This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcut WP:GENOCIDEWP:GENOCIDE

This page in a nutshell: The use of the word "genocide" in Wikivoice or in an article title should primarily be based on genocide scholars' assessments found in reliable sources, but article titles may use the WP:COMMONNAME if that is well-established. Consensus should be established on a case-by-case basis, and may vary from this general recommendation.

Achieving Wikipedia editors' 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, with some definitions 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 had about 20 times as many edits as the Masalit page, and the Gaza talk page had 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, a two-sentence talk-page comment followed by an uncontested two-word technical move request, through to thousands of talk-page edits. Despite this variation, several recurring arguments tend to lead to very similar (Wikipedians') editorial consensus about the expert consensus.

There is no formal threshold defining what fraction of the best (preferably scholarly) sources constitutes expert consensus; editorial consensus about the expert consensus is required. The use of "genocide" in Wikivoice or for an article title should be based on the WP:WEIGHT of the ensemble of reliable sources. Scholarly literature reviews, systematic reviews, or briefer scholarly overviews of the scholarly research will be preferred to Wikipedians' summaries of the research.

• WP:NPOV may be interpreted to require "genocide" to be specifically attributed if the minority opinion against genocide is considered strong enough and the reliable-source majority asserting genocide is insufficiently strong; this is 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.
• In the case of an article title, WP:TITLE policies such as WP:COMMONNAME may override the reliable-source majority (e.g.: Srebrenica massacre, widely accepted as a genocide).

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) that propose expressions like these may help cut short otherwise lengthy debates in a case which lacks Wikipedians' consensus on what the sources say.

Most reliable sources are WP:BIASED. Stating that a source asserting or denying genocide is biased, without presenting evidence that that source is unreliable in this context, is a weak argument.

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 International Association of Genocide Scholars or the International Network of Genocide Scholars, are likely to take precedence over Wikipedians' own summary of the scholarly sources.

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 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 (supported by secondary, especially scholarly, sources).

Conversely, the fact that a legal case does not exist or 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. 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.

Human rights investigative bodies, whose expertise may include international criminal law, 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.

News media 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 with the media that the term "genocide" was justified). This is partially because of an empirical pattern of pro-government bias in the mainstream Western media and likely similar pro-government biases in the media of non-Western democracies (and of anocracies and autocracies) that make them unreliable for this particular context.

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.

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 Armenian genocide recognition.

Wikipedians' personal opinions are irrelevant.

Structured Wikipedia decision-making uses WP:!VOTEs. 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". Personal opinions about the similarity of events and consistency or inconsistency of calling events a genocide are also not productive.

If scholarly sources assert 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. The inference from genocidal intent to genocide should be an inference by the scholars, not by Wikipedians.^[a] Sources that discuss genocidal intent without discussing if the event was a genocide are only relevant for a debate about genocidal intent in Wikivoice, not for a debate about genocide itself.

Scholarly definitions of genocide vary and are still being debated. Sources, especially scholarly ones that interpret the event as a genocide, should not be excluded just because they do not discuss genocidal intent.

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

For titles, debate may revolve around whether XXXX genocide is a WP:POVNAME, a WP:COMMONNAME that is acceptable despite being non-NPOV (such as antigravity or Alexander the Great), versus an NPOV descriptive name under WP:NDESC. If the majority of the sources use the term "genocide", then consensus may favour that, even if editors disagree whether it is a neutral descriptive title or a common but non-neutral name.

• Wikipedia:Genocide/per-event prior debates table - some examples of debates about the use of the term "genocide" in specific mass-atrocity articles