Talk:Black War

Wording of lead revisited

In relation to genocide, the the stable version of the lead states: "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."

Although there is an ongoing discussion on the wording of the lead (above), a couple of editors have sought to change this without discussion to: "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".

The problem with this change is that it presents only one side of an ongoing debate among scholars on the issue. The two editors also removed the following sentence from the section of the article on the genocide controversy: "However, other historians including Henry Reynolds, Richard Broome, and Nicholas Clements do not agree with the genocide thesis, arguing that the colonial authorities did not intend to destroy the Aboriginal population in whole or in part."

Under policy, articles should be written from a neutral point of view and seriously contested assertions should not be stated as facts. Reynolds, Broome and Clements are leading scholars on the Black Wars and their research indicates that there is a serious debate on the question of genocide. Other scholars such as Josephine Flood also question the genocide thesis. There is no reason under policy to remove the statement that these scholars contest the genocide thesis and then to alter the lead in a way that suggests that all scholars agree with the genocide theory. I believe the stable version of the lead is an accurate summary of the relevant part of the article, is written from a NPOV, and should remain until a clear consensus based on policy is reached on alternative wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A consensus of editors are of the view that the term genocide is more appropriate. Please stop reverting and edit warring. Jack4576 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the Talk page here at all. Nor is the issue whether the word "genocide" is appropriate. The issue is WP:NPOV and I object to your changes on these grounds. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong. In any case, I've opened an RfC to resolve the edit war you've been pursuing. Jack4576 (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"frequent incidence" is not grammatically correct. The use of "frequent" implies the use of the plural "incidents" rather than the mass noun "incidence" - so I changed it. Alternatively, "frequent mass killings" or "frequency of mass killings" would work. My change is purely for grammatical reasons; it is not intended as an opinion on the current edit war (eg [1]). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My aforementioned change was reverted by Jack4576 without an explicit reason, but I'm assuming as part of the bigger current edit-war, given that the reversion was followed by [2]. I still assert that "frequent incidence" is grammatically incorrect, but I'll wait until the dust settles on the #RfC use of the word Genocide before raising the matter again (if that phrase is retained). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I am enforcing consensus. Two editors including myself have expressed a view that ‘weasel words’ should be omitted from the lede, along with the false balance. Only one editor is insisting on the other position. Their repeated reversions are in defiance of consensus and they are the only one who is edit warring. Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC use of the word Genocide

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:[3]

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:[4]

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)

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)

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)

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)

In any event I support either B or C.

I vote against A. Jack4576 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

OK I'll do that. Jack4576 (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

D - Jack has added a fourth option into the article now.[5]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is no such consensus. That is why there is an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Summoned by bot) D, as it's the most in-depth discussion of the application of 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)

"is a term"

This edit changes the lede from:

The Black War was ...

to:

The Black War is a term used to refer to ...

but the use of "is a term" is apparently contrary to WP:ISATERMFOR and WP:REFERS (independently of the use of the word "genocide"). Is the article about the war/conflict or about the term? I'm tempted to revert that change but I don't want to get tangled up in the current EW, nor muddy the waters of the #RfC use of the word Genocide. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)