Talk:Massacre of Arabs during the Zanzibar Revolution

On 12 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Zanzibar genocide to Massacre of Arabs during the Zanzibar Revolution. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 12 December 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibar genocide → Massacre of Arabs during the Zanzibar Revolution – Bascially no sources use the phrase "Zanzibar genocide" [1]. Looking around on scholar, I can find no evidence that the massacre has been widely described as a genocide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Please see [2] and [3]. There are multiple articles referring to this event as the "Zanzibar Genocide"[4][5], and multiple individuals describe it as a genocide, including American diplomat Don Petterson. Skitash (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those Google books searches that do not provide quotes are worthless, and looking through them shows that a lot of the results are irrelevant. In order to have an article titled "x genocide" , you need to present proof that there is scholarly consensus that the acts represent genocide, not just the views of two people. Most scholarly works discussing the massacres do not explicitly call it a genocide. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: A lot of genocides in history barely have any studies on them and only have a few scholars that recognize them as a genocide, doesn't make them any less of a genocide. The sources given in the article- such as that of the New Arab very clearly make the case that it is a genocide, and I can't find anything that tries to seriously make the argument that this wasn't a genocide. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obviously, standard of sources needs to be higher for such a controversial topic, and a Media, Power, and Public Affairs graduate's opinion piece/a barely-looked-at Google Scholar search don't count. The only meaningful source is this, but there needs to be more than one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Insufficient evidence in RS that is primarily referred to as that. Given the highly-charged nature of the term, I'd cautiously opt for the NPOV phrasing in the title until proven otherwise. That it is sometimes characterized as genocide can be made in the lede, but that should not be the title. Walrasiad (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree that due to the highly controversial nature of the term, neutrality should be observed. A NPOV phrasing in the title with the lede including that this tragic event has sometimes been called a genocide would be the most neutral way forward. Moreover, I also agree there simply aren't enough high-quality academic sources characterizing this as a genocide. Due to the nature of this article, the standard of sources need to be high. HJ72JH (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2023 (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.