Talk:Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples

How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History

I found this article and it speaks to the lack of the important POV of the colonized in much of colonial history:

https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html

Maybe it is a good opportunity to take some constructive criticism on articles such as this one that has related subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magonz (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera thoughts ? Magonz (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Magonz, I thought this was a pretty good and important article describing the problem of anti-Indigenous bias on this platform. I have spoken with Keeler (User:EnviroMoose). He recently published another article on this topic here. I won't say any more about it here, because it's not a forum. Larataguera (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues

While I'm not against the coverage of such denial in article form, the article, while long, is a ramble and does not meet encyclopedic standards. This can of course be improved over time, but it is currently too long (and too late in the day) for me to bother doing any substantial work - might come back to it.

The other issue is the fact that the title is probably against both MOS, in terms of capitalisation, and also grammatically incorrect? As such, I'm moving the page title from Denials of Atrocity Crimes Against Indigenous Nations to Denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples. Please reply here if discussion is needed. Fermiboson (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Do you think "denial" is better than saying "denialism"? I had denials as there a multiple instances, hence plural, not singular.
2. I think "indigenous" should be capitalized: "Indigenous". See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-countries-nationalities-languages/#:~:text=You%20should%20capitalize%20the%20names,nouns%20that%20are%20always%20capitalized. Look it up, in Australia, Canada, many institutions, universities, museums, this is the consensus. Here is an example of a Wikipedia article title> History of the Romani people
3. Which encyclopedic standard in particular do you think it does not meet ? Is it the size? I can work on that. I can summarize and split into sections.
4. You say the neutrality is disputed but I don't think you give any specifics. How can we balance or add different views on the subject?
5. Furthermore, see the article B class Holocaust denial. A quite longer article, and a similar article to this one. Do you also think that that article has multiple issues? How is that different? Both this article and that one are quite similar in structure, tone and style.

Magonz (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the quality of the Holocaust denial article, but this article is definitely far from a comprehensible state. This isn't anything personal, to be clear, and writing about such a big topic is always hard.

With regard to the capitalisation of the title, Romani is a proper name, while indigenous is an adjective. I see that the capitalisation of indigenous is varied in wikipedia articles (see Taiwanese indigenous peoples, Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas). It appears that Indigenous is used mostly for specifically indigenous American populations, which I believe is not intended to be the exclusive focus of this article. (However, I do entertain the idea that this article could better be split into denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples by region.) Grammar wise, "denial" is I believe an uncountable noun in this context. ("Any statement to the public will produce the most stringent denials from the US government" vs "The denial of any wrongdoing in the cabinet has led to multiple calls for resignation", both refer to multiple statements on the part of the denier) and "denialism" is... unnecessary? I wouldn't be heavily against using it however.

For one, the article is filled with quotes from various academics, but no actual summary of their views in a concise or understandable manner, or justification of the significance of their views. Its size is definitely an issue - but this is only with respect to the ratio of length to actual information, as you pointed out it is very much possible to write a long but high quality article on this topic.

The section titles also don't give a lot of information on what is actually in the section. To give a specific example, "significant governments and organisations" cover said governments and organisations acknowledging some things, but if I came here to research, for example, how widespread denial of a certain type of atrocity was on an official and non-official level, the article gives close to no information. As such, I feel like the article is currently little more than a tabulatory list.

With regard to the neutrality, the same issue as in the main page of Genocide denial arises - that including an entry necessarily characterises the action as a genocide. I am no expert on the topic, but considering the political atmosphere surrounding many of these actions, I doubt there is no opposition at all to the idea that some of these actions are genocide, and the only discussion is on who is denying it. In addition, there may be WP:UNDUE issues because the article seems to focus exclusively on denial of indigenous genocide in the west, while denial of such is arguably a lot more prominent in the Third World. That said, one has to set the boundary somewhere to avoid this article turning into Genocide denial #2, and I'm not quite sure what boundary that is either.

Admittedly, I have not had the time to read in detail into the sources cited in the article. I will take the time to read those and make improvements where I feel like they can be made. Fermiboson (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been toying with AfD for some time. I don't think it's salvagable: it's a coatrack to start with, the sources don't support the statements, the statements don't support the title of the article, there is no attempt to maintain neutrality or balance perspectives - it's just a list of cherry-picked claims, and my sense is that it's mostly synthesis. For transparency: the creator of this article has been campaigning to try and make changes to other articles (e.g. the British Empire) so - and I'm not assuming good faith at all - this is a backup because he's not having any luck convincing other editors where there is more scrutiny. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead. Ultimately it is the creator's responsibility to make the article palatable enough for others to edit. Fermiboson (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, let's try again to talk, in this talk page. Notice how I separate each topic in a different paragraph or in this case, bullet number.

a."sources don't support the statements" Can you give specific examples.

b."statements don't support the title of the article" Can you give specific examples.

c."there is no attempt to maintain neutrality or balance perspectives" Can you give any good idea to improve and I may work on it.

d."cherry-picked claims" all content is reliably sourced, do you think historians make claims or history? Many of the sources have "denial" right there on the title. Many sources are published by reputable publishers, academic journals.

f. as for your most recent ad hominem attack that I am "campaigning" or have "created this article to bypass scrutiny", I ask why do you keep talking about myself, and not the topic or the article?

Try and address each one, if you are here to talk in good faith as I am. Magonz (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Fermiboson:

1. The Holocaust denial article is very similar, spend some time to compare. Is that article unique? It is currently a B class. It also lists lots of statements/quotes from different people.
2. You changed the name of the article, admitting that you don't know much about the subject matter (not an expert, that you will read the sources). You claim that indigenous is an adjective. So then should we say french people or French people? Can you give a grammar source like I did to explain the change in title from Indigenous to indigenous?
3. The scholars themselves speak to the state of denial in various contexts, how widespread it is (in education, in politics, in scholarship), why there is denial, where, etc.
4. If balance means quoting one-liners non-expert people (such as historians experts in unrelated fields of study) or opinion pieces or non expert opinion (pundits, celebrities), is this what we need here to balance the opinion of professional historians and scholars of genocide?
5. Can you define specifically what you consider to be the West and the Third World, and also the evolution of this concepts throughout the time horizon of this article, the last five centuries. Is Latin America part of the West in your conception? If so, since when? Why? Are the indigenous peoples in the Americas western?
6. You say "denial of such (genocide) is arguably a lot more prominent in the Third World" Do you have any RS to back this up?
7. A kind reminder that the article's subject is denial of atrocities, not just genocide. This includes the other types of human rights violations mentioned in the first paragraph of the article.
8. You did not say which encyclopedic standard this article does not meet, specifically. Can you point in detail to which one(s). You also did not answer some of the other questions directly.
9. Wiki-Ed has produced ad hominem attacks and here again, he accuses me of having an "agenda". I don't want to interact with this editor as he does not talk or discuss. I have every right as an editor to try to improve an article, and I haven't changed one single word in the article he mentions. I have sought consensus, and have not achieved it. My view is that article's current consensus is lacking in the POV of the colonized, which is a significant POV, but that view is not shared by many others. And I also have every right to create articles as per Wikipedia policies.
10. If you can , reply in this list form, so we can understand each other.

Magonz (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I will reply in detail against the other points later, but a few quick notes:

2. As I stated with article title examples, Wikipedia appears to generally use Indigenous specifically to refer to American indigenous population. When I talk about an indigenous population, I need to specify where they are indigenous to, whereas I don’t need to specify which kind of French French people are.

5. America and Europe.

9. I will not comment on anything regarding Wiki-Ed. However, I will note that editors equally have the right to delete it even blank articles they do not consider encyclopaedic. Moreover, I am not saying this is what you are doing, but please note the existence of Sealioning and WP:Bludgeoning.

And also, it IS your responsibility to make the article palatable enough for others to edit and improve.

Fermiboson (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Fermiboson

2. Are you saying only a modern nation state has the status of a nation? That the consensus does not exist across Wikipedia articles, but that does not mean there is no consensus today. And like I said, the consensus is to capitalize Indigenous to show respect, (even more so in a context of such a controversial topic of encyclopedic discussion of atrocities committed against their relatives). That is my advice, I see you disagree. Here is another source> https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Capitalization/faq0106.html

5. What do you mean by America? When exactly did it become part of the West? So many questions...

9. Wait ... what? You came to this article, did not improve it at all, put some tags in it, and do not seem to have time to talk about it, here you have answered just 3 out of 10 points raised. I await for more talk as I am willing to make the improvements if there are good ideas. Magonz (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Magonz Where on Wikipedia is the consensus for Indigenous with an uppercase? Doug Weller talk 18:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that, I said "consensus does not exist across Wikipedia articles". Magonz (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Doug Weller, there is guidance at WP:TRIBE and at MOS:RACECAPS. Larataguera (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera Thanks! I’m always finding new things about guidelines I didn’t know, very useful. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Magonz you didn’t say “ And like I said, the consensus is to capitalize Indigenous to show respect,”? Doug Weller talk 08:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to WP:TRIBE above,.... the whole debate of denying that Indigenous peoples have no "nation" or "citizenship" because their modes of organization do not resemble the ones in other parts of the world (the so-called old world and its ex-colonies), is quite lacking in a representation/diversity in editorial practice, and partial and lacking in objectivity.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous :

Indigenous or less commonly indigenous : of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group Magonz (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

2. There is nothing to do with respect here, the argument I’m making is that the descriptor “indigenous” does not refer to a single nation, nation state, race, polity or otherwise. I take your point about CMOS (I’m still not sure if they’re only talking about American indigenous populations), but perhaps this is a point that should be resolved by a separate discussion at WP:TRIBE as Larataguera points out, since that page doesn’t actually say anything about that.

5. Is that so terribly important? To illustrate with an example more to the point: China is definitely not in the west, but the Dzungar genocide is not only denied but widely taught as an Chinese achievement, including across HK and TW. There aren’t a massive amount of good academic papers on things like that because it is so widely denied it isn’t even a topic of discourse in the relevant populations, but I can source it to HK and mainland government history guides and stuff like that if we add it to the article.

9. Yes, I saw there were issues with the article and applied the tags I felt best described those issues. I realise I’m not being as helpful as one could be, but as of the moment I don’t yet have the time or willpower to. That’s not a strike against anything, I can comment all I like. What I can’t do is accuse you of refusing to improve the article (which I am not doing) because I have not yet made substantial and specific suggestions on such. What I said above is still true, however. Fermiboson (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

2. Yes there is a part stating it should be capitalized, with sources right here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)

5. Indigenous peoples are still in the Americas, many have never ceded their territory, they still live in it or have ongoing legal claims to it, so no, I don´t think we can say that America is part of the West, flatly without the nuances involved. Even the US government recognizes them legally as nations. There are 574 federally recognized Indigenous Nations in the United States. So when you say that there is more denial in the Third World than in the West, I have doubts of using these concepts that are not helpful in an encyclopedic article.

9. I have yet to hear any specifics on the rest of the points discussed in this talk page with you that changed the article title from nations to peoples, small-cased Indigenous, and singularized denials to denial. Magonz (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Fermiboson, after making some edits, I have removed two of the tags ({{NPOV}} and {{Long}}). Please see the edit summary here for explanation. Of course you can put them back if you feel like further discussion is necessary. Section or inline tagging might be appropriate if you still think there are NPOV issues. Larataguera (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My main issue of POV is not with the scope but with the one-sided coverage of atrocities committed only by the west, so I will be adding it back at some point, but I think it’d be bad manners for me to just add it back without elaborating on what specifically I want changed so I’ll only do so when I compile the list on talk. Fermiboson (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying. This is a valid concern, though I agree it's awkward to tag an article for missing information unless you've made an attempt to add that information. I hope you'll contribute whatever you feel to be missing! Larataguera (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Scope

I agree that this article has some issues, but I think it's salvageable. I think the biggest issue is to limit the scope of the article to actual denial of atrocities. So, for instance the content under "Significant states and organizations" that describes various countries' acknowledgement and apology for atrocities would not be denial and should not be in this article (except perhaps as a very brief mention as background). Similarly, several of the scholars' responses aren't really about denial of atrocities. They are more like arguments that certain events should be characterised as war crimes or genocide, etc. Because of the title, this article should probably be limited to examples where scholarly consensus already labels events as an atrocity/war crime/genocide and then discuss cases where governments, organisations, or notable dialogue goes against that consensus.

Minor stylistic note, self-reference in the opening sentence "This article describes...." is a little awkward and atypical. Hope this helps.Larataguera (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could make those (hopefully uncontroversial) stylistic corrections first to make it easier to move on to actual content discussion. Thank you for your input. I should note that I do have issues other than the ones you mentions with the article. Fermiboson (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'd have time for stylistic changes, but I agree the content issues should be the focus of discussion. To clarify the above: instances where governments, etc have apologised for atrocities are helpful in determining that there is consensus these atrocities occurred. If then, there is continued (and notable) denial of those atrocities, such denials should be the focus of this article. Or instances where scholars have concluded that there were atrocities/war crimes but governments continue to deny it (as for instance with Armenian genocide denial.

I agree that there may be other issues (organisation, for example) but if we deal with the scope first, I think that's the broadest concern. Larataguera (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I did find some time to edit this article after all. I clarified the scope in the opening sentence and reorganised things a little. Hope that helps. Magonz: I removed the section with a quote by William Maltby. I think several of the other quotes in that section about different scholars are similarly unrelated to atrocity denial (or only slightly related) and could also be removed, or quotes should be chosen that more clearly describe atrocity denial. For example, the first section about Hochschild describes a book documenting Atrocities in the Congo Free State, but it doesn't say those atrocities are being denied. That example is discussed in the section on denial, where it says that: In Belgium, the atrocities in the Congo Free State are not recognized in the mainstream public discourse. I think it would be best to consolidate all this, and make it clearer that if these atrocities are not recognised by "mainstream public discourse" in Belgium, that they are recognised in mainstream public discourse most other places (which is what would make this an example of denial suitable for an encyclopedia).

Similarly, the following subsection with a quote by Curthoys would be best integrated into the section on Australia in the examples. Larataguera (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera Thank you for this. Good points, I am thinking if any mention of the black legend fits into this context of denial how to bring content that talks about the fact that Spanish empire was demonized by other colonial empires, while they had done/were doing/would do atrocities in their own colonial realms. This is the well known Black Legend. In a way it is denial to make the fallacious argument, that has been employed against Indigenous peoples too, because many have argued that nothing that approaches the industrial rate of death, and repeated intent to exterminate, of the Holocaust is a "real genocide".

My one comment is thinking about using the word "crime"... a crime is described in customary law or formal law, and until it is determined by a judicial authority, national or international, there can only be allegations... so an atrocity can take place but whether the atrocity is a crime or not, can be more contested or debated. So I am thinking how, where to use this word that has significant meaning, as while most perpetrators are long gone, the organizations/institutions/societies that may have participated may still be here. Magonz (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If you can find something that explicitly describes the Black Legend as a form of denial it would be relevant.

I took out the word 'crime' in the first sentence. It's true that some of these actions weren't technically criminal when they occurred, even if they are now, so that word should be used carefully and only when relevant. Larataguera (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. I think there is much to be benchmarked to review the article Holocaust denial, as that article is for a single case of genocide and currently it is twice the size of this article. So I disagree that this article is too long as was stated before. There have been hundreds of cases of atrocities against indigenous nations, and therefore you can expect that the literature covers many cases of denial by perpretrators due to shame , legal issues or simply to keep their national pride/image intact.

As per the article: "have described present or past denial of atrocity crimes against Indigenous nations". This article is not just about present, but also past denial, as its subject deals with history.

The fact that for example there are dozens of museums about the Holocaust in the United States and many more throughout the world, and very few notable ones about Indigenous genocide is very much a sign of the state of things. The very fact that the Herero genocide is virtually without a monument both in Namibia and Germany tells a lot about a state of denial, and erasing/ignoring historical record is a form of denial, according to a scholar here cited.

The official state apologies given for atrocities committed for Indigenous genocide, centuries or many decades after the atrocity was committed, speaks volumes that this was not acknowledged before by the State and it current representative (the incumbent government). The survivors, as in Canada, have been active politically to try and correct the historical record, for many reasons. The literature cited says this, I can quote it if you feel that this needs to be explicit. One source says that the reason there is so much visibility to the Holocaust is because the perpetrator lost a war (WW2) but in Indigenous people's case, the perpetrator usually had the upper hand, and so "won". So much so that to speak of a "war" or a "battle" in such case of asymmetry of military power is unrealistic (rocks, arrows, and sticks vs canons, gunpowder and steel). The literature cited says this, I can quote it if you feel that this needs to be explicit. Magonz (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, past denial by governments who later acknowledged atrocities would be in the scope of this title. Larataguera (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing about the fact that native genocides don’t have as much awareness as they should, but WP is not activism and we should be focusing on how best to cover it in an encyclopedic manner. Fermiboson (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

the article may be covering to broad a topic

I personally think that the article is slightly too long and somewhat hard to read. Perhaps it would be better to highlight specific groups of indigenous people in separate paragraphs and talk about the ignorance towards them all in the same article. thus the article could still remain with the same title but the structure be slightly clearer and follow a more encyclopaedic tone Username886792 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

[1] The statistics on this page are a little concerning. Its largely the work of one editor, which in niche topics might not be a problem, but in an area where there is significant literature the focus of one editor leads to an article that tends to reflect their strongly held opinions. I've made some minor changes to alter the repetition of a claim that didn't stand up to scrutiny, then to be honest was rather deterred from further editing on it by the volume of material. The article doesn't so much as describe denial of atrocities but rather seems somewhat of a polemic on what the author thinks is evidence of genocide and is selecting references to support that strongly held personal opinion. Which does tend to make it rather long and difficult to read. It desperately needs restructuring and some external input but I don't think there is an appetite for it. WCM_email 17:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of Indigenous nations in this history, some exterminated, some surviving. If anything, this article is too short, until articles that discuss each Indigenous atrocity are created. There are Indigenous nations that have been completely or almost entirely exterminated, so to recover their history one by one would be a feat of encyclopedic research. The UN has an internationally concept of what Indigenous peoples are, and that is what is presented here, and what is discussed, as per the article title.

Furthermore, of course few editors will be present in a relatively new article on a relatively unpublished topic within Wikipedia. This article's topic only exists in English language Wikipedia, and Spanish language Wikipedia, as a translation of the English one. There is a whole section with description of denial of atrocities, and more content such as officials making apologies is obviously recognizing that there were historical wrongs being made by presently existing states and institutions. The new topic deserves an introduction, context and scholar expert opinion. There are 189 references from RS. These are not personal opinions of a few editors. The topic is controversial and obviously dense. Magonz (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

OR, notability, and coatrack issues

The genocide of indigenous peoples is not one event, it is a wide variety of events with varying "genocidelikeness" and acceptance (popular and scholarly) that each individual event constituted a genocide. Many of the denials are motivated by nationalist interpretations of history, for example, Americans might deny the genocide of North American indigenous people but they wouldn't necessarily deny the genocide of indigenous people elsewhere in the world. I'm unconvinced that the independent, secondary RS sourcing exists for a distinct article on this topic separate from articles on individual genocides or genocide-like events and the main article on genocide denial. (t · c) buidhe 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

1. As per the article title, the scope is "atrocities", only one of which is "genocide". The other atrocities are listed in the first paragraph of the article, for your information, include ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

2. If you have seen the history of this article you would notice that my proposed title was in plural "Denials of Atrocity Crimes Against Indigenous Nations". Other editors renamed it to singular "denial", against what I would prefer. In fact for example, David Stannard, a genocide scholar, said that he regretted naming his book in singular form American Holocaust, he said in retrospect, he should have named it American Holocausts, in plural. Same for me here. There are multiple instances, but there is a commonality that is recognized even in international law, there are laws that are putting together the issue, as in the ones by the UN, ILO, and others.

3. Your deletion of 40% of the content of a B status article made almost entirely by one editor, with very few discussion, is quite demotivating to me ... isn't there a rule about good faith ? For example, when you delete the long list of apologies from states that participated in colonialism, when Indigenous peoples documented their political pressure for these states and churches to recognize the history of past atrocities as such, is a topic directly related to this article. Yet you just delete all this with no discussion.

4. There were multiple RS that deal directly with this topic, so no need to argue that it is not a relevant and interesting page.

5. I do recognize that you raised multiple valid concerns that need attention and work, and you are clearly a more experienced editor, but mass deletion without discussion seems excessive and appalling to me. Magonz (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) @Larataguera

Genocide recognition and genocide denial are separate topics. The content about recognition does not belong in this article, but rather Recognition of genocide of indigenous peoples, or perhaps better write a good section for it on the genocide of indigenous peoples article. Most of the content was removed because it does not seem to have a verifiable connection to the stated topic of this article. Of course, I'm happy to discuss any particular piece of content if there is a dispute as to whether it is original research.

If you want to improve the article, I suggest you take a look at Armenian genocide denial, the only article about genocide denial that is rated a FA. This article doesn't load up on the quotes, evidence, or tangentially related material in an attempt to prove that a genocide happened. Rather, it is an encyclopedic summary of the denial movement, its origins, claims, level of popular and scholarly acceptance, and effects, according to reliable sources. If the sources to cover this information for GIP don't exist, I might suggest merging a concise summary to genocide of indigenous peoples rather than having a separate article. (t · c) buidhe 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, see 1 above. "1. As per the article title, the scope is "atrocities", only one of which is "genocide". The other atrocities are listed in the first paragraph of the article, for your information, include ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity." There are plenty of RS that cover the denials of atrocity crimes. Three of these are enshrined in international law, and the four in diverse national laws.

To expect to go from B to FA status, by one editor, given that no others contribute, otherwise this article is deleted and its remains moved into another article, seems excessive as you and I know, most articles in Wikipedia are far from FA status which is only 0,1 % of articles, and they don't get threatened to be deleted unless they measure up to FA standard. Magonz (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that this article meets the criteria for B-class. Going to Wikipedia:Content_assessment, for example, the original research issues alone (which I doubt have been 100% fixed) would disqualify it. Of course I don't think that all non-FA articles should be deleted. What I meant to say is that I think doing the thorough source research and rewrite that would be necessary to achieve a higher status for the article would also help elucidate the notability. Are there in-depth, solid, scholarly sources that deal with the topic as a whole? Or would the article's content better be split/merged into existing articles such as genocide denial, genocide of indigenous peoples, Australian history wars, Cultural genocide in the United States etc. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "atrocity denial" exists as a topic. Looking at Google Scholar results, the phrase has 54 hits compared to several thousand for "genocide denial". As far as I know, atrocity denial has no legal status anywhere in the world. Even the most on-topic sources that you cite, such as "Whitt, Laurelyn, & Clarke, Alan W. (2019). North American Genocide Denial." refer to genocide denial, not atrocity denial. (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

6. Why don't you remove the B-class if you don't think it is B-class? I mean you already deleted 40% of it with close to zero discussion. Is there a reason why it is not downgraded?

4.Continued. There is a number of RS that deal with the topic as a whole. One describes the work of Raphael Lemkin on colonialism and genocidal atrocities.

Ginzberg, Eitan (4 September 2020). "Genocide and the Hispanic-American Dilemma". Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal. 14 (2): 122–152. doi:10.5038/1911-9933.14.2.1666. ISSN 1911-0359.

1.Continued. Denial of crimes against humanity (which include an array of terms, keywords), war crimes, ethnic cleansing, these and all other atrocities against Indigenous people (Aboriginal, Aborigines, autochthonous, Native Americans, first peoples, first nations, Indians, and so on) being denied, is the topic of the article. Genocide is the crime of crimes, but there are also other atrocity crimes that get denied. Just look at the long list of references that used to be here, in more than one language, and the bibliography, and its subject matter and scope. A quick search gives this related RS

https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/0eefbcae-4f32-42cb-b124-05ea7d7bef15/9781552388860.pdf

Until recently, state institutions and officials denied genocide in Canada, and acknowledged "cultural genocide". Recently, the prime minister has talked about "genocide". As you seem to notice, there is a great number of RS describing this shift and talk about Indigenous genocide denial. Many cases like these have taken place around the world. So the history of the atrocity (or genocide) denial is in the scope of this article. If we narrow it down to genocide instead of atrocities, then there would be no content on whole continents such as Australia or USA, where scholars have argued that genocides took place, but government officials generally have not, even though some authorities have not denied multiple atrocities, as in the Stolen Generations, which has been characterized as cultural genocide, not genocide, with decades-long History Wars. Thus the title of the article could degenerate into "Denials of alleged genocide against Indigenous nations" as compared to "Denials of genocide against Indigenous nations". As you and I know, to legally determine that a genocide took place, has a high threshold, of proving intent in a court of law, and international courts of laws take decades to process cases. As scholars have stated, ongoing genocide denial may be explained as you say, by nationalist motives.

7. Here is a public intellectual widely cited in social sciences, authoring an article right on topic. "We can see this by considering the most unambiguous cases of genocide and its debasement, those in which the crime is acknowledged by the perpetrators, and passed over as insignificant or even denied in retrospect by the beneficiaries, right to the present. Settler colonialism, commonly the most vicious form of imperial con-quest, provides striking illustrations." Authored by Chomsky, N. (2010). "Genocide Denial with a vengeance: Old and new imperial norms".

8. I am busy these days and will address your concerns asap.

Magonz (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused—all the sources you mention in your comment mention "genocide denial", but not "atrocity denial". (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

1.continued. The link I sent above is for Understanding Atrocities: Remembering, Representing, and Teaching Genocide, Edited by Scott W. Murray. There is discussion of denialism of Indigenous genocide. "Certainly insofar as the community of genocide scholars is concerned, there is no real question anymore that Canadian settler colonialism was genocidal."

Here's more, even an encyclopedia>

-Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes_ an encyclopedia, (2015) Mikaberidze, Alexander. Lots of content on Indigenous topic, see pages 46-47. Also, Ward Churchill is in the bibliography. "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present".

-Theatres Of Violence_ Massacre, Mass Killing and Atrocity throughout History (2012) Philip Dwyer. There are 5 chapters on Indigenous topics. "In the face of this climate of denial that any massacres of Indigenous peoples had occurred, it is a simple matter to claim that in such a situation any representation of massacre is better than none. "

Even a book on cinema has a chapter of denial of colonial atrocities in Australian cinema.

-The History of Genocide in Cinema Atrocities on Screen (2017) Jonathan C. Friedman "The logic of settler colonialism drives a need for state legitimacy that rests on the denial, or at the very least the minimization, of all such genocidal practices. "

9. I agree with @Larataguera to move this title from atrocities to genocide. Will move to Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples . Genocides in plural.

10. The article on Genocide of Indigenous Peoples has ~288k bytes, the Armenian Genocide has ~89k bytes. There are 476 million Indigenous people around the world and spread across more than 90 countries, and in the past there were more, and the events took place for centuries. The article on Armenian genocide denial has ~139k bytes. This article on Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples has ~102k bytes. There are international organizations that deal with Indigenous peoples as a single entity, including the International Labor Organization, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and many international NGOs. To split up the content and sprinkle it , when there is lots of literature addressing the topic, does not make sense. I am not trying to "prove that Indigenous genocide happened", but give a little context and include the latest historiography from genocide scholars, about this topic.

Now will you address my other points> 4,6,7,10 ? You only seem to have touched upon 1. Regards,

Magonz (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure the best plan for this article. Buidhe is right that "atrocity denial" isn't discussed nearly as often as "genocide denial", although it is probably discussed enough to be notable, and there are whole books about it. Some sources (eg [2]) will mention atrocity denial without mentioning genocide at all, but this is rare). Magonz offers another example where "atrocity" is used in the title, but the book definitely talks a lot about genocide. So while I think that "denial of atrocities against Indigenous people" is technically a viable title that meets WP:GNG, I'm also not sure it's the best option.

One possibility is to move this to Denial of genocides against Indigenous people, which is more clearly a notable topic. Genocide denial is a VERY large topic, and so I would think this would make a logical split from that main article (even though Genocide denial is still underdeveloped and not particularly long at the moment). I also notice that we don't have an article on Violence against Indigenous people even though we DO have Violence against indigenous people in Brazil (as a redirect), Violence against Indigenous peoples in Colombia, Violence against indigenous people in Guatemala (also a redirect). I think a lot of atrocities against Indigenous people are frequently discussed in the literature as "violence against Indigenous people". So it's possible that a lot of this information could go into an article on Violence against Indigenous people, and that article could have a section on denials. Magonz, how would you feel about that possibility? Would you be interested in tackling that article? It's definitely a big gap in the encyclopedia, but it might be a big job, and I'm currently not available for the task. I'd be willing to review and comment though. Larataguera (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful! Please ping me if you want any further thoughts. I no longer keep a watchlist. Larataguera (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera Thanks for the input. I will move the article based on both of your feedback to Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples.

I don't have much time either, and given the destruction this article has experienced by a single editor, I am losing motivation on Wikipedia, there are other activities that can use my attention.

Even though the article on violence may be missing, there are more relevant ones missing like Chattel Slavery. There is lots of RS on this article already on the denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples.

Thank you. Kind regards, Magonz (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Magonz I understand the loss of motivation. I have pretty much stopped editing myself. I do think you are doing valuable work. You have an eye for finding places that need work, and I'm thankful for your contributions. Larataguera (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe and @Larataguera, can we revisit this topic? I just came across this article and my reaction was pretty much identical to @Buidhe's - I'm unconvinced that there is a benefit to a separate article on this, as opposed to Genocide denial more generally, or the individual instances mentioned in this article more specifically.

I think making a plan identifying content that would be relevant for other articles and exporting it there, and for deleting this page would be a sensible way forward. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Expand content to Asia, Africa, and reliable sources to languages beyond European languages

Inviting editors to expand the content of the article to cover whole continents of Eurasia, Africa, and to include denial of genocide and other atrocity crimes against Indigenous peoples in these continents.

Even though English is a lingua franca, I am afraid that my language skills are limited to do this work, as I suppose that Indigenous and others scholars in these continents and the rest of the world, have reliable sources in languages that are not European, to improve the balance in this article. Magonz (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Explanation of large deletion in edits

Given the controversy surrounding this page, I wanted to expand upon my recent edit summaries. As I have worked through this article, I have deleted, restructured, and/or rephrased the following types of information:

1. Overly lengthy and/or awkwardly phrased quotations
2. Repetitive information
3. Uncited/Inaccurately cited claims about living people denying the genocide of Indigenous peoples, per WP:LP
4. Statements arguing that the genocide occurred (outside of the lead)

The latter may be the most prevalent. While the research is likely good, that information belongs on the Genocide of Indigenous peoples article, not this article.

Further, given that this is a Wikipedia article and not a dissertation or other form of more in-depth research, it's beneficial to provide a baseline level of information on the topic, not every detail available. In such cases, I have provided summary sentences, such as "Other scholars, including X and Y, have made similar arguments." This gives readers the opportunity to learn more from that article and see that multiple people are making this argument without repeating the same claim.

In a similar vein, I've removed many of the images that show colonial harm against Indigenous people as they were irrelevant to the scope of this article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade Thanks for the input. I will review.

Can I ask if you see the same issues with images that you removed with images in other genocide denial articles such as the Armenian genocide denial article ?

When Indigenous or impartial observers witnessed genocides, and took pictures or made illustrations of the genocide, doesn't that belong in an article about genocide denial, whereas the historiography only recently in the last decades arrived at near consensus that colonialism and Indigenous genocide are correlated at times? Examples are illustrations made in De Las Casas works, a Norwegian explorer in Australia, Indigenous scribes depicting codex destruction, common citizens drawing massacres, illustrations made in codex by Indigenous authors, independent artists, and memorials to massacres ? Why does this not belong? Would it help if it is made explicit that this was their attempt to record history from the POV of the victims?

I would like to restore:

-one of the two codex illustrations.

-the one from the Norwegian scientist of Australia.

-at least one from massacres in North America (there's one in the lead already). Check.

Or maybe better, we apply the same standards to all genocide denial articles.

Magonz (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Magonz! Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. I spent time with this article precisely because I want it to survive, and saw too many people saying it was in such bad shape that it might be worth deleting and starting over. I am by no means an expert in this area, though I'm planning to use decolonial theories in my future research. In part, this is why I have come to improve this article, not other genocide denial articles.

I'm fine with you adding back some of the images if you take into account the following:

• The image adds to the discussion of Indigenous denial as described in the body of the article. Many of the images that were previously in the article did not feel purposeful to me. For instance, the people/groups named in the caption (or even the country named in the caption) was not referenced in the text at all. As a reader, that made me wonder, "What am I supposed to get out of this image? How does it relate to what I'm reading? Why has it been placed where it has?"
• The article remains easily legible. Previously, the article had so many images that it made the text difficult to read at times. This is both an accessibility issue (MOS:ACCIM) and a legibility issue (MOS:Images). I do not see the same issue with other articles, such as Armenian genocide denial and Holocaust denial.
  • That said, if you want to expand on the background information section to add back details that basically say, "Yes, these genocides occurred", you may do that as it has been done with the aforementioned articles. Just make sure you include just enough information for people to have enough information to understand the context. If they want more information, they can go to the Genocide of Indigenous peoples page. As you see on the Holocaust denial page, which I referenced when making decisions about this page, images of the Holocaust only appear in the Background section. Images in other sections of the article relate to the denial. The same seems to be true of the Armenian genocide denial page, too. Looking at those two pages, can you provide an example of an image in the sections discussing the denial that portray the original genocide? If so, I'd be happy to take a look and argue for their removal and/or for them to be moved.
• I don't remember seeing any images that were memorials for the genocides. Those would be great to include and could likely replace some of the images currently in the article.

Does that make sense? I'm happy to discuss more to help improve this article so it stands up to scrutiny. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a few images of memorial plaques for the Herero genocide, but in Berlin. I think an actual photograph, not a drawing, of Indigenous genocide and denialism is very much unknown in the historiography and encyclopedic content, so to delete them in the interest of "formatting issues", seems suboptimal. Magonz (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)