Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

4607:. 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. 5280:

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. --

5223:. — 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. -- 5321:"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. -- 4924:. 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. 1140: 1119: 5489:"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. -- 2981: 3115:. Like many other Indigenous editors who opposed the proposed movement, I made my statements and stopped contributing to the ENDLESS, REPETITIVE, and at times HOSTILE discussion by editors who clearly were willing argue against global style guides in the hopes that someday the discussion would be accurately closed as NO CONSENSUS, since that is obviously what happened. Repeating oneself endless does not negate the clear votes that OPPOSED the move. 5040:. 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. 4534: 1341: 453: 432: 5660:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) editors to decide which terms are or are not applicable - there is no shortage of reliable, expert sources ( 1045: 4466:

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.

631: 610: 1035: 1014: 1466: 946: 925: 5019: 1614: 242: 841: 820: 272: 542: 521: 316: 851: 1243: 368: 1216: 347: 4573:"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. " 1253: 701: 4414:- 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. 1390: 1369: 3058:" genocide scholars"? Only one was cited, an opinion piece. There is no reference as to what statements were made by Israel officials that would indicate, let alone prove, intent. This statement needs to be reworded to reflect objectivity, sourced by more than one genocide scholar, and ideally, ones that share differing views. -- 3642:

because there was an editwar by new editors (some that have been blocked) and it happens to have been there for sometime does not negate the fact that there has no consensus to be in there from the beginning in its current format. More experienced editor simply do not engage in edit wars.... this is not mean it should be there.

4565:

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

3560:

Just mentioned this on the policy page that we have a new generation of editors that don't have the same interpretation as us old timers due to wording changes over the years. Policy was clearly clearer before in my view. How people think that content that has been contested and with an RFC about its

4697:

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

4178:

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

3931:

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

3582:

cannot be in this article, that strikes me as being rather a quaint argument. To me the issue is not whether something should be in the article, but what exactly it should say and what would be due. Now we can either work that out or I am perfectly willing to go to RFC again based on the changed set

4980:

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

4761:

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

3460:

that the reverting editor appears to have overlooked as they have not participated there at all (I have posted there about this previously). Finally, the "Allegations" article has since then been closed as "Gaza genocide" so things have changed quite a bit since the close. So that's what I suggest,

5279:

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

4045:

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

3967:

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

3397:

section occurs right below the MOVE conference, above. Apparently both sections were created about the same time. We can move that section below this one, or this one below it. In any case, I've no inclination of rehashing the same arguments all over again. Consensus has spoken, per neutrality. If

3208:

I agree there was no consensus for this move. Additionally I do not think it should be a non-admin closure given the complexity and "temperature" of the discussion. If this discussion is to be closed at this time, the very least a closer should do is present an in-depth, thoughtful, analytical and

4780:

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

4491:

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

4465:

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

3344:

The closer said there was consensus — i.e.there was 22 who supported and only 12 who opposed, while arguments were also considered, as should be done. "No consensus" usually occurs when the difference in votes is marginal. This wasn't the case here. Most of those who opposed cherry picked their

3641:

Our policy is clear to me..... the current wording and sourcing is a point of contention and the current format does not have consensus to be in the article (ever since it was boldly inserted and after an RFC).... more discussion is needed before inclusion.... simply need another proposal. Just

5320:

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

4784:

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.

4737:

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

5188:

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

1525:

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is

4754:, 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. 4996:

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

3573:

As I said, the issue is not so clear cut and as I said above, that while I would have preferred the closer of that RFC to have looked into the QUO matter, they did not and here we are. The best remedy is more discussion, what I fail to understand is how material about

4377:

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

3775:

The deletion RFC happened in May. The addition of the Palestine Israel section happened in March. The fact that the current version is odious to you and not odious to me does nothing to change the fact that there was no consensus and we should follow the protocol.

5025:. 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. — 3455:

There was an RFC about this and closed as no consensus. An editor has reverted the material arguing QUO and I have reverted back because no consensus means more discussion not less. In addition, there has already been further discussion about this above at

1553:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not

4343:

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.

1198: 4170:. 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 4115:

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.

3523:

Ohhh did not realize was a talk after close.....yes normal course of action after a bold addition that has been contested and has not gained consensus for inclusion is for its removal. To anyone knowledgeable in our processes this is clear

3790:

The materials been contested the whole time in his current format..... Just because experience editors did not engage in edit wars because they're aware of the contentious topic.... does not mean those blocked editors should get priority.

3424:

This is a travesty and shows the engrained racial bias of Knowledge (XXG) and multiple editors that shouldn't be editing articles on Indigenous people when they hold the position that our identity is equal to rocks and plants. Shameful.

3508:

This section was boldly added in May and immediately contested, and then subject to a protracted dispute. Clearly, the status quo is exclusion, and editors who want to include it should open a new RFC after sufficient time has passed.

3226:(BTW, I had added my comment above because of the lengthy threading of all these discussions, especially of this length, I wanted to be certain that my comment was understood to be in response to the closer's comment at the top of the 3622:

Moxy is asking the question about QUO (when Nocon) at the boards, I say the closer left it up in the air for editors to sort out but if it turns into another revert/revert/revert type of thing, I see no alternative to another RFC.

164: 3836:

Well, the reverting is in full swing with another one coming in and there appears to be zero interest on the part of deleters to engage in any discussion, therefore I intend to shortly initiate another RFC to address the issue.

5668:

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.

3490:

Read the discussion above about what the status quo is agreed to be. If you want to reopen this, you should know the context. But your ask is unlikely to be answered if you don't engage with the existing convo on this page.

5417:

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. --

3682:

QUO is not as clear as you make it out to be. How about this, we ask the question at a/the board (not sure which) specifically for this case and ask whether in this particular set of circumstances, what does QUO entail?

3209:

thoroughly well-reasoned rationale, not what seems to be a two sentence drive-by closure. I want to assume good faith, however it is unclear from the summary whether the closer read the various arguments and examples.

1101: 5871: 4193:

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

1188: 5856: 3350:-- "Unlike other request processes on Knowledge (XXG), such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics)" 1091: 4973:

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...

3913:

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

5876: 3772:"When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." 1164: 1448: 1067: 592: 414: 4988:

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

4374:] 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. 5338: 4220:

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.

4506:

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.

5866: 4939:, 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" 4442:

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.

4776:

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

5851: 1147: 1124: 379:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 5341:

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. --

1058: 1019: 5776: 380: 5911: 1438: 4049:

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

4020:

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.

3705:

and disputed less than six weeks later, on a page with a relatively low number of active watchers and a relatively low amount of traffic. That isn't the "stable version" or "status quo".

158: 3398:

someone is strongly disagreeing, favoring treatment of indigenous peoples over colonial and religious people, he or she can present the matter to an appropriate forum. Good luck. --

784: 5916: 55: 732: 5204:". 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. 4883:

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:

3712:(who I note has previously reverted to include this content, and will thus be at more risk of sanctions if this goes to AN3) to self-revert and get consensus for its inclusion. 375: 352: 5861: 4902: 1562:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.

757: 747: 5626:

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.

4509:

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)

3654:

Well, more experienced or not, you and me and BM have each made a revert and I maintain that the issue needs to be discussed. And if not then another RFC it will have to be.

1274:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

5906: 233: 4966: 3476:

We can continue the discussion, but before we do in the absence of consensus for inclusion the content must be removed, and I ask that you self-revert your restoration.

762: 752: 3050:" Statements made by Israeli officials have also been described by genocide scholars as dehumanizing the population of Gaza and used as evidence for "genocidal intent." 1414: 1397: 1374: 681: 5796: 582: 996: 5364:

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. "

4943: 5811: 5771: 4079:"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 671: 404: 1311: 5841: 5190: 986: 797: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 4829:: The Palestinians are not widely recognized as indigenous, and these events are not widely accepted as genocide. This page should focus on established cases. 90: 4629: 3865: 3579: 5886: 5801: 5069:

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. —

1301: 4100:

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.

558: 5816: 4964: 292:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 5090:- 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: 907: 647: 5846: 742: 5761: 4320:

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.

3891:

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

3346: 1348: 1226: 962: 3917:

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.

3230:

discussion on this talk page. I don't participate in many of these types of discussions, so if it was placed incorrectly, please forgive me for that.)

646:, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 5826: 1050: 897: 1699: 503: 279: 5896: 5791: 3561:

inclusion results in no consensus results in material staying is simply out to lunch....thank god our BLP is more clear about contentious material.

793: 5141: 3369:

There's already a section discussing the close. Please use that discussion instead of creating new threads where people have to repeat themselves.

1276: 96: 5806: 5786: 5766: 493: 1410: 549: 526: 5155: 5836: 3935:

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.

705: 638: 615: 5831: 1152: 179: 953: 930: 873: 5881: 5464:"Should this article mention any or all of Gaza genocide, Palestinian genocide accusation and South Africa's genocide case against Israel?" 3261: 3182:"Prior to submitting a review of a page move's close, please attempt to resolve any issues on the closer's talk page. See step one below." 1483:, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: 146: 41: 4806:

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.

4054: 4053:

is colonialism (and therefore belongs on this page) or if it's a non-colonialism genocide and therefore belongs on a different page. The

3111:

Before requesting a move review, it's required to discuss the move on the talk page. There was absolute no consensus to move this page to

5703:"Knowledge (XXG)'s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world's largest encyclopedia" 4340:

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

5901: 4921:. Given mention of people such as Irish and Slavs, this article does not use the narrow and official UN definition of Indigenous People 1266: 1221: 469: 5678: 1160: 1063: 3602:

You’re welcome to start a new RFC - although personally I think it would be premature - but in the meantime you need to self-revert.

1406: 295: 283: 110: 5821: 4516:

and properly attributing to text A says Palestinians are indigenous, text B argues both Jewish and Palestinians are indigenous etc.

4372:

The history of groups in the indian subcontinent is a mess of various ethnic groups moving around, with a long and storied history.

4252:

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.

1935: 115: 31: 3130:

I think you are supposed to discuss the objections with the closer on their talk page (and not write on the closed archive, lol).

2986:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

5891: 4886:

1) Genocide part: There is enough reliable sources for this to warrant inclusion, including opinions of genocide experts such as

3266: 3016: 3002: 864: 825: 140: 85: 5781: 4861: 4658:

which currently describes them as "native to Palestine" in the lead opening sentence and many supporting sources are listed at

4648: 4545: 3861: 3540:

A) We already chatted about this in "The Israel section suffers from lack of RS, weasel language and mostly violation of NPOV"

1519: 1490: 1476: 327: 5077: 4758: 4337: 4300: 4294: 4283: 4277: 4271: 3205: 3112: 3037: 3012: 2998: 2940: 2926: 2911: 2897: 2884: 2871: 2857: 2842: 2827: 2812: 2797: 2782: 2767: 2752: 2737: 2722: 2707: 2692: 2677: 2662: 2647: 2632: 2617: 2602: 2587: 2572: 2558: 2544: 2529: 2514: 2499: 2485: 2471: 2456: 2441: 2426: 2411: 2396: 2381: 2366: 2351: 2336: 2321: 2306: 2292: 2278: 2263: 2248: 2233: 2218: 2203: 2189: 2175: 2160: 2145: 2130: 2115: 2100: 2085: 2070: 2055: 2040: 2025: 2010: 1995: 1980: 1965: 1950: 1920: 1905: 1890: 1875: 1860: 1845: 1830: 1815: 1801: 1787: 1772: 1757: 1742: 1727: 1713: 1684: 1670: 1657: 1634: 1402: 35: 4280:

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

3750:

Happy to go to the ordinary Admin noticeboard, don't really see anyone edit warring here, so that's just unhelpful, really.

460: 437: 76: 4898:. But the controversy alone is not enough to justify exclusion of this material. The text doesn't have to be in Wikivoice. 4471: 3339:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3106:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

136: 5115: 3420:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3303:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1582: 1515: 5743: 4790: 4724: 4703: 4579: 4521: 4447: 4419: 4390: 4349: 4308: 4121: 3922: 3781: 3741: 3551: 3496: 1156: 4046:

not genocide, it's not colonialism, and they're not indigenous people anyway"? Would a ==See also== link be enough?

3345:

sources favoring "style guides" and such, and ignored the bulk of sources as delineated by NGRAMS, per WP policy i.e..

186: 4892: 4166:

suggests that multiple different groups can claim to be indigenous. I guess the question is about the definition of

1594:

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

5172: 4163: 241: 196: 5197: 4685: 1546: 1494: 1480: 301: 120: 5738:

can someone take a look and go revert that change? editor has been using account to edit Ainu people apparently?

5128: 5045: 4698:

identity, settler colonialism, and genocide, the aspects that set this type of genocide apart from others, etc. (

4569:

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

3247: 1574: 1507: 252: 4467: 3256: 1401:, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Knowledge (XXG). Please participate by editing 4918:. As such, Palestinians are also indigenous. Some UN documents also seem to define Palestinians as indigenous 4432: 4144: 4139:

currently describes them as "native to Palestine" in the lead opening sentence and many sources are listed at

3910: 3892: 3730: 3525: 333: 5201: 4894:. There is still some controversy, so the text cannot be in Wikivoice, and should include both arguments per 4785:

Furthermore, the role of intentionality is not the same in all definitions of genocide used in scholarship. (

4492:

evidence presented on this page and elsewhere for that. Therefore the objections presented reduce to naught.

4303:

states in wikivoice that a government report suggests that Indigenous women suffer disproportionate violence

4179:

Jews (with a history of perhaps 40 centuries in the area) are "outsider enough", to belong in this article.

3668:

And in the meantime, while it is being discussed, the status quo should remain. As such, please self-revert.

1565:

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

5739: 5057: 4720: 4575: 4517: 4443: 4415: 4386: 4345: 4304: 4117: 3950: 3918: 3895:. The further discussions have also not achieved any consensus and this RFC is opened to settle the matter. 3777: 3737: 3709: 3547: 3492: 3457: 3323: 3090: 152: 4006:

Perhaps you have subscribed to this RFC (at top right)? If so, hit that again and it will unsubscribe you.

5674: 5563: 5531: 5496: 5425: 5348: 5328: 5287: 5244: 5230: 4922: 4767: 4739: 4363: 4325: 4257: 4184: 4105: 3940: 3717: 3673: 3607: 3514: 3481: 3405: 3359: 3065: 719: 4382: 1578: 1518:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

1511: 66: 5631: 5577: 5545: 5511: 5472: 5402: 5262: 4907:

2) Indigenous part: This article seems to use the dictionary definition of "indigenous". All modern-day

4869: 4666: 4593: 4497: 4152: 4011: 3985: 3900: 3873: 3842: 3755: 3688: 3659: 3628: 3588: 3466: 3285: 3187: 3156: 3135: 1163: