Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Other issues

Going through this article and capitalizing every occurrence of the adjective Colonial, per the above suggestion, during an unsettled controversy about capitalization, with little to no discussion or consensus thus far, would be an unwise move. It seems that issue will present itself in due course, along with why there only token coverage in this article of the genocide committed by various groups of indigenous people to other indigenous people, and to colonists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Doubling down on this 'natives were the real genociders' tack is certainly a bold move, I suppose, though I don't think the most current and reliable best sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) provide verification for the claims that are necessarily implied in such a tack, e. g. that Indigenous peoples the world over have colonized the colonizers and eliminated them, bearing in mind that the scope of this article is the intentional elimination of Indigenous peoples as a part of the process of colonialism (permanent link). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but since various indigenous peoples have often played major roles in genocide towards other indigenous peoples, esp in Africa and North and South America, that topic would be an appropriate inclusion to this article. Existing accounts aren't covered nearly as thoroughly as those involving colonists, which seems to be the main thrust of this article Finding reliable sources that cover e.g.the exploits of the Aztecs, Congo wars, African slave trade, etc, would only be a matter of routine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Another POV issue in the Israel section

In the Israel section the last statement is highly questionable, and is sourced by a NYT opinion piece.

" Statements made by Israeli officials have also been described by genocide scholars as dehumanizing the population of Gaza and used as evidence for "genocidal intent."

" genocide scholars"? Only one was cited, an opinion piece. There is no reference as to what statements were made by Israel officials that would indicate, let alone prove, intent. This statement needs to be reworded to reflect objectivity, sourced by more than one genocide scholar, and ideally, ones that share differing views. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no consensus to move

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

---

Before requesting a move review, it's required to discuss the move on the talk page. There was absolute no consensus to move this page to Genocide of indigenous peoples. Like many other Indigenous editors who opposed the proposed movement, I made my statements and stopped contributing to the ENDLESS, REPETITIVE, and at times HOSTILE discussion by editors who clearly were willing argue against global style guides in the hopes that someday the discussion would be accurately closed as NO CONSENSUS, since that is obviously what happened. Repeating oneself endless does not negate the clear votes that OPPOSED the move. Yuchitown (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are supposed to discuss the objections with the closer on their talk page (and not write on the closed archive, lol). Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, see above. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never done this before. Yuchitown (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MR "Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below." Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Regarding Genocide of indigenous peoples I agree there was no consensus for this move. Additionally I do not think it should be a non-admin closure given the complexity and "temperature" of the discussion. If this discussion is to be closed at this time, the very least a closer should do is present an in-depth, thoughtful, analytical and thoroughly well-reasoned rationale, not what seems to be a two sentence drive-by closure. I want to assume good faith, however it is unclear from the summary whether the closer read the various arguments and examples. Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

(BTW, I had added my comment above because of the lengthy threading of all these discussions, especially of this length, I wanted to be certain that my comment was understood to be in response to the closer's comment at the top of the specific discussion on this talk page. I don't participate in many of these types of discussions, so if it was placed incorrectly, please forgive me for that.) Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is pretty clearly no consensus to keep the article at "Indigenous". Therefore, per WP:TITLECHANGES it should be moved back to "indigenous" regardless of whether there is consensus for doing so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It was moved in August 2023, so there is a fair argument that is WP:QUO (ie stable). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Clear consensus to move

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

---

The closer said there was consensus — i.e.there was 22 who supported and only 12 who opposed, while arguments were also considered, as should be done. "No consensus" usually occurs when the difference in votes is marginal. This wasn't the case here. Most of those who opposed cherry picked their sources favoring "style guides" and such, and ignored the bulk of sources as delineated by NGRAMS, per WP policy i.e..Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial -- "Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics)" . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There's already a section discussing the close. Please use that discussion instead of creating new threads where people have to repeat themselves.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the Post-close discussion section occurs right below the MOVE conference, above. Apparently both sections were created about the same time. We can move that section below this one, or this one below it. In any case, I've no inclination of rehashing the same arguments all over again. Consensus has spoken, per neutrality. If someone is strongly disagreeing, favoring treatment of indigenous peoples over colonial and religious people, he or she can present the matter to an appropriate forum. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

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

This is a travesty and shows the engrained racial bias of Wikipedia and multiple editors that shouldn't be editing articles on Indigenous people when they hold the position that our identity is equal to rocks and plants. Shameful. --ARoseWolf 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Including Israel/ Palestine

There was an RFC about this and closed as no consensus. An editor has reverted the material arguing QUO and I have reverted back because no consensus means more discussion not less. In addition, there has already been further discussion about this above at #he_Israel_section_suffers_from_lack_of_RS,_weasel_language_and_mostly_violation_of_NPOV that the reverting editor appears to have overlooked as they have not participated there at all (I have posted there about this previously). Finally, the "Allegations" article has since then been closed as "Gaza genocide" so things have changed quite a bit since the close. So that's what I suggest, either continue the discussion in that section or begin again here, I don't mind which. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We can continue the discussion, but before we do in the absence of consensus for inclusion the content must be removed, and I ask that you self-revert your restoration. BilledMammal (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion above about what the status quo is agreed to be. If you want to reopen this, you should know the context. But your ask is unlikely to be answered if you don't engage with the existing convo on this page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is not much more to be said that wasn’t already said in the RFC.

This section was boldly added in May and immediately contested, and then subject to a protracted dispute. Clearly, the status quo is exclusion, and editors who want to include it should open a new RFC after sufficient time has passed. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh did not realize was a talk after close.....yes normal course of action after a bold addition that has been contested and has not gained consensus for inclusion is for its removal. To anyone knowledgeable in our processes this is clear WP:NOCONSENSUS. Moxy🍁 20:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A) We already chatted about this in "The Israel section suffers from lack of RS, weasel language and mostly violation of NPOV"

B) The no consensus version before all this rfc started was in March, with the section already in

C) This section has spent more time in this article in 2024 than removed at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Just mentioned this on the policy page that we have a new generation of editors that don't have the same interpretation as us old timers due to wording changes over the years. Policy was clearly clearer before in my view. How people think that content that has been contested and with an RFC about its inclusion results in no consensus results in material staying is simply out to lunch....thank god our BLP is more clear about contentious material. Moxy🍁 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the issue is not so clear cut and as I said above, that while I would have preferred the closer of that RFC to have looked into the QUO matter, they did not and here we are. The best remedy is more discussion, what I fail to understand is how material about Gaza genocide and South Africa's genocide case against Israel cannot be in this article, that strikes me as being rather a quaint argument. To me the issue is not whether something should be in the article, but what exactly it should say and what would be due. Now we can either work that out or I am perfectly willing to go to RFC again based on the changed set of circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC was about whether it should be included at all.

You’re welcome to start a new RFC - although personally I think it would be premature - but in the meantime you need to self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The RFC was about whether it should be included at all and the result was no consensus (to include or exclude).

Moxy is asking the question about QUO (when Nocon) at the boards, I say the closer left it up in the air for editors to sort out but if it turns into another revert/revert/revert type of thing, I see no alternative to another RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Our policy is clear to me..... the current wording and sourcing is a point of contention and the current format does not have consensus to be in the article (ever since it was boldly inserted and after an RFC).... more discussion is needed before inclusion.... simply need another proposal. Just because there was an editwar by new editors (some that have been blocked) and it happens to have been there for sometime does not negate the fact that there has no consensus to be in there from the beginning in its current format. More experienced editor simply do not engage in edit wars.... this is not mean it should be there. Moxy🍁 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, more experienced or not, you and me and BM have each made a revert and I maintain that the issue needs to be discussed. And if not then another RFC it will have to be. Selfstudier (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And in the meantime, while it is being discussed, the status quo should remain. As such, please self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

QUO is not as clear as you make it out to be. How about this, we ask the question at a/the board (not sure which) specifically for this case and ask whether in this particular set of circumstances, what does QUO entail? Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be WP:AN3, but I would prefer not to bring this to the drama boards - this was an edit that was added WP:BOLDly and disputed less than six weeks later, on a page with a relatively low number of active watchers and a relatively low amount of traffic. That isn't the "stable version" or "status quo".

As such, I ask either you or Bluethricecreamman (who I note has previously reverted to include this content, and will thus be at more risk of sanctions if this goes to AN3) to self-revert and get consensus for its inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean... your the one who keeps getting blocked if i look at the block log, billedM.

and you haven't engaged with WP:NOCONSENSUS definition that folks keep talking about here.

I'm happy to go to arbitration to discuss further. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to go to the ordinary Admin noticeboard, don't really see anyone edit warring here, so that's just unhelpful, really. Selfstudier (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."

The deletion RFC happened in May. The addition of the Palestine Israel section happened in March. The fact that the current version is odious to you and not odious to me does nothing to change the fact that there was no consensus and we should follow the protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The materials been contested the whole time in his current format..... Just because experience editors did not engage in edit wars because they're aware of the contentious topic.... does not mean those blocked editors should get priority. Moxy🍁 21:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Side note ..... article off my watch list. Moxy🍁 21:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the reverting is in full swing with another one coming in and there appears to be zero interest on the part of deleters to engage in any discussion, therefore I intend to shortly initiate another RFC to address the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)