:BLARed. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus. I have notified every WikiProject except Philosophy, as it is marked low-importance. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Lists has been notified of this discussion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom Red Slash 23:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Genocides in history is not a list. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 19:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Weak oppose the change of title. I'm not totally sure the article should slavishly follow the definition of "genocide" promulgated by the Genocide Convention. Admittedly the word is a relatively new one, coined in the aftermath of WW2, but its Greek & Latin roots and its 'template' are historic. The definition of the first part, geno- (from genus) may or may not be relevant here (which is why I only weakly oppose), but the -cide part means the killing (of a human, in most cases, eg patricide, homicide, suicide; or at least of a living biological organism in others I can think of, such as fungicide, insecticide, pesticide). It would seem that the Convention appropriated the English word for want of a better one, to include the killing / extermination of a culture or of a nation. However, given the logical implication of the word refers to the killing of the people within that group, it's my opinion that a "by death toll" list is relevant and appropriate, no matter how distasteful it is. Northern winter (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  The correct etymology is at Genocide#Etymology. It was coined by Rafael Lemkin, and he spearheaded the creation of the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (and the legal definition was closely based on, but amended from his own original definition).

  If you look at the definition of the crime, you’ll see that it actually means the killing of a people or nation, and there are several other acts than actually killing people that can qualify as genocide on their own. This is why death toll should not be emphasized.

  What’s more relevant here is that this list’s criteria for inclusion is explicitly based on the convention. This discussion is about the name. Changing the criteria would be a separate topic.  —Michael Z. 22:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on table sort order

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus for the table to be sorted by date, with the most recent first. (non-admin closure) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the default order of the table of genocides be by historical start date (From) or by likely number of deaths (Lowest estimate)? —Michael Z. 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Date  Historical events are logically organized by historical date. Sorting on deaths gives place of privilege to larger estimates, encouraging the comparison of incomparable crimes with a measuring contest. It also baselessly elevates the act of killing, in a crime that is defined as any one or more of five acts, four of which are not killing (this definition is specified in the first sentence of the lead). —Michael Z. 22:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I added then removed my preference for sort direction. Hoping for more opinions to justify a clear rationale. —Michael Z. 20:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Date because it makes more sense to sort historical events by how old they are, and because this puts undue weight on the number of killings, which is only one factor out of five to consider when deciding whether an act constitutes genocide. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Date Genocide isnt a competition, no need to judge by number of deaths.... Especially when the veracity of the estimates can vary. Date is easier established and in general better from an encyclopedic POV. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Date. It seems like death counts are often less certain and more controversial. Sorting by death count prioritizes single "big" genocides over multiple "smaller" genocides, and it's not always clear what can be grouped together as one campaign. I think that chronological order makes sense here, as I don't see why this case is special enough to go against the MOS:LISTSORT standard, and it seems easy enough for anyone interested in recent events to scroll to the bottom.      — Freoh 19:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 14:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC))

I am somewhat of two minds on this. One point is that the list criteria is genocide “as it is defined by the UN Convention on Genocide,” which was effective 1951 and not retroactive. Technically, earlier genocides are only defined as such academically and not legally, even if the source is interpreting “according to the legal definition.” (And interpretation can change: for example, the decision on the Bosnian genocide determined the wording “as such” means intent to destroy doesn’t have to mean exterminating the entire target group).  —Michael Z. 20:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Date, sorted from most recent to least, to make it clear that genocide is not a crime of the past. Ordering by number of deaths is flawed, for the reasons expressed above, but I would oppose changing the order to date if it was being sorted by least recent to most recent; I am both concerned that this would give the reader the mistaken impression that genocide is not a concern in the modern world and that it would violate WP:NPOV, as more recent genocides tend to receive greater coverage and thus per WP:DUE should receive greater prominence.

I am also not convinced that the Third Punic War should be on this list - I have already removed the Asiatic Vespers - and I don't believe we should place an item whose applicability is debatable at the top of the list.

Mzajac, could you clarify your proposed sort order, and could !voting editors clarify which sort order they prefer? BilledMammal (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I am convinced by your argument. Will update my vote, and pinging @The Bestagon, @CapnJackSp, and @Freoh.  —Michael Z. 13:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

How should we determine which genocides are debatable? Given that this is a contentious topic, this seems like a difficult line to draw.      — Freoh 14:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

When the view that it was a genocide isn't a significant view among reliable scholarship on the event. I removed the Asiatic Vespers on the grounds that no reliable sources appeared to hold that view; some do for the Third Punic War, but it may not be a significant view. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Date, most recent first I came to this RfC without a set view, but I find the arguments convincing. Death toll is difficult to determine. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Date. Death tolls are often difficult to determine, can comprise huge ranges, estimates change over time, and are sometimes contentious analytical matters. Date is more organizationally useful and stable. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Date, most recent first I agree with earlier posters regarding death toll, in some cases it could be difficult to determine.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Date, most recent first death tolls are often difficult to determine reliably, aside from this being a more rational order for the reader, it also makes more sense for editors, since more recent events are those most likely to be 'updated'. Pincrete (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Date - I agree with other posters. Historical events are usually sorted by date, death counts can be harder to determine the exact number, etc. I strongly oppose sorting it by death count. HeyElliott (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Date - It is a simple and clear way to organize a list of historical events. No need to overcomplicate this one in my view. BogLogs (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Date, most recent first - also agree with earlier posters that this order makes the most sense. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Date (Oldest first) - Date makes the most sense for the article since it's move from it's previous title which specified death counts. --Cdjp1 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Switch sections on death statistics with section on "victim statistics" ?

I suggest that the death statistics should be replaced with a more broad section on "victim statistics" which include other types of genocide victimization on top of death statistics such as number of kidnapped children, victims of genocidal rape, persecutory incarceration, forced sterilization etcetera. This would also allow the inclusion of other types of genocides in the list other than mass killings, which is fitting given the recent name change of the article. Vanisherman (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of the term "gentile"

"From 6% to 10% of the total Polish gentile population" is a phrase included in the list of genocides. The term gentile is not purely descriptive but is linked with religious historical context, may even be seen as pejorative from certain perspectives and contains some ambiguity as different religions (eg. Mormons) convey a different meaning to it than a Christian or a Jew might (cf. Wikipedia article on the term Gentile). It would be better to replace it with the term "non Jewish as it is more precise, accurate and not loaded with historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.80 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)