Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Canada - Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women

The section on Canada here focusses on the residential school system, and talks of historical debates about use of the word genocide, but is silent on recent reporting on conclusions that found what happened was a genocide. I propose that this be added. Seeking second opinions, etc

https://globalnews.ca/news/5350772/genocide-canada-mmiwg/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stefanovich-un-national-inquiry-genocide-response-1.5174855 CT55555 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The "mass killings under colonial regimes" redirect

I do not like this redirect, as a) not all mass killings by colonial regimes were genocidal in nature, and b) not all genocides of indigenous peoples were committed by colonial regimes. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of rioting against Muslims in India and other unexplained changes in the same edit

This edit, among other changes, removed mentions of rioting against Muslims in India, but doesn't explain any of its changes. OTOH, whether those qualify as genocide is unclear. What do others think? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshjensen308.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannononwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kiannajoe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How can this be labeled a genocide?

Overall 90% of the deaths were from natural causes and we're in no way deliberate. These seems to be a grossly misleading title.

While there were acts of war against the indigenous population they accounted for an extremely small percentage of the overall deaths as a result of interactions between Europeans and the Natives. 97.84.8.86 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@97.84.8.86 do you realize that genocide denial is a fundamental aspect of genocide? I suggest you learn more before spewing dangerous rhetoric Jiaminglimjm (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't read Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Categorization_as_genocide, you really should. It answers your question thoroughly. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: Under United States colonization of indigenous territories

The Pontiac's War should be placed under the British section since it is from before the formation of the United States and while the colonies were still British subjects. Which is were this portion can be relocated too since it is relevant to the genocide discussion. 216.14.79.218 (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Add genocide by Qing Dynasty

There should be information about (cultural) genocide committed by the Qing dynasty on its colonial lands (Tibet, East Turkestan, Manchuria, Mongolia). All of those lands are outside China Proper and were conquered with subsequent Sinicization (cultural genocide). This agenda continued by the CCP after it re-conquered those lands. Also see the Transition from Ming to Qing, Qing conquest of the Ming Dynasty and Tibetan Principalities. There was a lot more cultural and ethnic diversity in East Asia before the Ming, Qing and CCP. -Artanisen (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Edits

An edit has been reverted with comment “This has been in the article for a while, reverting, take it to the talk page to seek consensus to delete.” The reasons for the removal of this section - the inappropriateness of the section due to the lack of affected indigenous populations - has been noted. Information that is not relevant nor pertinent to the topic should not remain in this section purely based on the fact that the section has been erroneously present in the article “for some time.” Please provide anthropological justification of why this section should remain. Thank you very much. 184.101.12.14 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism.In most cases, you may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia"Moxy- 15:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Section removed due to lack of relevance

The section on Sri Lanka references alleged genocide of Tamil people in Sri Lanka. These are not indigenous peoples, and therefore, this section does not belong in this article. Please remove as previously edited. 184.101.12.14 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources in that section support the position that they are. If you have reliable sources for the opposite position, feel free to list them here. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Massacre of Salsipuedes

The Massacre of Salsipuedes is not mentioned in this article. Was this event ever recognized as a genocide? Jarble (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Rubber Boom in Congo and Putumayo

What have either of these got to do with the British Empire??208.127.184.77 (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Genocide of Indigenous Peoples

Per MOS:RACECAPS this is the standard we've been using for a while now. Will move over redirect shortly. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The lines about sterilization in the Canada section

"Another aspect of the residential school system was its use of forced sterilization on Indigenous women who chose not to follow the schools advice of marrying non-Indigenous men. Indigenous women made up only 2.5% of the Canadian population, but 25% of those who were sterilized under the Canadian eugenics laws (such as the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta) – many without their knowledge or consent.[97]"

This line should be removed. While some coverage of forced sterilization is probably appropriate, the direct linkage the article currently makes with the residental schools is inappropriate. It is only sourced to one journal article, and it is not a good one. It commits several errors, firstly by conflating institutions for the mentally ill or handicapped with the regular residental schools. Second, it conflates sterilizations performed under the eugenics laws with sterilizations of Indigenous women not carried under those laws, which account for the majority of Indigenous women forcibly sterilized. Since this latter category of sterilizations was mainly performed on women who had had children, the connection with residental schools is weak.

In particular, the line claiming that the focus of sterilization was on women who did not marry non-Indigenous men is particularly weak. The journal article has one quote from someone who claims thiis was the motivation for their sterilization, but one second-hand source is not enough to generalize about it like the article does. Note that the quote does not say anything about what law (if any) the speaker was sterilized under. Forced sterilizations and eugenic sterilizations are often conflated as one and the same, but they are separate concepts.

Forced sterilizations of Indigenous women is a subject worth including, but not in a manner that directly connects them to residental schools and with better sources than a poor summary article.

In addition, the entire Canada section needs to be rewritten. At present it's written like an essay arguing that Canada's actions qualify as genocide. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Article balance

There seems to be an obvious slant in the article: although it mentions that the terms "genocide" regarding the colonization of the Americas is contested by scholars, the article presents the side arguing for genocide profusely and barely spares a few lines for those that argue that dying of epidemics is obviously not part of a genocide. The article seems to focus primarily on a single author also. 204.48.77.80 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there were new diseases does not mean that there were no genocides. In fact the article name should be in plural, genocideS, not genocide, as there were multiple genocides. Also, this is an article of genocides. If you want to write see an article of genocide denial, there is already one in Wikipedia. Magonz (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Genocide of Indigenous peoples → Genocide of indigenous peoples – Suggest de-capitalizing the adjective "indigenous" to follow our manual of style. I could see an argument for capitalizing a proper noun, but here it is just an adjective. Doing an RM in case I am missing something. If this RM closes as lowercase, we should also change the article prose, sidebar, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This was moved recently citing MOS:RACECAPS. Moxy- 21:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the manual of style (MOS:RACECAPS as noted by Moxy) refers to WP:TRIBE, which reads that terms like Indigenous "are all capitalized when referring to individuals and their citizenship", and notes elsewhere that Indigenous is a term of citizenship, not of race. In footnotes, that naming convention refers to the style guides of several prominent organizations giving the same advice, including the Native American Journalists Association. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment It looks like Bohemian Baltimore moved several articles from "indigenous" to "Indigenous" back in August of this year. @Bohemian Baltimore: Was there any discussion of these moves around that time period? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:CorbieVreccan had suggested this for articles on the topic like Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples/Archive 7#Genocide of Indigenous Peoples.as outlined at project essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Style Guides Moxy- 05:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly not a proper name when referring to any and all indigenous peoples and not a specific group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support This article is covering all types of groups who are considered indigenous, not individuals who belong to specific tribes.★Trekker (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Indigenous is always capitalized when referring to people, as per AP, MLA, Chicago, and other styles. From the ACES Society for Editors: "Capitalize this term used to refer to original inhabitants of a place." So the word doesn't have to pertain to a specific group of Indigenous peoples to require capitalization. Yuchitown (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
  • Note that Wikipedia is not bound by other people's style guides. It's certainly not always capitalised (the BBC usually doesn't capitalise it, for instance). Why should it be? There's no logic to it being capitalised unless it refers to a specific group and is therefore a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

    We are not bound to follow the overwhelming majority of world's styles guides; however, we can agree with them and have chosen to do so. The BBC goes back and forth but has capitalized "Indigenous" mid-sentence in articles example1, example2. Yuchitown (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

They are probably so inconsistent in following their own style guide in this area because it makes absolutely no sense to always capitalize the word "indigenous" even when it's being used in such a generic way as it is here. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, their style guide has "Indigenous” (initial cap)", so you can add the BBC to extensive list of styles guides that User:Moxy compiled below. WP:Idontlikeit doesn't fly. Yuchitown (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

• Strongly oppose - per numerous style guides, previous discussions linked and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes).  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and "Racial and Ethnic Identity". APA Style Guide.. The proper respectful thing to do is capitalize Indigenous. What harm is there in being respectful of a group of human beings? --ARoseWolf 20:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - based on the Native American Journalists Association, the Chicago Manual of Style, the APA, the Associated Press and others mentioned above. Indigenous should be capitalized. Netherzone (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just a note that I was not aware of either MOS:RACECAPS or this recent offwiki trend of capitalizing indigenous when I filed this RM. If this RM closes as keeping the capitalized I, I will adapt my own practices accordingly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - For reasons already well detailed by others. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - See [1]https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-countries-nationalities-languages/#:~:text=You%20should%20capitalize%20the%20names,nouns%20that%20are%20always%20capitalized. [2]https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Capitalization/faq0106.html Magonz (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Style Guides in favour of Capitalization

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America § Style Guides.[edit] Style Guides on Indigenous terminology and other issues. Like "Native American", "Indigenous" is capitalized when referring to people. From the Associated Press AP changes writing style to capitalize ″b″ in Black. By The Associated Press, June 19, 2020. "The news organization will also now capitalize Indigenous in reference to original inhabitants of a place." From APA style APA Style - Racial and Ethnic Identity. Section 5.7 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition, September 2019. Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. ... capitalize terms such as “Native American,” “Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and “Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize “Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to different nations”). From The Chicago Manual of Style Capitalization: 'We would capitalize “Indigenous” in both contexts: that of Indigenous people and groups, on the one hand, and Indigenous culture and society, on the other. Lowercase “indigenous” would be reserved for contexts in which the term does not apply to Indigenous people in any sense—for example, indigenous plant and animal species.' From the Native American Journalists Association Reporter's Indigenous Terminology Guide "So you need an Indigenous Expert... Start here" NAJA AP Style Guide More reporting guides, on water protectors arrested at actions, etc. Some example of WP:RS publications and media outlets that capitalize "Indigenous" when referring to Indigenous people (not a complete list, by any means) The New York Times [3] Chicago Tribune [4] Los Angeles Times [5] The Christian Science Monitor [6] Forbes [7] Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): [8] The Guardian [9]

Moxy- 05:59, 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.

Palestine

Palestine needs to be added to the list of settler colonies experiencing genocide in the current day. 100.38.14.205 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is heavily weighted to an Irish-American perspective, downplaying Native American and southern and Central American cultural and physical genocide and giving much more focus to unbalanced irish viewpoints. Needs editing to be more inclusive and weighted. 2603:8000:D600:2E1C:C0FB:7A62:58C4:3311 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So...

For some reason Ireland gets mentioned here but not the Holodomor? Not sure I see the scope of this article being truly in-line with the definition of "indigenous", which broadly excludes those of European descent. SinoDevonian (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Obvious and slightly toxic Irish-American bias here. 2603:8000:D600:2E1C:C0FB:7A62:58C4:3311 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the Inuit people who live in Greenland, which is considered part of Europe, as well as the Guanches who used to live in the Canary Islands (also part of Europe) have consistently been characterized as indigenous.

I understand these landmasses are part of the European Union and not part of the traditional geographical borders of Europe.

Are there sources that describe the irish as indigenous? Phantomette (chat) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (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)

Why is there no individual page for the genocide of the Native Americans?

It would seem like that would be one of the most significant historical pages on Wikipedia, however, there is no page for it at all. There are pages related to it but not one for it itself. MountainDew20 (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This page was once much more in depth on that topic, I believe, and I returned here after a conversation at school, and found it had been edited to be much more dominated by the Irish plight, which also deserves attention, but to have it sit at the top of the page and be given more attention than the Native American genocide that was both vaster in scale and with far more profound long term effects (see current Irish economy and autonomy vs. Native American). This leads me to believe that a biased irish American influence has taken over this page. 2603:8000:D600:2E1C:C0FB:7A62:58C4:3311 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

it would be more principled to organize the area/region sections alphabetically, this would no longer put europe at the top Phantomette (chat) 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)