Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Genocide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leading photo of 'reprisal firing squad'

[edit]

Isn't the new lead photo (a Nazi firing squad shooting Polish 'hostages' as reprisal for other Poles attacking a German policeman) an example of a "violent and coercive form of rule that aim to change behavior rather than destroy groups", which we say is excluded, rather than genocide itself. I acknowledge that Nazi policy 'in the East' was consciously and systematically genocidal, but is this photo an example of that? Pincrete (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous picture was, as acknowledged by the caption, not typical of genocides because it is more common historically for men to be killed than the women and children in the picture. The new picture was chosen to illustrate the security rationale elaborated in the causes section that is behind most or all genocides. I do think that it qualifies because it is an execution of hostages for actions committed by other Poles, which is the same logic explained in the causes section. If we accept that the Nazi policy in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union was genocidal, a large part of the deaths inflicted by the occupier were in the course of German anti-partisan operations in World War II and the main victims were civilians not armed partisans (as in the picture).
At the same time, I am open to suggestion other images that may be considered typical of genocides in general. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to why you replaced the image that references the Cambodian genocide with this image (the Nazi firing squad)? I'm still learning the ropes of Wikipedia inclusion/exclusion criteria. MSTwitch666 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not set on a particular image, but I believe that the Cambodian skulls image is not the best choice for the lead image for several reasons :
  1. The image reinforces the common misconception that genocide is just about mass killing
  2. It is a museum /memorialized form of genocide (see Stone et al 2022), rather than showing genocide in progress
  3. The picture does nothing to illuminate the most commonly discussed aspects of genocide, namely what it is? Why and how does it happen?
(t · c) buidhe 23:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete information in history section

[edit]

Buidhe, this is what Häussler, Stucki & Veracini 2022, pp. 212–213 say. Bolding mine:

Later, the settlers often became the state, either by acquiring self-governing capacities through territorial or colonial devolution, or by declaring their independence outright. Their state is typically aggressively expansionist but remains different from an imperial state, even if the practice of frontier massacres is eventually discontinued. Rather than managing subjected heterogeneity like imperial states do, the settler state aims to constitute demographic homogeneity by the violent application of a variety of administrative and assimilatory means against surviving indigenous peoples. Cultural genocide, a most violent practice, characterizes the operation of settler states.

This is what you put in the article. Again bolding mine:

Unlike traditional empires, settler colonialism—particularly common in the overseas empires that resulted from European colonialism—are characterized by militarized populations of settlers in remote areas beyond effective state control. Rather than labor or economic surplus, the settlers want to acquire land from indigenous people

When you say "particularly common in the overseas empires", it sounds like you are just talking about empires such as British Empire or French Empire. However, genocides did happen in settler colonies such as in United States and Australia. We have additional quotes above in European colonialism section in the talk page as well. I find the wording currently in the article misleading or incomplete. Bogazicili (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogazicili, I'm trying to follow the sources. If you take a look at the ones I cited, you will find that the distinction that you keep bringing up—between empires ruled from overseas and those colonies that became independent under the control of settlers—may be mentioned, but is not emphasized. Rather, they stress the difference between types of imperialism and colonialism, with settler colonialism more prone to genocide than classical colonialism. (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Buidhe. I have to say I'm very concerned about coverage of indigenous genocides in English-language Wikipedia, especially after seeing this journal article [1].
For example, United States and Australia articles seem to make no mention of this, which is rather shocking. Australia is supposed to be FA-class. That is a massive oversight.
Now, returning to this article, I don't think your edits are helping. I disagree with your view about the source. It defines the areas very clearly:

It is only with what James Belich has called the global ‘settler revolution’ of the nineteenth century that settlers typically became respectable, even though not always: the transport and the industrial revolutions had made the temperate prairies of North America and Australia, parts of South Africa, and the southernmost parts of South America...

And other sources also emphasize this. The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2, there are 3 chapters under Settler Colonialism:
  • Ch 1 The Centrality of Dispossession’: Native American Genocide and Settler Colonialism
  • Ch 2 Very British Genocide: Acknowledgement of Indigenous Destruction in the Founding of Australia and New Zealand
  • Ch 3 Settler Genocides of San Peoples of Southern Africa.
Jones, Adam (2023). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. 136-137:

Three ideological tenets stand out as justifying and facilitating European5 conquest,“pacification,” and “settlement.” The first, most prominent in the British realm (especially the United States, Canada, and Australasia), was a legal-utilitarian justification, according to which native peoples had no right to territories they inhabited, owing to their “failure” to exploit them adequately. As Benjamin Madley
...
Ironically, this modernizing ideology also resulted in the migration – as convicts or refugees from want, political persecution, and famine – of millions of “surplus” Europeans to the New World. In Australia and the United States, among other locations, these settlers would become key, often semi-autonomous instruments of genocide against indigenous peoples. Brendan Lindsay described the dynamic of “California’s Native American Genocide” in a way that echoes many others worldwide

You are keeping the wording too vague, just mentioning European colonialism and empires, which is unnecessary given that the article is only 3,704 words. Please spell out what settler colonialism is and what areas it effected. At least give examples. All above sources gives examples of North America/United States and Australia, not sure why these are omitted. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't exactly ommitted although I agree there could be more on them... In the genocide studies section we note that "The genocides of indigenous peoples as part of European colonialism, including in colonial states such as United States and Australia, were initially not recognized as a form of genocide."
I'm aware. I added that clarification. However this is the history section. The current wording makes it sound like only empires like British Empire did colonial genocides, whereas it happened under countries like United States and Australia too. The current wording is unnecessarily vague given the short size of the article. Bogazicili (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding that clarification, I agree that the current section doesn't do a great job of summarizing all of the dedicated pages on history Genocides in history, Genocides in history (before World War I), Genocides in history (World War I through World War II), Genocides in history (1946 to 1999), and Genocides in history (21st century) but thats also a really hard job Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to summarize those articles, which have serious content and sourcing problems. I'm trying to build a better article here based on overviews of genocide in general. (t · c) buidhe 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jones, Adam (2023). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction is a good overview source and it is much more comprehensive in its coverage of history, with an entire chapter on indigenous genocides. The current history section is not comprehensive Bogazicili (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is a work in progress. But it cannot go into the same level of detail as more specific articles. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats completely backwards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your opinion is that I can't work on improving this article until I strip out and rewrite 6 other ones? Or else we should align this article to be like others that have known issues, rather than write an article without those issues. I don't think Wikipedia works that way. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what part of the article, that section is supposed to be a summary of another article... If the section is not a summary of another article you have much more freedom, but if it is then any significant edits should be made to the daughter page first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage should be better now, with more examples. Bogazicili (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Haussler et al source spends several pages discussing settler colonialism and genocide while only about a paragraph on the transition from British to independent rule - because that transition is not so important to the actual fate of indigenous people. I rest my case that Bogazicili 's focus on overseas empires vs their successors is misplaced. (t · c) buidhe 15:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That answer doesn't make sense. The Haussler et al is one source. It is much more prominent in Jones, Adam (2023). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction and The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. I rest my case that using one source while ignoring others is against WP:NPOV. Bogazicili (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The important factor for genocide in Australia and other colonies that became independent is the arrival of European settlers, not the independence from the original metropole such as the British Empire. Although I do not have access to all of jones 2023 (do you?) I've never seen any source, including those you've quoted, that say otherwise so I'm not sure why we're still having this argument. Some that you quoted above support my argument and not yours. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is history. Not factors for genocide. So the fact that it happened after establishment of independent countries is how it historically happened. Your wording is therefore misleading. And the section is currently incomprehensive in terms of timeline.
And yes, I have access to all of Jones 2023. I'll be adding more from it shortly. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I've seen say that genocides occurred both before and after the transition to independent rule so I'm not sure why you keep emphasizig this transition. If it's not relevant to the occurrence of genocides (either as a cause, method, effect, or some other thing directly relevant to actual genocides), I do not see any reason to emphasize this point, since the article has to be very concise and economical given the information it has to cover. I think the history section is a pretty good length as it is, although it can be improved I would oppose a dramatic expansion per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Readers looking for detailed information about history should go to one of the genocides in history articles instead. (t · c) buidhe 14:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not emphasizing it. I'm just trying to give a good summary for history. It's part of history that it happened both before and after. I'm not sure why you keep trying to omit this. What is the reason?
History section is right now pretty incomplete. I also didn't like how you summarized the part after WW2 for example, it seems a bit simplistic. Bogazicili (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is room for improvement, and I don't oppose a change in wording, but I think we have to be clear than when it comes to colonialism the sources emphasize type of colonialism versus the distinction between overseas empires and their successors. If the relative importance is not clear to the reader we aren't doing our job. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said many times. Your wording implies that genocides were only done by empires such as the British Empire. This is misleading. It's also incomplete. This is the history section. Right now your wording is not doing its job. Bogazicili (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe, unlike what I thought you implied, establishment of independent states does seem to be a factor in frontier genocides. Bolding is mine

The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 334:

The emergence of a racially defined American republic in North America added a level of ideological intensity to colonial patterns of frontier violence and the Anglo-American quest for territorial and economic aggrandizement. Standing in the path of a republican settler colonial empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific were the Native American communities of the south, southwest, the Great Plains, and the west. American explorers, ranchers, settlers, and gold-seekers took to the United States’ frontiers of settlement their hopes and dreams for a better life, and a moral repugnance for indigenous peoples that expressed itself, in the words of one recent scholar, as the ‘beastilization’ of Native Americans.

And places such as United States seem to be a core area of settler colonialism. So they should be used as examples when introducing the term in history section:

The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 341:

As Richard Cole Harris observes, the ‘geographical core’ of settler colonialism—to which I include the United States—was ‘about the displacement of people from their land and its repossession by others’.87 This basic analytical premise inspired what Ben Kiernan refers to as the ‘selective threat of genocide’ against Native Americans, a threat that resulted in various forms of organized and spontaneous acts of violence since the seventeenth century was driven by the intent to exterminate the American ‘natives’.

We also have the quotes from above.

The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 349:

Colonial genocide has even become a widely used distinct category. However, it is important to note that genocidal violence in most of colonial Africa differs in some considerable ways from genocides committed in North American and Australian settler colonies: European colonization of Africa did not inevitably lead to the expulsion and/or annihilation of the indigenous populations. There are two reasons for this difference: whereas colonization preceded the formation of bureaucratic colonial states in America and Australia, European settlement followed the establishment of colonial administration in Africa. As a result, the colonial states in the British New World territories were almost unlimitedly dominated by settlers’ interests. In Africa, by contrast, the settlers’ influence and ability to fight and expel the Africans on their own was more restricted because the colonial states were still weak and their power relied on the cooperation with indigenous chiefs.

The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Introduction Chapter, p. 10:

This volume offers, besides other imperial expansionist cases such as those from early modern China and Japan, empirical evidence for Barta’s observation across five centuries of European settler colonial history. In Part I, ‘Settler Colonialism’, three chapters collectively survey the colonial histories of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. These chapters bring the many differences between these colonies to light, but it is what connects them that determines their histories as genocidal: the goal of imposing a new settler society on Indigenous lands. Further, these chapters articulate how genocide has shaped the nationalist historiographies of settler colonies.

This is a new one quote. The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Introduction Chapter, p. 7:

The European inflicted genocides of traditional landowners that began in the late-fifteenth-century Americas were rationalised by an evolving sense of religious righteousness, commercial drive, cultural superiority and racial supremacy that persisted into the modern era.


The first paragraph covers the period until the early modern period. The last paragraph starts from WW1. The second paragraph should cover the period in between. Given this, and considering all of the quotes above, the following should be the first sentence in the second paragraph in History section:

Beginning in the 15th century, European colonialism led to genocides of indigenous peoples. This has continued under settler colonies, such as United States and Australia, between 16th and 20th centuries.

buidhe, you are welcome to adapt the rest of the paragraph with this first sentence. Or I can write the entire paragraph myself. I think we can also give some non-European examples. I think explaining the difference between empires and settler colonialism is also fine. If you disagree with all of these, we can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have made the changes. Bogazicili (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is incorrect because it implies that a settler colony only becomes such when it declares independence from the metropole. In fact, a settler colony is defined by the invasion of foreign settlers, not by the political status of the territory. This wrong assumption means you have misinterpreted several of the above passages to support your viewpoint when they do no such thing. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2024

[edit]

In the body of the Wiki page there is a picture depicting Pro-Hamas supporters calling for stopping the alleged genocide in Gaza. The picture is a political statement and does not belong in an article discussing actual genocide. Moreover, the picture literally depicts genocide supporters, by transitive properties of supporting the genocidal Hamas agenda. In conclusion the picture is not only in bad taste, it is an oxymoron to include it as it is included. Orpgol (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the photo that suggests that the protestors are Pro-Hamas nor that they are in any sense genocide supporters, … supporting the genocidal Hamas agenda. There may be valid reasons to excude this pic, but crudely mischaracterising the protestors doesn't make that case. Pincrete (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially the photo was included as an easy to find example of people using the term "genocide" in order to bring attention to a particular cause (in this case ending the war/genocide in Gaza). This phenomenon is discussed in sourced article text now in a different section of the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but using this photo in this context represents a political agenda rather than objective truth, and we should avoid that in a body representing factual information. Orpgol (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your points. The main reason to exclude this picture is because it serves a political agenda and does not represent an objective truth, especially in the context in which it is presented. This lowers the standards of Wikipedia. Lower on the reason to remove scale, at the bottom right corner there is a green flag that appears to be a Hamas flag. Orpgol (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: neither an uncontroversial edit request, nor one that is supported by a consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Consensus should not be needed for objective truth. Allowing a politically motivated image to stay on the article is mean to sway public opinion. If that is the declared purpose of this picture then please state as such. Orpgol (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at the bottom right corner there is a green flag that appears to be a Hamas flag Actually at the bottom right corner there is some green, which might concievably be many things, including a flag of some sort. Though personally, I find it unlikely that Hamas flags would be on display in a Northern European city without comment, but neither of us could possibly know what the green is could we?
The 'objective truth on display is that protests across the free world have taken place about Israeli action in response to the October attacks. Many of the protests and many competent commentators have recorded that 'genocide' and/or ethnic cleansing in pursuit of collective punishment is the clear and - in some instances - stated intention of Israeli actions. This is hardly some fringe PoV. Pincrete (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to press the point but most of what you say shows some bias towards a political agenda and not objective truth. Saying things like "protests have taken place..." as a justification to supporting political symbolism on Wikipedia is in poor taste. Protests have taken place supporting both sides of the conflict have they not?
Additionally, I reject the "many competent commentators..." reasoning. Until there is no clear cut proof that a genocidal agenda has been driving this conflict, I think we can rely on the evidence before us on how the conflict started (genocidal terrorist acts, hostages still in captivity) as a good marker for framing this conflict. Competent commentators have been recorded saying things that support either side of this war. Please do not devolve a source of knowledge to a politically motivated history rewriting attempt. Orpgol (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone arguing that pro-Palestinian/peace protestors are inherently pro-Hamas and that a splash of green in a photo is proof of a Hamas flag isn't in a very strong position to accuse others of bias, nor to defend 'objective truth'. Hardly anyone in English speaking/European countries can be unaware that various terms have been used in the public sphere to criticise Israel's reaction to the October attacks, including 'genocide/al'. These accusations and the counterpoint vigorous defence by local sympathisers and Israeli govt spokesmen have been nightly fare on the news programmes of the free world for much of the last year. The idea that we are condoning/endorsing one side by showing a picture of a protest is pretty far fetched IMO. You don't have to endorse the accusation to acknowledge that it has been made by parties that are far-from fringe and far from pro-Hamas. But we obviously aren't going to agree on this and it is fairly tangential to the topic of 'genocide' itself, which is the purpose of the page.Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into the points we will not agree on here, I think what I want to convince you is that the majority opinion is not necessarily the one that needs to be endorsed as you are suggesting here. Can you see a reason why, in this case, the zeitgeist opinion may be doing harm to what I referred to here as the objective truth?
All I am asking is that we do not intentionally or accidentally, endorse ANY side of this conflict where it does not make sense. That's it. Orpgol (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new observer of this fracas, there is 100% no other mention of Gaza in the article except for this picture. To me, this seems like very a weaselly way to add Gaza to the article. Either add Gaza explicitly to the article or remove the image. But what do I know? I’m not a lifer Wikipedian — like others here — who are playing games with actual events. I defer to the “expertise” of other Wiki editors in how to handle it, but in my humble opinion, the picture should be removed. --20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can definately add something about Israel or Palestine, or Gaza into the article. This would be WP:DUE.

More recent instances of urbicide include the Khmer Rouge’s forced expulsions from Phnom Penh and other Cambodian cities in 1975 (see Chapter 7); Hafez al-Assad’s assault on the rebellious Syrian city of Hama in 1982 (“The Hama Solution”)117 and the merciless bombardment of rebel cities and neighborhoods by his son, Bashir, in today’s ongoing civil war; the siege of Sarajevo, Bosnia, 1992– 1996 (see Chapter 8); the Russian pulverizing of Grozny, Chechnya, in 1994–1995 (Chapter 5); and repeated Israeli air and artillery assaults on densely populated urban areas of the Gaza Strip.

So bombing of Gaza could be used as an example in Genocide#Criticism_of_the_concept_of_genocide_and_alternatives, which mentions urbicide, as opposed to the current image. Bogazicili (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can also add Gaza genocide into Genocide#Prosecutions, as an ongoing case (South Africa's genocide case against Israel). Bogazicili (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also address the issue of the image currently in place in the article and how can it be best addressed to address WP:DUE issues. But again, not my battle; I think Wikipedia editors for currently occurring issues are very biased even if they claim they aren’t. They always fall for manipulation. So please, do your best. --22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Giacomo1968 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with this, actually. If we're going to elaborate on something here, it should be the concept of democide, which has gotten a lot more coverage than urbicide. Democide, specifically, was coined because many of the largest scale incidents of human-caused mass death do not fit under the umbrella of genocide (for example, Moses points out the Great Leap Forward with many millions of deaths, compared to ~100,000 in Gaza) Putting emphasis on the Gaza genocide in text seems like recentism to me—it's quite possible another photo would illustrate the intended concept (i.e. using the word "genocide" to attract attention to a cause) more effectively. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the low article size, there is space for multiple examples.
In the Great Leap Forward: If approximately 23 million people out of a total population of 650 million people died during the Great Chinese Famine, the percentage would be 3.5%
For Gaza, 100k represents something closer to 5% of the population. So it'd be more destructive, on a relative scale. Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable source says 100k have been killed? The Hamas Ministry themselves say less than 45k. That's 1.9% of 2.3 Million (this is not counting soldiers, although the country does not include deaths by starvation or other medical deaths)
102k have been estimated to have been wounded, but that's not the same thing. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death9 to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2 375 259, this would translate to 7·9% of the total population in the Gaza Strip. [2]
About 8% is much higher than Great Leap Forward. Bogazicili (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Lancet piece you are quoting is a letter; not peer reviewed research. It is constantly being reference as a source of authority when it is basically a carefully crafted letter. It is rarely — if ever — referred to as a letter; most all references to it just say “from the Lancet” as if that means something. It is not objective research. As far as the dead in Gaza goes, as of literally right now it is 43,374 according to Al Jazeera which get’s it’s numbers from the Gaza Health Ministry. [3] --Giacomo1968 (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number you quoted is direct deaths. The Lancet letter includes indirect deaths. The ratio of indirect deaths to direct deaths ranges from 2.3 to 15.7 in page 40 of this source Bogazicili (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The Lancet letter includes indirect deaths.” Indirect deaths are implied deaths. Meaning they are still alive now. It should not be used as a statement of fact as you have. But you do you, Bogazicili. You know exactly how facts work and exactly what can be shoehorned into Wikipedia; so again… You do you!
This whole convo is about the WP:DUE of the Gaza protestor image; there is no valid reason for it to be there unless one wants to weasel in the Gaza deaths into an article about genocide. But I dare not delete that image because I know how edit wars and revert wars happen and I am not walking into that. The fact that image being used in this article is very problematic but you won’t act. Why? I can only deduce why you and other editors would want that image to stay.
I’ve said my peace; good luck to you. --Giacomo1968 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problems with recent edits

[edit]
  • additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation—the argument that plague and smallpox was used as biological weapons remains contested, and certainly cannot be stated in wiki voice (for example, this source states "No historical evidence exists that smallpox was an effective bioweapon.")
  • Edits to the history section subsume general analysis about the function of empires to a paragraph about European colonialism, misleadingly making it seem as if the comment applies only to European colonialism, or perhaps that European empires are the main/only ones that commit genocide (an interpretation not found in the sources)
  • See above and this source for the misinterpretation of what a "settler colony" is and its actual definition
  • While not prevented, genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda were stopped with the intervention of outside forces If not completely wrong, this is a controversial statement, that relies at a minimum on certain definitions (eg. the extent the Bosnian genocide, what are "outside forces" in Rwanda) that are not universally accepted
  • In the 20th century, genocides were committed in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Although the twentieth century history does need more work, I cannot support this addition because it suggests that genocide did not occur elsewhere, such as Australia and North America, where some sources say it did. Given that sources don't agree on when settler genocides come to an end, I think more ambiguity is necessary to maintain NPOV.

I also see a concerning reliance on specific case studies as sources. This article is about the overarching concept of genocide, so material from sources about particular genocides should be added to the relevant articles but it does not show WP:DUE for the inclusion of content here. (t · c) buidhe 04:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source you provided says "No historical evidence exists that smallpox was an effective bioweapon" (bolding mine). It doesn't say it wasn't a method, just that it wasn't effective. The source also notes: Over several centuries of colonial settlement in North and South America, anecdotes, diaries, and public letters expressed intent to use smallpox against indigenous people.. The authors are also not historians or genocide scholars. In any case, we can simply attribute that statement to Adam Jones (Canadian scholar).
  • What is misleading is the version you are reverting to, which suggests only empires such as British Empire did genocide. If you have a concern about European empires are the main/only ones that commit genocide, feel free to expand the article and fix it. More examples can be given in history section.
  • The source you provided defines US as a settler colony European settler colonies existed from the beginning of European overseas expansion and even the USA can be considered a settler colony up to the end of the 19th century, because it was only then that the free space for settlement disappeared. What is the issue here?
  • While not prevented, genocides in Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda were stopped with the intervention of outside forces Please show sources which contradict this
  • In the 20th century, genocides were committed in Africa, Asia, and Europe. We can reword.
  • but it does not show WP:DUE for the inclusion of content here The examples are DUE because they are given in the introduction chapters of the sources, such as The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Introduction Chapter. p. 10 (quoted above). It's also in introduction chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 4:

    • A related consequence of the influence of the Holocaust model has been to overemphasize the role of narrow political ideology in genocide ... Such a taxonomy ignores both the concessions that the Nazis did make to practicality in their murder campaigns and, more importantly, the obviously ideological considerations that ultimately permitted, say, Europeans to murder, say, native Americans as if they were simply practical obstacles to be removed...

  • It's also mentioned in WP:Tertiary sources:
    • The Social Science Encyclopedia, Genocide entry, p. 411. US and Australia are given as examples to colonial genocides:

      • (1) Colonial genocides developed from the fifteenth century onwards as Europeans and (later on) North Americans established their domination around the globe...In the case of the Americas, the vast proportion of Native Americans died as a result of their exposure to diseases against which they had no immunological protection. But there were individual cases of genocide within the huge and complex process of European expansion, as of the California Indians in the 1840s and the Aboriginal populations in Tasmania and in Queensland, Australia.

    • The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, Genocide entry, p. 295:

      • It is suspected that genocide was fairly common even in antiquity. The best-known but sometimes still contentious cases since earliest times include the Athenian destruction of Melos (416 B.C.) during the Peloponnesian War, the Roman obliteration of Carthage in 146 B.C., the ravages of the Mongols under Genghis Khan in the thirteenth century, the Albigensian Crusade in thirteenth-century Europe, the persecution of Christians in early modern Japan, the mass killings of Ndwandwe people by Shaka's Zulu armies in the 1820s, and the destruction of certain Native American and Aboriginal peoples in the New World and Australia. Critics of the British imperial regime also used the term extermination to characterize the Irish famine of the 1840s, during which at least a million people perished.

    • Encyclopedia of Global Justice, Genocide entry, p. 388:

      • In recent years, the term "genocide" has been used to describe the United States' actions against the Native Americans during the four centuries after Columbus landed.

In short, these are not "reliance on specific case studies as sources." These are examples. When explaining concepts, examples are given. When explaining colonial genocides, examples of US and Australia are DUE. Bogazicili (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If it's not an effective method of genocide, and the idea that it was in widespread use is treated with skepticism with historians, what makes it wp:due for inclusion? Are you aware that the argument for widespread intentional disease spread originates with the plagiarist and fabricator Ward Churchill? About this, a 2020 paper states, Most significantly, though, [Churchill] claimed that colonizers deliberately infected indigenous peoples through the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets and other items. Beyond the documented case of biological warfare at Fort Pitt in 1763, scholars had not given such claims much credibility.
  2. Again, you reverted to the version where the source's general comment about empires is placed later in the paragraph about European colonial empires. As I pointed out above , this is a distortion of the cited source
  3. Did you read what I wrote? The wording is incorrect because it implies that a settler colony only becomes such when it declares independence from the metropole. In fact, a settler colony is defined by the invasion of foreign settlers, not by the political status of the territory.
  4. For example, the Bosnian genocide is most often defined as the srebrenica massacre, which came to an end when all the potential victims were killed or had escaped. The consensus view of how the Rwandan genocide ended is that Rwandan Tutsis put an end to the Rwandan genocide by capturing all of the country's territory (for both of these, see Bellamy et al 2022). All of this is well known in genocide studies and it surprises me that you are trying to substantially rewrite the article if you weren't aware of these widely known interpretations.
  5. The problem I bring up is not necessarily the content but the sourcing. Nothing in your comments suggests that you recognize the WP:DUE and WP:NPOV problems with relying on editors finding and citing case studies to support particular points, which by definition will involve cherry-picking some examples over others. If the examples are covered in overviews that are about genocide in general, they are much more likely to be wp:due but then you should just cite the overview.
Furthermore, the topic is very large and so is the number of possible sources. Just because you read something in one source does not mean it is the historical consensus, majority view, or wp:due for mention in the article. Contributing effectively requires a high degree of familiarity with the scholarly literature. For example, your recent edits remove citations to the 2022 version of the Oxford genocide studies handbook, in preference to the 2010 version, which is hard to explain. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) What is this 2020 paper? Unless it's a review article, it would be considered WP:Primary. This [4] was used in a 2023 genocide textbook. [5]
2) Nope. The beginning is about European colonialism. Then it switches to While all empires.... I do not read that part as being about only "European colonial empires" [6] Should we specifically change it to "while all empires, including non-European ones"?
3) That's not how I read it. Such as is just an example.
4) Sources??? Can you provide at least page number?
5) There are overview sources. For example, Beginning in the 15th century, European colonialism led to genocides of indigenous peoples. This has continued under settler colonies, such as United States and Australia, between 16th and 20th centuries.[47][149][150] 150 is from The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, which is an overview source. [7]
Overall, I am very concerned that anything mentioning Native Americans or Americas are being removed. This is also evident even in the images in the article. There are no images from Americas. You said I'm cherry-picking with examples, but your examples seem cherry picked to me as well. In the methods sections, you put: Cultural destruction, such as Indian residential schools, is often dependent on controlling the victims at a specific location.[123] The source is: Basso, Andrew R. (2024). Destroy Them Gradually: Displacement as Atrocity. That's not an overview source either.
We seem to be discussing this since September, so I requested WP:DRN Bogazicili (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the source from the 2022 to 2010 version is an oversight. You make bulk changes [8][9] with minimal talk page discussion, so that makes it hard to keep track of changes like that. In this edit [10], you also removed |edition=4th parameter from the source. Bogazicili (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The problem with relying on general genocide studies works for specific historical points is that not infrequently they are at odds with the consensus in the historical profession. This is one example, another would be that some genocide studies scholars describe the Roman conquest of Carthage as genocide, but few classicists agree. Care is needed to ensure that before minority views are stated in the article, it's considered whether they are due, and if so, when they are mentioned the level of support must be correctly contextualized. The source I cited is not wp:primary, as it is discussing the results of other people's research.
  2. The order you put the sentences in does not support this interpretation. The general point about empires should be put before any specific point about European colonial empires, as it is in my version
  3. You're responsible for writing clearly so that it is understood by readers.
  4. I did cite a source, and if you cannot find information in a brief book chapter, much of it is in the table 280-281.
  5. We may be in disagreement about what is a case study. When you cite a chapter titled "Genocide and Mass Violence in the 'Heart of Darkness': Africa in the Colonial Period", and I conclude that it is a case study because its stated topic is about a specific time and place. In contrast, although much of Basso's book consists of such case studies and is not citable, he also includes overviews about a specific type of genocidal violence, which is not in the form of case studies of individual events.
(t · c) buidhe 05:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) You didn't cite any source. Where's the link? I'm giving page numbers and quotes, you are doing minimal work.
2) No, it clearly says "while all Empires". Why should the order change? Things like this is why I requested WP:DRN.
3) It's still an improvement to your version.
You said

Although all empires rely on violence, often extreme violence, to perpetuate their own existence, they also seek to preserve and rule the conquered rather than eradicate them.

The source says:

Imperial rule is thus ambivalent. On the one hand, surpassing the ‘imperial threshold’ (i.e. the transition from tribal to complex societies) was a step towards the preservation of the conquered instead of their total annihilation. This was also a move towards shielding a polity from the imponderables of an anarchic structure. That is where—somewhat counterintuitively—imperial rule could display its potential to limit violence.

There is no definitive statement about "seek to preserve" there. It talks about potential and "a step towards". Your version is actually a distortion of the cited source
4) I'll check.
5) If you want to talk about WP:DUE, I already gave you intro chapters and WP:Tertiary sources in the talk page. For the specific wording in the article, yes it may be from a specific "case study" location. Do you want the citation to include those additional sources? That seems redundant to me. Bogazicili (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I linked and quoted a source above
  2. Not least because empires predate European colonial empires by thousands of years. Usually the history section is intended to be organized chronologically, as is typical and often easiest to understand for readers
  3. Obviously, I'm referring to the sentence where settler colonialism is conflated with independent states like the US, not the sentence about empires in general. However, it is a common argument among scholars that classical empires have built in limits to their violent potential.
  4. I think sourcing is the #1 most important part of an article. Therefore, anything in the article should be cited to sources that are high quality and specifically about the topic (i.e. genocide in general, not a specific genocide). I'm also concerned by your methodology, because if you start with the content you want to include and then try to find sources for it, that doesn't lead to a balanced or neutral article.
(t · c) buidhe 12:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only answer to the first point for now.
1) You said About this, a 2020 paper states. You never linked this 2020 paper. Before you had given a link to a 2009 paper [11].
The 2009 paper says this:

No historical evidence exists that smallpox was an effective bioweapon. Over several centuries of colonial settlement in North and South America, anecdotes, diaries, and public letters expressed intent to use smallpox against indigenous people. Much like the current discussions about the potential use of smallpox as a weapon, what has been written into historical texts and some medical journals may have been fueled more by fear than plausibility.

Here's the part you removed based on 2009 paper, which is sourced with a 2023 genocide textbook.[12]

According to Adam Jones, in genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation.

As I said
a) saying it wasn't an effective method doesn't mean it wasn't a method.
b) The authors are not genocide scholars or historians. The authors are:

Authors and Affiliations
Smallpox Eradication Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
J. Michael Lane M.D.
A Human Writes, Atlanta, GA
Lila Summer

[13]
c) This is not a review article published in a genocide journal, so I consider the source quality to be lower compared to a 2023 genocide textbook
d) The sentence you removed has an in-text attribution, to Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)
e) You also deleted non-smallpox parts, about plague (so the point about biological weapons stands) and "forced labor and slavery, and starvation"
f) Instead of removing everything, you could have expanded the article, similar to below:

According to Adam Jones, in genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation. Although smallpox was not an effective method [the study you found]

Overall, I said it many times, I am very concerned that anything mentioning Native Americans or Americas are being removed. This is also evident even in the images in the article. There are no images from Americas
I also find it very difficult to work with you and communicate with you. I'd like to move to a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests venue.
I had already filed WP:DRN request [14][15]. Do you not want to proceed with this? [16]. We can also try a 3rd opinion. In the future we can also proceed to an RfC, but there are several issues at the moment. Bogazicili (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked about the textbook source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [17] Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about: as you can see from my comment yesterday I quoted a source from 2020. Now that you bring it up, I realize I did forget to add a link. If you aren't capable of finding it with a quick google search, here it is.
I am not primarily concerned with the extent to which America is mentioned in the article (although I believe it should be kept in balance with other continents). As I've said on many occasions, my issue is with the content and sourcing of the specific additions you made. If you can find images from the Americas that illustrate the general concept of genocide, I would be interested to see them. I was actually looking for such images on Commons, but unfortunately the ones I could find were either fictionalized or don't do a good job illustrating relevant points about genocide that are discussed in the article text.
Wikipedia has a clear procedure for when content does not have consensus: per WP:ONUS, it should be left out of the article until such a time as it does have consensus. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) There are no exact google matches with that quote, even when you only google the part after [Churchill], probably because the article is behind a paywall. Results of google searches may also differ based on geographic location. I also don't have to hunt for sources you mention here in google, please be respectful of other people's time. I had asked you for a link multiple times. Also refrain from personal attacks such as If you aren't capable of finding.
2) There was no balance in the version you were reverting to since you removed pretty much any mention of Americas in history and methods sections.
3) About WP:ONUS, to achieve consensus, I suggested multiple dispute resolution methods here and in your talk page [18][19]. WP:BRD remains in effect. If you are not sure what version needs to be reverted to, ask an administrator for help. Bogazicili (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like further back and forth won't help because it seems like you've made up your mind about the content.
Per the WP:ONUS policy, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So if you want the content included, after I have disputed in good faith and explained why the specific content should not be included, with a policy based rationale right here, you're welcome to attempt to find consensus, using a dispute resolution mechanism of your choice. But until you achieve that consensus, the content should remain out of the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find consensus by suggesting multiple dispute resolution avenues. You remain unresponsive. For example: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genocide Bogazicili (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

[edit]

Should Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians added as colonial/settler colonial genocide examples into the second paragraph in History section?

  1. Include Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians as examples
  2. Include Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians as examples along with other examples in history section (expansion of History section)
  3. Do not include
  4. Other

Bogazicili (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Option A or B The second paragraph in history section is quite vague now and goes on tangents, rather than giving examples from history. Using these two examples help explain the concept of settler colonial genocides better. They are also WP:DUE, as they are mentioned in introductory chapters in WP:Secondary sources, genocide overview chapter in The Cambridge World History, and in WP:Tertiary sources. The entire article is quite short now (less than 4000 words), so the history section can be expanded to include more examples. Sources are below:
WP:Secondary sources
The Cambridge World History Volume 7, Genocide chapter, p. 430:

That said, and ever since the initial Eastern seaboard settler wars against the Tsenacommacahs and Pequots in the 1620s and early 1630s, systematic genocidal massacre was a core component of native destruction throughout three centuries of largely 'Anglo' expansion across continental North America. The culmination of this process from the mid-1860s to mid-1880s ... native Araucanian resistance by the Argentinian and Chilean military in the Southern Cone pampas, primarily in the agribusiness interest. In Australia, too, 'Anglo' attrition or outright liquidation of Aborigines from the time of 'first contact' in 1788 reached its zenith in Queensland in these same decades, as a dedicated Native Mounted Police strove to cleanse the territory of indigenous tribes in favour of further millions of cattle stock. Undoubtedly, in all these instances, Western racism and contempt for natives as 'savages' played a critical role in psychocultural justifications for genocide

The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies,
Introduction chapter, Editors' Introduction: Changing Themes in the Study of Genocide chapter, p. 4:

A related consequence of the influence of the Holocaust model has been to overemphasize the role of narrow political ideology in genocide ... Such a taxonomy ignores both the concessions that the Nazis did make to practicality in their murder campaigns and, more importantly, the obviously ideological considerations that ultimately permitted, say, Europeans to murder, say, native Americans as if they were simply practical obstacles to be removed...

This book also has chapters covering these issues, such as:
Rethinking Genocide in North America, p. 339:

The genocidal intent of California settlers and government officials was acted out in numerous battles and massacres (and aided by technological advances in weaponry, especially after the Civil War), in the abduction and sexual abuse of Indian women, and in the economic exploitation of Indian child labourers.

Genocide and Mass Violence in the ‘Heart of Darkness’: Africa in the Colonial Period, p. 349:

Colonial genocide has even become a widely used distinct category. However, it is important to note that genocidal violence in most of colonial Africa differs in some considerable ways from genocides committed in North American and Australian settler colonies: European colonization of Africa did not inevitably lead to the expulsion and/or annihilation of the indigenous populations.

The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2
Introduction to Volume II Chapter, p. 10:

This volume offers, besides other imperial expansionist cases such as those from early modern China and Japan, empirical evidence for Barta’s observation across five centuries of European settler colonial history. In Part I, ‘Settler Colonialism’, three chapters collectively survey the colonial histories of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. These chapters bring the many differences between these colonies to light, but it is what connects them that determines their histories as genocidal: the goal of imposing a new settler society on Indigenous lands. Further, these chapters articulate how genocide has shaped the nationalist historiographies of settler colonies.

This volume also has chapters specifically covering these issues such as:
The Centrality of Dispossession’: Native American Genocide and Settler Colonialism, p. 38:

With these works, a near consensus emerged. By most scholarly definitions and consistent with the UN Convention, these scholars all asserted that genocide against at least some Indigenous peoples had occurred in North America following colonisation, perpetuated first by colonial empires and then by independent nation-states

A Very British Genocide: Acknowledgement of Indigenous Destruction in the Founding of Australia and New Zealand, p. 47:

Within twenty years of settlement, the Aboriginal population of Victoria had declined by 80 per cent. Most of Australia’s 750 Aboriginal languages lost their last speakers. In the 1930s, after a century of child stealing and family disruption, the official policy of 'breeding out the colour' was implemented. It was genocide, exactly as Lemkin was then trying to make it understood. It was not only about killings, but also about words and actions that signified an intention to destroy a human group.

It's also mentioned in genocide entries in encyclopedias:
WP:Tertiary sources
The Social Science Encyclopedia, Genocide entry, p. 411. US and Australia are given as examples to colonial genocides:

(1) Colonial genocides developed from the fifteenth century onwards as Europeans and (later on) North Americans established their domination around the globe...In the case of the Americas, the vast proportion of Native Americans died as a result of their exposure to diseases against which they had no immunological protection. But there were individual cases of genocide within the huge and complex process of European expansion, as of the California Indians in the 1840s and the Aboriginal populations in Tasmania and in Queensland, Australia.

The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, Genocide entry, p. 295:

It is suspected that genocide was fairly common even in antiquity. The best-known but sometimes still contentious cases since earliest times include the Athenian destruction of Melos (416 B.C.) during the Peloponnesian War, the Roman obliteration of Carthage in 146 B.C., the ravages of the Mongols under Genghis Khan in the thirteenth century, the Albigensian Crusade in thirteenth-century Europe, the persecution of Christians in early modern Japan, the mass killings of Ndwandwe people by Shaka's Zulu armies in the 1820s, and the destruction of certain Native American and Aboriginal peoples in the New World and Australia. Critics of the British imperial regime also used the term extermination to characterize the Irish famine of the 1840s, during which at least a million people perished.

Encyclopedia of Global Justice, Genocide entry, p. 388:

In recent years, the term "genocide" has been used to describe the United States' actions against the Native Americans during the four centuries after Columbus landed.

Genocide textbook
Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction has an entire chapter on this Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. Chapter abstract:

ABSTRACT
This chapter considers the impact of European invasion upon diverse indigenous peoples. The histories of indigenous peoples cannot be understood without reference to imperialism and colonialism. In Australia and the United States, among other locations, these settlers would become key, often semi-autonomous instruments of genocide against indigenous peoples. As was true for indigenous peoples elsewhere, the twentieth century witnessed not only a demographic revival of the Australian Aborigines but in the latter half of the century also the emergence of a powerful movement for land rights and restitution. Among most sectors of informed opinion in the Americas from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego the notion that indigenous peoples experienced genocide at the hands of their White conquerors was, for decades, dismissed and derided, even within genocide studies. In Madley's opinion, such nomenclature casts Indians as threatening and dangerous subtly providing a post-facto justification for the violence committed against them.

The current wording in the second paragraph in history section is also misleading as it says: particularly associated with the settlement of Europeans outside of Europe, as it largely ignores expansion of countries such as United States
source
Rethinking Genocide in North America, p. 334:

The emergence of a racially defined American republic in North America added a level of ideological intensity to colonial patterns of frontier violence and the Anglo-American quest for territorial and economic aggrandizement. Standing in the path of a republican settler colonial empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific were the Native American communities of the south, southwest, the Great Plains, and the west. American explorers, ranchers, settlers, and gold-seekers took to the United States’ frontiers of settlement their hopes and dreams for a better life, and a moral repugnance for indigenous peoples that expressed itself, in the words of one recent scholar, as the ‘beastilization’ of Native Americans.

Bogazicili (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad RfC No one is saying that this topic cannot be covered in the history section. Indeed, it already is in my version of the article, since these fall under the umbrella of settler colonial genocide. The dispute is the specific content and sources that you chose in your additions, which I have criticized above. Another issue is what is the purpose of explicitly mentioning NA and Australia, but not other settler colonial genocides? Is there a distinguishing factor between these two continents and other ones where settler genocides occurred (for example parts of Africa or South America) you are trying to highlight? Per the sources you quote above, it's not clear what that might be. The United States is a well known example of the settlement of people of European origin outside Europe, and you have not cited any sources that disagree with this. (t · c) buidhe 06:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comment "Bad RfC" very surprising.
You had said: This article is about the overarching concept of genocide, so material from sources about particular genocides should be added to the relevant articles but it does not show WP:DUE for the inclusion of content here and you kept reverting addition of this information multiple times while remaining unresponsive to multiple dispute resolution offers as outline here User_talk:Buidhe#User_Conduct_Dispute.
Other examples of settler colonies can be given but Australia and US are consistently used in multiple sources as shown above.
About The United States is a well known example of the settlement of people of European origin outside Europe, and you have not cited any sources that disagree with this, I have already given a quotes above.
Genocides happened both during European colonization and during the independent states established. The sources clarify this distinction. Why do you want to omit this from this article? If "United States is a well known example", why do you want to omit this example? Concepts are explained better with examples. Right now second paragraph sounds too vague. Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your discourse style of posting a firehouse volume of quotes that do not say what you take them to mean. None of the sources you quote above contradict the frankly WP:BLUE fact that The United States is a well known example of the settlement of people of European origin outside Europe (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the point though. If The United States is a well known example of the settlement of people of European origin outside Europe, why do you want to omit this example?
Should we also omit the holocaust in 3rd paragraph because it is also a well known example? Bogazicili (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these examples aren't even mentioned in the body. The history section is quite poor. I suggest Genocides in history be rewritten using the three volumes of The Cambridge World History of Genocide, and then that be condensed for the history section of this article, and then summarised in the lede. But I think starting with the lede is a mistake. These are the two most discussed examples in English language sources, so would be the most WP:Due
Kowal2701 (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kowal2701: this RfC is about History section, not lead :) Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, then yes I support B, the history section is in need of expansion. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C do not include the specific proposed text. Whilst there might be a case for giving greater coverage to the whole phenomenon of genocide as a result of European colonisation (which includes the whole of the Americas and Australasia as well as parts of Africa), no convincing argument has been made IMO for 'singling out' US and Australia. In a general topic article of this kind, covering genocidal conflict from ancient times up to the 20th and 21st centuries, necessarily the coverage must be restricted to very broad historical trends. Entire epochs are covered in single sentences. Material that would be welcome in 'list' and more specific articles, simply doesn't belong here and would change the scope and purpose of the article.Pincrete (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is interesting. Examples were added into the lead recently. You have edited the article since then. Are only certain examples UNDUE? Bogazicili (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no idea what you are referring to, apart from a fairly feeble attempt to imply double standards on my part! I wasn't aware of any examples being added, certainly not in any detail. I am sure however that a history that barely mentions the holocaust, (or other WWII or 20th C genocides) doesn't need to go into specific details on US or Australia - even though it DOES cover the general 'fallout' from European colonisation as a broad theme. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the changes into the article [20], before your edit [21], including changes into lead. Bogazicili (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I say anywhere that no examples should go anywhere in the article? None of these changes are to the history section, but if asked I would say that some of the recent additions fulfil no purpose. The Armenian genocide was relevant to Lemkin's 'evolution' of the concept, but otherwise I agree with Kowal2701's comment below. Pincrete (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are disputing adding examples into history section here and by reverting in the article [22], while not reverting adding examples into the lead? Bogazicili (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was just trying to force you and Buidhe to the talk page to stop you guys edit warring in slow motion Kowal2701 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kowal2701: Note that I had already filed a WP:DRN request by then [23], which seems to have been rejected by Buidhe. See: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_251#Genocide Bogazicili (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I interpreted this correctly as very cautious support for option A? Or just for the principle of page linking examples, not only or specifically these ones? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One person has supported option A (the instigator + I presume yourself) . One person has supported option C (me + two implied opposes)so I see no agreement on anything at this stage. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment might it be worth discussing whether we should provide examples, as in just name drops/pagelinks, of what is discussed in the history section? If agreed, which would be the best examples in each case?
Some along with the two above and those in the lede could be the Herero and Nama genocide, Taino genocide, Cambodian genocide, Dzunghar genocide, Banda genocide, Darfur genocide, Bosnian genocide, Bangladesh genocide, Libyan genocide, Selk'nam genocide, and the Circassian genocide. I suggest we try to give a global perspective
Kowal2701 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past there was a list of about 15 'representative' genocides (broadly representative over time and location). On an almost weekly basis, the list was added to by everyone wanting their 'favoured' incident given greater prominence. 'Pruning' the list was a constant vigil and it is difficuly to come up with valid reasons to exclude (more people died at A than B, which is in 'your' list. More sources write about C than D. Why are we excluding examples from X?). It was because of the need to constantly 'prune' that I first watchlisted this article (which I have only a very general knowledge or interest in). While theoretically a good idea, 'representative examples' start to simply replicate 'list' articles elsewhere in my experience and create constant maintenance issues. Pincrete (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we come to a consensus and put a note in the code saying don’t change this? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it would be ignored, and in one sense quite rightly, why name one example but ignore others (unless the example fulfils a specific purpose) ? Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our criteria could be:
  • which cases are given as examples when sources discuss this
  • which cases would give a global perspective
and suggestions would have to conform to that Kowal2701 (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively this would be a near-arbitary choice of a particular small group of editors, since almost everything in Genocides in history and List of genocides would meet these criteria. Why choose our own examples when we can link to these lists itemising ALL instances? Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete:
1) we would go by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
2) we would look at WP:Tertiary to look at what's DUE and give several examples, not all
3) Current format of cherry-picking and repeating certain examples while ignoring others is against WP:NPOV Bogazicili (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the above remark about Lemkin's evolution of the concept of genocide, colonial and settler colonial genocides were also important:
    • Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History by Dirk Moses, p.8-9:

    • Demonstrating that genocide had been a recurring feature of human history was at the heart of Lemkin's public campaign to outlaw genocide in international law in the late 1940s and 1950s ...
      Extra-European colonial cases also featured prominently in this projected global history of genocide. In “Part III: Modern Times,” he wrote the following numbered chapters: (1) Genocide by the Germans against the Native Africans; (3) Belgian Congo; (11) Hereros; (13) Hottentots; (16) Genocide against the American Indians; (25) Latin America; (26) Genocide against the Aztecs; (27) Yucatan; (28) Genocide against the Incas; (29) Genocide against the Maoris of New Zealand; (38) Tasmanians; (40) S.W. Africa; and finally, (41) Natives of Australia ...
      While Lemkin's linking of genocide and colonialism may surprise those who think that his neologism was modeled after the Holocaust of European Jewry, an investigation of his intellectual development reveals that the concept is the culmination of a long tradition of European legal and political critique of colonization and empire.

      Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many examples of settler colonial genocide, which makes the heightened focus on two of them particularly mystifying. (t · c) buidhe 07:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the WP:Tertiary sources above.
    There is also an option B above, which I supported in addition to option A.
    What is "particularly mystifying" is the continued insistence of omitting certain examples. Bogazicili (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Echo buidhe's comment above. That the many instances of European (and possibly other) colonial genocide is part of a recurring pattern in human history and pre-history isn't a very sound argument for giving greater prominence to two, or a small handful of instances out of a very large number referred to in the source above, and an even larger number not named in that source. If there are an excess of text references or photos of the Armenian, or any other specific genocides, simply remove/replace the excess as apt. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, because these two cases are the most discussed in reliable sources and are the most WP:Due.
    Despite this, there’s a discussion above about which examples to include. While a concern, I don’t think maintenance is a valid reason not to bother improving the article. This looks like WP:Status quo stonewalling. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Overall, I am very concerned about continued insistence in omitting certain examples in this article, while mentioning only certain examples.
    My concern is amplified by this journal article: Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia
    I will probably not respond to every comment to not WP:BLUDGEON going forward.
    I hope we can get more input from the community. The closure will be based on sources provided and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Bogazicili (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per Pincrete. I don't want to add too much since there's already so much written here. Nemov (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C - no need to single out two countries and per Pincrete. Avgeekamfot (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The current wording in the second paragraph in history section is also misleading as it says: "particularly associated with the settlement of Europeans outside of Europe", as it largely ignores expansion of countries such as United States I thought that the whole colonisation of US was part of the "settlement of Europeans outside of Europe" - along with all 'modern' settlement of the Americas from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, all of which was colonised by people of (predominantly) European extraction, and barely any of which escaped substantial harm to indigenous people(s). I don't understand why the US (nor to a lesser extent Australia) need be 'singled out' as examples of a wider spread phenomenon (European colonisation being at the expense of indigenous people on every continent except Europe itself). That they are examples of the phenomenon (as are many/most other European colonies/former colonies), is not disputed by anyone AFAIK.Pincrete (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources make this clear: With these works, a near consensus emerged. By most scholarly definitions and consistent with the UN Convention, these scholars all asserted that genocide against at least some Indigenous peoples had occurred in North America following colonisation, perpetuated first by colonial empires and then by independent nation-states
Genocides happened both during European colonization and during the independent states established. The sources clarify this distinction. Why do you want to omit this from this article? Bogazicili (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of the sources give this distinction the massive priority that you do. Edit: Bogazicili is not able to dredge up hardly any sources that say that the distinction is relevant to our topic, the occurrence of genocide. Given the huge amount of terrain that this article needs to cover, and the large amounts of relevant content that need to be left out, that is enough for me to conclude it's probably WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genocides happened both during European colonization and during the independent states established. this sentence breaks down distinct time periods (the establishment of colonies and their subsequent separation from the 'mother' country) in the way that "settlement of Europeans outside of Europe" does not. The latter is much more 'generic' and makes little distinction between colonies/dependencies/former colonies. Why do you want to omit this from this article? I haven't said I do. I am seeking to clarify why it is necessary to make the distinction between (dependent) colonies and their later manifestations as (to a greater or lesser extent) self-governing entities and what the US and Australia specifically illustrate that other European settlements in the Americas and elsewhere don't. US is an example of an early and abrupt severance of the 'umbilical' connection to Britain, but other entities had a much more gradual disconnect from their European 'motherlands'.Pincrete (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Because this is the history section
2) We should accurately portray history, with respect to the WP:RS sources
3) The article is less than 4k words, so no need to be excessively concise, which is vague and misleading at this point Bogazicili (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the history section, so we should go over the history. In history, genocides happened both during colonial empires and independent states. I don't see any reason why that should be omitted. Sounds like misrepresentation if ommitted. Bogazicili (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we omit Genocide is violence because it's too obvious? Is there non-violent genocide? The fact that genocide is violent is more obvious than Native American genocide in the United States, given Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples Bogazicili (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are the most discussed examples in English language sources, therefore making them WP:Due. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is largely about the concept of genocide. The history and evolution of the concept itself is obviously a major topic, but we could not possibly cover even the major examples worldwide from ancient times up to the present day, other articles do that. That genocides occurred in 'modern' times as a result of colonisation and specifically as a result of European colonisation is clearly WP:Due, but I'm not persuaded that 'honing in' on two specific examples is. Why US rather than the rest of the Americas? Why Australia rather than (for eg) the Congo or Namibia? (or for that matter almost any previously colonised part of the world). Even if these were the most discussed examples in English language sources, which I question, the purpose of an example is to illustrate a specific point … I don't see what point needs to be illustrated beyond perhaps a brief mention.Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think examples are always there to make a point, but rather to provide evidence and bolster a statement. In this case, it’d bolster the statement “this happened”. I think we could discuss the wideview perspective on the history of genocide, and list like 5 examples of each form, such as one from each continent to give a fair representation. Genocides in history would discuss the examples in more depth, and we would effectively be condensing that. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, Wikipedia follows the sources. The sources above are clear. WP:DUEness is also clear from WP:tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias.

As for why X, and why not Y. I am not opposed to more examples. But US and Australia are the most WP:DUE in second paragraph.

This is how The Social Science Encyclopedia, Genocide entry, p. 411 (WP:Tertiary source) covers colonial genocides:

1) Colonial genocides developed from the fifteenth century onwards as Europeans and (later on) North Americans established their domination around the globe. The entire encounter between the West and the rest of the world was most definitely not a genocide. In most instances, Europeans were interested in the labour power of indigenous peoples and established their political control by working through existing social and political structures. In the case of the Americas, the vast proportion of Native Americans died as a result of their exposure to diseases against which they had no immunological protection. But there were individual cases of genocide within the huge and complex process of European expansion, as of the California Indians in the 1840s and the Aboriginal populations in Tasmania and in Queensland, Australia. Sometimes, these actions were carried out by settlers without the express approval of their states, but colonial states also rarely intervened to put a halt to such excesses.
(2) Especially in the case of twentieth-century...

Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the current history section is not very long, it should not delve into the details. Diseases certainly played a role. But was there biological warfare? If the point is debated, it is probably best to leave that part out. Senorangel (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Methods section

[edit]

Buidhe repeatedly removed the following information from Genocide#Methods. This issue is also discussed above, in Talk:Genocide#Additional_problems_with_recent_edits

The below is sourced with a 2023 genocide textbook p. 138:

According to Adam Jones, in genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation.

Their reasoning for the removal was based on two papers: 2009 paper and 2020 paper (accessible through Wikipedia Library)

1) With respect to the 2009 paper, it says this:

No historical evidence exists that smallpox was an effective bioweapon. Over several centuries of colonial settlement in North and South America, anecdotes, diaries, and public letters expressed intent to use smallpox against indigenous people. Much like the current discussions about the potential use of smallpox as a weapon, what has been written into historical texts and some medical journals may have been fueled more by fear than plausibility.

  • a) saying it wasn't an effective method doesn't mean it wasn't a method.
  • b) Buidhe also deleted non-smallpox parts, about plague (so the point about biological weapons stands) and "forced labor and slavery, and starvation"

2) With respect to the 2020 paper, it actually criticizes use of germs to deny genocides

For the last several decades, claims of independent germs causing demographic collapse proved to be an intellectual barrier for many in accepting that genocides occurred in the Americas. Revisionist scholarship removes this old stumbling block, reinvigorates what had become a stale debate, and makes the germ refrain—whether resorted to by Catholic officials, university educators, or public intellectuals—now sound as polemical as the term genocide once did.

But it also notes:

Most significantly, though, he claimed that colonizers deliberately infected indigenous peoples through the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets and other items. Beyond the documented case of biological warfare at Fort Pitt in 1763, scholars had not given such claims much credibility.

Based on all 3 sources above, this is what I suggest:

According to Adam Jones, in genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, forced labor and slavery, and starvation.[genocide textbook source] Although, smallpox was not an effective method and wasn't used widely.[2 papers above]

Bogazicili (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested 3rd opinion for this. Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bogazicili misinterprets the 2020 source, which actually says: Most significantly, though, [Churchill] claimed that colonizers deliberately infected indigenous peoples through the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets and other items. Beyond the documented case of biological warfare at Fort Pitt in 1763, scholars had not given such claims much credibility. So the idea that disease was deliberately spread as biological warfare, and this was a common tactic used against Native Americans as implied, is very much not an accepted mainstream view in scholarship, and is therefore UNDUE for mention in a very broad, overview article such as this one. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't even make sense. See the wording suggestion. I guess this is why we need dispute resolution Bogazicili (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about According to Adam Jones, in the genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included using plague and smallpox as biological weapons, such as the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets, however other scholars disagree based on lack of evidence. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lack of widespread evidence. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: Thanks for the suggestion. I'm ok with something like this. But we also need "forced labor and slavery, and starvation". The below is the entire quote from Jones 2023, p. 138:

The European holocaust of indigenous peoples in the Americas may have been the most extensive and destructive genocide ever. ... wide-ranging genocidal measures have been imposed.14 These include:

  • Genocidal massacres
  • Biological warfare, using pathogens (especially smallpox and plague) to which the indigenous peoples had no resistance
  • Spreading of disease via the 'reduction' of Indians to densely crowded and unhygienic settlements
  • Slavery and forced/indentured labor, especially, though not exclusively, in Latin America, in conditions often rivaling those of Nazi concentration camps
  • Mass population removals to barren 'reservations,' sometimes involving death marches en route, and generally leading to widespread mortality and population collapse upon arrival
  • Deliberate starvation and famine, exacerbated by destruction and occupation of the native land base and food resources
  • Forced education of indigenous children in White-run schools ...

Bogazicili (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that be mentioned prior to this sentence, as I understand it’s only the biological weapon method that is not consensus Kowal2701 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is one documented event: Beyond the documented case of biological warfare at Fort Pitt in 1763, scholars had not given such claims much credibility.
That is why I had suggested "wasn't used widely" Maybe we can say "scholars disagree based on lack of evidence, except one case" or something like that. Bogazicili (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, @Buidhe what do you think? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority view, it seems we're agreed, is that this method of genocide is only attested in one case. Certainly, it can be discussed in sub articles, such as methods of genocide, or biological warfare. But I just don't see how WP:DUE is met, given that there have been a very large number of genocidal events in history, this would take focus away from describing more common methods of genocide.
Speaking of more common methods, besides the alleged biological warfare, all of the other methods mentioned here are extremely common with regards to genocides in general. For example, all of them were used in the Armenian genocide. It would be misleading to state that these methods occurred with North American genocides, when the truth is that they are widespread. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a undergraduate and graduate textbook, so it is a WP:Secondary and WP:Tertiary source. WP:DUEness is met.
Some of these methods are also not mentioned in methods section. Saying it's not DUE is weird at this point. Bogazicili (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s due for a single sentence. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can a method commonly regarded as NOT having been used except in a single instance in US history be DUE iro the whole history of genocide? It would be much more DUE to record that biological warfare was generally NOT employed in colonial settlement (though somewhat pointless to record methods not used)! Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: this is about Methods section, not History section. The information above is for Americas, for North America and South America. This is not about US. See the wording suggestion above.
But we can change it to According to Adam Jones, in genocide of indigenous people in North and South America... Bogazicili (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion would violate NPOV, whereas the proposal above summarises both sides. The section is on the methods of genocide. Of course it is due since it was a method used in genocide discussed in multiple reliable sources. The scope of the section is so narrow that we can and should include this. And before you say the scope isn't narrow, the status quo basically just says "transported and massacred", there aren't many ways to destroy a group of people. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is about Methods section, I understood that. It is about whether we mention biological warfare, despite the vast majority of sources recording that it largely didn't happen (not simply that it wasn't effective). What reason do we have for recording the small number who say otherwise? These would be apt on more specific articles, but not on this generic one.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was widespread intent: Over several centuries of colonial settlement in North and South America, anecdotes, diaries, and public letters expressed intent to use smallpox against indigenous people. Bogazicili (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the sources provided correctly, this quote is from the 2009 paper from Adam Jones. What reason to we have to feature this single paper by a single scholar in a (necessarily) limited 'overview' of the whole history of the topic. Your text actually acknowledges that even Jones doesn't consider it a 'method', merely something that was considered. Attributed (if not generally accepted, which appears to be the case) it could well belong on more specific articles but it seems completely unDUE in this article. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main quote above is from a Genocide textbook. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction has an entire chapter on this Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. As an undergraduate and graduate textbook, this source could be considered both WP:Secondary and WP:Tertiary. Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources:
  • Finsch 2008
  • History of biological warfare and bioterrorism 2014: Introduced in the American continent by the European colonizers, it was explicitly used several times as a way to infect Native Americans during the so-called ‘Conquest of the West’. To quote but only one anecdote, Captain Ecuyer, of the British forces, after offering blankets from a smallpox hospital to Native Americans, noted in his journal: ‘I hope it will have the desired effect’ [2]. However, in the light of contemporary knowledge, it remains doubtful whether his hopes were fulfilled, given the fact that the transmission of smallpox through this kind of vector is much less efficient than respiratory transmission, and that Native Americans had been in contact with smallpox >200 years before Ecuyer’s trickery, notably during Pizarro’s conquest of South America in the 16th century.
  • Edwards and Kelton 2020 This scholarship shows that germ-centered explanations obscure more than they illuminate, and that colonizers bear responsibility for creating conditions that made natives vulnerable to infection, increased mortality, and hindered population recovery. This responsibility intersected with more intentional and direct forms of violence to depopulate the Americas.
Boulder, Churchill proclaimed that “the genocide inflicted upon American Indians … is unparalleled in human history, both in terms of its sheer magnitude and in its duration.” He relied heavily on Dobyns's high population estimates, but he also argued that disease-induced deaths often resulted from colonial practices and policies, such as forced relocation, coercive missionary efforts, enslavement, and boarding schools. Most significantly, though, he claimed that colonizers deliberately infected indigenous peoples through the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets and other items.
  • Ostler 2019: What is clear, however, is that the British not only contemplated but committed an act of biological warfare that was intended to kill as many Indians as possible.
Kowal2701 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely deserves a sentence. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, using above sources, we have:

In the genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included forced labor, slavery, and starvation. According to Adam Jones, plague and smallpox were also used as biological weapons. Other scholars disagree based on lack of evidence, except one case.

I'll add it into the article in a day or two, unless there is no disagreement.

If anyone wants to generalize this to other genocides, feel free to add page numbers and sources. But I see no reason to omit the example of genocide of indigenous people in Americas as an example in methods section. Bogazicili (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My general response is that if you have to cite a specific author, then the material is almost certainly undue for a general article of this kind. More specifically, some of the sources here appear to contradict your point This scholarship shows that germ-centered explanations obscure more than they illuminate. The general view appears to be that deaths by disease were the result of other measures (relocations etc), rather than conscious 'biological warfare'. Other sources are merely quoting other research and it is unclear whether they are endorsing or simply recording those views. Further, the majority view, that intentional spreading of disease, was not widely practised and certainly not effective is attached as a mere afterthought in your phrasing. I have no prior expertise on this specific topic area, but am not persuaded that this edit is justified. Pincrete (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it seems undue to state the assessment of one isolated historian. See WP:FRINGE. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t one isolated historian, see the sources above Kowal2701 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All scholars agree there was at least one case of it, which necessitates its inclusion in the methods section, since it was a method of genocide. What is disputed is whether this was an indication of a wider phenomenon. How about saying In the Americas, forced labour, slavery, starvation, heightened the mortality rate of disease. There was one case of biological warfare regarding the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets, however scholars generally agree this wasn’t indicative of a wider phenomenon.
There’s academic consensus for that. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I don't object. Possibly the 'indirect' health impacts could be made clearer and stronger. If we are going to mention the 'one case' of conscious attempts at spreading fatal disease, which everyone acknowledges I believe, why not simply name it? (In California?) Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this would be a lot better. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is the methods section, I think we should clarify these were additional genocide methods. Do we have the page number and the source for the "heightened the mortality rate of disease"?
How about: In the genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included forced labor, slavery, and starvation.[genocide textbook source] There was one case of biological warfare regarding the distribution of smallpox-laden blankets, however scholars generally agree this wasn’t indicative of a wider phenomenon. Bogazicili (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edwards and Kelton
This scholarship shows that germ-centered explanations obscure more than they illuminate, and that colonizers bear responsibility for creating conditions that made natives vulnerable to infection, increased mortality, and hindered population recovery.
Later on:
It involved warfare, violence, labor exploitation, slavery, and migration (forced and voluntary) that “undermined indigenous social, political and economic institutions.” All of this created sustained disruptions to every aspect of individual and community survival, exacerbating indigenous mortality. As a result, native populations experienced delayed or failed population recovery. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is better suited at Genocide#Effects_and_aftermath. In that section: Most societies are able to recover demographically from genocide, but this is dependent on their position early in the demographic transition.
So we should stick to methods in Methods section. The point you are making can be added into Genocide#Effects_and_aftermath section. Bogazicili (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why call it 'biological warfare' when we can say exactly what happened (distribution of smallpox-laden blankets)? Why refer to 'one case' when we can identify and name and link to it? Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting the latest wording suggestion. You are free to make wording suggestions yourself.
Source says Beyond the documented case of biological warfare at Fort Pitt in 1763.
We can trim and say this:
In the genocide of indigenous people in Americas, additional methods included forced labor, slavery, and starvation.[genocide textbook source] There was one case of biological warfare, however scholars generally agree this wasn’t indicative of a wider phenomenon. Bogazicili (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about cherry picking going on. Sure you can find sources that discuss it. But I doubt there is a mention in many overview sources about genocide as a whole. I think we would better serve the reader by a deeper discussion of common methods.
Also, I object to the wording suggesting that In the Americas, forced labour, slavery, starvation, heightened the mortality rate of disease. This is misleading because it is true of pretty much any genocide, not just in the Americas. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about such as in the Americas. This effect/method is more prominently discussed in those cases Kowal2701 (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, can you suggest any overview sources when it comes to genocide methods? Bogazicili (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking for them, but I haven't found any great sources specifically covering that subtopic. (t · c) buidhe 18:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if Fort Pitt is the one "documented case" why not name it? If the form of "biological warfare" was disease (smallpox?) infested blankets, why not say so? Why are we using 'generic' terms that in the C20th acquired a multitude of complex manifestations, when the methodology was actually crude, but very easy for anyone to understand? Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Neutrality

[edit]
  1. The article seems to repeat certain examples multiple times, while ignoring others. This kind of cherry-picking is against WP:NPOV
  2. Certain examples such as Native American genocide in the United States and Genocide of Indigenous Australians are nowehere despite wide coverage in genocide entry in encylopedias (WP:Tertiary) and in WP:Secondary sources. These sources are quoted in above sections in the talk page. Again, this is against WP:NPOV.
  3. Colonial and settler colonial genocides were important to Lemkin's development of the concept of genocide (source above). Ignoring examples of these while giving other examples multiple times is against WP:NPOV.
  4. This problem is in multiple sections of the article, such as History and Methodology sections.
  5. Even the selection of images in the article seem biased. No images from Americas.

Given above problems, I'm putting a POV tag into the article. Bogazicili (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia seems over-used iro pictures, how else are 'certain examples' overused? I doubt that eqiv photos would be available from many other genocides.Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Settler colonial genocides is about more land. The lead image in Settler colonialism could have been used somewhere to explain the concept. Bogazicili (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question how else are 'certain examples' overused?. AFAIK nobody would object to a broader range of photos, nor a broader/more closely linked range of photo subject matter. The section subject is supposedly Article Neutrality. Pincrete (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: Another editor also made a similar point [24]. There's a lengthy quote about Turkey in Genocide#Causes section for example, while there are no examples about settler colonial genocides. Why is that? This is despite the fact that examples of settler colonial genocides are used in WP:Tertiary sources. This article has neutrality problems. Even Buidhe acknowledged lack of consensus [25] Bogazicili (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lengthy quote about Turkey in Genocide#Causes section for example That isn't a quote about Turkey, it isn't even really about causes, except indirectly. It's a quote from Turkey, justifying its genocidal actions. And buidhe's post has no bearing on the issue in hand, he was discussing another recent addition.
I'm sorry, the record is stuck and you are saying the same thing again and again in response to any post. You want mention of some specific colonial genocides, rather than describing colonial genocide as a phenomenon. Some of us can't see the logic or sense of that, even if the phenomenon could be more fully covered. I'm sure no one would object to pictures or quotes that satisfy similar purposes to those currently used, but from a broader range of instances, but do object to pics etc being used to claim a substantial neutrality issue in the text, which I just can't see I'm afraid. The 'cure' here seems more problematic than the supposed 'disease'. Pincrete (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's a quote "about" or "from".
At the end of the day, it's an example.
Examples in this article seem cherry picked. That's why I put the neutrality tag. I think it is justified.
I am also not saying examples should be removed. I am saying more examples should be added. Given that the article is short, in terms of word count, this is very logical.
I do agree that we will not agree. That's why dispute resolution methods are ongoing, such as the RfC.
I will not respond to everything going forward to not WP:BLUDGEON. Please do not remove the POV tag and let dispute resolution methods to continue. Bogazicili (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede, Genocide is also associated with colonial empires and settler colonies is a little vague.
Maybe: There is considerable academic debate about characterising various instances of settler colonialism as genocide, such as in the US, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.[1] Kowal2701 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to that, given the wording. I didn't want to put New Zealand and South Africa earlier because I didn't read those chapters in the source. From the sources in RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples, I'm more sure about US and Australia. Bogazicili (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that these cases are genocidal. (If you check my edit history: I've favored it being mentioned in some form in their pages!) However, many scholars who hold to a legalistic or narrow definition of genocide don't consider it such. Settler-colonialism also isn't limited to the Western World. So it's Westernocentric/Americentric.
Japan, Indonesia, etc. all have various policies were similar. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence says there’s academic debate, not that these were genocides. Other examples would be undue since they’re not discussed in RSs nearly as much Kowal2701 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. Any objections, @Bogazicili: or @Moxy:? It's just important that we maintain WP: NPOV here. OntologicalTree (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would just leave it at There is considerable academic debate about characterising various instances of settler colonialism as genocide as @Buidhe: suggested.
Even for those that affirm it, few scholars classify settler-colonialism as an exclusively Western process. OntologicalTree (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s a reason not to include any examples at all. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of non western settler colonialism that is regularly characterised as genocide? Western Sahara is the only one I can think of and there’s only a handful of sources about it such that it’s irregular/fringe. I suppose if you count Israel as non-western Kowal2701 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Japan’s settlement of Manchuria, Israel and Palestine, the Papua conflict by Indonesia, the settlement of ethnic Han in Tibet, etc.
All have been described as genocidal routinely by a significant minority or majority of scholars. OntologicalTree (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those all seem to have near consensus that they are instances of settler colonialism, and have been characterised as genocides. Proposal below gives quite a comprehensive WP:Global perspective.
There is considerable academic debate about characterising various instances of settler colonialism as genocide, such as in the US, Australia, Canada, Manchuria, Palestine, West Papua, and Tibet. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, this is just WP:Cherrypicking. I don't know the way forward, now all examples have been removed from the lede and history section. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original proposal was for the history section, and looking at encyclopedias to see what is DUE. Bogazicili (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

OntologicalTree, we can't have a lead in this article based on two newspaper articles. Show academic sources for this "minimalist" vs "maximalist" debate. It's probably an old debate that has been settled. BBC article is from 2010. NYT article does not make any claims about "minimalist" vs "maximalist".

NYT article also says: The strict legal interpretation of genocide has meant that courts might never recognize many of the worst atrocities of the past several decades as genocide.. It's possible the more strict definition is the legal definition as defined by UN convention, which includes Bosnian genocide case.

The Centrality of Dispossession’: Native American Genocide and Settler Colonialism, p. 38:

With these works, a near consensus emerged. By most scholarly definitions and consistent with the UN Convention, these scholars all asserted that genocide against at least some Indigenous peoples had occurred in North America following colonisation, perpetuated first by colonial empires and then by independent nation-states

Bogazicili (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism is a big problem is this field thus why academics need to release statements to the general public like . ..."The History of Violence Against Indigenous Peoples Fully Warrants the Use of the Word "Genocide"". Canadian Historical Association. The Canadian Historical Association, which represents 650 professional historians from across the country, including the main experts on the long history of violence and dispossession Indigenous peoples experienced in what is today Canada, recognizes that this history fully warrants our use of the word genocide. As for OntologicalTree please stop using news outlets for your additions.....its the nmain reason your edits are being revert all over Moxy🍁 15:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should there not be a section summarising Genocide denialism here? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course...... but not worded in that way see Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples#Scholarly debate for how I approach the problem. Moxy🍁 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s very well written, but for this page it should probably just be wideview general analysis, like at Genocide denial#Analysis Kowal2701 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canada-related articles usually seem high quality. I often model country templates, country articles, etc from Canadian ones on Wiki. Bogazicili (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are lucky in Canada..... we have a highly educated population.... a demeanor that provides facilitating moving forward. And here at Wikipedia there's a large number of old time Canadian editors. Moxy🍁 17:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of several sources saying there's an ongoing debate are provided below. Serious scholars don't debate that atrocity occurred (which is denialism). However, many object to the term upon grounds that cultural destruction, forced assimilation, and even mass killings don't genocide if there isn't an "intent to destroy" the groups. OntologicalTree (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a source says debate is ongoing about ALL settler colonial genocides. There seems to be consensus for some of them Bogazicili (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus about what particular ones? While not denying colonialism or its negative impact, many conservative (and some liberal ones) historians scholars argue settler-colonialism doesn't exist as a distinct process in the way that Wolfe did. I am, as you recall, an advocate of mentioning it in their respective country articles. OntologicalTree (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have some knowledge of the field, why are you citing BBC news articles from 2010? Bogazicili (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one issue with the academic study of genocide-according to some academics in the field - is that it's too emotionally charged. Scholars arguing whether a political party is leftwing or centrist are unlikely to be labeled "deniers" even if they're in the minority. not all disagreement about the definition of genocide or which cases qualify is a denial. however, ot needs to cite better sources. (t · c) buidhe 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source:

[edit]

This source (as of 2024) states that there's substantial disagreement over the matter.

More recent debates show that scholars still differ in their perspectives on this topic, with some advocating for a narrow interpretation of the term, limiting its use to its original intent of referring solely to the Shoah, while others are in favor of expanding and softening this concept (Dubiel and Motzkin Citation2004; Roth Citation2005). Some of the most prominent critics argue that the definition employed by the United Nations (UN) might impede governments from being punished for persecuting groups that are not protected under the Convention, as is the case, for instance, with social and political groups

Many only consider a few events in world history, such as The Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, and Rwandan Genocide as such.

I'm okay with listing stuff such as settler-colonialism, etc. but much of this seems like WP: PRESENTISM to current social issues/controversies/debates and should be contextualized.

As for majority/minority viewpoints, it appears the majority viewpoint clearly varies upon the field of study. Most historians, political scientists, and some genocide scholars are hesitant, while sociologists, settler-colonial scholars, and critical-theory related fields of study — who are often (for a lack of a better term) "left" in the field — tend to be more accepting. @Kowal2701:'s proposal seems to be the best path forward: saying that since 2006's Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native by Patrick Wolfe there's been significant attention to the question of whether settler-colonialism exists as a distinct process; if it does exist, whether it is a notable part of genocide; and if it is a notable part/motivation for of genocide, how prominent it has been in world history.

I'm also worried about Western-centrism on this page. Due to the most editors here being from countries commonly regarded as English settler colonies. OntologicalTree (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I’m more worried about the opposite Kowal2701 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do say there are different definitions of genocide.
But find an academic source about your minimalist vs maximalists edits
Show me a non newspaper source for the following: "Minimalist" scholars consider genocide an exceptional event that has only occurred a few times in world history, citing the extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany in the Holocaust, the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda, and the Late Ottoman killing of the Armenians as examples.
Why is Bosnian genocide not included above? Bosnian genocide case was actually decided by International Court of Justice. The examples seem cherry picked. Bogazicili (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OntologicalTree, looks like you found a random source from Problems of Post-Communism journal.[26]
Even that random source says this:

More recent debates show that scholars still differ in their perspectives on this topic, with some advocating for a narrow interpretation of the term, limiting its use to its original intent of referring solely to the Shoah, while others are in favor of expanding and softening this concept (Dubiel and Motzkin 2004; Roth 2005). Some of the most prominent critics argue that the definition employed by the United Nations (UN) might impede governments from being punished for persecuting groups that are not protected under the Convention, as is the case, for instance, with social and political groups (e.g., Nersessian Citation2010; Uzonyi Citation2020). Thus, even though the notion of genocide was created to define the “crime of all crimes” (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Citation2001), implying the greatest degree of harm that can be inflicted upon a group of people, attacks of the same destructive nature, but targeted against groups that are not covered by the official definition of genocide, cannot be prosecuted as such.

Again, the official UN definition seems to be the strictest criteria.
Your recent edits have very weak sourcing (2010 BBC news article), have WP:OR issues (the fact that there are different definitions of genocide does not mean there is no consensus on some settler colonial genocides) and have WP:NPOV issues (cherry-picked examples, why no Bosnian genocide?) issues. I'll be reverting them unless better sources are provided. Bogazicili (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the official UN definition seems to be the strictest criteria. No, others have given more narrow criteria. 2010 BBC news article The BBC is the newspaper of record for the United Kingdom.
the fact that there are different definitions of genocide does not mean there is no consensus on some settler colonial genocides Consensus on which ones? Even the source by Blackhawk says, at best, there's not presently a consensus. His meta-analysis also conflicts with others about the state of the literature. Despite my feelings about the matter, it's clear that the term is not clearly defined and many limit it to only a few events in history, whether or not I or anyone else here thinks that should be the case. OntologicalTree (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, others have given more narrow criteria. 2010 BBC news article The BBC is the newspaper of record for the United Kingdom: thank you for confirming this is your only source for this. See WP:NPOV. 2010 BBC news article does not invalidate other sources.
Even the source by Blackhawk says, at best, there's not presently a consensus: it says "near consensus". There can be a clarification for this. The article had less problems before your recent edits. Bogazicili (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The non-universal definitions are outlined at Genocide definitions. Moxy🍁 18:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't cited a single source that says that the un definition is the strictest used by some scholars, because it is not true. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe, the version I reverted to was largely written by you. Bogazicili (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? How is that related to my comment. You stated the official UN definition seems to be the strictest criteria., but that is neither backed up by the source you cited, nor is it true. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how is your comment relevant??
I gave my opinion based on the source OntologicalTree provided.
I did not add "official UN definition is the most strict criteria" into the article.
You are free to provide what the most strict criteria is. Bogazicili (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for confirming this is your only source for this It's not my only source for this. It's one of many. it says "near consensus". And other sources in the same year (2023) state that this perspective is a minority in scholarship among historians covering the Americas. Neither state that it's a consensus. We already have proposed wording by @Buidhe:
Are you really denying that there's disagreement over the term? We have an entire article called "definitions of genocide". I'm an advocate along with you on mentioning discussions of indigenous genocide. I argued with you in the Australia page to include some form of mention of it. You seem to want the article to focus on it as the main form of genocide. Not sure why there's such resistance to including: There is considerable academic debate about characterising various instances of settler colonialism as genocide into the page. Why are you trying to mold the article to only address current, politically-tinged controversies? (Discussions of settler-colonialism, Gaza genocide/debate, etc.) None of your sources claim that "genocide is (exclusively) associated with colonial empires and settler-colonial states". If any exist, fewer undoubtedly claim that it's a consensus. Claiming that there's no current debate over the term genocide through WP: LAWYERING is disruptive and you're now presently in a edit conflict with 4 different editors on the page. OntologicalTree (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to me? I'm not in Australia page. But if you are referring to me, it's not my claim.
I reverted to last stable version before your BBC 2010 news article edits.
For some reason, I can't reach this article's statistics, but User:Buidhe is responsible for the largest share of article authorship I believe.
Was one of your main concerns in this page the usage of Gaza image, by the way? Bogazicili (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The several editors who keep removing the BBC source would be a little more credible if they stopped referring to it as a 'newspaper'. The clue is in the name! BBC=British Broadcasting Corporation, which also publishes more detailed articles/analysis online, but it isn't a newspaper.
Reliability is a question of context, I would think the BBC 100% reliable for an explanatory 'overview' comment, but obviously less so for more detailed analysis. Pincrete (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s more that it’s 14 years old Kowal2701 (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UK does not recognize the genocides committed by Anglo settlers in multiple continents.
Why would a 14 year-old news channel source funded by UK government be preferable to academic sources? It's simply UNDUE in the lead.
The source also said: Some say there was only one genocide in the last century: the Holocaust. Even the use of source in the article was biased. The source was misrepresented in this version
And then the source also gave other examples: And in recent years, other cases have been added to the list by some. In Bosnia, the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica has been ruled to be genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
Other cases include the Soviet man-made famine of Ukraine (1932-33), the Indonesian invasion of East Timor (1975), and the Khmer Rouge killings in Cambodia in the 1970s, during which an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians died by execution, starvation, or forced labour.
Why weren't those examples in the lead? In addition to being UNDUE and misrepresentation, the examples from the source were cherry picked. Bogazicili (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a 14 year-old news channel source funded by UK government be preferable to academic sources? The BBC is funded by the British public through licence fees, not the British Govt and no one says it's preferable to any academic sources - you are saying it can be disregarded because it isn't an academic source. Used as a broad 'overview' I don't see a problem, (which I understood was how it was being used), but my main point was that editors seeking to discredit the BBC, should at least get their basic facts right about it. Why weren't those examples in the lead? Where does WP policy say that if we use a source, we have to repeat everything it says, rather than summarising it in a balanced fashion. UK does not recognize the genocides committed by Anglo settlers in multiple continents. AFAIK UK officially does not recognise any genocides, nor does it deny them. It takes the attitude that courts and historians should make such judgements, not govts.Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC news source is one source. When there are multiple sources that contradict each other, we follow WP:NPOV. I did not say BBC news source can't be used anywhere in the article. I just said it cannot monopolize the lead of this article. Bogazicili (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a stable version and it never had consensus. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to revert to earlier? The recent changes did not have consensus either. The current version is pretty much the one you and Pincrete reverted to multiple times. Bogazicili (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kiernan, Madley & Taylor 2023, p. 7–10: "In Part I, 'Settler Colonialism', three chapters collectively survey the colonial histories of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. These chapters bring the many differences between these colonies to light, but it is what connects them that determines their histories as genocidal: the goal of imposing a new settler society on Indigenous lands."

OntologicalTree was a sockpuppet

[edit]

See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 09:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow good spot Kowal2701 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. Their edits to this page had already been reverted, because they pretty much didn't provide any sources besides a 2010 BBC news article Bogazicili (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genocide&oldid=1259527371"