Talk:Black genocide in the United States

Requested move 26 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Black genocide → Black genocide in the United States – Only discusses the U.S. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Is there another black genocide somewhere else? What is getting confused with this topic? What is ambiguous? Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Per the hatnotes on this article, "black genocide" could easily refer to certain policies of European rule in Africa, or events such as the Herero and Namaqua genocide. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  A google search also indicates that its sometimes attached to events in Australia and New Zealand as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  If the concepts currently do not exist on Wikipedia, the current title is de facto unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  To elaborate, moving this article to "Black genocide in the United States" creates the unhelpful/confusing situation where there is a redirect, which will be named "Black genocide" redirecting to a title with a more precise scope. This is misleading for readers, considering that some may believe that if there is an article sitting at "Black genocide in the United States", then there should also be an article at "Black genocide" explaining the concept in more of a general sense. In other words, without a general concept article that can be placed at the current title, and/or the article at the current title being more in-depth and not US-centric, moving the article as proposed can result in the aforementioned issues (In other words, this akin to Wikipedia saying "this is all we currently have on the subject"); however, in the article's current state, it can be appropriate to create a redirect at Black genocide in the United States targeting the article at the current title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think its a stretch to call that misleading to readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree due to the potential WP:SURPRISE factor due to all I just said. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that you disagree, I just don't see a big surprise there. No more so than you could argue already exists with the status quo that is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not comprehending what you mean by the second sentence. Either way, I believe a while ago, I argued this point previously with another move request, and the page remained at the ambiguous title; if I can find the discussion, I'll post it here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE. The current title is ambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE unless the phrase "Black genocide" is determined to be ambiguous with other existing topics on Wikipedia (and this can somehow be converted into its own article in sort of a WP:DABCONCEPT fashion). At present, the claim is that the concept of "Black genocide" is exclusive to the United States, thus adding to the current title in the proposed manner is over-precision. In fact, the better idea at present would probably be to redirect the requested new title to the current title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support with the note that both supporters and detractors are citing precision but the page already has hatnotes for a few historical events that can be characterized as genocides of black people and this page is US-centric in scope. Killuminator (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, no excuse for that sort of US-centrism. Current title is currently ambiguous, the new title is more precise and has no significant downsides that I can identify besides "over-precision" (nor would I note has anyone opposed named any others) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The current title does not accurately reflect the subject of the article, which is explicitly limited to the United States. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support multiple genocides in Africa, perpetrated by European colonial masters. Clearly this is US-based If it was PRECISE it wouldn't need a hatnote -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom., others, and WP:PRECISE. This is clearly a U.S.-based article, and should be titled accordingly. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

{{Infobox civilian attack}}

{{Infobox civilian attack}} seems to be inappropriate here, certainly with stuff like the 1945-1951 statistics that reflect only a small time period of what is under discussion. That type of info should rather be in the applicable part of the article body. {{African American topics sidebar}} and {{Genocide}} are a good fit, though. Pharos (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the choice of infobox is problematic. It was put in place 2.5 months ago by Vanisherman.[1] The article does its job quite well without having an infobox. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes: conspiracy theory

I've noticed a couple of people have tried to add the note that Black genocide is a conspiracy theory to the article without sources. So here's a place to talk about it.

Currently, the article does flag those elements of the topic that are considered by RS to be more or less conspiratorial, and gives them WP:DUE.

The issue is that most scholars actually point out that there has been historic control or suppression of Black fertility/births, widescale violence and murders, segregation, etc, in the US, which means the issue isn't a clear yes/no in regards to whether it's a "conspiracy theory".

Most scholars agree that the belief birth control is Black genocide is a conspiracy theory, but that other parts of the argument are not and may have validity. Adding in Wikipedia's voice that Black genocide is a conspiracy theory in the opening line is therefore WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS.

Also, as the article points out, Black genocide arose as a term because political movements were trying to raise awareness of inequality and injustice against African Americans on an international scale. That's right there in the lede — it's an important rhetorical tool, if nothing else, to broach that discussion.

That's not the same as, say, the topic of white genocide, which is the largely unfounded belief that multiculturalism and immigration are annihilating white people, because there isn't a history of extreme violence, murder, enslavement, etc, of white people in America, as a whole, like there is for Black people. That means there's a qualitative difference between the two so we shouldn't draw false equivalences without RS to back it up.

Of course, if there are RS that contradict what is currently in the lede, I would welcome people sharing them so we can discuss them and get a new consensus if needed. Lewisguile (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)