Thank you for your strong stance on this issue. It's incredibly disconcerting that it even needs to be said.

I wish all of reddit were as ethical. Thank you.

Bloody good call. Fuck those fuckers

It took me a while to get my head round seeing posts removed quickly, however I became to understand and appreciate that false information or information poorly referenced can do more damage than good.

Without doubt my favourite subs, partly due to the moderators doing an ace job and because some of the questions are bizarrely brilliant

Thank you for this. Thank you to all you moderators for your hard work. You are making this a good place to visit.

To add to a reply I've made to the moderators, genocides in smaller or lesser-recognised countries are often not given the same nomenclature. What is the community's policy for those instances?

Secondly, a somewhat recent series of incidents in my country of origin have been termed as riots and pogroms alternatively, depending on how the exercise of state power, it's complicity and one's access to information and the news sources they trust (due to the prevalence of what's popularly termed "fake news")

What happens in cases like these that are situated in history for our time? Where there are competing narratives and the situation is not as clear as something like the Holocaust?

What is the breadth of the rule? I assume the Holocaust and Indigenous America are probably the most common topics for which this rule comes into play, but are not the exclusive topics for which it might apply.

I am curious if there are any other instances of genocide, or even acts of genocide, to which this rule has been or is more often applied?

This is the best-modded sub on Reddit imo. Keep up the good work.

Can the Zanzibar Revolution of 1964 be considered a genocide?

Without any interest in genocide denial, but an interest in keeping wary of shifts toward "wrong think" policing... Don't the rules already create grounds for deleting these types of posts anyway?

Like why not let genocide denial be answered to, and rebuffed by a simple high standard of quality material? Why act in fear in the face of these posts, rather than let the historians assumably answering questions here, answer with evidence of the genocide with an audience?

What about events which historians still argue whether they qualify as genocide? Taking two examples from opposite sides of the spectrum: The Holodomor and The Bengal Famine.

Putting equal weight on people revolting and the state suppressing the population, as though the former justifies the latter as simple warfare

Suggesting that an event academically or generally considered genocide was “just” a series of massacres, etc.

Downplaying acts of cultural erasure considered part of a genocide when and if they failed to fully destroy the culture

With these 3 examples, I'm unsure whether this post was specifically directed at Armenian Genocide denial, or my countrymen just uses every generic bullshit argument in the book.

If a question is allowed, TTK's (Turkish Historical Society) official position on Armenian genocide is the 2nd example IIRC. They accept there were massacres but they don't accept the term "genocide".

Would you say that the historians in TTK are actually consider it that way, or they just can't officially accept the term genocide due political pressure?

Edit: As a note to first example, I always found it funny how Armenian Genocide denialists use it constantly. The levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is unbelievable, they say Armenians deserved to die because there were Armenian separatists demanding independence and a national sovereignty of their own, then go on and glorify the concepts of independence and national sovereignty when it comes to the discussion of Turkish independence war.

As it should be.

But it IS complex sometimes, no?

For example the British rule of India. I personally think there were some genocidal tendencies there, and not what you would call in your post "just a series of massacres". But I'm sure there are heavy discrepancies between how events are portrayed in British vs Indian history books.

Armenian Genocide. It think we can all agree it was a genocide. However, imagine a Turk, growing up in Erdogan's Turkey. That person will probably not think it was (not because he is a racist/genocide denier, but because that is how it was shown in his history books, and he doesn't know any better. Brainwashed). The point is some people can be unwittingly denying a genocide and therefore there must be some manoeuvre room in formulations if we are to educate people.

Regarding the Americas. There is it also complex. No doubt there were deliberate elimination of populations. But depending on the geographical area and the timeline, a lot of deaths were due to Europeaons coming with their microbes and viruses that the natives weren't immune to. In such cases, millions died, but it wasn't on purpose. And a genocide per definition must have agency, be done on purpose.

My concern is just for proper discussions to be had and education, there must be room for manoeuvre in formulations. Also not everyone is skilled at communication, but can have a good heart, and would be a shame if their curiosity was destroyed because of improper and misinterpreted formulations.

And I'm not talking about the obvious cases like "pfff the holocaust was a hoax".

Good, the integrity of this sub must be maintained. History is important to us all and the facts and evidence of events are important, but pseudo history, like Holocaust denial is outright dangerous. Only recently did I discover the Confederacy only lasted 4 years, I'd assumed it was maybe 20 or so at least, especially given the impact on modern day America. But its important to note the truth, which this sub aims to do very well in my opinion. Keep up the good work mods. I feel coming here I will get a reliable answer, with sources to any question.

Wasn't it already the case? What's new? Is there an event that pushed you to improve the rules?

In this age of “alternative facts” and revisionist narratives, thank you for maintaining common sense. It is however, saddening, to see the need for you to post this.

Can we get a pin of automod of common points like links to basic UN definitions, or points like genocide is based on intent, nit on successfullness or lack thereof, or a lost of commonly accepted genocide?

As a Indigneous Woman living in Canada, this post brings me hope and honestly brings me to tears. I've heard time and time again this narrative of denial on our ancestral land, and as it can be extrememly distressing because there are still injustices and atrocities committed today. The struggle is not over, but knowing that there are others out there supporting and educating makes me feel like there is a way to true reconcilaiton.

Pinamaya Thank you.

Reddit, especially since the PRC took a stake in the company last year, has always been a bastion of pro-Chinese propaganda. I have a few sockpuppet accounts marked who spend a lot of time pushing anti-Tibet, anti-Taiwan, anti-Japan, anti-Muslim, anti-Tiananmen Square, and pro-Chinese military stuff pretty transparently. And they are quick to comment on literally anything Tibetan-adjacent just to make sure the word "slave" is brought up in the context of pre-Communist Tibet, or more ideally to associate the Dalai Lama with slavery. It's probably the most common question on this sub regarding Tibetan related issues, with the usual implication being that what the PRC did in Tibet is justified because the Tibetans (and specifically the Dalai Lama) had slaves (or alternatively, that they ruled a "feudal" or "caste" society). It's a topic I've written extensively on here, and take some pride in being able to explain with sources and nuance that it's a non-sequiter (i.e. just because a society has injustices does not cancel their right to sovreignty or self-determination) and that the situation on the ground is not as cut-and-dry as propaganda would make it seem.

That said, I try not to get involved in that discussion outside of r/AH because almost no other sub has the same kinds of rules that r/AH has, and probably as a result of that, I pretty much never see these kinds of sock puppets posting on r/AH because they know what they're slinging is propaganda that doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny. In fact there are multiple academic studies done (not as much in history, but in poli sci, law, and international relations) done regarding the legal issues and sovreignty issues that the PRC has a hard time answering with anything other than "well we have the guns, we have the power." Which is fundamentally what the politics of genocide are about.

Anyway, I really appreciate r/AH's standard on this topic. I frequently forward articles from r/AH about genocide denial for people who (in one of the darker turns of history) deny denialism as a topic that is either real or dangerous.

Thank you for the principals you hold as a mod group and I find the point of taking even failed attempts at cultural erasure to denialism to be particularly nuanced and important. The cultural erasure element of genocide gets almost completely left out of conversations around genocide in the wider public despite how generationally destructive those attempts are. Perhaps that’s just my own anecdote living in the U.S.

What about events which seem to lack a clear consensus, such as the Holodomor?

I have some questions about what happened to Indigenous Americans that I hope will not be construed as denialism, but a potential opportunity for me to unlearn a narrative.

First, Raphael Lemkin originally coined the term “genocide” and defined it as “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” Is this the definition of genocide that you’re using?

If so, what indications are there that what happened to indigenous Americans was “coordinated” and that there was an “aim of annihilating the groups?” Again, to be clear, I’m not trying to deny it was a genocide, I just don’t know this information. Also, when did this genocide start and end?

Good. Thank you.

Don’t take this the wrong way but if it is a question wouldn’t it be better to leave it and answer it truthfully to educate both the person who asked and others who could possibly also have the wrong idea about these events? Obviously this doesn’t apply to the racial slurs, that is unacceptable

Thank you for this. I just want to use this thread to tell the mods of askhistorians they're doing a great job in general. And I fully agree with this policy to.

As someone of Assyrian and Armenian descent, specifically survivors of the Genocide...thank you.

When I was in highschool I asked my history teacher about Holocaust deniers. Basically, I couldn't wrap my head around how someone could just disregard or not believe it happened when we have all the evidence.

He paused and considered the whole class. Usually he was a jovial light hearted guy but something shifted.

Maybe it had something to do with how parts of the class laughed, like "lol, how dumb do you have to be to not believe the Holocaust." kinda laughed.

But my teacher said that it was a good question, and it's serious. If we ever met someone who would admit to denying the Holocaust, it would be in our best interest to distance ourselves from them as much as possible because those are not the people we would want to be associated with.

Without knowing the significance of it then, it's still a message that had stuck with me for the last decade or so.

Amazing! There is a reason why this sub is so brilliant. Thank you guys for all your hard work!

Is there a zero tolerance policy for pogrom denial as well? I've seen too many people on the internet justify the various pogroms of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Thank you for all the moderation effort and your moral integrity

A great post considering today is the 25th Anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre/genocide. Thanks, mods.

Thank you very much for you strong commitment to keeping this community respectful and open. Do you gave a collection or something similar for questions about the Holocaust and its remembrance?

Today is the 25th Anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide. Thank you for posting this.

This is one of the best moderated subreddits

Genocide deniers the most hilarious breed of morons

Are the wars in the Vendée considered genocide? There is much heavy debate on the topic in France.

Well done mods. Keep up the good work.

As a fellow historian (specifically of late 20th century technology and culture) the value of this transparency and clear recording of processes is so valuable. The subreddit's content is a fantastic historical resource for future students of our present, because users can see so much of what is going on.

Also, I'm delighted to see so much support for this stance. Defending fact has seldom been more important.

Wait was this not already a policy or are you just cranking it up a notch? Either way, I wholeheartedly support this policy!

This is by far the most well moderated, healthy sub on reddit. The rest of this toxic ass platform should take note. Thanks r/AskHistorians

Thank you for this. My wife has Armenian ancestry and has struggled even in formal academic settings with marginalization of her own voice and history.

It means a lot knowing I can come to this sub to genuinely learn from passionate people and read well researched, serious and grounded posts. The standard set here is maintained vigorously and it is reflected in the quality of discussions.

A good and right decision! I myself focused on fascism during my history studies and during work for different media outlets in Germany I was often enough confronted with Holocaust deniers and their disgusting relatives and I am sick of them. Those people have no interest in a honest discussion about history they only want confermation for their own sick world view.

You guys are awesome

This was enlightening because it also points out that the historians that work to educate here, be they Honest enthusiasts or degreed scholars, know the nuances behind these complex issues. Many of us, myself included, may be misinformed on an issue enough that we need to either learn more on an issue or perhaps reflect on something we already thought was true. There’s nothing wrong with being corrected or needing more info. Deniers of atrocities or folks that want to claim something erroneous To fit a narrative not shared by history and fact should be corrected like this.

Thanks, AskHistorians.

Good. I appreciate this sub’s refusal to bow to the wishy washy relativism and “both-sides are right” horse shit that pervades this site.

This is — and by a wide margin — the highest quality sub on Reddit specifically because the moderation team is so darn good.

Snapshot52 and Commiespaceinvader. Thank-you for your hard work and articulate answers on this thread.

I almost never post here because I’m so busy learning from people who know more than me.

This sub has got to be the best modded one on reddit, so thank you for setting and keeping such high standards.

You guys are the kind of people we need more in this world, no idea how you are able to keep your cool and not only thinking but rather implementing ethical aspects of community moderations. Pretty sure when the great sci-fi minds of the past were thinking about utopian versions of the internet, they had something like this in mind.

This subreddit has the best moderation I've ever seen in any online community of any sort. It's hard for me to put into words how much I appreciate it. I'm sure that a lot of people can relate to my experience of being interested in history online; people often push terrible, untrue narratives about history to justify nationalist or otherwise malicious ideologies using clever language that takes A LOT longer to debunk than it does to spew, and it can be disconcerting or even straight-up literally depressing to watch it unfold.

Seeing this hardline stance and the clarity with which askhistorians demands questions and answers be approached is so refreshing.

Im all for this. Genocide denial has no place in any serious conversation on history.

Big thanks to this team, as usual

Would it be allowed to ask a question about for example the start of genocide denial? So i dont mean that i agree with its content but that i am just curious about its origin.

This sub is constantly outperforming others, Thankyou!

as far as I am concerned, you are the best sub on reddit, and the best mods.

Time and again, and seemingly without fail, the moderators of this subreddit have proven to be the very best of this site. Thank you for your continuing exceptional service in keeping this sub such a beacon of integrity and factuality.

Thank you fpr posting this today.I do not know if it was intentional or not because today marks the anniversary of the Srebrenica Genocide which is the largest genocide in Europe since WWII and the side that commited that genocide is still denying it to this day.

This is why I keep coming back to this community for answers. This is the strictest subreddit I know about and I LOVE it. History is important, accurate history even more so. Thanks for your work.

Just one of the many reasons why this is the best sub on all of Reddit.

Nice to see this on the anniversary of genocide in Bosnia.

Forthright and understandable moderation is the hallmark of askhistorians.

Thank you.

Nothing of substance to say, just want to say thanks as always for putting in so much effort and careful consideration into maintaining such a high quality atmosphere in this subreddit!

Does this count clarifying between genocide and a cultural genocide?

For example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada described the Residential School System as cultural genocide. Does this rule count clarifying it was a cultural genocide as genocide denial?

Thank you so very much for taking a strong stance.

Thank you. As someone who has Armenian heritage, this means a lot to me. I appreciate your stance. What happened to my great-grandfather coined the term, and it doesn't make sense to me when people deny that it happened.

Thank you for taking such a strong stand on this issue

I cannot agree more with this stance. Bravo to the mods for committing to it.

The denial of the Armenian Genocide has been practiced for too long already, thank you for taking this stance!

Dear Moderators, I would highly appreciate if you strongly punish denial of Armenian Genocide also. While the Holocaust and other genocides you mentioned, are known in general, very few people heard about the Armenian Genocide, making it easier to manipulate on the topic. Sadly, Despite the overwhelming historical evidence Turkish government still encourages denial propaganda.

Edit: I see you already discussed the topic in the thread. Thanks you for being rational and objective. Nowadays, its hard to find historians free from propaganda and politics.

Thank you all for taking clear and solid stances on specific issues like this, I especially appreciate the third point about the degree of cultural erasure, which has become an unfortunately common point of “debate” in Canada recently.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your previous comments, but I am unclear about the position on events where the scholarly opinion is genuinely split. Specifically the 1930s Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor), which is subject to ongoing debate within the field of genocide studies. Would such cases still be subject to this rule?

this is why I love you and this is my favorite place on the internet

Y'all are amazing!

Cheers to the best subreddit. Never forget the victims of every genocide.

Truth can only prevail if lies aren't tolerated. Thanks for working so hard to keep this sub the way it is.

The sub has by far the best moderation on reddit. Thank you.

Am always impressed here.

Well done mod team absolutely keep up the good work.

Denialism always comes from arguments that are in bad faith. The least of their sins is bad history, at worst it’s attempts to sow seeds of doubt to lead others towards ideology that wants to repeat those genocides. We as historians and history enthusiasts cannot let lies poison the truth of historical record.

Thank you

From an Armenian

Thank you.

Absolutely ludicrous that people have to be officially told this. There's so much Holocaust Denial on this website, it's quite appalling, especially since the vast majority of my family and friends were directly affected.

Good work. Thank you.

Good. Hats off to you, sir.

Does this extend to the Armenian genocide? Because I know there's a lot of Turks who deny it and it's shameful.

I hope this also counts for the Armenian Genocide!

Not too much to add, just want to say thank you for making this clear. It's reassuring that you take things like this so seriously and it really makes this place a wonderful resource and place to learn. Keep up the good work!

Does the mod team track stats on which genocides are most frequently or heavily denied on this sub? I’d be interested in seeing how actively certain parts of history are denied.

The moderation team and its iron-clad rules are one of the strongest assets of this sub. You have created a very positive learning environment here. This reaffirming of the sub's stance on genocide denial is another example of the mods here making sure this is a welcoming environment for everyone. I appreciate your work a lot. <3

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

This is literally the first thing I've read online in weeks that didn't make me want to ram a brick wall with my head.

Thank you

Thank you so, so, SO very much both for these rules and this subreddit in general. Unquestionably the best sub on the site.

I've been lurking in this sub a while, and I do appreciate knowing there is a good mod team. I do wish that this point didn't need to be made, however.

If there's any subreddit I trust the most it's definitely this one. I've seen you guys delete every comment on a thread but the most accurate one. If only we could have the ability to trust every subreddit like that.

As a Conservative/ Libertarian, i see too many of my fellow subscribers exhibiting this behaviour.

Its not even the fact that they are inherently racist, but that they just have a need to question the narrative much like Moon Landing denialist.

They have nothing to gain either way in their attempts to prove that certain atrocities didnt happen.

Its childish behaviour that needs to be grown out of for the sake of maturity, sanity and most of all dignity.

This continues to be the best modded sub on Reddit, thank y'all so much for that

Thank you. Your moderation team is the best in class here on reddit. Keep up the stellar work.

Definitely appreciate such a stance in these times. Kudos to the mods of one of my favorite subs.

❤️

That's good- you guys are doing a good job here :)

You must have been doing a good job moderating already because as a pleb who only sees what makes it to r/all, I can't say I've seen much of this going on.

Either way, good on you, and thank you.

Historical integrity is paramount to telling the stories of all people, oppressed/erased or otherwise. Thank you mods for your continued ethical integrity, which in turn has continued to make this, in my opinion, one of the most well-curated subs on the site. Hats off to you all!

As a moderator of r/historymemes, I for sure understand how you guys can get fed up with all the genocide denial. Keep it up guys, this subreddit is one of the few places I can go where I want to claw my eyes out at the content.

I wish all of reddit were as ethical.

Thank you. This is the best run sub on reddit.

askhistorians is one of the greatest curated spaces on the internet.

the fact that you can maintain this standard within the current state of reddit, is remarkable.

It is good you take this stance. What about denial of The Holodomor? I come across it it places like historymemes. People claim it either didn't happen or it was exaggerated and sometimes someone will claim to go as far as anyone who was killed deserved it. It's frightening how widespread it's gotten on this site.

Thank you from the great granddaughter of Armenian genocide survivors.

You're doing Gods work

Good to know, some subreddits still have some good mods. :)

Y’all are top notch. Keep it up.

I appreciate your transparency on all of the zero tolerance policies. I am also grateful that youbhave taken this position in regards to genocide. Its all part of what makes this an excellent sub.

Thank you mods for your commitment and constant credibility. We appreciate you !

Thank you. This sort of stuff is why you are always my example of why and how Reddit can be a good place.

How is the treatment of the Hmong under Pathet Lao rule regarded?

Thank you mods, for working so diligently on this, and for ensuring this subreddit’s quality

Thank you for taking this stance. As someone who did my thesis on the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and read up extensively on genocides, it always makes my blood boil when people deny it.

Congratulations, this strict moderation is what makes this one of the best subreddits, keep it going!

As someone who feels like a total monkey-brain when y'all post your excellent answers... Thank you for your conviction. This is practically the only sub where I legitimately feel confident in the content, every. Single. Time. I love it. I love that I have to wait for vetted answers, and that even your power-users are held to incredibly high standards.

Honestly more subs could take some cues from y'all. For years you've been consistently ethical, issues-based, and unbiased. As an American who is sick of polarization and side-taking... Boy howdy is it nice to just read facts and history without a slant.

Thank you all for maintaining the decorum, class, and the free exchange of ideas while still taking out the trash. It's a fine line, but y'all walk it beautifully.

As part of the Armenian-American diaspora (a few generations deep) - appreciate this post, and thanks for all the wonderful work y'all do in this sub. It's excellent.

It is such a sad situation that a genocide denial rule needs to exist but considering where we are, i appreciate the mod team for making and enforcing it. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing this. I own a Discord server that has a channel for political discussion, and it has helped me and my moderators immensely in cutting through bullshit and figuring out when to ban people who don't go all the way to swastika avatars and racial slurs.

Putting equal weight on people revolting and the state suppressing the population, as though the former justifies the latter as simple warfare

That's a rather broad definition that could apply to many events. Moreover, both the people revolting and the people in the state or whatever part of it typically claim to be the legitimate leaders of the population.

So for example giving an overview of the viewpoints held by every different faction or side in such a conflict would "put equal weight on" them, but I don't see why that would be problematic since it's just an informative list. It would be much more problematic to a priori choose one side to be legitimate and neglect the others.

So where is the limit of this guideline?

This was recommended to me by reddit.

As a german myself, it hurts to see that this is a point that has to be made in this day and age.

It was real, it's a thick black spot in our countries history, but we stick to it, because this way we make sure, this never repeats itselfs, at least in this country.

***THANK YOU. ***

Perhaps this is the wrong place to say this, but once upon a time I asked why the sub's civility rule mentioned the Holocaust by name, and did not issue a sweeping disclaimer against all genocide denial. The answer I received was that, as has already been mentioned throughout the thread, there are 1) endlessly many genocides and 2) even more events whose genocide status is open to scholarly debate. Especially after reading all the other replies, I can see the argument that a definitive 'genocide list' is bound to be rife with errors. Either way, I'm very glad to see that the terminology has been generalized. I think it makes more people feel welcome here. Thank you for always making AH better.

Thank you for this. There are 10 stages of genocide and number 10 is denial, we can’t let those who commit genocide get away with it in the history books.

I love this sub because the posts are incredibly thorough and professional, thanks to all of the historians who share their knowledge.

This continues to be the best sub on Reddit.

The best moderated sub on reddit. Bar none.

The mods on in this sub rock.

And thank you for taking a firm stand on this matter.

What about when the line between Genocide and ethnic cleansing(pretty terrible in and of itself) isn’t always clear?

As usual thanks for the transparency. It’s sad that it feels like you all have to issue a clarification of this rule but I’m glad the rule exists.

This sub has one if the best mod teams that i sub to.

I honestly do not understand how that is something that can be denied or even debated. The defining lines arent muddied, they are pretty clear. X amounts of deaths via cause(s) that were instigated by a single person or group

Edit: lol I have no idea why this would get down voted. But I stand by it

As you should. Good on you mods for recognizing genocide and excommunicating those who seek to bury it.

Thank you for addressing this, but it’s honestly ridiculous that this is still something that exists. People are fucking awful.

Hasn't /r/AskHistorians always enforced this zero-tolerance rule about genocide and Holocaust denial?

Ask Historians continues to impress me with it's content and the incredible level of professionalism the mods show in pretty much everything they do. Thank you for the work you all do.

As someone who's grandfather liberated a camp used in genocide of the Holocaust and never got over what he saw during his entire life to his death in the 2000s, I thank you.

Thank you.

Good on ya for being so thorough and transparent in this.

Thank you.

I wish all of reddit were as ethical.

Thank you mod team! As always you are on the ball and top notch. I appreciate and admire y’all

I would like to say thank u from all the greeks of the world for having such a strong stance in such matters this ❤️🇬🇷

Thank you

Out of curiosity does this cover attempted but failed genocide?
also is there a generally defined definition of genocide from your experience in genocide studies? Like does the sack of Carthage count?

This. I need more of this.

Great job guys!

Thank you, Mods! I absolutely love the policy and appreciate the time you took to clarify your criteria with bullet points, examples, and detailed answers to so many questions! It is clear that this all a labor of love for you.

May I just offer one small suggestion? When you delete a post for violating the policy, would you be consider posting a response along the lines of, “This post has been deleted. For more information, please see the following,” followed by links to your posts of genocide denial? (eg. your Monday Madness posts on fighting Holocaust denial or denial of the Native American genocide)

ETA:

My concern is that bad faith actors who have their posts deleted will screenshot their deleted posts here and post to other subs and say things like, “Look, I just posted a SIMPLE questions and these folks weren’t even willing to engage in a debate with me! They just deleted me! What are they so afraid of, if they’re so confident that this happened?” While I don’t think such a person deserves a debate, I also worry about the impressionable people (especially young people) in the company of bad-faith actors who might think, “Maybe this denier has a point.” However, if you respond to their deleted post to with links to information... The bad faith actor probably won’t care, but the person on the fence just might.

This sub continues to be a model for how a sub should be moderated

Thanks for all your work on this carefully crafted, but much needed, policy.

Thanks for being so thoughtful with the content in this sub -- it really shows and I appreciate it.

Damn fucking right

I say it almost every mod post, but thank you for all that you do running this sub.

Just wanna say I found this website through an interview you guys gave on this topic, and it's great. I was never a denier, I just had questions, and this answered all of them.

this is the only sub where the mods are okay. Change my mind

Love this sub ❤️❤️❤️ thanks for taking a stance on this

You guys do really really good work, I wish all of reddit had your sub's moderation standards!

Seen firsthand, thank you for not removing my post earlier this week. It was genuinely educational to me.

You hold together a professional and respectable standard that is hard to find elsewhere on reddit. Keep upholding the truth and know that we have absolute respect for the countless hours you spend doing so. Thank you for the transparency and the knowledge everyone here provides.

Quite a few questions are being asked here, and it can be hard to find your question even if it has been asked several times. We aren't going to answer the same question a dozen times, so if you are asking something already answered, you likely will not personally get a response.

#As such, Please Consult This List to see if your question has already been raised and responded to:

• If your question is "What about [Armenian genocide/Rwandan genocide/Bosnian genocide/etc.]?" the answer is almost certainly going to be yes. Those mentioned in the OP are not exclusive, and this rule almost certainly covers whatever genocide you are thinking of. It also covers atrocities which aren't always labeled genocide, but are entirely agreed to have happened. Discussions about intentionality and scope which occur within the academy are generally allowed here, as they aren't based on denial of the underlying, agreed upon facts, which is what denialism focuses on. This is addressed at a few points, including here and here and here and here and here and here.
• If your question is about something going on recently and whether it qualifies as genocide, or how we'd handle denial of it, ask again in ~20 years. For now, that is off the table due to our 20 Year Rule, so a moot point.
• If you want to know more about Genocide studies, see here.
• If you are concerned about users who are honestly confused but asking in good faith, this is addressed here.
• If you are concerned about free speech and the stifling of open debate, please see this explanation of the reasoning or also here, and here if you specifically think upvotes should decide.

If you are asking a question that is essentially of those already answered, again, it likely will be removed and unanswered. We don't need 10 more people asking the same question which has already been answered several times. If you have further questions, please consider engaging with one of the answers already present in the thread.

Edit: Seriously, people, read this post first and stop asking if the Armenian genocide is included in this policy... Of course it is!

Thank you so much for this. This is such an important and vital policy.

Thank god, a sub of quality

Based af, this is what we like to see

"Simply moving away". Boy, have I been there. We are not good about teaching native american history in the US, and the trail of tears is trivialized to the point of no relevancy for the modern narrative when it is the single biggest white elephant in the room I think

This is the best reddit community, thank you guys for always doing the right thing even if it’s not quick or easy.

I don't usually agree with the mods constant removal of comments but I agree with this completely.

I wish the rest of reddit and the internet at large was this reflected, considered and defending the scientific method. Thanks.

So brave ! Thank you !

Thank you so much

Thanks for reinforcing this. It's worrying that you're seeing an uptick in denial posts.

Awesome! Thank you!!!

Well yeah of course. Thanks for doing the right thing.

Still the best moderated and on-topic sub. I applaud this decision, and all decisions the askhistorians team has made in recent months.

Bravo!

Good. Well done, and keep up the good work.

cheers it must be difficult to keep the sub so finely groomed. ty

Good on you fine people

Love the mod team here.

Is it possible to get a sidebar link to these genocide fact-checks? I often see people repeating the same misinformation and would love a resource here to refer to.

This is why we love this sub. Thank you.

This sub makes all of Reddit worth it, thank you.

I appreciate this rule, as someone who was definitely taught denialism of the Genocide of American Indians/Indigenous peoples and had to learn better. Experts taking a clear and authoritative line on it makes it harder to argue with the truth, not easier to dismiss it.

Thanks for all the work you do daily!

It’s fantastic to see a community on Reddit with a clear moral position as opposed to endlessly equivocating and acting like centrism between hate and tolerance is somehow a “neutral” position to take. Know that the community of true history fans as opposed to those here just to spread their vile lies fully stand behind you and appreciate your creating a space of truth in a time where we need it more and more.

How about the Historiographical debate with the Australian History Wars with the “White Blind Fold” and “Black Arm Band” with leading historians such as Keith Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds.

Is this now off limits?

God, I frickin love historians.

Thank you!

Threes cheers for the only moderated sub on all of Reddit!

Fucking Reddit. This should just be policy. I shouldn’t have to wonder if nazis are ok on every damn sub.

Next you’ll claim there’s history older than 6,000 years. Such a slippery slope....

/s

This is so great to hear that r/AskHistorians have such solid stance against this isssue.

My question is, what about Armenian Genocide. As a Turkish person I don't have enough revelant data (its almost cultural to deny it) to make any arguments for either side so I would really want to see a post where there is good arguments on both sides.

So Is arguing about Armenian Genocide still possible as the country of origin has been and probably will be strongly in denial of it although rest of the west world is trying to push for acceptence from Turkish Government.

So this means that the Communist Holodomor deniers are to be banned as well, yes?

I would like clarification Indians. In particular, this rule:

Suggesting that an event academically or generally considered genocide was “just” a series of massacres, etc.

To be clear, I do not know if the United States committed genocide, and over the past few years have done some reading on the matter. I do not believe that the event is generally or academically considered a genocide, instead I see a debate on the matter.

​

My view is that what the US people did to the natives was terrible, and many of these terrible policies lasted up to the 1970s (those boarding schools for example). Jackson's Trail of Tears was a war crime, and events such as the Sand Creek and the California Territory wars are clear examples of war crimes. I do not think that anyone of reason would say that there are not examples of genocide in American history in regards to Indians.

​

That does not mean all Indian deaths are genocidal, and I do not think anyone of reason would attribute US military action to the vast depopulation of the Indians. The biggest killer was repeated epidemics over decades.

​

IMO, the debate over Indians and the US is more a argument over the definition of genocide, and if the series of massacres qualifies as such. The argument made against the US is that genocide lasted over an entire race of people for over 130 years. That is a large claim to make, and I do not see how this particular rule will clear that up.

​

The Indians in America are not as clear as the various victims of Germany. From my understanding the whole reason genocide became a term was for the UN to define what the Nazis did. I understand the policy, and further if this was a general sub then I would not care as much. This sub has fantastic users, who need to be qualified, and are of outstanding quality. If anyone can have this important uncomfortable debate it is you.

​

I hope this is taken in good faith, I like this sub and do not want to be banned. I worry in general about limiting discussions, and if only one side of an ongoing debate is presented then it will ruin the credibility.

Issues like these can often be difficult for individuals to process as denial because they are often parts of a dominant cultural narrative in the state that committed the genocide.

I feel like because of this, asks should be allowed, and answers should be screened. Trolls will always exist, but so do people grown up in environments that never heard otherwise.

How noble, meanwhile reddit is denying the Holodomor by banning the sub. I detect serious bias, also the irony of the poster being called commiespaceinvader is not lost on me.

Just to be clear: it sounds like it's only denial that's prohibited - is that correct? So if, for example, someone pointed to a genocide and defended it / advocated it / supported it, that's OK under these rules? Just so long as they don't use a slur in the process?

Am I reading that correctly?

Argumentum ad numerum.

Zero tolerance is zero thinking. Unironically the bastion of your rightwing religious beliefs, including bigotry, ie counterfactual obstinance.

You would have been in good company amongst your brethren.

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but because out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is 'Nazi.'

...They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after."

Does this include Noah’s ark?

I agree with the idea/policy as stated and also the processes. [Edit: wondering about temp bans and the like though]

I am worried about enforcement and interpretation. Good faith questions could be one or two mods away from a permaban.

The intent is to avoid Askhistorians becoming a platform for denialists - laudable.

The outcome which I fear may be a shade more chilling of Query/discussion and global usage of Askhistorians.

Especially since populations in several countries will inevitably be educated in one perspective, and will be unlikely to snap out of that into an "askhistorian mindset" very quickly on encountering askhistorians. The net result I fear is that askhistorians will be underserved in certain areas, with increased bans. Resulting in reduced education all around.

I'm not sure about "zero tolerance" announcements, when rules already exist.

eg. Talkback rule here seems to be slightly different context and spirit from "zero tolerance" announcements .

or

In these cases, we will often remove the question, asking that it be stated more neutrally.

Maybe things have indeed changed, maybe this zero tolerance already existed. Maybe askhistorians has been a victim of their own success and increased usage and thus of increased targeting. (uptick in "denialist" content)

The good thing is that there are indeed processes in place, and mods have a tradition of being responsive.

All this does is make askhistorians community seem more fragile to me.

Maybe it already was.

Afraid to ask as might get banned and maybe I just don’t read enough on here or elsewhere but I always sorta assumed two things about the American Indian decimation:

1. Most of the deaths occurred by disease (smallpox being one I remember hearing about) brought over by asymptomatic Europeans (who were not aware of being carriers), and

2. That (I assumed) a part of the agreed upon definition of genocide must be the the requirement of having a degree of human ill intent or purpose.

Since I don’t think there was a European settler intent to infect the Indigenous people with a killer disease, then I had assumed (without knowledge or reading) that this event might not fit definition of genocide?

Obviously it fits the definition of Europeans causing an incredible number of deaths of American Indians and if that is genoicde, OK. But that causing was (I thought) without specific intent. So I guess my question is what is the definition of genocide and if it does not require ill intent (just causation) of one group of people causing massive deaths of another group, are there other examples of that type of genocide in history?

I am not a denier just a learner.

EDIT: well it does seem the UN definition requires some type of intent. So, I guess argument is enough intent (ill intent or maybe just gross negligence (which is not intent but gets close) might suffice?

Found this article which does somewhat dispute using the term genocide for the American Indian decimation (without denying scope of the deaths and the European causation). Not sure an approved history site or not so I am treading on thin ice! I am not denying it could be genocide but asking the historians on here to help me understand.

[source ]

(https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302)

I'm assuming a question like "where does the 6 million figure originate from?" would get you banned?

I'm just curious.

Erm... isn't factual genocide denial allowed? I mean, I'm allowed to deny that there has been a genocide in England in the 21st century, right?

I mean, it'd be a bit odd if people aren't allowed to deny genocide when no genocide has occurred.

In that vein, which genocides are we not allowed to question?

Issues like these can often be difficult for individuals to process as denial because they are often parts of a dominant cultural narrative in the state that committed the genocide.

How can the mod team be sure that the mod team have the "correct" narrative?

And I'm not sure how "zero-tolerance" policy can be enacted, when, just like any other topic in any field, there must be some fringe event, which might or might not be considered as genocide.

I'm a little confused and would like clarity. Something approaching 90% of all the American Indians who died during the initial Columbian exchange 1492-1900 were killed by disease accidentally transmitted, without even knowledge that that was how diseases worked. Are you including this in the definition of genocide, or only the various atrocities committed on both sides, but overall impacting American Indians much more as the centuries progressed and the power imbalance magnified?

This really worries me in the context of academic debate. History is often confeluded and what is genocide and what the power relations between peoples are is often vague. The use of academic debate is to weigh and find truth in amongst several viewpoints.

The borderline conspiracy topics like holocaust denail are ofcourse out of the question (and simply illigal in many countries). But then you have the questions of the Holomodor, Armenian Genocide, War in the Vandee or France stamping out it's minority cultures.

I for one think the above are all genocides, but there can still be civil disagreement on a lot of facts surrounding it. By debating it we learn more and can prove they are genocides. By shutting down debate, the deniers will find it easier to preach to their echo chambers.

For example: if somebody is unaware of the Armanian Genocide but hear a friend deny it. Than he might be inclined to believe it. Though he might attempt a Google search. And with our high ranking on Google it would be a perfect place for this person to learn more facts and insights about the Armenian Genocide. Where, depending on his country, genocide denail will be at the top of the list whitout us debating it.

I'd like this policy more if it was 'stricter moderation' instead of 'zero tolerance'. Or at least publish a list of what the mod-team considers unquestionable genocides.

Is it because of the 11 of July and the Srebrenica memorial day

Why instant perma-bans tho? A warning and an explanations won't hurt and if the guys just wants to continue this behavior - perma ban.

Permabanning for asking a question once is just something outstanding and washed.

In my opinion,no comment or answer should be banned. Downvotes and upvotes are enough to mark good,well-researched answers and bad answers.