Talk:Black War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Australia: Tasmania / Military history / History / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Black War is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Military history: South Pacific / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ethnic groups

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Black War (24 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	3,016	3,016
Etymology	535	535
Early conflict	5,176	5,176
Crisis years (1825–1831)	8,723	24,357
Martial law (November 1828)	6,687	6,687
The Aborigines Committee	4,754	4,754
Northwestern conflict	1,976	1,976
Military strategy and tactics	2,217	2,217
Black Line, October–November 1830	2,129	2,129
Surrender and removal	28	8,478
Surrender in the settled districts	5,740	5,740
Removal of western Aboriginal nations	1,378	1,378
Aftermath	1,332	1,332
Population and death toll	33	5,024
Deaths	2,540	2,540
Aboriginal population decline	2,451	2,451
Historiography	22	8,315
Conflict and depopulation	1,872	1,872
Academic discussion of genocide	6,421	6,421
See also	302	302
References	30	30
Bibliography	5,012	5,012
Further reading	169	169
External links	809	809
Total	63,352	63,352

RFC: Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?

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.

The consensus was for option 2, No. There were no !votes for the first option, even by the nom. There was suggestion that the question could only be answered with a full source analysis, which has not been done. After 6 months, the issue is now stale. Non admin close Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Black War be referred to as a "genocide" in Wikivoice?

Yes, it should be referred to as genocide in Wikivoice.
No, it should not be referred to as genocide in Wikivoice.

Should it be stated? KlayCax (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. a) There is an ongoing academic debate over whether the Black War involved genocide. The article describes this debate fairly well and we should not use the Wikipedia Voice to declare a winner in an ongoing debate among experts. Those who oppose the genocide thesis (wholly or partly) are not fringe denialists: they include some of the most eminent scholars in the field such as Henry Reynolds, Nicholas Clements, Richard Broome, Geoffrey Blainey and Josephine Flood. Careful wording in the lead and the article is the best way of handling a nuanced scholarly debate involving different definitions of genocide. Of course we should state that there is a debate over genocide, and the article already does that.

b) A secondary problem is the wording of the RfC. The Black War (i.e. the specific conflict from 1824-32) is generally regarded by historians as a war. It may or may not have involved a genocide but it would be misleading to reduce it to a genocide. This would be like saying: "World War II was the genocide of European Jews." Most of the scholars discussing genocide in Tasmania are referring to the whole colonial period 1803-1900, not just the Black War as such. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak No a), the debate around whether it is genocide should be referred to, however I am not familiar enough with this to offer a strong opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in Wikivoice without a strong consensus of RS, and not solely as a genocide per Aemilius Adolphin.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in Wikivoice (or indeed at all) without a strong consensus of RS, and not solely as a genocide as above comments.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find the no arguments pretty convincing, but would like to hear what the nom. has to say before coming down firmly on one side or the other. In an RfC, the nom. typically enters a !vote too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a question. Why does it look like that section, which makes claims about historiography, primarily cites what are presumably works about the history rather than works about the historiography? Do we not have quotes of people saying "this is what most historians are saying about this"? Surely at least a couple of those books go into what other people in their field are saying instead of just their own points? Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-section heading was recently changed from "Genocide debate" to "Historiography" by an editor here. I agree that the new section heading is misleading and should be changed because the section is really about the current genocide debate. Once we get a consensus on the RfC question we can then look at the section headings. Hope this answers your question. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of discussion on how RS describe a historical event should be titled historiography. I don't see how it would be possible to answer the RFC question without a survey of the appropriate sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No - looking at Encyclopaedia Britannica, I note that they do not use the term genocide anywhere (in their much shorter article) but their very first sentence explains that this nearly resulted in extermination of the Aboriginal people. That is clearly a factual summary without judgement, and can be stated in wikivoice. I have added that to the article, and on the basis that this is in the first paragraph, I don't think it is necessary to call this a genocide in wikivoice. Absent any argument to the contrary, my !vote is therefore no. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course it was a genocide [1]. That needs to be said assertively on the page, but not not necessarily in a WP voice and with a proper attribution to sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately No - Not in wikivoice. Look, I find the scholars and academics who call this a genocide to make compelling arguments, with sound reasoning, and I find the academic arguments against calling it a genocide refutable. But wikipedia needs to reflect the consensus of the relevant experts to use wikivoice, and there is unfortunately no firm consensus amongst experts, so we can't use wikivoice. We can and perhaps should use the term genocide more prominently, even in the lead, but it needs to be attributed, not wikivoiced in this case. From skimming the section, it looks like it might be possible to say "many" or even "most" scholars call it a genocide, but we can't just say "it's a genocide" like we say "the earth is round" and such. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where is there any sort of source analysis performed? This really can't be answered without a source analysis. If a clear majority of academics refer to it as genocide, and only a minority of academics say that it wasn't, then yes we should call it genocide in Wikivoice. If it's the other way around then clearly we shouldn't. However as I said a source analysis would help with this. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like a literature review Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison of what different sources written by Australian historians say. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily just Australian historians, I think ideally we'd be looking at both, it would be something that we'd especially note if Australian and non-Australian historians describe things differently. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 when I wrote Australian historians, I meant subject matter experts on Australian history. Sorry if I wasn't clear. What you write would also be interesting as a comparison. TarnishedPath^talk 14:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Talk:Andy_Ngo#Source_analysis_(RfC:_First_sentence_of_the_lead) (expand the collapsed section named "Source analysis - May 2024") as an example. I believe there's a tool somewhere in WP to help with the compilation of such tables. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Surrender and removal

Hello all

I have rewritten some content more concisely in summary style. I have added some reliably sourced content and have checked and corrected some citations. I have added sub-headings to make it easier to follow.

Happy to discuss, particularly if you think I have removed/changed any content which should be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population and death toll

Hello all

I have rewritten some content more concisely in summary style. I have added some reliably sourced content and have checked and corrected some citations. I have moved the discussion of the death toll in the Black War to the start of the section as this is the main topic of the article and it could get lost in the discussion of population estimates and other causes of Aboriginal population decline. I have changed the heading to reflect the new content and have added sub-headings to make it easier to follow.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]