Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

RFC Palestine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has resulted in consensus to include a description of the allegations of genocide against Palestinians, obviously adhering to WP:NPOV. The key policy in this case is WP:NPOV, whose core tenet is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Editors in favour of inclusion have provided sources that consider the situation in Palestine one that is relevant to this article. Those opposed have failed to challenge the significance of this view, or the reliability of the sources. Furthermore, many of the opposing arguments are plainly not in line with NPOV, arguing instead that only one viewpoint should be represented. A tally of editors confirms that inclusion gained more support than non-inclusion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

See #RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations and post close discussions. The RFC ended with no consensus followed by further discussion/editing as to whether material should be kept or removed per WP:NOCONSENSUS. The further discussions have also not achieved any consensus and this RFC is opened to settle the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS suggests that in scenarios of no consensus, the article goes back to before the RFC. The original RFC was started in May, and the section was added in March. By the logic, the material should remain while RFC continues.

Also, it remains difficult to run this RFC if the material is missing from the page. People should be allowed to edit the material while the RFC runs. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

NOCONSENSUS only says that's what's statistically likely to happen; it does not say that's what should happen. Also, there is no rule requiring the material to remain in place while the RFC happens, and it doesn't seem logical to me. Editors who are experienced enough to make a useful contribution to this discussion should be able to read a diff or look at an old version of the article.

I do agree that people should be allowed to edit the page (including parts under discussion, if they use some discretion) while the RFC runs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bluethricecreamman on this one. The stable version (it's been there since March) stays while the RfC is open. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how I got pinged.....It's been removed multiple times since it was boldly added so much so that they ended up having an RFC. This is why we are having a hard time keeping academic editors and losing old time content editors.... edit warriors are winning..... when it has nothing to do with what winning. Moxy🍁 21:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't get it off your watchlist even when you try, haha. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Did someone ping me then remove it? Wish we had the capability of blocking pings from selective pages. Moxy🍁 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you have subscribed to this RFC (at top right)? If so, hit that again and it will unsubscribe you. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Omg that's posible.... I have automatic subscribed initiated turning it off now. Good luck everyone.... it's a very contentious topic.... and has made me lose respect for a few editors. Moxy🍁 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to be considering more than just yes/no votes. There is demand for this to be mentioned and for this not to be declared a genocide. Is there a way to meet everyone's goals? For example, could we sensibly write something like "Alice says that this is a genocide, but Bob says it's not genocide, it's not colonialism, and they're not indigenous people anyway"? Would a ==See also== link be enough?

Alternatively, do we need a section on non-colonialism genocides and claimed genocides, pointing to an article about that related subject? For example, it's not clear to me whether the Armenian genocide is colonialism (and therefore belongs on this page) or if it's a non-colonialism genocide and therefore belongs on a different page. The Wikipedia:List selection criteria for this page appear to be: "the intentional elimination of Indigenous peoples as a part of the process of colonialism", with Indigenous people defined as "people whose historical and current territory has become occupied as a result of colonial expansion, or it has become occupied as a result of the formation of a state by a dominant group such as a colonial power". Maybe we need would decide that this is more similar to the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide subjects, which do not appear on this particular page.

Overall, I encourage editors to think about what edit(s) could be made that have a chance of not getting insta-reverted by someone with the opposite view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

much of contemporary examples will always be contentious, as are examples of modern day colonialism… i support changing contemporary examples to alleged contemporary examples, and being more inclusionist than exclusionist with much of this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A number of editors are arguing that Palestinians are not indigenous (eg the Palestinians are not widely described as indigenous except for several opinionated articles) so cannot be included in this list. The article Palestinians currently describes them as "native to Palestine" in the lead opening sentence and many sources are listed at Talk:Palestinians#Indigineity so this argument has no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Native" and "indigenous" are not quite the same. Origin of the Palestinians suggests that multiple different groups can claim to be indigenous. I guess the question is about the definition of indigenous. There are some scholars who declare the Jewish people to be (some of) the indigenous people belonging to that land, others who declare the relative incomers of Arab Palestinians to be the indigenous ones, and still others who say that the Palestinian Bedouins/Israeli Bedouins deserve that label more than either of the other two groups. I don't think we can find an answer that will settle the question in the real world, but we might need to figure out whether the Arab Palestinians (with a history of, say, 13 centuries in the area) are "indigenous enough", and the Israeli Jews (with a history of perhaps 40 centuries in the area) are "outsider enough", to belong in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does a higher threshold seem to be applied to Palestinians? Are Irish and Slav indigenous? Saying "Arab Palestinians" only have a history of "13 centuries" is not supported by genetic studies, which go as far as Bronze Age [1] Bogazicili (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier The fact interpretations of genocide change with time, like all concepts and terminologies, are probably the best way to frame the inclusion. The zeitgeist seems like it's heading in that direction. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

!votes

• Oppose - per the recent RM consensus at Gaza genocide, we cannot put it in Wikivoice that a genocide is taking place. Putting it here would do that.

Further, this is a list of genocides of native people by non-native people. That isn’t the case here, where both groups are native. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Examples of genocides in article of "native" vs "native" people

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Colonization_of_Hokkaido is an example of the genocide of the Ainu by the Japanese majority. Both can argue to be "indigenous"

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Armenian_genocide is an example of Ottomon Turks, with explicit sentences about the Turks in constantinople attacking Armenians in the capital

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Myanmar/Burma is Burmese majority attacking the rohingya

Examples of alleged genocides occurring, done correctly in WikiVoice

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Bangladesh uses allegedly in wikivoice

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Canada_2 states in wikivoice that a government report suggests that Indigenous women suffer disproportionate violence Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the examples you list are native peoples vs native?

The alleged genocides you list go beyond the scope of the list and shouldn't be in either; those NPOV issues don't justify introducing new NPOV issues. BilledMammal (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The article clearly makes leeway for "native" vs "native" accusations.

Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Bangladesh is a prime example, it uses allegations correctly in wikivoice to describe an ongoing genocide of two peoples who both claim indigeneity.

Going beyond "NPOV", all contemporary examples of genocides are never neutral. Removing such large portions like that defeats the point of an encyclopedia to inform. Best we can do is correctly attribute in wikivoice, which is what the section does. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bengali’s aren’t native to that region. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The history of groups in the indian subcontinent is a mess of various ethnic groups moving around, with a long and storied history. [[2]] states its a "melting pot of various ethnicities", and while the Hill people probably have the best claim to the land for their area, exact definitions of indigeneity are not useful to debate on here.

If I didn't use the accusation of Bengali people committing genocide against the chittagong, I could have used the accusation of the burmese Rakkhine people attacking the Rohingya in the Myanmar example. Or the turks attacking armenians who had lived for centuries in constantinople.

We should not be litigating which claims are right and wrong, we can just state it in correct WP:WIKIVOICE by attributing claims to the correct peoples. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - many of the contemporary examples in this article are necessarily contentious, which means sourcing reflects as such. Using WikiVoice to correctly describe the Palestine allegation should keep the article and section fair. We should also maybe change "contemporary examples" to "alleged contemporary examples" in the section heading. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - In addition, Could we get guidance on how to interpret WP:NOCONSENSUS vs WP:ONUS on inclusion of disputed material in (growing likely) scenario of no consensus?

  Previously, the material had been up for a few weeks before the original RFC, it had been editwarred back and forth before staying up for a month, then got edit warred and removed during this RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, didn't we just have a vote on this? Adding this would be a major WP:NPOV violation for three reasons: (a) the very allegation of genocide against Palestinians is *extremely* controversial, which many call a fiction/propaganda; (b) we can't label Palestinians solely in wiki voice as indigenous, this is also very contested. If Palestinians are indigenous, Jews should be described as such too, since the Jewish people have existed as an indigenous people and a nation with distinct ethno-religious identity in this area a millenia before Christ. Encyclopedically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be described - as is commonly accepted - as an ethnic conflict between two ethnic/national groups, each with its own claim of nativity/indigenity, rather than a genocide of an indigenous people. HaOfa (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  didn't we just have a vote on this No, look at the question. Note also that Gaza genocide was not an option at the time of the prior RFC, it is available now, obviously not fiction/propaganda and obviously not sufficiently controversial to avoid a notable article being created. Why does the genocider indigeneous/non indigeneous status matter? Would one be guilty but the other not? Obviously ridiculous. The status of the genocided is important for this list but there is ample scholarly evidence presented on this page and elsewhere for that. Therefore the objections presented reduce to naught. Selfstudier (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  A) All of the alleged genocides are extremely controversial, and wikipedia editors can always find sourcing that genocide A was fiction or genocide B was false, especially for contemporary politics.

  B) The previous RFC threw away reasoning around indigeneity and who should be considered indigenous and who shouldn't (Closer argued that its not their job to adjudicate that)

  it can be solved in the text by using WP:OPINION and properly attributing to text A says Palestinians are indigenous, text B argues both Jewish and Palestinians are indigenous etc. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: The crux of the problem is the lack of consensus on whether Palestinians should be considered indigenous peoples in Palestine. This would need to be established at a different venue (e.g., Talk:List of indigenous peoples). Once there's a rough consensus for this, inclusion of Gaza genocide here would be automatic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  The previous RFC argued that claims of indigeneity are not useful arguments for inclusion on here without real context. Also many of the contemporary examples of alleged genocide involve a claimed "indigenous" population doing alleged violence against another "indigenous" population. See the rohingya section on here.

  Indigeneity should not be the sole useful criteria to adjudicate because we def won't solve that as per last RfC:

  "The closer considers assertions that would require he make a ruling on millenia of human migratory patterns and property claims to be irrelevant if no further reference to policy or guidelines are contained in the comment. Many (not all) comments in the exclude camp relied on these arguments, and some (though much fewer) in the include camp did. " Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  See my comment in the discussion section. I would say this rough consensus exists already. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I'll write here what I also said in another related vote today. First, the ongoing war, started by Hamas, is not widely recognized as genocide, and the allegation itself has been described by many as inaccurate and even politicized. We should keep this page focused on actual, widely accepted cases. Otherwise we turn this article, which is about a very serious and important issue, to a propaganda page that would be used in future conflicts to attack opponents with unverified allegations, undermining what genocide really is. And here specifically, another thing applies, the Palestinians are not widely described as indigenous except for several opinionated articles, and as we know, they identify as Arab. Most see themselves as Arabs who came to the Levant from Arabia and Egypt under Muslim rule. Given that they should not be described as indigenous (maybe just part of them, so if we consider them all indigenous, Jews are no less indigenous, as this is where the Jews first appeared in history, and are named after the area of Judea in the Levant). For these two reasons, this allegation has nothing to do here. Galamore (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support At a minimum, the article should state:

South Africa's genocide case against Israel accuses Israel of a Gaza genocide of Palestinians during the Israel–Hamas war.

Mention might also be made of the long standing Palestinian genocide accusation. Genocide of Palestinians by Israel is clearly a notable topic.

The argument that Palestinians are not indigeneous has no basis in sources see, the article Palestinians which currently describes them as "native to Palestine" in the lead opening sentence and many supporting sources are listed at Talk:Palestinians#Indigineity Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Selfstudier إيان (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral while the content is equally or more meriting of inclusion of some of what's already in the article, I would like for the article to be rewritten to, instead of attempting to be an exhaustive listing of all incidents, instead cover the topic as a whole: discussing the relationship between indigenous identity, settler colonialism, and genocide, the aspects that set this type of genocide apart from others, etc. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe it warrants a split? Might make sense conceptually. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with @Buidhe overall. This article needs a lot of work. If it's going to be a list, we need to figure out whether it's meant to include indigenous-on-indigenous genocides. For example, most of this seems to be pretty focused on "modern wealthy country vs now-threatened culture" genocide, but I don't see anything about the Aztecs, who were steadily killing off all their neighbors, or anything about the genocides in the Bible. The Rwandan genocide gets mentioned only in a quotation, and the Bosnian genocide, the Isaaq genocide, and others are mentioned only in the navbox. I suspect that tells us something about the intended subject of the article: not every native group is "indigenous", and only genocides that involve a perpetrator who is clearly non-indigenous are meant to be mentioned here.

  I also see some ordinary mistakes. Genocide of indigenous peoples#Causes of Indigenous Deaths blames "U.S. colonization" for indigenous deaths, but apparently forgets that most of these deaths (mostly due to disease, especially disease unintentionally and unknowingly spread by escaped livestock) happened before the U.S. existed. This is just due to poor writing (e.g., not keeping things in chronological order) and should be relatively easy to fix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Actually I strongly disagree with this comment, which contains several inaccuracies. You presume that all "native" people are "indigenous", but in fact one of the most commonly used definition of indigenous people is essentially those affected by colonialism. Thus this article topic (as far as I've found in reliable sources) is nearly equivalent to "genocides committed by colonizers". Unless an event is actually called genocide of indigenous people in reliable sources, it cannot be included in this article without being original research.

  Although disease was the proximate cause of death for many indigenous people from the Americas, recent historians are emphasizing the role of colonizer policies—such as forced migration, forced labor, and other abuses—in rendering indigenous people vulnerable to disease and population decline. Furthermore, the role of intentionality is not the same in all definitions of genocide used in scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this RfC is the place to discuss the article scope. This shouldn't be used as an excuse to exclude mention of Palestinians. Bogazicili (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Palestinians are not widely recognized as indigenous, and these events are not widely accepted as genocide. This page should focus on established cases. ABHammad (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Palestinians are not widely recognized as indigenous False. See Talk:Palestinians#Indigineity where you attempted to cite the economist as a contrarian view to scholarly material.

  these events are not widely accepted as genocide. Of course, that's why we have two articles, Gaza genocide and Palestinian genocide accusation, duh. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support I really do not see how anyone can object to mention of these issues, under the current scope of the article. This article seems to have 3 components for inclusion of material:
  • 1) Genocide part: There is enough reliable sources for this to warrant inclusion, including opinions of genocide experts such as Raz Segal [3][4]. There is still some controversy, so the text cannot be in Wikivoice, and should include both arguments per WP:NPOV. But the controversy alone is not enough to justify exclusion of this material. The text doesn't have to be in Wikivoice. For more information, also see: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate
  • 2) Indigenous part: This article seems to use the dictionary definition of "indigenous". All modern-day Levantine populations have ancestry from Bronze Age Southern Levant [5]. As such, Palestinians are also indigenous. Some UN documents also seem to define Palestinians as indigenous [6]. Given mention of people such as Irish and Slavs, this article does not use the narrow and official UN definition of Indigenous People [7]. Under the narrow UN definition, only 6.2% of the world populations is under the "Indigenous People" designation. A lot of subjects in this article shouldn't have been here under such a definition. Again, saying Palestinians are indigenous does not have to be in Wikivoice. The article should also recognize the different definitions of the word indigenous. But we do not have to restrict this article to the official UN definition. This RfC is also not about the article scope. Including people such as Irish and Slavs, and excluding Palestinians seems biased to me. If you want to argue about the article scope, do it another time. For more information, also see: Talk:Palestinians#Sources and [8]
  • 3) Colonial part: According to this study [9], various Jewish groups in modern-day Levant can also be considered indigenous. But that doesn't change the fact that multiple sources have described Israel as colonial, such as "Settler Colonial" [10] and "colonial democracy" [11]. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • There seems to be various sources that tie all this together. For example, the report by Francesca Albanese submitted to the UN [12][13]:

    • 5. UN independent experts,5 scholars,6 and states,7 including South Africa before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”),8 have warned that acts committed in this latest onslaught may amount to genocide...

    • 7. The context, facts and analysis presented in this report lead to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met. More broadly, they also indicate that Israel’s actions have been driven by a genocidal logic integral to its settler-colonial project in Palestine, signalling a tragedy foretold.

    • 9. Genocidal intent and practices are integral to the ideology and processes of settler-colonialism,16 as the experience of Native Americans in the U.S., First Nations in Australia or Herero in Namibia illustrates...

    • 10. Historical patterns of genocide demonstrate that persecution, discrimination and other preliminary stages prepare the ground for the annihilation stage of genocide.20 In Palestine, displacing and erasing the Indigenous Arab presence has been an inevitable part of the forming...

      Bogazicili (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
•  Support. Plenty of sources place these topics within this article's scope, so they are worth mentioning here. If there are also independent sources which disagree, then that might affect wording and balance, but we should avoid genocide denial and colonial erasure.  — Freoh 14:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is generally understood as a struggle between two ethnic groups, both laying claim to being indigenous. Classifying it under "Genocide of Indigenous Peoples" oversimplifies the conflict and misrepresents the broader context. The claim of genocide, on its own, is currently a minority view and highly contested, and labeling the conflict as a 'genocide of indigenous people' might even edge into WP:SYNTH territory. UnspokenPassion (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Banned sock [14] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as inclusion would amount to a implied statement that a genocide is occurring, which fails NPOV, as well as per UnspokenPassion's point about indigeneity. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but... - There are plenty of scholars writing about Palestinians as an example of genocide of indigenous peoples. Here is a small selection, by author and date:
  • A. Dirk Moses 2023 [15]
  • Ghada Sasa 2022 [16]
  • Mohammed Nijim 2020 [17]
  • Daud Abdullah 2019 [18]
  • Lana Tatour 2019 [19]
  • Nur Masalha 2018 [20]
  • Rana Barakat 2017 [21]
  • Mark LeVine 2017 [22]
  • Linda Tabar and Chandni Desai 2017 [23]
  • Haifa Rashed and Damien Short 2014 [24]
  • Martin Shaw 2013 [25]
  • Multiple authors (including Ilan Pappe) in this 2010 book [26]

Those are a lot of big names, like Moses, Masalha, Levine, Short and Shaw. This is clearly "a topic." That said, I don't think Wikipedia should state in wikivoice that it is a genocide, but rather state, as this article already does with respect to various other examples, that it's "alleged," "accused," or "described as by some," or words to that effect. But the RS coverage is there for inclusion, without a doubt: these works say "genocide," "Palestinians," and "indigenous." I found them via Google Scholar, which has 16,300 hits for those three words.

I echo Buidhe's sentiment, that this article is currently more like a "List of indigenous genocides" rather than an article about it, and it could be retitled as "Genocides by colonizers". A list is useful, but a rewrite of the article to talk about the topic rather than just list the examples, would be even more useful. TIA to anyone who tackles that challenge. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. — Beating a dead horse won't make it travel in any desired direction. "Genocide" is easy to assume in the midst of a costly war, especially when one is rooting silently for one side over the other. There was previous debate over whether the Israelis or the Palestinians were "indigenous" peoples in their entirety, with time factors in history and other variables involved, and which is yet another aspect of this debate that garnered no consensus. Also, I have to take exception to the comment made by the nominator who apparently is not happy with the previous 'No Consensus' decision, i.e. " this argument has no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT". This opinion has a flip side. i.e.An argument neither has basis simply because WP:ILIKEIT. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Gaza genocide will now be included in the List of genocides per Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide therefore the horse is still kicking, rightly so.

  And at Talk:Palestinians#Indigeneous based on the plentiful supportive sourcing, there is an emerging consensus for that, too.

  Leaving your argument in tatters, again rightly so. Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Gloating doesn't leave anyone's argument in "tatters", so I would lose the sophomoric attitude and try to be more objective in matters, esp with those that concern the idea of 'indigenous'. I'm seeing substantial objections from a number of editors on the Talk page you refer to. So far we have a clear 'no consensus' in this RfC, so if the decision turns out as such, we will have conflicting articles. Yes, as far as I can tell, there is indeed more RS that have referred to the war, that Hamas escalated by invading Israel, committing mass murder and taking hostages , as something that amounts to "genocide". It seems many of these sources dismiss the idea that Hamas, and now Hezbollah, have killed may Israeli citizens, and taken many as hostage, some of whom are turning up murdered. We should be reminded that a one sided POV can still be effected regardless of how many sources one can line up. And let's not forget Hamas/Gaza get their main support from Iran, who has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", a clear indication of genocidal intent. Iran would not be lending Hamas and Hezbollah support if they were not on that same page. The questionable criteria that amounts to "genocide" in this case can also be applied to most wars, not to mention Hamas, et al, , but it seems the most important thing to some folks is sticking that label on Israel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You should know better than to make the WP:OR/WP:NOTFORUM argument that the scholars all got it wrong. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Your general and unresponsive comment isn't very clear, while it seems you're trying to speak for all scholars, as if they are all of the same opinion, which I don't quite understand as you've listed some interesting sources above that acknowledge that Hamas' actions could also be construed as "genocide". In any case, if what you suggest, here, was true then the title of this page would have the term "indigenous" capitalized, per the last RfC over that issue. Also, if you subscribe to the UN and other's criteria for "genocide", then indeed (very) many other wars could be considered such acts, including the actions of Hamas/Palestinians who preach racism to their children in schools, many of which is, along with hospitals, where they store their weapons, so if they are targeted they can run that affair up the media flag-pole. In any case, if the scholars don't hold the feet of Hamas-Palestinians to the same fire as they do with Israel, then we indeed have a POV and Neutrality issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• You also might want to take a look at the dozens of sources in the Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel article. It is not OR to evaluate the sources, i.e.that is our job, to determine if they are RS. -- It is indeed OR if you cherry pick the sources and post your own subjective conclusions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• TIME: Is What’s Happening in Gaza a Genocide? Experts Weigh In
  e.g. "All scholars who spoke to TIME say that it is much more likely that both Hamas and some Israeli officials could be found guilty of crimes against humanity. "

Off topic discussion

Do try and stay on topic. Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Unresponsive, understandably. The topic is about scholar's opinions over what amounts to "genocide", on both sides of the fence, with some examples thrown in, while addressing the idea of OR. Do try to pay attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC) . The topic is about scholar's opinions over what amounts to "genocide" No it isn't, the RFC question I will repeat here: "Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel?" Do keep up. Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) "Keep up"?? Many topics are covered above, e.g., Rwandan genocide, points about what is or isn't "genocide", Irish and Slavs, UN definition of "genocide", South Africa's accusations against Israel, a list of other sources, "Arabia and Egypt under Muslim rule", etc, etc, all in context over whether inclusion is merited here, so if you're not going to respond, please stop harassing editors with whom you disagree as a substitute for your inability to address points. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC). You bludgeoned another recent discussion, don't bother doing it here, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) No one has "bludgeoned" anymore than you have.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC) If we need to discuss that, we will do it in another place. Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Your signature occurs in this section 28 times, mine has occurred 24. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Bludgeoning is not defined by number of edits. Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the above sources, and the nom's comments. No obvious reason not to include given the sourcing providing clear eligibility for inclusion as a valid scholarly perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Selfstudier, Bluethricecreamman and NPOV. M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Upon reading the preceding discussion, it seems that those who oppose the inclusion of Palestinians in this article do so based on their personal opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict and out of a desire to litigate the applications of terms like genocide, native, indigenous, etc. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to decide which terms are or are not applicable - there is no shortage of reliable, expert sources (Bogazicili and Levivich have provided just a small slice of the literature on the topic in their comments above) which apply these terms in this context. There is a wealth of literature on this topic and to exclude it would be blatant POV-pushing. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

deletion of japanese genocide of ainu

can someone take a look and go revert that change? editor has been using account to edit Ainu people apparently? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No coverage of genocidal efforts against Israel

Re: the NPOV tag. The section title here, which denotes Palestine AND Israel, speaks for itself. Using UN criteria for genocide, there is zero coverage about the genocidal efforts directed at the people in Israel. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Add it? Drive by tagging serves no purpose. Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I removed the tag. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been active in these debates, RfC's, etc, for some time -- this is not a "drive by tagging", and besides, that comment more than suggests that only some editors are allowed to make edits. Please observe WP:OWN#Types of ownership.   The fact remains, the tag does serves a purpose, as the section in question indeed is one sided, and alerts other editors of the issue. This issue has not been resolved. Please observe When it's appropriate to remove the tag, rather than trying to control the section's narrative. The closer of the RfC clearly maintained — "The key policy in this case is WP:NPOV, whose core tenet is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". (emphasis added) The whole purpose here, given the controversial nature of the issue, is to discuss how the section can achieve neutrality, first, so as to avoid an edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, "Add it" and leave the speeches/lectures at home. Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have created a separate section for "Israel" since there are no problems with the Palestine section and added an "empty" template" to the new Israel section so that you or anyone may add to it. Kindly desist with POV tagging. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Tag removed. This still needs to be discussed first. You seem to be in disagreement that Hamas and Hezbollah are bent on genocide and have resorted to some of the same things Israel has been accused of "genocide" for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with anything except the tag being improperly applied and without good reason. If you want to assert that Hamas or Hezbollah are accused of genocide against Israel, then you can add that to an Israel section with appropriate mains/sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please... There was nothing inappropriate about the tag. Your premature removal was what was inappropriate. The section was missing any coverage of genocidal efforts and intentions towards Israel. Easy math. By insisting that the tag was inappropriate you are more than suggesting that you actually believe there are no genocidal efforts and intentions against Israel, which is a bit curious, because various Hamas officials, including Ghazi Hamad, have stated their intentions publicly, as has Hezbollah and Iran, time and again, let alone all the missiles and drones these entities have aimed specifically at civilians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It was inappropriate because it was nothing more than an attempt to tag material that there is nothing wrong with, for POV reasons I would imagine. For the second time, I am not objecting additions you want to make but so far I haven't seen any. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The material it has seems to be well sourced. It was the material that was and remains missing that is at issue. Again, there remains no coverage of genocidal efforts and intentions against Israel. That I have to recite the 'alphabet' for you on such a glaring issue seems to indicate you have no desire to include this material. Now an other editor has removed the section you created, without a discussion, claiming in edit history that you had "no point", and did not restore the original section title. i.e. Palestine / Israel. As I said, I'd like to add material but at this point I fear it's going to be reverted because it seems I'm the only one thus far who wants to obtain neutrality over this issue.. Will you be restoring your prior edit? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, this is not a productive discussion. If you feel material is missing then you are free to add it, as long as it is well sourced. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

.