Talk:Black War

message: In relation to genocide, the the stable version of the lead states: "The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings have sparked debate among historians over whether the Black War should be defined as an act of genocide by the British colonists."
Although there is an ongoing discussion on the wording of the lead (above), a couple of editors have sought to change this without discussion to: "Scholars classify the event as an instance of settler colonialism and an instance of genocide against Indigenous peoples. The author of the concept of genocide, Raphael Lemkin, considered Tasmania the site of one of the world's clear cases of genocide and Hughes has described the loss of Aboriginal Tasmanians as "the only true genocide in English colonial history".
The problem with this change is that it presents only one side of an ongoing debate among scholars on the issue. The two editors also removed the following sentence from the section of the article on the genocide controversy: "However, other historians including Henry Reynolds, Richard Broome, and Nicholas Clements do not agree with the genocide thesis, arguing that the colonial authorities did not intend to destroy the Aboriginal population in whole or in part.Clements, Nicholas (2013). pp. 110-12"
Under policy, articles should be written from a neutral point of view and seriously contested assertions should not be stated as facts. Reynolds, Broome and Clements are leading scholars on the Black Wars and their research indicates that there is a serious debate on the question of genocide. Other scholars such as Josephine Flood also question the genocide thesis. There is no reason under policy to remove the statement that these scholars contest the genocide thesis and then to alter the lead in a way that suggests that all scholars agree with the genocide theory. I believe the stable version of the lead is an accurate summary of the relevant part of the article, is written from a NPOV, and should remain until a clear consensus based on policy is reached on alternative wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus of editors are of the view that the term genocide is more appropriate. Please stop reverting and edit warring. Jack4576 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus on the Talk page here at all. Nor is the issue whether the word "genocide" is appropriate. The issue is WP:NPOV and I object to your changes on these grounds. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. In any case, I've opened an RfC to resolve the edit war you've been pursuing. Jack4576 (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

text: "frequent incidence" is not grammatically correct. The use of "frequent" implies the use of the plural "incidents" rather than the mass noun "incidence" - so I changed it. Alternatively, "frequent mass killings" or "frequency of mass killings" would work. My change is purely for grammatical reasons; it is not intended as an opinion on the current edit war (eg ). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My aforementioned change was reverted by  without an explicit reason, but I'm assuming as part of the bigger current edit-war, given that the reversion was followed by . I still assert that "frequent incidence" is grammatically incorrect, but I'll wait until the dust settles on the #RfC use of the word Genocide before raising the matter again (if that phrase is retained). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not edit warring, I am enforcing consensus. Two editors including myself have expressed a view that ‘weasel words’ should be omitted from the lede, along with the false balance. Only one editor is insisting on the other position. Their repeated reversions are in defiance of consensus and they are the only one who is edit warring. Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of lead revisited 

message: This edit changes the lede from:
to:
but the use of "is a term" is apparently contrary to WP:ISATERMFOR and WP:REFERS (independently of the use of the word "genocide"). Is the article about the war/conflict or about the term? I'm tempted to revert that change but I don't want to get tangled up in the current EW, nor muddy the waters of the #RfC use of the word Genocide. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is a term" 

message: Hello all,
In the course of the closed RfC above, a few editors suggested that the lead should be expanded to provide more background. I propose the following version for discussion.
Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this wording because it misleads the reader into thinking there is a contemporary debate as to whether this incident was an act of genocide. That proposition is unsupported by any sources, and breaches Wikipedia guidelines regarding false balance and weasel words. Jack4576 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still my preferred option and you are free to vote against it in a new RfC. But I have added the following compromise wording in the lead until the issue is resolved. "The near-destruction of the Aboriginal Tasmanians and the frequent incidence of mass killings is regarded by many contemporary historians as an act of genocide by the colonists. Others, however, argue that the colonial authorities did not intend to destroy the Aboriginal people." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new wording for Lead 

message: Hello all
I have removed the "Background" section as it repeated information found elsewhere in the article. I moved the content to the relevant sections of the article and combined it with the existing content. I have replaced unsourced editorial comment with reliably sourced information. I have created a new sub-heading on Military Tactics.  I have moved some information to the lead as a summary of the article.
Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: Hello all
As this is a background section to the main conflict of 1824-31, I have rewritten it in summary style, with links to relevant main articles for more detail. I have summarised the content on the expansion of the settlement and clarified its link to the outbreak of war. I have replaced unsourced content with reliable sourced content. I have summarised and clarified Clements' view on the motivations for settler violence. I have tried to consistently use "colonists" for all the British and "settlers" for the free settlers, and  "British" (not "English" or "European") for the colonists (except when it is a quotation or the context dictated otherwise). I have tried to consistently use "Aboriginal people" or "Aboriginal Tasmanians" to describe the Indigenous population unless when quoting directly. There are some minor wording changes to reduce some very close paraphrasing of sources.
Happy to discuss, particularly if you think I have removed/changed any content which should be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early conflict