Talk:Black War

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RfC use of the word Genocide

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Procedurally closed. The nominator has been blocked and a new and unlisted option implemented as a compromise. There is no prejudice against immediately opening a new RfC on the matter by any editor. Non admin close Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: THIS RFC HAS BEEN REWORDED.

OLD RFC Question: There is an ongoing editorial dispute on this page as to the use of the word 'Genocide' in the article's lede.

Should the word 'Genocide' be used in the lede of this article?

NEW RFC Question: There is an ongoing editorial dispute as to the wording of the article's lede.

Which of the following drafts for the lede is preferred?

A: The Black War was the genocide of Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania by British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832.

British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history".

B: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands.

The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The event has been retrospectively described as an act of genocide by the British colonists.

C: The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands.

The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War should be defined as an act of genocide by the British colonists.

D: The Black War is a term used to refer to the violent conflict Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania and British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832. This conflict has been characterised retrospectively by many historians as a form of genocide.

British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died.

Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history". Jack4576 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the sources supporting an article on this subject mean that the use of the word 'genocide' is necessary to ensure a high-quality article on this topic. Jack4576 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that you have once again reverted to your preferred version of the article and have then opened a RfC which doesn't adress the issue at stake. The issue is not whether the word "genocide" should be used in the lead: the stable version already uses the word genocide. The issues are:
1) You have changed the wording of the lead to give only one side of an ongoing debate. This violates policy on NPOV. WP:POV
2) You have removed sourced content in the article which shows that eminent scholars of the Black Wars have questioned the genocide thesis. You gave no explanation for this. This violates policy on NPOV.
3) You have changed neutrally worded section titles to titles which are misleading and support one side of a contested argument.
4) You have then opened this vaguely worded RfC which will not resolve the core POV issues other editors have raised.
I think the best way to progress with this issue is that you:
1) Revert to the stable version.
2) Withdraw the current RfC
3) Start a new RfC in which you clearly state all the changes to the stable version you wish to make. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a consensus against the ‘stable version’, because it contains weasel words. We have a consensus to remove those weasel words. We should not revert to that version. Jack4576 (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Summoned by bot) I don't think this RfC is properly stated. The second sentence of the lead invokes genocide and I don't see anyone here arguing that the word genocide should not be included in the lead. When I got here, the lead ends with a copy-paste of something that appears later in the article: The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history." This seems like too much detail too early, invoking two scholars, one of whom only by last name, and invoking a <refname> from farther down the page. My instinct would be to remove this bit. As for the current overall conflict happening here, I don't have an answer. Not yet at least; it's a lot to read and think about. I think us all agreeing that the word genocide should be used is good news. At least we have consensus on that! TheSavageNorwegian 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Restated Question - As TheSavageNorwegian says, this RfC is mis-stated. Supporting this RfC as proposed supports both (or now all three) versions of the lead and thus resolves nothing. As no-one has yet !voted, I would suggest that the RfC should consider the question and options as follows:
Which of these leads should the article have:
A - Status quo ante:

The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands.

The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War should be defined as an act of genocide by the British colonists.

B:[1]

The Black War was the genocide of Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania by British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832.

British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history".

C:[2]

The Black War is a term used to refer to the violent conflict Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania and British colonists from the mid-1820s to 1832. This conflict has been characterised retrospectively by many historians as a form of genocide.

British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died.

Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history".

Please !vote with A, B or C. It may be that none of these are right (for instance elements of A and C could emerge). Please label new proposals with the next available letter, and only if they are a significant difference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on C: "is a term" - I still think "is a term" is problematic - see #"is a term" below. It might be helpful to change C to not use "is a term", or state explicitly that you are doing that deliberately and address the question of whether the article is about the war/conflict or about the term. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it is not actually my RfC, I wanted to state the options exactly as presented. For the avoidance of doubt, one could !vote for option C and specify "But restated with is a term used to refer to replaced with was". A closer will take that comment into account, I think. And yes, you are right that "is a term" is problematic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should open a new RfC, instead of calling for a vote on an alternative question. Otherwise third parties won’t be notified properly. Jack4576 (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event I support either B or C.
I vote against A. Jack4576 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, you may copy my restatement as 3 4 options into your statement at the front. This will transclude it appropriately. In any case, anyone finding the RfC on your statement will see the options on arrival. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll do that. Jack4576 (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D - Jack has added a fourth option into the article now.[3]

The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands.

The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The event has been retrospectively described as an act of genocide by the British colonists.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is becoming very confusing and is likely to put off independent parties from commenting. May I suggest:
1) As an interim measure we revert to this stable version.
2) The main dispute seems to be between @Jack4576 and myself. If they wish, we can discuss the issue on my Talk page and see if we can come up with compromise wording. (I can live with Option D with some tweeks on wording.)
3) If Jack4567 and I come up with agreed wording, we withdraw the RfC and change the lead to this wording.
4) If any editor objects to this wording, we seek compromise on the Talk page.
5) If that doesn't work we put forward a couple of clear proposals for change via a new RfC Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors are opposed to reverting to the previous version; on the grounds that it contains weasel words.
There is a consensus that there should -not- be a reversion to that version. Jack4576 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible but Jack will need to withdraw the RfC, as the one who started it. Also I am avoiding reverting to the status quo ante bellum because I am waiting for Jack to do so. If Jack self reverts, there will be no 3RR breach. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you revert that, you are overriding a consensus that has been reached by three other editors that weasel words should be excluded from the lede.
Stop overriding that consensus, and wait for the RfC to resolve. Jack4576 (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus. That is why there is an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There is a consensus. Three editors object to the weasel words in the lede. This RfC was created to bring some finality, and resolve the obstinacy of a single editor that refuses to follow that consensus. Jack4576 (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with your count, as I stated on your talk page. But as said editor is offering to workshop your option D, I think that would be the quickest way to resolve this. You could withdraw the RfC and start a new one if you find you cannot agree. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor has proven themselves unwilling to compromise and difficult to work with. It will be more efficient to resolve this through RfC. Jack4576 (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming very confusing ... — Agreed. In particular I note that the four options, currently nicely formatted and easily readable under "Comment - Restated Question" have been re-ordered when presented (unformatted, harder to read) as "NEW RFC Question". If an editor !votes just by letter, eg "option A", there would be serious doubt as to which "option A" they were referring to.I suggest that regardless of which version the article is "reverted" to, this RFC should be withdrawn and re-created with a consistent and stable set of options to chose from. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think B or C work right now because of their centering specific scholars in the lead, and the criticism of that specific wording that I outlined above. Striking the last sentence of B or C makes them much better. I also don't like the ambiguous wording of "by the British colonists". The first three or so times I read it I'm wondering why it matters that it was described by British colonists. But no, it means the genocide was by British colonists. Another small issue I have is the term "spread rapidly". Seems like an opinion, given that it happened over 12 years. That's rapid in some, but not all contexts. Happy to be wrong about that; perhaps it is unambiguously rapid. Sorry for only having a comment again, it's hard to choose a favorite wording when I find problems with all of them. I think B is probably my favorite provided you drop the last sentence. TheSavageNorwegian 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Summoned by bot) D, as it's the most in-depth discussion of the application of the term "genocide", but with the first paragraph of B/C, as D's second sentence is redundant. I'd also suggest removing the first sentence of the second paragraph and adding the second sentence to the first paragraph. So;
The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died.
Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history".
It might be a good idea to add another paragraph on the effects of the conflict, as the page is fairly long. According to the prosesize gadget, the page is over 6700 words long, and MOS:LEADLENGTH says the lead should be three or four paragraphs long accordingly. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the aftermath should have a summary in the lead. Someone should just do it; I'd say it's well outside the scope of this discussion. TheSavageNorwegian 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request procedural close - I tried to salvage it, but as pointed out by Mitch Ames, the copying of options to the the front statement has changed the order of the options I suggested. and I now cannot tell if the !votes above refer to my odering or to the copied up ordering. Jack wishes to persist, but this is now a trainwreck. It needs to be closed, with no prejudice to immediately re-opening a clearly stated and neutral RfC. If re-opened, Ships Space's suggestion could be included as an option as the points are good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s unclear what people’s positions are when the comments are read alongside the votes Jack4576 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not the one who would have to close this in a month with potentially 30 or so !votes all of which would have to be clearly discernible. I don't know why you changed the order (except perhaps so as not to list the status quo first?), but because you did, it is now a train wreck. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sure the closing admin will be able to figure it out but thanks for expressing your concern Jack4576 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close without prejudice because of the reordering of options. I suggest creating a list of options and stabilising that list before creating a new RFC so that the RFC participants are not commenting/!voting on a list that is changing. (Please consider #"is a term" when making that list.) Mitch Ames (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this proposal and I will draft an option for the lead.
    @Jack4576 Will you please stop altering the contentious parts of the lead to your preferred wording while the issue is still under discussion? I am still happy to discuss the wording on my talk page to see if we can come up with a compromise which might avoid the need for a new RfC. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There is a consensus that the weasel words and false balance issues need to be removed. That consensus will be enforced even while this discussion about what should be the final wording, is ongoing. Jack4576 (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you have attempted to impose your preferred wording. I object to this because there is a clear consensus that the stable version should remain until the issue is resolved through an RfC or compromise wording gained through consensus. Please revert your last change and continue the discussion on the Talk pages. If this is the wording you wish to submit to a RfC then please state so here on the Talk page and give other editors time to come up with alternative options. Or you can drop into my Talk page as see if we can come up with compromise wording that is more likely to gain a consensus and avoid a RfC altogether. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. The stable version prior to the RfC resolving should be the one that complies with editorial guidelines. We have clear guidelines against false balance and weasel words, and those guidelines should be followed especially in cases where there are no sources to support a very problematic phrasing. There is no contemporary ‘debate’ that a genocide occurred, and no sources support the sentence that such a debate has been ‘sparked’. Instead, the sources show that historians have concluded this was an act of genocide.
    Pending the outcome of the RfC, the guidelines should be followed in the interim. and, additionally, there is clearly not a consensus that the prior wording is preferred. Jack4576 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The stable version is an accurate summary of the article as it stands. The discussion on the lead shows it has the support of Lostsadnwich, Lukewarmbeer and me. Sirfurboy has also stated that this version should be retained until a RfC is concluded or a consensus for another verion otherwise obtained. There is no consensus for your version. Please revert it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are more than three other editors (myself, TheSavageNorwegian, Ships & Space, and TimothyBlue) that support a drafting that excludes the weasel words.
    Four people is more than three. We have a consensus that the weasel words must be removed, even prior to the resolution of this RfC. You must stop edit warring and ignoring this consensus. That goes for you too @Sirfurboy Jack4576 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop with this. No one but you has asserted that change. Please stop edit warring and wait for the RfC process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A clear majority of editors are opposed to the prior wording with false balance. Following consensus -requires- that those words be removed, -now-.
    This RfC is merely to determine what the alternative drafting should be. However, in the meantime, we must remove the sentence with false balance about genocide in the lead.
    You and Aemilius are the only editors engaged in an edit war; because you are refusing to follow that clear consensus that the false balance must be removed. Jack4576 (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C And to avoid doubt as to which 'C'....

The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832, as British settlement spread rapidly over the traditional Aboriginal lands. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died. The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War should be defined as an act of genocide by the British colonists.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ‘sparked debate’, there is no debate, and there are no sources to support that statement. There is an academic consensus that a genocide occurred, and this is reflected in the sources. Jack4576 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Jack4576 has been blocked for edit warring, and this RfC is a mess. I would close it, but we have !votes and comments on the options. Thesavagenorwegian, Ships%26Space, Lukewarmbeer, would you object to a close that reads something like "Procedural close: nominator blocked. No prejudice against creation of a new RfC on the issue"? I also note that there is now a reformulated lead that seemed to be agreeable to both Jack and Aemelius Dolphin, but is not currently an option in this RfC. It might best just to leave it like that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. I may not participate in a new RfC, though, as I'm going on vacation in a few days and I won't have my computer with me. Ships & Space(Edits) 22:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy for a close on those terms thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposed new wording for Lead

Hello all,

In the course of the closed RfC above, a few editors suggested that the lead should be expanded to provide more background. I propose the following version for discussion.

The Black War was a period of violent conflict between British colonists and Aboriginal Tasmanians in Tasmania from the mid-1820s to 1832. The conflict was fought largely as a guerrilla war by both sides; some 600 to 900 Aboriginal people and more than 200 British colonists died.[1][2]

When a British penal settlement was established in Tasmania (then called Van Diemen's Land) in 1803, the Aboriginal population was 3,000 to 7,000 people.[3] Until the 1820s, the British and Aboriginal people coexisted with only sporadic violence, often caused by settlers kidnapping Aboriginal women and children. Conflict intensified from 1824, as Aboriginal warriors resisted the rapid expansion of British settlement over their traditional lands. In 1828, the British declared martial law and in 1830 they unsuccessfully attempted to force hostile Aboriginal nations from the settled districts in a military operation called "The Black Line". In a series of "Friendly Missions" in 1830 and 1831, George Robinson and his Aboriginal negotiators secured the surrender of the Aboriginal belligerents. Martial law was revoked in January 1832.[4]

Almost all of the remaining Aboriginal peoples were removed from mainland Tasmania from 1832 to 1835, and the 220 survivors were eventually relocated to the Wybalenna Aboriginal Mission on Flinders Island. Infectious diseases and a low birth rate cut the Aboriginal population at Wybalenna to 46 when the mission was closed in 1847.[5] The frequent mass killings and near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War and its aftermath should be defined as genocide by the British colonists.[6]

References

  1. ^ Clements 2014, p. 1
  2. ^ Ryan 2012, p. 143
  3. ^ Ryan 2012, p. 11-17
  4. ^ Ryan (2024), p. 141
  5. ^ Reynolds 2001, p. 71
  6. ^ Clements 2014, p. 4

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this wording because it misleads the reader into thinking there is a contemporary debate as to whether this incident was an act of genocide. That proposition is unsupported by any sources, and breaches Wikipedia guidelines regarding false balance and weasel words. Jack4576 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's still my preferred option and you are free to vote against it in a new RfC. But I have added the following compromise wording in the lead until the issue is resolved. "The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings is regarded by many contemporary historians as an act of genocide by the colonists. Others, however, argue that the colonial authorities did not intend to destroy the Aboriginal people." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

Hello all

I think the recent change to this section by User:Jack4576 is a big improvement, although I prefer the subheading to be "Academic discussion of genocide" rather than "Academic discussion of the genocide." The article makes it clear that there is a continuing academic debate on the issue and my wording presents this in a more neutral POV. I suppose the issue is whether we should use the Wikipedia voice WP:voice in this case to declare that there was a genocide. My view is that it is best to use more neutral wording when scholarly debate is ongoing. This isn't like the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide where there are almost no distinguished experts in the field who question genocide. The views of Lyndall Ryan and Boyce are also a bit more nuanced than is presented in the article and there are more serious scholars who question, or at least partially question, the genocide thesis than the article suggests. I will have a closer look at the wording over the next few days. Given that the issue of wikipedia voice is also relevant to the lead, I would be interested in what other editors think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no contemporary scholars in this field, of repute, that contest that the Black War was a genocide. It is simpler and more true to the sources to refer to it as ‘the genocide’ Jack4576 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Reynolds, Richard Broome, Josephine Flood and Nicholas Clements are among the most distinguished experts on Aboriginal history and the Black War in Australia. I particularly recommend that you read Reynold's book, An Indelible Stain? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don’t contest that the black war was a genocide. They have stated that it depends on what one’s definition of genocide; but that on many common definitions, the black war was most certainly a genocide. Jack4576 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored some of the material that was recently deleted. I have summarised it and added some new content with reliable sources. I have separated the critique of Windschuttle's views from the debate on the role of introduced diseases in Aboriginal depopulation.
Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

Hello all

I have removed the "Background" section as it repeated information found elsewhere in the article. I moved the content to the relevant sections of the article and combined it with the existing content. I have replaced unsourced editorial comment with reliably sourced information. I have created a new sub-heading on Military Tactics. I have moved some information to the lead as a summary of the article.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary lead

Hello all

As suggested by several editors in the RfC discussion, I have added some information to the lead to better summarise the article. I have left the contentious paragraph on the genocide issue as I found it following the recent edit by KlayCax. I did however slightly change the wording to remove a concern raised by Mitch Ames.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did ... change the wording to remove a concern raised by Mitch Ames. —. OK, thanks.
I think "traditional lands" should be changed to just "land". At the time, it was not "traditional land"; it was the land they lived on and occupied. Saying "traditional land" seems to imply that the situation then was as it is today - land that they used to "own" in the past (relative to 1803/1820s) but did not at the time (1820s). I don't think the word "traditional" adds any value here, but it does impose an unnecessary POV on the sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please note I prefer "traditional lands" as it evokes at least 35 thousand years of tradition in those parts. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early conflict

Hello all

As this is a background section to the main conflict of 1824-31, I have rewritten it in summary style, with links to relevant main articles for more detail. I have summarised the content on the expansion of the settlement and clarified its link to the outbreak of war. I have replaced unsourced content with reliable sourced content. I have summarised and clarified Clements' view on the motivations for settler violence. I have tried to consistently use "colonists" for all the British and "settlers" for the free settlers, and "British" (not "English" or "European") for the colonists (except when it is a quotation or the context dictated otherwise). I have tried to consistently use "Aboriginal people" or "Aboriginal Tasmanians" to describe the Indigenous population unless when quoting directly. There are some minor wording changes to reduce some very close paraphrasing of sources.

Happy to discuss, particularly if you think I have removed/changed any content which should be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?

Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?

  1. Yes, it should be referred to as genocide in Wikivoice.
  2. No, it should not be referred to as genocide in Wikivoice.

Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. a) There is an ongoing academic debate over whether the Black War involved genocide. The article describes this debate fairly well and we should not use the Wikipedia Voice to declare a winner in an ongoing debate among experts. Those who oppose the genocide thesis (wholly or partly) are not fringe denialists: they include some of the most eminent scholars in the field such as Henry Reynolds, Nicholas Clements, Richard Broome, Geoffrey Blainey and Josephine Flood. Careful wording in the lead and the article is the best way of handling a nuanced scholarly debate involving different definitions of genocide. Of course we should state that there is a debate over genocide, and the article already does that.
b) A secondary problem is the wording of the RfC. The Black War (i.e. the specific conflict from 1824-32) is generally regarded by historians as a war. It may or may not have involved a genocide but it would be misleading to reduce it to a genocide. This would be like saying: "World War II was the genocide of European Jews." Most of the scholars discussing genocide in Tasmania are referring to the whole colonial period 1803-1900, not just the Black War as such. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak No a), the debate around whether it is genocide should be referred to, however I am not familiar enough with this to offer a strong opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in Wikivoice without a strong consensus of RS, and not solely as a genocide per Aemilius Adolphin.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not in Wikivoice (or indeed at all) without a strong consensus of RS, and not solely as a genocide as above comments.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find the no arguments pretty convincing, but would like to hear what the nom. has to say before coming down firmly on one side or the other. In an RfC, the nom. typically enters a !vote too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have a question. Why does it look like that section, which makes claims about historiography, primarily cites what are presumably works about the history rather than works about the historiography? Do we not have quotes of people saying "this is what most historians are saying about this"? Surely at least a couple of those books go into what other people in their field are saying instead of just their own points? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-section heading was recently changed from "Genocide debate" to "Historiography" by an editor here. I agree that the new section heading is misleading and should be changed because the section is really about the current genocide debate. Once we get a consensus on the RfC question we can then look at the section headings. Hope this answers your question. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our coverage of discussion on how RS describe a historical event should be titled historiography. I don't see how it would be possible to answer the RFC question without a survey of the appropriate sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - looking at Encyclopaedia Britannica, I note that they do not use the term genocide anywhere (in their much shorter article) but their very first sentence explains that this nearly resulted in extermination of the Aboriginal people. That is clearly a factual summary without judgement, and can be stated in wikivoice. I have added that to the article, and on the basis that this is in the first paragraph, I don't think it is necessary to call this a genocide in wikivoice. Absent any argument to the contrary, my !vote is therefore no. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of course it was a genocide [4]. That needs to be said assertively on the page, but not not necessarily in a WP voice and with a proper attribution to sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately No - Not in wikivoice. Look, I find the scholars and academics who call this a genocide to make compelling arguments, with sound reasoning, and I find the academic arguments against calling it a genocide refutable. But wikipedia needs to reflect the consensus of the relevant experts to use wikivoice, and there is unfortunately no firm consensus amongst experts, so we can't use wikivoice. We can and perhaps should use the term genocide more prominently, even in the lead, but it needs to be attributed, not wikivoiced in this case. From skimming the section, it looks like it might be possible to say "many" or even "most" scholars call it a genocide, but we can't just say "it's a genocide" like we say "the earth is round" and such. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment where is there any sort of source analysis performed? This really can't be answered without a source analysis. If a clear majority of academics refer to it as genocide, and only a minority of academics say that it wasn't, then yes we should call it genocide in Wikivoice. If it's the other way around then clearly we shouldn't. However as I said a source analysis would help with this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like a literature review Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A comparison of what different sources written by Australian historians say. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily just Australian historians, I think ideally we'd be looking at both, it would be something that we'd especially note if Australian and non-Australian historians describe things differently. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031 when I wrote Australian historians, I meant subject matter experts on Australian history. Sorry if I wasn't clear. What you write would also be interesting as a comparison. TarnishedPathtalk 14:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to Talk:Andy_Ngo#Source_analysis_(RfC:_First_sentence_of_the_lead) (expand the collapsed section named "Source analysis - May 2024") as an example. I believe there's a tool somewhere in WP to help with the compilation of such tables. TarnishedPathtalk 11:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Years

Hello all

I have replaced unsourced content with reliable sourced content and have rewritten some very close paraphrasing of sources. I have corrected some errors and reduced the reliance on one source (Ryan 2012) by adding more content from Boyce, Clements and the University of Newcastle Frontier Massacres website. I have rewritten the section in summary style. I have cut some repeated information and have reduced excessive quotations in accordance with policy: MOS:QUOTE WP:DON'T PRESERVE

Happy to discuss, particularly if you think I have removed/changed any content which should be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martial law

Hello all

I have rewritten some very close paraphrasing of Ryan (2012). I have added content from other reliable sources and have added Johnson and McFarlane (2015) to the references. I have rewritten the section in summary style and have cut some repeated information.

Happy to discuss, particularly if you think I have removed/changed any content which should be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aborigines Committee

Hello all

I have rewritten this is summary style with more concise wording. I have added some reliably sourced content and have moved some content from other sections to this section.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West conflict

Hello all

I have added some sourced content to this section. I have reworded some parts for accuracy and clarity and to reduce some close paraphrasing of sources. I have made it clearer that the North nation was a separate group. The conflict with the Pallittore clan of the North nation is covered elsewhere in this article.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "north west" or "north" are proper nouns here, so ought not be capitalised. Also, we should be consistent on whether "north-west" is hyphenated or not. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jones and Ryan give the North nation and North West nation as proper nouns for Aboriginal nations (although obviously that's not what they called themselves in their own languages.) Other sources just say, "the Aborignal clans of the north-west" or "the Aboriginal bands of the north" etc. There is no consitent terminology. I was always taught to hyphenate north-west when used as an adjective, but the sources are inconsistent on this. I have tried to rewrite the section touse north west as adjectives rather than proper nouns. I am happy to hyphenate this or not. I will have to check the whole article though to see if this is consistent. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have eventually gone with hyphenated compass points unless it is a proper noun which is unhyphenated in the sources. Sorry for the confusion. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender and removal

Hello all

I have rewritten some content more concisely in summary style. I have added some reliably sourced content and have checked and corrected some citations. I have added sub-headings to make it easier to follow.

Happy to discuss, particularly if you think I have removed/changed any content which should be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population and death toll

Hello all

I have rewritten some content more concisely in summary style. I have added some reliably sourced content and have checked and corrected some citations. I have moved the discussion of the death toll in the Black War to the start of the section as this is the main topic of the article and it could get lost in the discussion of population estimates and other causes of Aboriginal population decline. I have changed the heading to reflect the new content and have added sub-headings to make it easier to follow.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Black_War"