Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

Contemporary examples

Looking through a lot of the contemporary examples, they include cases where they are not referred to as cases of indigenous genocide, where indigeneity is not discussed with regards to the target group, and some where even related concepts such as settler-colonialism are not discussed in the literature. I have started to remove those with which I have a familiarity of the literature. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British colonization of Ireland

I see bunch of entries were removed by Cdjp1.

What's the threshold for adding content into the article? For example, do Irish qualify? Is British colonization of Ireland discussed in the context of indigenous genocides? Bogazicili (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have scholarship that view the cases as specifically cases of "indigenous genocide"? If not, they should not be included as "examples" as it strays into OR by editors. As you specifically ask about Ireland, the colonisation while we have some sources that do analyse it as genocide, the ones I know of do not analyse it as "indigenous genocide". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I have this source: [1]
I agree with removing entries if the sources do not discuss "indigenous" aspect specifically. Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the source covers entries in this article, that we don't already use that source for, it should be added, as yes it builds justification for inclusion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant it as an example of an overview source. It's a bit dated though, from 2011. It doesn't have an Ireland chapter. Bogazicili (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not very familiar with Hitchcock, the book is published by Routledge, it includes chapters by known and respected academics in their fields, and then Hitchcock has been featured in edited books also published by academic publishers and edited by respected academics in their fields. So, while I haven't read this book, it has all the flags of a RS that we could (and should probably) be using. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German colonisation of Eastern Europe

@DaRealPrinceZuko: can you show where in the book The American West and the World it calls German imperial expansion into Eastern Europe "indigenous genocide"? As looking through the text it does not say any such thing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source describes the phenomenon as a campaign of settler colonialism and describes the cultural genocide of Polish people. The source also states how German philosophers compared their colonization campaign in Poland to the U.S. colonization of Native American territories. The fact that Poles were subjected to settler colonialism by the German Empire at the time would essentially make them indigenous, as indigeneity is a status intrinsically linked to colonialism.[2] DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And deciding that the source describes "indigenous genocide" by linking the description of actions to another source that describes what an indigenous people are, when neither source calls the event "indigenous genocide" is OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source literally describes an event of cultural genocide against an ethnic group that was subjected to settler colonialism, thus making them indigenous, which is NOT original research. For extra context, here's a definition by the UN Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: "Indigenous peoples, communities and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system."[3] This clearly applies to Poles in the context of Imperial German settler colonialism, who ceased to be indigenous after gaining independence. A similar tend can be found in countries like British Ireland, French Algeria and Japanese Korea. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources don't explicitly describe it as "indigenous genocide", it is in fact OR to claim so. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, the source describes a deliberate attempt to destroy a culture in accordance with a settler colonial program, which constitutes a form of genocide. Even if the word "indigenous" is not directly mentioned, the fact that a settler colonial campaign was conducted against Poles to destroy their culture was, by definition, a settler colonial genocide against indigenous peoples. You need to analyze these sources based on the facts presented, not merely the semantics in relation to the topic being discussed. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not describe it as "indigenous genocide", we can not make the assessment that it meets the criteria for such. Doing so is simply OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source outlined the event as a cultural destruction of a group of people being subjected to a settler colonial project, which means that it does indeed meet the criteria of an indigenous genocide. This is literally supported by a United Nations definition of indigeneity and Raphael Lemkin's definition of cultural genocide. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source state that it meets the "United Nations definition of indigeneity" (which one, as multiple have been proposed by the UN, and the Google doc you linked to is locked and not public), and does the source state that the actions meet Lemkin's definition of cultural genocide? If it does not, this is OR on top of the source. It is easy to resolve this to have the item included, by finding sources that call it a genocide, and say it is targeted against an indigenous people. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an example here is the edit I have just made to the Hokkaido section, adding multiple academic sources which call the Ainu an indigenous people, and call their treatment and experiences a case of genocide, which previously were lacking for the section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that the generally accepted definitions on inigeneity and genocide are invalid and not reputable sources? As I have stated, even if the source itself does not directly mention the words "indigenous" and "genocide," the author implies that the settler colonial program was implemented to destroy a culture and states how the colonists viewed their campaign as analogous to U.S. westward colonization, which involved genocide against Native Americans. In Friedrich Ratzel's 1901 book on lebensraum, he compared German settler colonialism to the colonial genocides in North America, Tasmania and southern Brazil, as revealed in Carol P. Kakel III's book The American West and the Nazi East (p. 20). DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me to be able to comment on the reputability of sources, you would have to provide them for me to see, as stated, you linked to a non-public locked document that I can't see. What I am saying though, is that the sources used in the article section and the ILO source you provided here, do not support including article section, as neither call it "indigenous genocide". Now Kakel is a new source and potentially usable, but page 20 does not actually compare German settler colonialism eastward in the imperial period to colonial genocides, but instead discusses Ratzel's want for eastward expansion in the manner of settler colonialism. Later chapters do compare the Nazi's actions to settler colonialism, and potentially genocide, I will need to do a further read, unless you have some selected sections you think best show the argument, if not explicitly stating it is indigenous genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-note, the article section that was discussing German settler colonialism eastward in the imperial period cited only Janne Lahti's book The American West and the World. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source by Kakel actually does state that Ratzel compared his desires for German colonization to the other scenarios and used the word "extermination" (meaning genocide) in relation to North America. Also, I made the UN article accessible for viewing now. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, that definition, as with the ILO link you sent, is perfectly fine, and is of no issue. But to take that definition, and choose to apply it to Polish people in the period of the late 1800s, and early 1900s in Imperial Germany's eastern borderlands, without a source explicitly stating as such, is OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Ratzel, Ratzel's concept of Lebensraum became a powerful intellectual construct supporting German imperialism, racial struggle, and the extermination of 'primitive peoples'. In his 1901 book, Lebensraum, Ratzel applied the Darwinian struggle for existence to humans, noting the extermination of the American Indians and other 'less civilized' peoples by Euro-American conquerors. Rather than projects of trade or exploitation of 'native' labour, he favoured settler colonization as the most effective way to find new 'living space' for an expanding population, as well as wars of conquest, which 'quickly and completely displace the inhabitants, for which North America, southern Brazil, Tasmania, and New Zealand provide the best examples'. does not say that Ratzel argues German policies of the late 1800s, and early 1900s in Imperial Germany's eastern borderlands is extermination. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did cite the source until you pointed out that it was not available for you to read. Given the fact that Polish people at the time had a pre-colonial continuity and formed a non-dominant sector of a society, while the German Empire was actively destroying their culture, I think this would count as "indigenous genocide," at least in accordance with Lemkin's definition on cultural genocide. As for your point about Ratzel, I stated that he used the word "extermination" in the context of North America, not German colonization. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again it doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what sources actually say, and you have restored the sections with sources that make no such claims of indigenous genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I know you have edited extensively in the area of German/Nazi crimes and policies in Eastern Europe/relating to Slavic peoples, so you are are much more likely to be familiar with the literature in this area than myself. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the classical argument, per Aime Cesaire, that Nazism is colonialism and vice versa; the Western world "tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples." Then there are those who argue against continuity between the German colonial empire and Nazism, and oppose describing Nazism as colonialism, considering blue water colonialism. I agree that what we write here has to follow WP:VER and NPOV, and that most sources about WWII don't describe the victims of Nazi violence, for example Poles, Belarusians, Russians, etc. as indigenous peoples, and imperialism is a more common moniker than colonialism for Nazi conquests. Here are some sources that may be helpful:

  • Kühne, Thomas (September 2013). "Colonialism and the Holocaust: continuities, causations, and complexities". Journal of Genocide Research. 15 (3): 339–362. doi:10.1080/14623528.2013.821229.
  • Kakel, Carroll P. (2013). The Holocaust as Colonial Genocide: Hitler’s ‘Indian Wars’ in the ‘Wild East’.
  • Baranowski, Shelley (2011). Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85739-0.
  • Zimmerer, Jürgen (2023). From Windhoek to Auschwitz?: Reflections on the Relationship between Colonialism and National Socialism. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-075460-5.
  • Pergher, Roberta; Roseman, Mark; Zimmerer, Jürgen; Baranowski, Shelley; Bergen, Doris L.; Bauman, Zygmunt (2013). "The Holocaust: a colonial genocide? A scholars' forum". Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust. 27 (1): 40–73. doi:10.1080/23256249.2013.812823.
  • Westermann, Edward B. (13 October 2016). Hitler's Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-5713-9.

this should not be used as it's definitely a fringe perspective. (t · c) buIdhe 17:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilley is still publishing!? But besides that shock, thank you for the input. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocide of Poles in the German Empire

As explained, contentious labels must be backed with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The source in The American West and the World by Janne Lahti describes an event detailing the Imperial German colonization of ethnic Polish lands and the deliberate erasure of their culture, which constitutes cultural genocide. Not to mention, a 2004 UN definition defines indigeneity with two key criteria: a pre-colonial continuity and a non-dominant sector of a society (which was the case with Polish people in the German Empire). If the event described in the source is not a cultural genocide of indigenous peoples, then I do not know what is. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated previously, we can't make the judgement that it meets the criteria of x, y, or z for genocide, we need sources to make that assessment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the source itself does not mention the word "indigenous," it still describes a policy and campaign specifically designed to eradicate Polish culture. This means that the source was specifically outlining an event that involved genocide, even if it was solely cultural. It should also be noted that the crime of genocide does not necessarily have to involve any deaths whatsoever, as the criteria for a genocide consists of the deliberate destruction of a group of people based on their nationality, ethnicity, race or religion, according to article II of the UN definition of genocide. Just because a source does not mention the word "genocide," that does not mean that the source was not outlining a genocidal plan based on the actions and policies carried out by the German government. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware that death is not required for genocide to occur. What is required for Wikipedia is for sources to call an event genocide. If they do not, we can not say it is a case of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated before, the semantics are wholly irrelevant in determining whether or not a source is describing a genocide. Given that the source in question describes a campaign to destroy Polish culture, it is very clear and unambiguous that the source is describing an act of genocide in accordance with the UN definition of genocide, regardless of whether or not the author mentioned the word "genocide" directly. The source outlines a policy to deliberately destroy the cultural identity of Polish people and therefore, it outlines a genocidal event. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cdjp1 is right, what you propose is original research. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind explaining why the source was outlining a campaign to destroy Polish culture by the Imperial German government? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying your original research is wrong, but it's original research.
I understand we don't have to cite that the sky is blue, but we certainly can't be determing what is and isn't genocide, which is a contentious term and not a simple one (it is poorly defined). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is it original research when the source is clearly describing genocide (albeit indirectly)? According to the UN definition on the matter, genocide constitutes "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Given the information provided in the source, the German government's campaign to intentionally destroy Polish culture meets the criteria of genocide. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the article about what is considered original research on Wikipedia. It is "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, the source directly states a policy by the German government to intentionally destroy Polish culture in accordance with a campaign to colonize Polish lands with German settlers. This is in spite of the fact that the word "genocide" is not mentioned. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So you acknowledge that the word "genocide" is not mentioned. Don't you think then that if we state it's a genocide that we are "reaching a conclusion not stated by the sources"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the points addressed in the source, which outlines a campaign to destroy Polish culture. Do you mind explaining how this event does not meet the UN definition of genocide, which outlines a deliberate campaign to destroy a group of people? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the criteria for original research that you cited does not mention anything about semantics regarding a topic. As stated multiple times, the author mentions a campaign to destroy Polish culture, which means that the source is unambiguously describing an event of cultural genocide, thus nullifying your assertion of original research. Your claims would be akin to asserting that it is original research to state that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, just because the source mentioned the word "murder" instead of "assassination." DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If zero sources called Lincoln's killing an assassination, and they all called it a murder instead, then yes, we would not call it an assassination.
Of course there gets to be grey areas with regards to "not having to cite that the sky is blue", but we're not making serious and consequential determinations of genocide without sources. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, you also have to acknowledge whether or not the information stated in the sources meets a specific definition in accordance with any dictionary or legal handbook/document as well (i.e. Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionary). For example, the word "genocide" in Merriam-Webster is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." As for your point about "assassination," if the source detailing Lincoln's murder describes a premeditated killing, the event outlined can actually be inferred as an assassination in accordance with one definition in Dictionary.com ("The premeditated act of killing someone suddenly or secretively, especially a prominent person"). DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this example from Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not useless.
Here's a hypothetical example of SYNTH [original research]:

Major Jones stated in his order on the adjudication of desertion cases, "Any man who is missing after a battle, and not captured by the enemy or found among the dead, is presumed to be a deserter."[1] At the battle of Salamander Creek, the Union forces had a total of 3016 men missing or killed.[2] Confederate forces reported taking 1008 prisoners,[3] and the Salamander Valley Critic reported that of the corpses recovered from the battlefield, 1508 were Union soldiers.[4] The remaining 500 men would be classified as deserters under the terms of Jones's order.citation needed

The editor who added the citation-needed tag is correct.
The sourced numbers would seem to imply, by simple arithmetic, that 500 men went missing. But if the editors working on the article had read the full text of the hypothetical order instead of only the excerpt quoted in source #1, they would have found that men are counted as "missing" for the purposes of the desertion order only if they still haven't been reunited with their unit after five days, whereas source #2 was reporting on the number of men who did not make roll call the evening after the battle, and that only 148 men deserted during the battle of Salamander Creek.
To avoid this sort of error, we need a reliable source who has made the same inference, rather than having editors bring together disparate pieces of information themselves. This helps provide a clear solution to many content disputes. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That example does not apply, as the last sentence in the excerpt states that the remaining 500 men would outright be classified as deserters, rather than probable deserters in accordance with Major Jones' order. My assertions are in accordance with most legal definitions regarding genocide, with the United Nations definition being a prime example. You have repeatedly failed to address how the Imperial German government's systemic campaign to destroy Polish culture does not inherently prove genocide. In most legal definitions of genocide, the act requires a specific intent to destroy a group of people, whether physically, biologically or culturally. The difference between that example and my assertions is that the former consists of statements regarding a criteria that do not match up (probable deserters vs. certain deserters). DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I have repeatedly said, it doesn't matter whether we asses it matches the Convention's/Lemkin's/Any other definition of genocide, if no sources have made such an argument or claim, we are providing Original Research. And may we keep in mind, beyond the case of "genocide" the same concerns of Synth and OR also apply to the label of "indigenous", and potentially the case of the specific form of genocide, that is that of "indigenous genocide". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been explained to death at this point. @DaRealPrinceZuko, if you want to pursue this further I'd recommend you ask for further input at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1 It does matter if a source matches a specific definition, as the source states clearly that Polish people in the German Empire were specifically targeted for cultural eradication, which confirms by default that the campaign was an intentional genocide, thus nullifying your assertions of original research. Also, the point of "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources" in the original research page does not mention anything about semantics being an absolute prerequisite for determining a criteria regarding a historical event, further disproving your assertions. Again, both of you have repeatedly failed to address how said information does not inherently prove genocide or how the information provided is different from being genocide. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do none of the authors employ the language to call it a genocide when they do use the language of genocide to compare and contrast the Polish case with those of indigenous genocides in the Americas? This shows that the authors you have previously brought up for some reason have chosen not to use such language to describe the Polish case, so for us to claim that it is genocide from these authors' texts is in fact OR. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the word "genocide" was not directly used does not prove anything and you have failed to provide evidence as to why the word was not mentioned. It should also be noted that an author does not need to use a specific word when describing a specific event either. You also have repeatedly neglected to address the fact that the original research excerpt does not mention anything about semantics being a prerequisite for determining information. Also, your deductions as to why the author did not mention the word "genocide" in the source constitutes OR. If you want a specific example from the source that confirms a genocidal policy, look at the abolition of Polish culture on pg. 164 and its comparison to the American Indian boarding schools and the Canadian Indian residential school system, which are widely characterized as genocide. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated the books you have suggested explicitly use the term genocide when describing the policies in the Americans that they compare and contrast the Polish case with, but the authors choose not to use the term when talking about the Polish the case. So, because the authors have chosen not to use the term to describe the Polish case, means using these sources to claim it is a case of genocide is OR on your part. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your best option is to search for works, such as the potential ones listed by buidhe above, which choose to explicitly describe the Polish case as genocide, instead of continuing to argue that the supports calling it a genocide when the authors have chosen not to call it genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly claim that the author chose not to include the word "genocide" in the source. Again, where is your evidence that the author consciously chose not to include the word "genocide"? You need more than just the fact that the author simply did not mention the word genocide to prove that he deliberately excluded any mention of the word. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No such evidence is required. We cite sources for things they actually say, and not for things we can't prove were 'deliberately excluded'. I suggest you drop this pointless exercise in repetitive argumentation against core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump I have specifically cited a point in the source confirming that the author compared the German Empire's abolition of Polish culture to the assimilation policies imposed against indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada, which are widely considered by scholars to be genocide. In response, Cdjp1 just seemingly invented an argument that the author consciously chose not to include the word "genocide" in the passage in an attempt to discredit me. I see you have also not cited an article linking any Wikipedia policy about evidence for such bold claims not being required. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The policies concerned are WP:RS (a reliable source is clearly required for the contested statement), and WP:OR (the source must directly support the statement itself, and not require inferences etc by contributors). This is fundamental Wikipedia policy, as established by Wikipedia contributors over many years. It isn't open to negotiation. It applies whether you understand it or not, and whether you agree with it or not. I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, take note that you are clearly arguing against consensus here, and find something else to do. You have been given policy-based explanations as to why your edit was reverted, and nobody is obliged to respond further to a repetitive refusal to take note of what you have been told. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it clear that my assessment does not constitute OR and I have cited a reputable source regarding indigenous genocide. I have provided evidence confirming that Cdjp1 and IOHANNVSVERVS are incorrect about my statements being OR. Most of my edits on the matter are in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. As for your point of me supposedly bludgeoning the process, your point of refusing to answer my questions constitutes Wikipedia:IGNOREYOU. It should also be noted that Cdjp1 is the only user attempting to dominate the discussion on the matter in order to persuade me to their point of view, while IOHANNVSVERVS did not concoct a claim that the author allegedly excluded any mention of "genocide" on a deliberate basis. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clear. Policy has been explained. I can see no point in continuing this discussion further, and I would advise others to simply ignore this repetitious and facile 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong because I say so' argumentation. Article talk pages are for content-related discussions only. Content must comply with policy. WP:OR is policy. It is non-negotiable. The source cited does not state that German policy in Poland during the period under discussion constituted genocide, or ethnocide. (it incidentally also doesn't support other claims made, notably the nonsense about Max Sering being a philosopher). It cannot be cited for any such claim, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk)
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.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples