Jump to content

Talk:Black genocide in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A. Randomdude0000 (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 31 October 2023 (→‎Requested move 26 October 2023: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cardinal O'Boyle

The previous section on this is a little too old and includes a lot of different topics, so let's start a new one. Do people object to including this line "After Washington D.C. legalized elective abortion in 1972, Cardinal Patrick O'Boyle, who gave the invocation at the March on Washington, said "no one can ignore the implications of genocide." [1] This is not intended as a statement of fact, but an opinion by someone of note who claimed a connection between the two topics regardless of the merit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other sources that give weight to O'Boyle's view? Williams gives him a passing mention, and qualifies it with backlash from the community. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a quick glance, there is an article from the New York Times at the time. [1]3Kingdoms (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of genocide. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, too quick a glance, plus dealing with paywalls.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source for Williams remark was William Willoughby. “O’Boyle Charges Genocide.” Washington Evening Star-News, 7 August 1972. [Google Scholar] 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also in his biography "Steadfast in the Faith: The Life of Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle" on page 391-392. It mentions the genocide remarks and the stir it caused in the media for him saying it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Williams, Daniel K. (2016). Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-life Movement Before Roe v. Wade. Oxford University Press. p. 170. ISBN 9780199391646.

Requested move 26 October 2023

Black genocideBlack genocide in the United States – Only discusses the U.S. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Is there another black genocide somewhere else? What is getting confused with this topic? What is ambiguous? Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the hatnotes on this article, "black genocide" could easily refer to certain policies of European rule in Africa, or events such as the Herero and Namaqua genocide. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A google search also indicates that its sometimes attached to events in Australia and New Zealand as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the concepts currently do not exist on Wikipedia, the current title is de facto unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To elaborate, moving this article to "Black genocide in the United States" creates the unhelpful/confusing situation where there is a redirect, which will be named "Black genocide" redirecting to a title with a more precise scope. This is misleading for readers, considering that some may believe that if there is an article sitting at "Black genocide in the United States", then there should also be an article at "Black genocide" explaining the concept in more of a general sense. In other words, without a general concept article that can be placed at the current title, and/or the article at the current title being more in-depth and not US-centric, moving the article as proposed can result in the aforementioned issues (In other words, this akin to Wikipedia saying "this is all we currently have on the subject"); however, in the article's current state, it can be appropriate to create a redirect at Black genocide in the United States targeting the article at the current title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its a stretch to call that misleading to readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree due to the potential WP:SURPRISE factor due to all I just said. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you disagree, I just don't see a big surprise there. No more so than you could argue already exists with the status quo that is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not comprehending what you mean by the second sentence. Either way, I believe a while ago, I argued this point previously with another move request, and the page remained at the ambiguous title; if I can find the discussion, I'll post it here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISE. The current title is ambiguous. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISE unless the phrase "Black genocide" is determined to be ambiguous with other existing topics on Wikipedia (and this can somehow be converted into its own article in sort of a WP:DABCONCEPT fashion). At present, the claim is that the concept of "Black genocide" is exclusive to the United States, thus adding to the current title in the proposed manner is over-precision. In fact, the better idea at present would probably be to redirect the requested new title to the current title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the note that both supporters and detractors are citing precision but the page already has hatnotes for a few historical events that can be characterized as genocides of black people and this page is US-centric in scope. Killuminator (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no excuse for that sort of US-centrism. Current title is currently ambiguous, the new title is more precise and has no significant downsides that I can identify besides "over-precision" (nor would I note has anyone opposed named any others) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title does not accurately reflect the subject of the article, which is explicitly limited to the United States. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support multiple genocides in Africa, perpetrated by European colonial masters. Clearly this is US-based If it was PRECISE it wouldn't need a hatnote -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom., others, and WP:PRECISE. This is clearly a U.S.-based article, and should be titled accordingly. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]