Talk:Black War

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Comment. Of course it was a genocide [1]. 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)
• 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)
• 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. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like a literature review Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  A comparison of what different sources written by Australian historians say. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  @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. TarnishedPath^talk 14:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  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. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)