Wikipedia:Genocide/Draft 2

Genocide is a highly controversial topic, subject to several political narratives. Perpetrators of a genocide will try to deny it being a genocide, to clean their image. Conversely, others will claim that a non-genocide is a genocide, either to garner sympathy as its victims, to blame the alleged perpetrators, or both. As a result, it is highly advisable to be conservative in the use of the term.

The Holocaust is a prime archetype of genocide, fully recognized as such both by the law and academia. Holocaust denial is a prime example of a fringe theory. However, this is not the case with all other cases of events that may or may not be genocides. An event is not a genocide just because someone says so, and someone who rejects such an assertion is not necessarily an evil genocide denier.

When dealing with controversies that deal with science (such as evolution and creationism, climate change denial, the extraterrestrial UFO hypothesis, etc), Wikipedia always sides with science and academia over non-scientific claims. Genocide allegations, however, are not a scientific discussion. In its core, it's a legal discussion: someone is accused of committing a crime, the courts discuss it in a fair trial (based on both the events, all related info, and the applicable laws) and eventually provide a sentence of guilty or innocent. In the meantime, the civil population makes similar discussions, but those are not binding to the actual sentence, and will all be put to rest once the court's sentence is delivered. As for Wikipedia, the standard way to deal with legal cases is to report that someone is accused of committing a crime while the case is open, regardless of sources that may declare the subjects innocent or guilty in advance, regardless of the evidence that may be disclosed to the public.

For the purposes of this page, there are only two types of genocide.

First, adjectiveless genocide, as in "X is a genocide". This is genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention, with a very specific definition. This is the definition used by most international bodies and organizations, and also in casual talk (unless otherwise clarified). It should only be described as a genocide in Wikipedia's own voice if it was declared a genocide by an international court focused on such cases, such as the International Court of Justice. Allegations about it being a genocide should only be included if a case has been initiated and is still unresolved. The Holocaust can be considered an exception to the rule: the Genocide Convention never declared it as such (as it does not allow retroactive use), but it was the core reason it was formed and the model used to define what a genocide would be.

Then there are all the other types of genocide. In some cases, they expand the definition to cover victims that are not usually accepted as targets of genocide (such as political groups). In others, it is a completely unrelated idea that simply borrows the term (such as Paper genocide). If appropriate for inclusion, those must always be attributed to their proponents, and always phrased in a way that makes it explicit that they are alternative formulations; never refer to them simply as "genocide".

Characterizing the critics of genocide allegations as genocide denial can be even more controversial. For starters, it implies that the event is indeed fully recognized as a genocide, which may not be the case. It also treats the critics as accomplices of a crime, or even criminals on their own, which goes against the policy about people accused of a crime.

There are two aspects to consider about genocide denial: if the event is fully acknowledged as a genocide as described here, and if genocide denial of said event is an actual crime under the law of the relevant country. If only the first one is true, report it only as an allegation of someone else. In the second case, follow the policy about crimes. If neither is true, then dismiss the whole thing and do not refer to it as genocide denial, even if someone uses such terms.

Allegations about ongoing or very recent events being a genocide or not are likely to escalate quickly into heated discussions. The event should not be described as a genocide in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Not only it is unlikely that courts would rule on it so quickly, it would likely mean to take a side in a dispute. Waiting for the courts to rule on a case before taking a position is not a new notion, but a standard one among sources that put professionalism before advocacy.

Many Wikipedians with heated political ideas may be tempted to say that the case is too important for Wikipedia to stay neutral. Remember that Wikipedia is not in the business of righting great wrongs, and that the neutral point of view is one of the five pillars: even in the face of armageddon, Wikipedia must not ignore it.