Talk:United States/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Use of "America" to refer to the United States

I don't like it when people use "America" to refer to "the United States" because by definition America (the continent) also includes countries other than the USA, for example Brazil, Bolvia, Argentina, Canada, Peru, Paraguay, Colombia, Venezuela and others --Fandelasketchup (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals in facts, not whether you "like it" or not - and there is a simple fact that "America" is generally used to refer to the US. Even in Canada. Collect (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We could say, the US is known as "America" and "Norteamerica" to include Fandelasketchup's sensibility, and the growing percentage of US population resident here who make that distinction in their mother tongue. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, we could not. Don't open up this can of worms, TVH. Just this once, please don't. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Europeans use "America" to mean North America. On the one hand, writing an online encyclopedia for general international readership might not exclude the Latin American convention using "Norteamericano". On the other hand, Asians generally learn a British English, so I suppose we could say common usage by over 80% of English language WP readers is restricted to the use of "American" pretty safely. Okay by me. No worms for the cobra. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there are source that states other American continent nations resent that U.S. Citizens are refered to as Americans? Otherwise, although this issue is relevant in other American continent nations, I am not sure how this is relevant for the United States article. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For the longest time 'America' was and continues to be synonymous with the 'United States of America '. When Europeans said they were moving to America it was understood they were going to the U.S.A. There is much literature and many phrases and songs that use 'America' in reference to the U.S.A. (e.g.God bless America -- America the Beautiful -- American Heritage -- , etc, etc). No other country's name contains the word America. South America refers to a continent, a land mass. America is a shortened version for U.S.A. and is understood by virtually everyone to be so. I suspect anyone who has a problem with that has other issues they're really entertaining. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, it's understood by virtually everyone who speaks English. This being the English Wikipedia, that is who we cater to. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that in the Spanish-speaking world, Americano can be used to refer to anyone from the American continents, and estadounidense is used to refer to people from the United States. However, no such demonym exists in the English language. Whenever an English-speaking person says "Don't call people from the US America" I say "what else are we going to call them? United States of American? United Statesian? United Statesese?" Reiterating what others have already said, it is very well understood in the English-speaking world that "American" and "America" refers to the US and to refer to the continents as a whole we say "the Americas", "Latin America" or individually as North or South America. Muy facil. Cadiomals (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, this is English Wikipedia, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 05:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"America" is part of the country's actual name, and is the demonym root for "American". The "A" in "USA" isn't just slang. Maybe if the article was titled "United States of America" the educational impact would create a little more understanding on this topic. VictorD7 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is zero reason to believe that renaming the article would shut up the "calling them 'Americans' is offensive to other Americans" bloc. --Golbez (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's some reason, as evidenced by the people (including someone on this page a while back) who don't know "United States of America" is the actual name of the country. If seeing otherwise on one of the net's most viewed websites helps educate those who see the title but skip down or click away before reading the opening body line (or who mistake it for a list of colloquial names), then it might help preempt complaints like this.VictorD7 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is the 1st American Regiment, which is in Canada, the Organization of American States, the Pan American Games, etc. And AFAIK other people living in the Western hemisphere generally do not call it America. TFD (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, thank you for pointing out the exception to the rule, however these are organizations, not countries. When someone says 'I love America' do you instantly think of the 'Organization of American States', etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Informal colloquial WP:SLANG, even when it's widely understood by a large majority, is simply not encyclopedic when it leaves room for confusing ambiguity as "America" does. EJM86 (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not informal, nor is it colloquial slang. "Not encyclopedic" doesn't mean anything, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that it creates confusing ambiguity in the English language. - SudoGhost 05:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As has been pointed out above, 'America' is a shortened version of USA, is commonly used in literature, titles, songs, etc., and when used virtually everyone knows what country is referred to, whether they resent this reality or not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillickers, I do not imagine many people in Latin America and Canada say "I love America." TFD (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect not many do either. Regardless, there's not much weight to that objection, as I'm sure most would know what was meant despite any misgivings they may have for the USA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic informal colloquial slang primarily because there aren't any professionally edited encyclopedias or other professional reference works which use "America" to refer to the U.S. due to the ambiguity involved. It's imprecise usage; a contraction. We have an article on Britain (placename) because Britain has had a precise meaning through the ages. America is just a disambiguation page which fully documents the inherent ambiguity in its first three lines and shows other issues with the usage as well. EJM86 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Britannica repeatedly refers to the USA as "America". For example: "...the national character has been enriched, tested, and constantly redefined by the tens of millions of immigrants who...have gone to America", "America was the first of the European colonies to separate successfully from its motherland, and it was the first nation to be established on the premise that sovereignty rests with its citizens and not with the government", "America’s rise to industrial power...", "Kennedy had stated that America was “on the edge of a New Frontier”", etc.

The mere existence of a disambiguation page doesn't mean a word can't be used in articles. Indeed listing proper usages is why such a page exists. It's about context. The meaning of "America" is almost always clear. Sometimes it's appropriate for aesthetic flow or a change of pace from an otherwise overly repetitive "the US" or "the United States". Even context aside, it's not really ambiguous. A quick search of Google books shows almost every reference is of the nation. I should add that my copy of Dupuy's The Harper's Encyclopedia of Military History uses "America" numerous times (eg "But America's naval strength was growing more rapidly...", page 1261), as do countless other professionally written reference works. Britannica was just a convenient example. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. As you have definitively demonstrated, 'America' (or American) can be used in the body of the text on any page where it is understood that the U.S.A. is the country being discussed. "slang" and "confusing" are personal opinions at best, while "not encyclopedic", also an opinion, doesn't hold water given the fact that many publications, including United-States Britannica encyclopedia, use the term. Further, various Wikipedia artilces use 'America' or 'American' e.g. The American Revolution and the American Civil War -- The George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and many other history articles use 'America' and 'American' repeatedly. While we're at it, take a look at this list.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly Americans often refer to their country as "America." The question is how common that usage is outside the U.S. I would suggest it is less common particularly in other countries in the Western Hemisphere. TFD (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most people don't live in the Western Hemisphere. It's common for those in other English speaking nations to refer to the US as "America". One of countless examples, from the UK's The Telegraph: China may not overtake America this century after allVictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, once again, many history (and other) pages already use 'America' or 'American' here at English WP, as was shown to you already. Once again, 'America' or 'American' can be used if the page in question pertains to the U.S.A. as is done throughout English WP. If someone in Iran, or China should become 'confused', or resentful, they are free to go to other WP's and see if they can find someone there who will placate any issues they may harbor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox(Drives on the)

I've noticed that in the Infobox it says that Americans drive on the Right, however that's not true for the U.S. Virgin Islands. So I'm wondering if it's okay to add in the infobox;"US Virgin Islands drives on the left" Seqqis (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No, because the U.S. Virgin Islands is not part of the U.S., any more than the British Virgin Islands is part of Great Britain. TFD (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe follow the example of China country-article, which drives on the right, infobox note, Hong Kong and Macao on the left.

British Virgin Islands has no Member of Parliament, US Virgin Islands has a territorial Member of Congress .gov Christensen. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macao are part of China. TFD (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District… Puerto Rico, Guam, Am. Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the No. Mariana Islands." Executive Order 13423 The Census Department defines "native-born American" to include those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, Am. Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and No. Mariana Islands. Any contrary sources to say, "Modern US territories are not a part of the US", either nationally or geographically?" There are not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] A "geographical" sense? As opposed to what, a legal sense? --Golbez (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] In a legal sense, the Congress includes five organized territories equally wherever the word "state" appears in statutory law, which you charmingly declaim as having the effect of excluding them -- without a counter-source.

US Code.Definitions. “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States." this has the effect of including territories legally in the US everywhere in its statutes, not excluding them as one might otherwise imagine without a source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We discussed all of this above. You have been able to find some sources that say the territories are part of the U.S. but the governments of the U.S. and the territories and the international community disagree. TFD (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You are unable to find any reliable source from USG or one of its international organizations to say, Modern [organized] US territories are not a part of the US. That is, you interrupt discussion with something that is madeup.

Relative to the discussion at hand, the US infobox at "Drives on the -right-" should have a note which says, Except US Virgin Islands. -- considering the uncontradicted sourced geographical extent of the US found in an Executive Order. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to add an exception to the infobox for this, please write up exceptions or new figures to everything in the infobox. Don't get lazy on us now. (Not that we'll implement them, since then the infobox wouldn't match the article. But this isn't a new argument, and you know it.) --Golbez (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to see we agree on the merits, and there is no reliable counter-source to the geographic extent of the US to include 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories. The municipal State is generally reported in international data bases, WP should conform to that general statistical convention in the infobox and throughout the article. In both the US and France, it is continental France and Corsica, continental US and Hawaii --- the French overseas departments and US territories are omitted, though both are represented in their respective national legislatures. (Amercan Samoa is the last "outlying possession" in the US). In aggregate, they do not affect either French or US ranking in internationally reported metrics.

I think you are mistaken to suggest something like generating a US Census report online to include territories for each category, though it is now possible for the US alone, because all five organized US territories are included in the US --- beginning with the 1990 Census --- the data format of the organized US territories are the same as states for population, agriculture and industry, and the US Census reports "native-born American" in its census of population to include 50 states, DC, Guam, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands, No. Marianas Islands, and Puerto Rico. Note: The richest territory has half per capita wealth of the poorest state, so Congress extends economic advantages not available to states; Congress LoC, GAO "Insular Reports" report territories only.

Back on point, on which side of the road US citizens drive over their native-born American soil -- unrelated to disruptive database discussion -- there is no substantive or sourced objection to Infobox, US Drives on right. [note] except U.S. Virgin Islands. --?-- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To summarize, two editors would like to see the note, with sources, two oppose, without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

British overseas

US drives on right -- TFD disputes adding “except US Virgin Islands”. He inaccurately asserts US Virgin Islands are parallel to British Virgin Islands, but US Virgin Islands has directly elected Member of Congress to participate in its territory constitutional practice. British Virgin Islands has no Member of Parliament to directly represent it in national councils. US Virgin Islands popularly elect its governor, British Virgin Islands has a royal governor who is the representative of the Queen. USVI and BVI are not constitutionally the same, US territories are not constitutionally removed from US Congress as British territories are constitutionally removed from British Parliament. British all drive on the left, they need no exception in the UK country article for driving side as does the US article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Representation in congress does not incorporate a territory into a country. Ironically, representatives from U.S. territories, whether part of or not part of the U.S. have no power to vote. Passing legislation btw is the function of Congress, why it exists. Furthermore, there is no relation between the population of each territory and the number of delegates assigned. Puerto Rico with a population of 4 million has the same representation as BVI with a population of 100 thousand. TFD (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Representation in Congress does NOT exclude a territory from the US. Territories are admitted as states on equal footing with proportionate representation -- as states. US constitutional practice since 1794 grants territory Members of Congress floor privileges, but that has been expanded, which you wp:fringe do not accept from USG sources. Members of Congress representing territories do vote in assigned Committees -- the Puerto Rican Congressman is on the Judiciary Committee -- and equally with Senators in Joint Committees -- and in their Congressional caucuses. This is the ACTUAL US constitutional practice for politically incorporated US territories for 220 years, but not in wp:madeup imagining territories are states, expecting equal footing, which you POV keep pushing without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It neither includes nor excludes. It is just another red herring in your long filibuster. TFD (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

So, we add the Infobox drive on right, note: 'except US Virgin Islands', because the US Virgin Islands are a part of the US geographically, you have no counter-source without disruptive discussion. No more filbuster?

You object to noting US Virgin Islands driving on their native-born US soil as referenced by the US Census, because you non-sequitur object to the US constitutional practice with territories for 220 years -- by responding, Puerto Rico has not been a territory for 220 years. All previous politically incorporated US territories were represented in the US Congress by Congressmen with debate privileges, now all vote in committees, that is modern politically incorporated US territories have more rights than those in the past.

There has been no other practice except in your imagination America. Likewise there has been one Member of Congress per territory once the population reached 100,000 -- until admited to statehood on equal footing. You push the non-sequitur that territories do not have state privileges, therefore they cannot be states in the US, but political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow says that the US has always included territories -- which were not states. As a constitutional matter, the US is not only the states, but DC and organized territories, driving on the right and on the left -- and the article should so note the fact without further delay. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese overseas

US drives on right -- TFD disputes adding “except US Virgin Islands” [left]. He inaccurately asserts US Virgin Islands are not a part of the US as Hong Kong and Macao are a part of China. Hong Kong is a “special administrative region” (SAR) which “fall within the sovereignty of the PRC, but are not a part of Mainland China”. They have direct representation in the Chinese Congress, so they participate in its national councils by its constitutional practice, as do US territories in the US tradition. But US citizens directly elect a territorial Member of Congress, as do all US citizens. Hong Kong citizens do not directly elect local representatives, with equal mainland Chinese voting rights.

Both US territories and Chinese SARs enjoy their own government, legislature, legal systems, police, languages and educational systems. – But unlike US territories, Chinese SARs may coin their own money, with independent postal systems, customs tariffs, immigration policy, and international relations independent of China. US territories are constitutionally more closely incorporated into the US than Chinese SARs are constitutionally into China. The US exception to "drive on the right" in the info box should be noted just as the WP policy applies to the Chinese infobox exception to "drive on the right". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Puerto Rico is not a part of "Mainland America". Neither btw is Manhattan. "Mainland China" was a cold war term to refer to the unrecognized Communist regime which effectively controlled the mainland area of China. At the time, the government in exile in Taiwan was considered the legitimate government of all China. So Hong Kong has always been part of China, even though for 100 years it was under British control (although not part of the UK). TFD (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong is by Chinese constitutional practice an SAR, printing its own currency. Puerto Rico is by US constitutional practice an incorporated territory as we see by scholars in the Boston College Law Review and by court observation of Congressional legislation in Consejo v. Rullan. Courts have not determined nationality for one-hundred years in English-speaking nations according to our Virginia Law Review source. “The political status of unincorporated territories, the Court said, was a matter for Congress to determine by legislation, according to Congressional Research Reports. But you have no counter-sources, only a newspaper write-up of a ten-year old story of a UN hearing. But the UN source reported the Cuban representative said the UN would take no direct action to make Puerto Rico independent, your unsourced POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong is part of China because China and the world community say it is. Puerto Rico is not part of the U.S. because Puerto Rico, the United States and the world community say it is not. Otherwise you are just presenting evidence which you believe supports your viewpoint, but that is just original research. TFD (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand how the modern world works. Hong Kong is a part of China because the people of Hong Kong and the people of China say it is so, likewise for the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the US. In the case of Puerto Rico, see the Puerto Rican Constitution, US citizens and loyal to the US federal constitution while preserving their culture -- ratified by Congress and the Puerto Rican people in referendum. You referenced a political party newsletter headline as “the world community” before, but you offer no further sources once I showed the UN report where the Cuban representative said the UN would take no direct action to make Puerto Rico independent. There is no wp:fringe one-world community/government allocating people among nations without their consent. You have no source to say it exists, or that it operates in the US Virgin Islands to make them drive on the left.

As we see in the College Law Review. UN resolutions in 1960 reaffirmed the right of self-determination, …“in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire.” which for Puerto Rico is to be a part of the US as a commonwealth, according to its constitution, reconfirmed in a referendum last year, independence gaining less than 3% in an 80% turnout. Peoples entitled to self-determination can choose independence, -- but also “integration with an independent State.” with the right to determine its internal constitution. Lawson and Sloane note, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” Calling direct quotes from scholarly sources, my “original research” does not count as a source supporting your POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The constitution of Puerto Rico does not say that they are part of the U.S. In fact if it were, Article II, which guarantee rights enshrined in the U.S. constitution, would be redundant. The 1960 UN resolution does not say PR is part of the U.S. That is just another misrepresentation of sources. TFD (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No scholar says the Puerto Rican constitution expels it from the US. Compare the Virginia constitution, its Bill of Rights "does not abridge any other right guaranteed by the Constitution of the US", "Each voter shall be a citizen of the US", and the oath of office is to "support the Constitution of the US", just as in Puerto Rico. Unaware of US constitutional practice, you wp:madeup something to push your unsourced POV for Puerto Rican independence, again.

Nothing implies separation of PR from the US since the people of Puerto Rico and Congress mutually agreed in 1953. In fact, the UN response was to remove Puerto Rico from the colonial monitoring list altogether. Petitions by the fringe have not been admitted to the UN Assembly agenda for a subsequent vote in sixty (60) years. The 'independence' PR vote got under 3% last year. Your non-sequiturs are not sources, and US citizens on their "native-born American" soil in USVI drive on the left hand side, which we should note in the Infobox. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

French overseas

US drives on right – Golbez disputes adding “except US Virgin Islands” [left]. He imagines first changing all data reporting throughout the US article first, maybe, before noting which side USVI US citizens drive on their “native-born American” soil, as the US Census describes them. There is no counter-source describing the US geographic extent including modern US territories, including US Virgin Islands.

Municipal domestic France is continental France and Corsica as reported internationally in the OECD statistics used at Wikipedia France, municipal domestic United States is continental US and Hawaii as reported internationally in the US Census statistics used at WP ‘United States’. Both omit reporting overseas elements of their nation, in France, the overseas departments and territories, in US, overseas US territories. There is no need to change anything in data reporting for ‘United States’ before it is changed for ‘France’, first. The French all drive on the right, they need no exception in the France country article for driving side as does the US article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can't accurately present my views then please don't present them at all. --Golbez (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought you disagreed with adding infobox drive on right except U.S. Virgin Islands [left]. -- How did I misread your position, “If you're going to add an exception to the infobox for this, please write up exceptions or new figures to everything in the infobox… Not that we'll implement them, since then the infobox wouldn't match the article..” -Golbez. 9:23 am, 13 May 2013. -- I observe there is no need for the data matchup until you write a WP policy to that effect requiring country data bases to include overseas territories, have it adopted and make 'France' data reporting conform to it first. The French even omit overseas departments (states), while the US includes Hawaii (better). Then with a uniform WP policy in force and administered, you could legitimately remove “US drives on the right, except US Virgin Islands.” without slipping into wp:own for this article. If, on the other hand you actually agree to the infobox drive-right note "except US Virgin Islands, I apologize for misrepresenting your approval as opposition. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My position is, if we rejigger one part of the infobox to include the territories, then we either have to rejigger the entire infobox to include the territories, or be specific that we're excluding the territories. We cannot become internally inconsistent; either the data corresponds to a single definition of the country, or we note the exceptions. This cannot possibly be controversial, so I don't know why you persist in saying it's not necessary. It all comes back to the inadequately answered (in my opinion) question of if the territories are part of the country. And this has nothing to do with France. I apologize for overreacting a bit, I guess I read more into what you said than I thought. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

When the Census data reports "native-born Americans", it says 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories in the char data notes. When the Census data reports "population of the states", it says 50 states and DC in the chart data notes. The only test for the infobox and the article text is whether previous editors have carelessly reported the Census data notes in error. I am not in charge of correcting all previous carelessness on this page or in all the subsidiary pages as you have previously suggested. But I am interested in making sourced contributions in the areas of my interest backed up by direct quotes. That cannot be controversial if those making objections have no sources to support their opposition. "All sources", "the international community", global references to digests without direct quotes or proper citations -- these are not WP reliable sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

All of which means nothing. TFD (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese SARs and US territories are not included in country-article statistics for either China or US. The idea that anything must change on the US article and so become inconsistent with current practice at 'China' and 'United States', is a strawman kind of non-sequitur. Reporting the drive-on-[side] Infobox item should be consistently noted as in WP 'China', Drives on the right [note] except (two Chinese SARs/one US territory). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You note the China infobox does include a few caveats where necessary for the SARs. The area has a note saying it excludes the SARs. The economy and population sections do not, I am forced to assume that means those sections include the SARs. However, it is lacking information on the other TLDs and calling codes held by the SARs, so there is improvement to be found there. Using substandard quality in other articles is not the best of arguments for where to take this article. --Golbez (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If a place is excluded geographically, one is forced to assume that in a geographic article, highest mountain ranges and incomes in that place are excluded unless otherwise noted. Likewise, at the WP 'China' article source, International Monetary Fund, China GDP is denominated in the yuan, Hong Kong SAR in HK dollars. At MOS:INFOBOX manual of style, it says, General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. Where do I find the criteria to judge the 'China' and 'France' Infoboxes substandard? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Me, I am the criteria for myself stating that an infobox that is internally inconsistent is substandard. We shouldn't look at them for inspiration, we should suggest they be repaired. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least that is settled. You do a great deal of good on this page, I certainly agree with you over 2/3 the time. On the Infobox, we wish to improve upon the France and China articles which exclude overseas departments in France and Chinese SARs. Elsewhere at WP, in the United Kingdom article, data includes "inhabited dependent territories".

On the substance, to include USVI drive-on-the-left, we are looking for a source to say USVI is geographically a part of the US -- at least as an "inhabited dependent territory" as is done at 'United Kingdom' -- for the purposes of the scope of a WP country-article --

... so that we can overcome the deficiencies we find in the Infobox at 'France' and 'China' which exclude inhabited dependent territories, departments (states) and SARs? We want to include "inhabited dependent territories" of the US in the scope of the US country-article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Recap

The geographic extent of the US is sourced as 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories in a presidential executive order, Census reports and US statute. There is no counter-source to say, Modern US territories are not a part of the US in opposition.

The objection that modern territories cannot be a part of the US because they have the same representation as US constitutional practice for 220 years is misplaced. Each has a territory Member of Congress with House debate privileges, beginning with 100,000 population until statehood, -- and US citizens directly electing territorial self-government for the modern territories as sourced, -- that is not countered by the non-sequitur, Territories do not share equal footing with states, -- politically incorporated US territories have never had state-only constitutional privileges.

The objection that US article data must be altered for an Infobox right-drive-side exception in a country article is misplaced. Since both France (overseas departments and territories) and China (SARs) are not reported in national totals at WP country-articles, the US article at WP need not consolidate territorial data into national totals -- but it CAN follow the ‘China’ article Infobox format for right-hand drive, noting the exceptions, two Chinese SARs and one US territory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You have now opened four discussion threads arguing basically the same thing. Time to move on to new topics. TFD (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Territories are a part of the US was edited in October?, as sourced and agreed by IA and TVH from the discussion page. Golbez agreed to the post, then reverted it without sources. Once the DRN was posted in March? Golbez agreed to it, then reverted the DRN substance seven times, if you count his replacing the DRN wording with the exact IA-TVH wording(!) from October. You acted the confederate and engineered a block on me --- reporting my restoring the DRN substance as reverting disruption.

You still have no sources to overturn the DRN -- that modern US territories are a part of the US -- only a political party newsletter proclaiming imaginary success in the face of sixty (60) years of failure to create a Puerto Rico independent of the US, without or without UN help, with continued failure in a three percent (3%) Puerto Rican 'independence' vote last year. We can move on when you drop your unsourced POV disruption of the article and this discussion page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for the DRN. The vote was extremely narrow, and focused more on creating English that made my eyes bleed more than actually determining whether or not the territories were part of the country. I attempted a compromise wording and then realized there was no consensus for it and undid what I did. I never agreed to the DRN in word, only in spirit, which was not enough for several people here who continue to make up numbers to inflate their supposed consensus. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm too new to have begun the DRN, or framed the question, my opponent on a mediation page did so, and yet another two posted what they thought the outcome was to the 'US' article. I regret they have not been to your satisfaction.

Secondary government and scholarly sources supported by primary documents, Congress and modern USG usage include modern organized territories as a part of the US. There are no sources to say, "Modern organized US territories are not a part of the US."

Much has been made of century-old territories in a jurrasic park imagination unchanging. Scholars of political science, constitutional history and law say modern US territories are not geographically or administratively excluded from the US according to the 220 year history of US constitutional practice politically incorporating US territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

thread transcript (condensed)

Seqqis asks a week ago, Infobox says Americans drive on the Right, however that's not true for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Is it okay to add in the infobox; ‘US Virgin Islands drives on the left’. Seqqis (talk)

TFD answered unsourced POV, “No, because the U.S. Virgin Islands is not part of the U.S., any more than the British Virgin Islands is part of Great Britain.” – TVH note: wrong. USVI are citizens with Member of Congress; BVI are British citizens since 2002, but still have no Member of Parliament.

TVH said, maybe follow ‘China’ article, Drives on – right [note] except Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR.

TFD answered unsourced POV, "Hong Kong and Macao are a part of China.” – TVH note: non-sequitur, not a reason to exclude USVI from drive-on-the Infobox item. As noted in the ‘China’ Infobox, Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR are not included in the People's Republic of China geographically, but US territories are geographically a part of the US.

TVH cited a modern source, The geographical extent of the US extends to USVI. You are unable to find any reliable source from USG or one of its international organizations to say, “Modern [organized] US territories are not a part of the US.” geographically (or in any other sense).

TFD said, “Time to move on to new topics.” Note: but the dream of a sourced online encyclopedia lives on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Since all of the above is contingent on an affirmative source being supplied that the US has annexed the territories into part of the country, you should spend less time rehasing old arguments and more time actually supplying a source. Oft repeated tip: The difficulty of finding such a source (really, the best you can do is a definitions clause in a single XO?) should be a signal that maybe one doesn't exist. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The affirmative is well sourced, the US includes 50 states, DC and 5 modern organized territories. A while back you said 23 were too many secondary government and scholarly sources, then you demanded a primary source in statute, then a court case, then a circuit court, then a presidential quote -- all done including territories, not just one. On the other hand, no editor has furnished a source to say "Modern territories are not a part of the US."

To exclude, there is only a Puerto Rican newsletter with 3% PR voter support, and a CIA digest section on US government. It includes President, Congress, States, Territories, then an editor supposes one of the items under the heading "US government" is excluded from the category, "territories" inexplicably and no other, -- then tertiary sentence fragments -- about discriminatory tax regimes outside the Uniformity Clause -- trump scholarship from reliable sources which include modern territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, an excellent job of misrepresenting both the positions of those who oppose you as well as the very sources you claim support your position. Truly impressive accomplishment. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] misrepresenting? President Obama in San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 15, 2011. “I include Puerto Rico… in my vision of where our country needs to go.” President Kennedy in San Juan, Puerto Rico, December 15, 1961. “I am in my country, here in this city and island, as I was in my country in Washington this morning.” --- How have my sources not shown presidents to include territories in the US? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Politicians say a lot of things in speeches which are not necessarily the truth. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware a speechwriter could annex an island into a country. (Your Obama quote is absolutely useless and does nothing to further your cause; please stop using it. The Kennedy quote, on the other hand, is somewhat useful, but is not in itself sufficient to say whether or not the inhabited territories are part of the country. If this is truly the best you have to go off, then there's really no reason to continue the discussion, you've already lost.) --Golbez (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] @ older≠wiser, So, I do not misrepresent sources, I have them and you do not.

You have repeatedly misrepresented and distorted your sources as well as the positions of those who oppose you. older ≠ wiser 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez, you asked for primary sources from legislature, judiciary and executive in addition to secondary government and scholarly sources. I supplied them. You dismissed an executive order, and asked for "just one" presidential speech, I provided two. Now you say --- the primary and secondary sources are not sufficient --- because you asked for speeches. That is yet another non-sequitur. The exclude US territories bloc has no sources. Non-sequiturs are not sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I even admit that the Kennedy quote is useful. However, if it applies, it applies solely to Puerto Rico and none of the other territories, so that means it's insufficient for you, let alone me. Therefore it can't really be used by either side, unless you're going to withdraw saying the other four territories are part of the country (which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of this argument, since it hinges on the Virgin Islands, not Puerto Rico, as being part of the country). Yes, I dismissed a definitions clause of an executive order because it was not an affirmative statement, it was a definitions clause that was not creating law unto itself, just like all definitions clauses. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Answer to personal attack, no discussion, no sources: It is enough for Congress to include the US territories to include them in the US. If membership in a national legislature were of no consequence, there would be British Members of Parliament for British Virgin Islands and Dublin, but there are not because representation does matter in defining nationhood. There are Members of Congress found at the Directory of Representatives in alphabetic order at their .gov websites for (1) DC, (2) Guam, (3) Northern Marianas, (4) Puerto Rico, (5) Samoa, (6) Virgin Islands. Somehow editors persist in denying that they exist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no denial that they exist. There is extensive refutation that they support what you claim. You use selective portions to construct a winding road line of inductive reasoning. That is what has been and continues to be soundly rejected. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert-2] Sorry, I should have first said, Thank you. (a) "There is no denial that they exist", but there once was such denial for weeks. It's small victories like this that encourage me to use direct quotes from reliable sources. Territorial Members of Congress are seated as credentialed by territorial legislatures from direct elections of US citizens and nationals in accordance with 220-years constitutional practice in US territories. (b) also no one denies there have been politically incorporated territories of US citizens/nationals with territory Members of Congress in US constitutional practice in the past, and there can be in the present -- even if they might yet have as the Insular Cases said one-hundred years ago, islander children "civilized and uncivilized". (c) also no one says territories are states or that they are expected to have the constitutional state-only rights on an equal footing as states, such as presidential electors, proportionate seating in the House or the same tax regimes as states under the Uniformity Clause for states, as courts have allowed exceptions for territories. (d) also "no one says" islander populations being born into five organized territories are "aliens" as held in the Insular Cases a century ago, -- they are all US citizens and nationals by direct law of Congressional statute and have voluntarily accepted native-born American status as sourced in primary documents, secondary government and scholarly sources. All hard won, -- now I just have to develop the discussion so as to have editors who say "no one says" and "there is no denial" to -- all -- agree not to make unsourced denials of direct quotes for any item related to modern US territories over the last 20 years -- all at the same time -- which I will attempt again, later, now that I have your concurrence that territory Members of Congress exist representing US citizens in US territories. At least I should have taken time to thank you for that kind comment before proceeding. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The long and winding road continues. older ≠ wiser 14:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Just what again --- what --- is the source for “extensive refutation” --- that modern US territories --- mutually, voluntarily US citizens, represented in Congress, with constitution Article III courts --- are not a part of the US?

What is convoluted? the US includes modern US territories, source: U.S. Department of State FAM Vol. 7, "Puerto Rico comes within the definition of 'US'" given in Congressional statute [p.6]. "The Virgin Islands of the US come within the definition of the 'US'" [p.13]. "Guam is listed as part of the geographical definition of the 'US'" [p.16]. As defined, "the term 'outlying possession' of the US applies only to American Samoa and Swains Island [p.18]. "The Northern Mariana Islands became the self-governing [CNMI], in political union with and under the sovereignty of the US, [by Covenant]" [p.20].

These direct declarative quotes are summarized in another, by the political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow. He notes that the US has always had territories… “And at present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005 p.232). The plain meaning is supported by secondary government sources and the statutes themselves, refuted here by a bloc of unsourced sophistry. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Since my posting nine days ago 3:25 am, 13 May 2013 above, there are two sources for including, -- none opposed for US territories in the US, in this case USVI driving on the left. When implementing Congressional statutes, the executive interprets ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District… and five organized US territories. There is no Executive Order found stating “US territories are not a part of the US in executing US law”. The Census Department defines "native-born American" to include those born in the five organized US territories. There is no source found to dispute US nationality in the five organized US territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Veiled POV

The 'Native American and European settlement' section has a lot of veiled and obvious POV. A 'quote' from the book 'American Indian Holocaust and Survival' (even the title smacks of activist POV) had references and capitalization that favors Indians while not dealing with European settles (as opposed to 'whites') in the same fashion. We need to cite facts, esp controversial and questionable 'facts', with more than one source and stay away from sources that employ one-sided hyper-speak, esp in the very title of the book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

While I don't see the need for the particular quote you removed, as at the very least it was not properly contextualized, it is worth noting that the supposed bias in capitalization and word choice you tried to bowdlerize was a direct quote not from the author of that book but was taken from the 1867 Congressional Committee report by James Doolittle. I suggest you might want to check your own POV and bias. older ≠ wiser 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That obviously was a hastey mistake. Inserting lengthy and controversial quotes from one source that treats two peoples differently is POV. Was Custer "exterminated"? Were the settlers who were massacred at Jamestown "exterminated" or suffer from a 'Holocaust'? The terms 'racist' and 'xenophobic' were habitually used to refer to settlers during the 20th century (when 60's activists, and other 'friends' of America, set the tone and the language). Rarely if ever were such terms used to describe the American Indian. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The viewpoint of a source is wholly irrelevant to whether it is factually correct and can be used to write a neutral article. If you believe an alternative narrative should be presented then please present a source that presents it. I notice that the percentage population of indigenous peoples of the Americas in the U.S. is vastly lower than both its southern and northern neighbors - any reason why? TFD (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually you just said in effect that a one sided POV can be used to write a neutral article. Presenting only a few facts while leaving out others amounts to POV. As for Indian populations being lower than in the North or South, is this your way of saying that the American Indians were more racist, xenophobic and war like than those in the north or south? Or were you just referring to 'whites' only? Do you know if deaths by Indians from other Indians (which, btw, far outnumber other types) was more common in America also? Have you ever even asked yourself? Apparently not. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In academic writing, such as American Indian Holocaust and Survival, writers typically present a thesis or POV. However, they are required to acknowledge the various views that are normally accepted and their weight of acceptance. They also are required to present all the facts which a reasonable person would consider in forming a conclusion. Their writing is reviewed by experts who hold a range of views on the subject and ensure that any omissions are added and incorrect information deleted. Upon publication of their work, other scholars may comment further on perceived weaknesses. That is the difference between academic writing and some guy's opinion on a website. If you believe that population decline was caused by Indians killing themselves off, then please provide an article that presents this view. I would be interested to know why the appearance of Europeans caused this behavior and why it did not occur (at least to the same extent) in Mexico and Canada. TFD (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

While it's possible to write an acceptably neutral article with a POV source, in this case the inclusion itself and some of the word choices were POV. As for population, you're ignoring the fact that North America was more sparsely populated with Amerindians than Latin America to begin with (one reason why the population discussion is so important), and saw much more Old World immigration than Canada over the following centuries. VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also delete the "genocide" reference as a loaded, POV, anachronistic retro-imposition, and reestablish the primacy of disease, since one thing that is clear from the evidence is that disease played a far bigger role in what depopulation occurred than warfare did. I'd junk the King Philips War segment too, since it's bizarre to single out one Indian war while not mentioning any others, and because there's currently no context or basic explanation of what the war was about or what even happened apart from casualty figures given. It was an important war in the new society's formative period, so there might be a way to include it, but at the very least it should be rewritten as to make it clear why it's being included, and basic info like the fact that the Amerindian coalition started it by laying waste to many Massachusetts towns. Basically it was an attempt by various local tribes to exterminate the colonists, but the settlers won. VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus in academic writing that Americans persued a strategy of genocide against indigenous people. See for example, in Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction Routledge, 2013, the authors unambiguously refer to American genocide of Indians in Chapter 3, "Genocides of Indigenous Peoples"[1] If you think that some genocide scholars may view these events differently, then please present a source. TFD (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Most of the sources already presented here don't use the term "genocide" to describe colonial/Amerindian relations. And what the hell is a "genocide scholar"? It's not surprising that someone touting himself as a "genocide scholar" would liberally find examples of "genocide". That's like saying there's a consensus among UFOlogists that such and such was a UFO. Our goal here isn't to adopt the language of "genocide scholars", especially in such blatantly one sided fashion. Most historians don't use the term in this context. "Genocide" is a recentist term that's heavily loaded with not just moral POV but legal implications. Since it can mean different things, it's not only anachronistic but misleading when used without more detailed explanation. For example, the Amerindians obviously weren't wiped out since millions still exist, the colonists were hardly in a position to commit "genocide" due to sheer numbers if nothing else, and if there was any official later US strategy from George Washington onward it was to encourage assimilation. If one wants to label assimilation and/or tribal entity relocation as "genocide" (possibly cultural genocide), then you're opening up a huge can of worms with implications far beyond Amerindian treatment and logically committing Wikipedia to a fringe, shrill, activist point of view. It's also unnecessary. It's better to simply describe what happened than try to stamp particular, loaded labels on it for political reasons, labels with more emotive than informative impact. VictorD7 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

'Genocide scholars'? Someone one who lives to write about genocide? The term "seek and ye shall find" comes to mind here. First off, there was no genocide that actually occurred. I'm sure there were those, both Indian and settler, who wished the other would just disappear entirely and sometimes fought wars with this end in mind. Were Indians practicing "genocide" in the early days of colonization when they routinely wiped out entire settlements, killing women and children too? Has "genocide" ever been used to describe their behavior? I have no problems with citing facts, that both peoples were often at war for land that they did not want to share with the other and in the process treated each other ruthlessly sometimes -- not all the time. Any student of world history with their eyes open knows that nothing didn't occur in North America that hadn't already occurred in the rest of the world. I can't think of any territory, continent or race of people that is an exception. I take grave exception however when individual editors or authors cherry pick facts and present them with less than accurate or hyped language. When it comes to controversial topics, and given all the variables surrounding this chapter in history we need to simply present facts (i.e.many deaths occurred from war and disease) and let readers draw their own opinions when it comes to "genocide", "extermination", etc. That is the way controversial issues have always been dealt with here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The "people touting themselves as genocide scholars" include tenured professors who publish articles in academic books and journals. Can you point to any UFOlogy departments in universities or peer-reviewed journals specializing in UFOlogy? Terrorism studies btw is also modern, does that mean terrorism does not exist? TFD (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, your source is an admitted activist and his education is in political science, not history. That doesn't inherently disqualify him as a source, even on historical matters, but it is worth noting, especially if you're trying to pump him up as an unquestioned authority on a controversial subject. As for your question, actually there is the academic founded and run Center for UFO Studies, but my point was just that we aren't necessarily bound by what an alleged specialized subset of scholars believe. Not every scholarly specialty's buzzwords are included in the article, especially when they involve heavy POV. You might as well accuse the various sides during the colonial/expansion period of committing "hate crimes". That would be anachronistic and would frankly look stupid. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see where he calls himself an activist although he does run a website devoted to "gendercide", the mass murder of people based on gender, whether male or female. His position on this issue (he opposes it) is certainly within the mainstream. There is no policy that sources for genocide need to be neutral on the issue of whether genocide is a good or bad thing. While he is a political scientist, genocide studies is an inter-disciplinary subject. He has consulted for the UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, taught a course called "Genocide: An Interdisciplinary Perspective" at Yale, wrote the entry for "Genocide" for the Encyclopedia of Epidemiology, has been invited to speak at numerous universities and written numerous books and articles.[2] The difference between academic study of UFOs and genocides is that genocides have actually occurred in history and academics accept this. Academic ufologist btw do not claim to have found proof of alien visits. TFD (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Please don't mix words. No one disputes that genocide is a bad thing. The question here is whether it actually occured. Anyone can cite heavy losses from wars and diseases (involving settlers and Indians) and hang a "genocide" label on centuries of history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7 says that the author is an "activist". AFAIK, that activism is directed against mass murder and does not disqualify him. TFD (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't automatcally qualify him/her either. When making subjective claims about overall history involving several hundred years involving many different peoples in many different situations we need to stay clear of such blanket phraseology. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since support or opposition per se to "genocide" is subjective rather than a factual dispute, genocide studies would have more credibility as a discipline if at least some "genocide scholars" supported genocide and advocated it. You're still missing the point of the UFO thing though, which was just to illustrate that specialists (especially advocates) are more likely to find applications for their pet buzzwords than non specialists. This isn't about the academy, unless you're operating under the preposterous delusion that university fields can't be overrun with ideological bias. Your guy sees both the WW2 atomic bombing of Japan and even the UN sanctions against Iraq as "genocide", though he isn't quite ready to call the 9/11 attacks "genocide", saying he has to wait a few decades to properly ascertain Al Qaeda's motives in the mass slaughter. Jones is "genocide" happy, except when US citizens are the targets. At least he acknowledges that other "genocide scholars" disagree with his various opinions. Bias aside, I could have listed any number of well established academic disciplines whose buzzwords aren't appropriate for this country article and that aren't mentioned here in any way. VictorD7 (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"you're operating under the preposterous delusion that university fields can't be overrun with ideological bias..." On the contrary. However, policies of reliability and weight do not allow us to correct sources. If you want Wikipedia articles to reflect truth, then take the argument to the policy pages. Your UFOlogist analogy does not work. Academic UFOlogists do not claim there is proof of any alien visits. Crackpot ufologists do. Also, Jones do not say that Hiroshima and Iraq were genocides, he says that some scholars hold that opinion. He also says that some scholars have treated the 911 attacks as genocide. Notice that we use reliable sources for the facts they present, and should never treat opinions as facts. You need to distinguish between when the author of a reliable source says "x=y", "some say x=y", and I believe "x=y". TFD (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We certainly aren't forced to use sources either, especially if credible objections to them and/or the inclusion have been raised on the Talk Pages. You keep bringing up Wikipedia policy as a weapon as though I was somehow violating it (I'm not), and as though you were an authority. Do you really want this conversation to go in that direction, Mr. "Original Research"? One would think you'd have at least some Socratic, if not deeper, humility for a while on that front. The UFOlogist analogy works fine. There are plenty of crackpots in academia (like the aforementioned Ward Churchill) and scholars off campus (like in the space program you mentioned earlier, though engineering is a far cry from subjective opinions by political activists in humanities departments, isn't it?), and we can debate who falls into which camp, but in general most "UFOlogist" authors are more likely to apply the term "UFO" than non UFOlogists. Regardless, even if there's a total consensus within the field that...say...a UFO appeared over North Carolina on a certain date, that doesn't mean we're obliged to add a UFO inclusion to the section of the North Carolina article dealing with flight. Or forget about the UFO thing if that's confusing. We aren't obligated to use the jargon of well established fields like hydrogeology, architecture, African American studies, marine biology, law, or theology in every particular Wikipedia article that obliquely touches on matters concerning one or more of the fields, especially if other fields would use different jargon (disciplines tend to acquire languages of their own). Sometimes it's more useful to say "killed" than "murdered", much less "committed aggravated first degree murder", especially if you're talking about an event centuries ago for which there was no trial. "Killed" sidesteps value judgement.

As for the non-historian, political scientist/activist Jones, no. He cites a few scholars who disagree on whether the WW2 bombings were "genocide", and then proceeds to make an argument that at least the atomic bombings were in his own words (albeit a lame and historically inaccurate one). There are different versions of his book that make different portions available for online viewing, but in at least one he says most scholars don't consider the UN sanctions to be "genocide" but that he does, though his argument, like much of his work, is largely irrational and highly emotional. In that same book he admits that the 9/11 attacks had a palpable "genocidal impetus" but that he isn't ready to apply that label to them yet, though he cites some who do. The only portions I've seen so far of his comments about US mainland Amerindians cite two other people, most prominently relying on Ward Churchill. Churchill is the radical anti-American activist who became famous for describing 9/11 victims as "little Eichmanns" who had it coming, and who has encouraged his fellow political leftists to become more violent over the years. A few years later it was discovered that he had apparently lied about his Amerindian heritage to secure a university job through affirmative action. Some time later he was fired from the University of Colorado for research misconduct, particularly multiple counts of plagiarism and knowingly peddling falsehoods regarding the Dawes Act, John Smith and later the US military supposedly using smallpox as a weapon against Amerindians, and even recent laws on Indian arts and crafts. He's the definition of an unreliable source. As for Adam Jones, the Canadian leftist who says he had never heard of "comparative genocide studies" until 1999 (at which point he was almost 40; mature field?), he says on his website that his views on Israel turned sour after an alleged "genocidal" "massacre" in 1982, and that, concerned with the Reagan administration's alleged "bellicose swagger", he joined an activist group called Tools For Peace (well they're half right) that raised millions of dollars for aid to the communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua throughout the 80s, for which he boasts (guess he wasn't too concerned about the mass slaughters of Miskitos or other Sandinista atrocities). He also apparently took a guided tour of Nicaragua (think Jane Fonda in North Vietnam/Rodman in North Korea/Sean Penn in Iraq).

Your point about using sources for facts rather than opinion is exactly what we've been trying to get you to notice. In this context "genocide" is an opinion, not a fact.VictorD7 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented below. By the way, can you find an claim in an academic book or journal by "UFOlogists" (or anyone else) that claims aliens have visited Earth? TFD (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw. You also should have read above, so I wouldn't have had to post that website twice and so you wouldn't have asked an irrelevant UFO question. Let me know if you think of any reasons for including the POV word "genocide". VictorD7 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your answer. If by UFO one means simply an object that was sighted but not identified, then there should not be any disagreement in sources. Obviously a sighting of a UFO would not normally be sufficiently important to include in an article. The same could be said about most other facts that could be reliably sourced. Genocide however is a more significant that a UFO sighting. On the other hand if by UFO you mean flying saucers from outer space, I know of know academic sources that claim they exist. TFD (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clear you don't understand. We're discussing terminology, not UFOs. Since you found the UFO thing confusing I told you to forget it and raised examples of fields with peculiar jargon from hydrogeology to law that we don't necessarily use just because a portion of text might impact its area of interest (along with that of other fields), and later cited well established terminology like "aggravated first degree murder" or even just "murder" that would also be inappropriate in this context. "Genocide" is activist opinion, and doesn't convey any factual information. VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer review, or peer pressure?

Most activists won't admit they are if they're trying to pass themsevels off as historians -- i.e.someone with the capacity for objectivity. Today, "peer reviewed" usually means that parties of the same 'camp' have reviewed the work in question -- much of it influenced by peer preasure, not peer review. This is common in modern day academia -- esp where it conccerns controversial, racial and political issues, unfortunately. Do you think a Palestinian author of 'History of Israel' would have anyone but his/her 'peers' review the work? Would it receive the same 'review' from scholars in Israel as it would from scholars in Palestine, Syria, etc? I don't think so. Let's not try to prop up opinion (i.e."genocide") with claims of peer review, esp when they're involved in activist circles, as is so often the case. When it comes to controversial issues involving (many) different sources we should only present the verifiable facts supported by a variety of different sources. Let readers then draw their own conclusions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When the Palestinian author submitted his manuscript to Televiv University for publication, the peer-review scholars would check it for accuracy. They would also make sure that the article clearly distinguished between the views of its author and views of the academic community as a whole. The article would then be a reliable source for facts and for explaining the weight to be supplied to different scholarly opinion, whatever the personal views of the writer. If you do not like Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and neutrality, then take your argument to the policy page. TFD (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're merely reciting what is 'supposed' to occur with peer reviews and not addressing the realites that often prevail. And kindly not infer that my ideas here are something that goes against WP policy. Thanks. Policies are many, esp regarding POV vs facts regarding controversial issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer review usually just means the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed, with sometimes arithmetic checking to make sure someone isn't completely making numbers up. It doesn't mean the peer reviewers agree with the author's conclusions, much less that they're right, as peer reviewed studies criticize each other routinely. Disagreement with someone's positions does sometimes come into play when journals refuse to even consider something for publication, even if its facts are perfectly accurate.

But none of this really matters. The article isn't about genocide. It's about the United States. The section is a brief historical survey. Accusing the US of "genocide" is clearly controversial POV and adds nothing useful to the article. The actions that a fringe few believe rise to the level of "genocide" can be described in plain English. Adding "genocide" conveys no separate information and amounts to name calling. Its function in this context is entirely emotive and agenda driven, and therefore not suitable for inclusion.

"Genocide scholars" can't even agree on what the word means. It was coined in 1944 and first codified into some sort of law in 1948. Read some excerpts from Wikipedia's own Genocide page:

"Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",[1] though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.[2] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[3]""

That's so broad it could include any war involving "ethnic, racial, religious, or national groups" in human history. Other, varying definitions and interpretations follow. For example:

"In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view and did not consider biological-physical destruction was necessary as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group was enough to qualify as genocide"

The majority opinion there would exclude cultural assimilation from genocide. Longstanding colonial/US policies like conversion, missionary work, free inoculations, education, property allotment laws, and even reservations aren't consistent with an intent to physically exterminate Amerindians, apart from small groups of people engaged in direct warfare, and it should be pointed out that such destructive intent flowed both ways. If the minority viewpoint is accepted, and non fatal cultural assimilation is considered "genocide", then genocide is a constantly ongoing process. Wikipedia itself is guilty of genocide for willfully contributing to global homogenization, and a diminishing of parochial cultural differences. Here's some more on the academic disagreements:

"Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for various reasons.[29]"

"Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies arguing that they are too expansive and concludes that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.[29]

"The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982[30] argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted,[31] and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator."[32] While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.[33]"

As Amerindian attacks on settlers demonstrate, whatever killing occurred wasn't "one-sided". Historical evidence shows it was hardly massive either. At best the academic field of genocide studies is young and unstable. The bottom line is that "genocide" is an emotionally loaded, POV word that lacks a precise definition. It was coined in the 1940s, largely forgotten for a few decades, and then resurrected in the late 20th Century, mostly by activists. It's a garbage term. Its purpose is persuasion more than description. To the extent it has something even approaching a concrete definition it's the legal one, but there were no laws against "genocide" in the 17th Century. No one of the time was prosecuted for it, and we shouldn't be in the business of convicting people without a trial on Wikipedia. As I said, you might as well accuse the colonists and/or Amerindians of committing "hate crimes". The anachronistic, poorly defined term contributes nothing useful in this context and the article would be better off without it. VictorD7 (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wall of text is boring. As you say, peer review does not "mean the peer reviewers agree with the author's conclusions." It does however mean that they agree with their facts and their representation of various opinions. You of course have a right to object to the rational approach of academics. But please take your arguments to the policy pages. It may be as you say that scholars are POV-pushers. Maybe they faked the moon-landing. BTW you seem to have dropped the "activist" criticism - have you got any evidence? ~!TFD (talk)

It's a shame you find reading boring since the "wall of text" (complete with key phrases helpfully highlighted) demonstrates that there isn't a universally agreed on, coherent definition for "genocide", the new academic discipline being immature, and therefore it shouldn't be used in this article, much less cited as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Fortunately it's unnecessary. Since it has strong opposition for well enumerated reasons, perhaps you can give some reasons for including it. Does it accomplish some worthy purpose that couldn't be handled by non POV language? As for the "activist" thing, you appeared to have conceded that point earlier, but actually I did touch on the agenda oriented purpose of the word's usage in my last post that you apparently didn't read. In the portion of the book on the US/Amerindian situation that's available for online reading, your source, Adam Jones, gives a laughably warped, one sided account (complete with Amerindian poetry for emotional impact, questionable use of the word "massacre" to describe battles, lots of omitted facts on anti-white violence), and cites a couple of other writers with similar views, one of them the totally discredited propagandist and fraud Ward Churchill. I earlier mentioned Jones' highly controversial opinions on the UN Iraq sanctions, WW2 bombings, and 9/11 (about the only thing he doesn't classify as "genocide"), so one has to wonder if you feel that we should go through Wikipedia articles and attach the "genocide" label to other events that most don't consider genocide. BTW, it's amusing that you've suddenly decided to pretend I'm opposed to "scholars" for some reason (juvenile debate tactic on your part?) simply because I pointed out that simply being a scholar (which, btw, is not synonymous with university employment, as your moon landing comment concedes) alone isn't sufficient to have someone's fringe, pet buzzwords included in a Wikipedia article, and that you apparently see yourself as the champion of rationality. On a related note, I never did hear back from you about your quest to validate your reading comprehension and grasp of Wikipedia policy by taking your claim that my Heritage Foundation inclusion represented "original research" to the OR notice board for feedback. How'd that turn out? VictorD7 (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, thanks for that most enlightening outline regarding the varied opinions on what 'genocide' is supposed to mean. Indeed it is a label, buzzword, often used to shock and awe the young and/or naïve, that can and has often been hung on all sorts of wars and conflicts, and as I mentioned, rarely used in reference to the actions of the American Indian. Similar references include "holocaust" and "extermination", again, rarely, if ever, used to define the actions of American Indians, who indeed have wiped out more (other) Indians than all other groups combined, as a result of sheer demographics. i.e.Indians were already in close proximity to other Indians across the continent. When Lewis and Clark made their crossing along the Missouri they noted that many of the Indian nations were constantly at war with other tribes, especially the Sioux, who, btw, were generally friendly to the European fur traders. The Sioux proudly boasted, and justified, the almost complete destruction of the once great Cahokia nation, along with the Missouris, Illinois, Kaskaskia and Piorias tribes that lived along the upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers. (Lewis, Clark Floyd, Whitehouse, 1905, p.93) Again, we are discussing 100's of years of continental history, involving many groups of people in many different situations. Anyone who tries to sum it all up with "genocide" or other blanket phraseology needs to have all their writing scrutinized as a general rule, be it a (so called) reliable source or editorship here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "there isn't a universally agreed on, coherent definition for "genocide", the new academic discipline being immature." There is no disagreement that the term as defined by the U.N. is a bare minimum definition, the dispute is whether it has been defined too narrowly, and there is a disagreement over whether some instances of mass killings constitute genocide. Specifically the U.N. rejected killing people on the basis of political views as genocide because of the objections of the Soviet Union. However, the deliberate large scale extermination of people based on ethnicity is genocide by all definitions. No one for example claims that the Holocaust was not genocide. TFD (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The U.N. is a high visibility political entity who is pitted with the task of trying to please all people all of the time, esp its member countries. They would be the last place I would turn to for an objective definitaion of 'genocide', or other blanket terms typically used by pressure groups, activists and individuals out for racial vengence i.e.(blood revenge). There are many. It doesn't suprise me that they, or the U.N., has described the word in narrow terms, allowing it to be used to describe the actions of belligerents in almost any war. (And no, I am not a Holocaust denier regarding what happened to Jews during WWii, a 'particular' episode in history). Again, for purposes of this (main) page, the use of the term genocide to desribe the fate of Indians overall, throughout North American history overall, would be irresponsibly sloppy editorship. The term may (carefully) be used to describe the intention of those involved in 'particular' advents if it can be qualified and cited by more than one RS, otherwise it can be easily challenged and removed on POV grounds. The bottom line however remains, i.e.'genocide' never was accomplished anywhere, not even by the Sioux. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They defined it narrowly not to please everyone, but so as not to displease anyone. As it is a narrow definition, reliable sources do not use it as a blanket term. While pressure groups, etc., may do that in polemical writing, those sources are not reliable. Again, if you believe that the sources described in policy as a reliable should be avoided, then you need to change the policy. Editing articles goes much more smoothly when we all agreed to use policy as the criteria for what goes into articles. TFD (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, good points on the Amerindian violence. I suppose the expected retort would be that such acts are the routine fixture of human history and clearly not responsible for the post-Columbian Amerindian depopulation, but then neither were the acts of supposed "genocide" perpetrated by English colonists and the US. A glance at casualty lists of "massacres" (which are typically two way battles, and often see surviving Amerindians taken prisoner) show small numbers (usually dozens or hundreds). While tragic events, their impact on the total Amerindian population was negligible. Warfare/killing is so dwarfed by disease and later intermarriage as a factor in the depopulation that they shouldn't even be listed as equals, without clear primacy given to disease, much less have the highly POV term "genocide" slapped on too. VictorD7 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No credible source equates what happened to US mainland Amerindians with the Jewish holocaust, since that would be almost impossible to accomplish without blatant lying. I'm not even sure your Adam Jones source would. As I laid out above, Canadian Jones is a long time leftist activist who strongly supported the Marxist Sandinistas in the 1980s with funds and participation in a guided tour, and the portion of his book available online covering US mainland Amerindians mostly relies on Ward Churchill, the radical anti-American activist/propagandist who became famous for calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" who deserved it, has encouraged leftists to become more violent over the years, apparently lied about his own Amerindian heritage to secure a university job through affirmative action, and was ultimately fired from the University of Colorado for plagiarism and falsifying research, knowingly peddling falsehoods on topics like the Dawes Act, smallpox as biological warfare, and even Indian arts and crafts legislation.

While numerous reasons for not including the POV term "genocide" have been given, so far you haven't answered my question as to whether there are any good reasons for including it. If not, then deletion should be easy. VictorD7 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that says that writers must have a specific belief system in order for their facts to be accurate. Facts are stubborn things, they are the same for all of use whatever we believe. I would be interested to know your source for Jones' fundraising for the Sandinistas. His 1992 thesis was about the role of the Sandinista paper in Nicaragua, particularly after the defeat of the Sandinistas when the country transitioned from and "authoritarian" to a "democratic" state. He praises the journalists who wanted the paper to be independent rather than a propaganda organ. Churchill btw accused the Sandinistas of "genocide" against the Miskito Indians, and Jones mentions the their forced removal by the Sandinistas in his thesis and defends journalists who wished to expose this atrocity. Jones does not rely on Churchill for his section but does mention his views, particularly on residential schools. But his views on the schools is hardly controversial. Canada's Conservative Prime Minister for example said much the same thing in a speech in Parliament. "[T]he government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this."[3] In any case, there is nothing wrong in an overview book written in a neutral point of view to present various views. If any sources present your views which you think are ignored, then please say what they are. TFD (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll start by noting that you failed to answer the question about whether there are any reasons for including a controversial POV buzzword when multiple posters have cited numerous reasons for not including it, and instead wasted time throwing out vague platitudes about facts you've heard other people say that you would have been better served listening to than preaching. "Genocide" is an opinion, not a fact. Like "murder", it's a moral and/or legal judgement, making your source's bias all the more important. The judgement itself can be a fact (especially in a courtroom verdict context), but no one was convicted of "genocide" in the 17th Century. Also, unlike "murder", "genocide" is an extremely new, niche term that lacks a coherent definition and is mostly used by political activists pushing agendas. It doesn't belong in the 17th Century segment of the History section of the US country article, much less as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. My source for Jones' fundraising was, as I linked to earlier, his own website: "My political consciousness was shaped in the 1980s by the forces of nuclearism and imperialism...That sense of impending annihilation brought millions of people, including myself, into the streets to protest. At the same time, the bellicose swagger of the Reagan Administration -- the latest in a long line of governments that viewed the countries to the south as a US "backyard" -- was leaving a trail of tens of thousands of corpses across Central America. I read voraciously: Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Eduardo Galeano, and others. And I became active in a Canadian solidarity organization, Tools for Peace, that dispatched millions of dollars in material aid to the revolutionary Sandinista government of Nicaragua throughout the 1980s. That country was under attack by US-backed "contras" (counter-revolutionaries) organized into terrorist bands by CIA and Argentine trainers. Thousands of Nicaraguan civilians died at their hands during the revolutionary decade; when I toured the country for two weeks in 1986, visits to agricultural cooperatives had to be cancelled owing to the contra threat nearby." That such a person embraced "comparative genocide studies" as a vehicle for his polemics after admittedly discovering the discipline slightly over a decade ago is hardly surprising.

Jones spends most of the section that's available for online viewing quoting Ward Churchill, who isn't even fit as a source for facts, much less opinion. That Jones even included a demonstrated fraud like Churchill, much less gave his writing such a prominent place, says a lot about him as well. Did Canada's PM use the word "genocide" to describe assimilative Amerindian education? If not, I'm not sure what your point is. There's a gaping chasm between "wrong" and "genocide". VictorD7 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of Churchill, Google scholar shows that A little matter of genocide is cited by 410; Fantasies of the Master Race, by 266, "Indians are us?", by 223; "Kill the Indian", by 109, "Struggle for the land", by 139; and I could go on and on. Does that mean he is right? No, but it does mean that his views have been widely reported and therefore any neutral writing about Indian genocide should mention him. The point of the PM's speech is that he corroborated the facts presented in the passage quoted in Jones' book. Churchill's view about the residential school is an noteworthy opinion based on facts. That he holds that opinion is a fact. That it was genocide is an opinion not a fact. Jones' reporting of his opinions is certainly a rational thing to do. I certainly did not suggest we say that residential schools were genocide, we should only use the term when there is consensus in reliable sources that genocide occurred.

Incidentally whatever Jones' feelings about the Sandinistas in the beginning, the thesis he wrote is critical of them. In any case it is wholly irrelevant to the facts presented in his book, only to his opinion.

I do not know if Jones writes polemical works. But books published by Routledge, one of the foremost academic publishing house, are not polemical, they are academic, and they are reviewed by a group of scholars who holding differing views and endeavor to ensure that the facts are accurate and we can clearly distinguish between facts, opinions, and facts about opinions.

To answer your first question, "genocide" is not a buzzword. It is cognate with the word "homicide". While homicide refers to the killing of a person for whatever reason, genocide refers to the killing of a large number of people based on ethnicity or various other criteria.

TFD (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any reasons for including "genocide". I don't believe you're still trying to defend Ward Churchill. You're acting like this is about my personal distaste for the guy. He was fired for publishing false claims, and on the very topic of Amerindian treatment we're discussing. As a proven liar and a man of generally low character his views are irrelevant, except insofar as approvingly relying on them discredits a source. All your googling does is underscore how activist dominated this niche, still immature field is, assuming, of course, he's being cited approvingly. By tying the discipline to Ward Churchill you're undermining its credibility, not enhancing it. And yes, "genocide" is a buzzword (that wasn't my question). Regardless, let's look at "murder", which is far more clearly defined than "genocide". We all agree that "murder" has been a firmly established concept for millennia, but would it be appropriate for Wikipedia's voice to list "murder" among the reasons for Amerindian depopulation? How about "heinous acts"? Can't you see why that's problematic? Of course this article isn't about "Indian genocide", and no neutral country article should use that POV phrase. It's also worth remembering we wouldn't be having the text claim it wasn't "genocide", but would simply be sidestepping the frivolous, highly politicized issue. "Homicide" is very different from "genocide" in that the former is more clearly defined, and yet both it and "murder" only appear in the article's Law enforcement section. Certainly "homicide" doesn't carry anywhere near the negative connotations/activist agenda value as "genocide" (e.g. "justifiable homicide"). Jones goes through moral calculations first to determine if something should be condemned as "genocide".

I'm not sure why you're talking about the Indian schools since we're discussing the word "genocide". "Genocide" is an opinion, and Jones used Churchill, whom he made it clear he agreed with, for both fact and opinion. People can agree on facts and have all sorts of differing opinions, so your PM quote is still irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that we add a section on said schooling along with the judgement (in Wikipedia's voice) that it was "wrong".

I don't care about Jones' thesis. He actively supported the Sandinistas for political reasons, including with material aid, and still boasts about it on his website. Like Churchill, he's a political activist. I don't want to make assumptions about your age or education level, but academics engage in polemics all the time, both in the classroom and in published books. You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that the two are mutually exclusive. Even mainstream, public school K-12 textbooks are often criticized for including polemic content, and certainly niche college level books frequently do, as there's less political oversight. Howard Zinn's heavily polemic works are used as textbooks. Jones even talks about himself in the first person throughout the book you linked, explaining his background and personal opinions at length, so it's not a typical textbook. I'm not sure why you feel the alleged reviewers were ideologically diverse, but such reviews don't necessarily mean much, as Ward Churchill's long pattern of lying demonstrates. VictorD7 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Ward Churchill, although I have not presented him as a source and not ask for inclusion of his theories. You seem to believe that the facts in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources must be false. You may believe the moon landing was fake, 911 was an inside job, Obama was not born in the U.S. etc. and for all I know you may be right. But if you think this article should reflect the way you see the world, then you need to show that sources support your views. Zinn's book by the way is a high school textbook and I argued against using it as a source at RSN. TFD (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD...you just spent half of your last post talking about Ward Churchill and listing google citations to show how influential he is in the "genocide" field! And you're complaining about me bringing him up?!? The source you presented chiefly used him as his source (Churchill's "genocide" rant), so he's clearly relevant to this discussion (as your own google citations underscore). I'm not sure why you keep bringing up conspiracy theories out of the blue as an infantile debate tactic when your scholar Ward Churchill actually is a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you believe the US military intentionally spread smallpox to Amerindians, that the CIA was behind every calamitous third world event, that JFK was murdered by a right wing conspiracy, that Nixon faked the moon landings, that Bush was behind 9/11, that the US government invented AIDS, that Halliburton was behind the Iraq War, and that Amerindians (and Iraqis, and Japanese) were depopulated through "genocide", but, whether you're right or not, none of those claims belong in the USA country article. BTW, Zinn's most famous book has been used more frequently at colleges, though I'm not surprised it's appeared at some high schools too. Oh, and you failed again to give any reasons why including "genocide" would improve the article. We don't add even well sourced information randomly just for the hell of it, much less a POV buzzword from a niche, still young and unstable field dominated by political activists and possibly rife with academic fraud (as your own google citations indicate). VictorD7 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Footnote "f?"

In the infobox, the footnote "f" doesn't seem to link anywhere. In the edit page, there are two different lines,

|iso3166code = US

|iso3166note = ^[f]

As far as I can see, they're supposed to be combined to make something like

|iso3166code = US{{ref label|ISO3166box|f|} (removed a bracket to make it read normally)

But, the text always ends up reading

[[ISO 3166-2:US[F]|US[F]]]

I have no idea why. Any suggestions?Kude90 (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of 'genocide'

There is only one senetence on the U.S. page that uses the word 'genocide', referenced with only one source: Thornton, Russell (1987) who himself admits that the line between war and genocide is questionable. The below statement gives the impression that genocide only occured at the hand of settlers. This needs to be fixed, and more than one source needs to come into the picture so we can bring clarity to the issue.

After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that their population declined due to various reasons, including diseases such as smallpox and measles,[41] intermarriage,[42] genocide and warfare with European explorers and colonists,[43] as well as between the indigenous peoples.[44]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason we use reliable sources is that we expect them to be written by experts and to have been fact-checked. Occasionally reliable sources contain errors and we correct them by seeking reliable sources that correct the misinformation. Adding additional sources is a worthless exercise and usually done by tendentious editors to reinforce bad sources with other bad sources. While the line between warfare and genocide may be difficult to establish, there are also clear cases of genocide during wars. For example the holocaust, which was carried out by soldiers during a war, was a clear case of genocide. Other mass killings of non-combatants during wars may not meet the strict definition of genocide. TFD (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : "Adding additional sources is a worthless exercise..."?? This not only is an opinion but a (very) narrow one. Who's to say that adding extra sources can't can't be beneficial and done so as to replace one singular source used as a reference to make a fuzzy blanket statement? Please remember, we are referring to Indians and settlers overall, and over 100's of years of history. If there is a particular episode you need to attach the term 'genocide' to, feel free to do so if you have the sources. As concerns general overages of the history we need to remove "genocide" and replace it with an accuate statement that refers to both settlers and Indians, as both had an impact on Indian population overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Noncomprehensive list of reasons for opposing inclusion of "genocide":

1. The term has no coherent, widely agreed on definition.

2. POV: "Genocide" is a subjective value judgement, and a highly charged one at that.

3. It's misleading: Given the word's association with the Jewish holocaust in the popular consciousness, when used as it is without further explanation, it gives average readers an untrue impression.

4. In this context the word's function is entirely emotive and agenda driven, as it conveys no factual information.

5. Any conceivable facts intended to be represented by the use of "genocide" in this context can be described in plain English instead.

6. The term was only coined in the 1940s, was pushed into UN law, and then largely fell out of use until the late 20th Century, when it was revived mostly by fringe political activists, including the sources presented so far here (like the disgraced fraud Ward Churchill, a thoroughly unreliable source).

7. More concretely defined applications of the term "genocide" have been found in legal prosecutions, but no "genocide" laws existed in the 17th Century and no one was prosecuted for it, so it's both anachronistic and a case of using Wikipedia to convict people without a trial.

8. It's only used one way, despite numerous examples of Amerindians killing settler men, women, and children and destroying entire towns.

9. The many occasions of Amerindian versus settler warfare demonstrate that the larger depopulation the section attempts to describe wasn't a case of helpless victims being subjected to "one-sided, mass killing" (typically an essential feature in scholarly definitions).

10. Even the lethal acts that would have had the most realistic chance of being labeled "genocide", most notably killing in war, resulted in small casualties and had a negligible effect on the overall Amerindian population.

11. The larger Amerindian depopulation was mostly a result of disease, a fact obscured by the current hodgepodge of factors listed and given equal status. Slapping the label "genocide" on the mix only obscures the truth further.

So far no one has stated any reasons for using "genocide", or articulated how it would supposedly be useful in improving the article. Barring a compelling effort in that department, this looks like an easy deletion call to make. VictorD7 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that says no genocide occurred or that it should not be called genocide? TFD (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm not calling on the text to say it wasn't "genocide" I don't need any such sources. I've listed numerous reasons why the article should sidestep the highly politicized, POV issue. Do you have any compelling reasons why including it would improve the article? VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is important to the history of American settlement to explain the fate of the aboriginal inhabitants. If you prefer to use a euphemism for genocide then what would you suggest? While I do not think any countries should be portrayed in a negative light, a complete article does not omit negative aspects. TFD (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Since you conceded above that "That it was genocide is an opinion not a fact.", then it's not clear why any words would have to be substituted for the deleted "genocide". Let's stick to facts. VictorD7 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I "conceded" that residential schools were genocide is an opinion, which is how it is described in the reliable source I provided. In fact, I have never recommended that we add residential schools to the article. TFD (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed policies effected large loss of life, but that is not a policy of "genocide". TFD had a cogent observation:" [Holocaust] carried out by soldiers during a war, was a clear case of genocide. Other mass killings of non-combatants during wars may not meet the strict definition of genocide. But it is clear in US history of the 19th century that both the settlement system of alternating private parcels and the reservation system established by Congress worked to effect an end of tens of thousands among those related tribes. The difficulty in ascribing "genocide" to the US government in a national history, is that there never was a majority in Congress to "end the tribes" in anything like a policy which could be called "genocide".

In post Civil War 19th century practice, on the one hand, square parcels assigned to white families had water, alternating parcels of equal area described on a map and given to Native-Americans -- did not have water. Amerindian farms failed, their populations starved or assimilated. On the other hand, the provisioning of reservations were outside the Army commissary system, bid out to private contractors who were in turn sometimes business partners of governors or congressmen. These sutlers did not dependably deliver either food or shelter for winter, reservation populations starved or assimilated. The Army and Congressional records show numerous official army and missionary alarms warning that starving reservation tribes would leave if they were not fed, perhaps to war, but certainly to leave, -- which sometimes occured with prior notice to fort commanders for a date certain return, just to hunt until promised food was delivered. Local territorial and state legislatures in turned petitioned Congress for Army intervention to return tribes to reservation by war if need be.

While the various "settlement" plans of the 19th century can fairly be said to have "failed, with horrific effects" which should have a note for further reading and links to subarticles detailing those effects as a direct result of those failures. But the use of "genocide" is not called for because large killings of a particular group were never a policy of government as currently sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One can argue whether the "failed policies" were genocide. My opinion is that they were not and do not suggest we say they were or even mention that opinion in this article. However actions such as pouring petrol on tents and setting them on fire while families slept inside them is not a gray area. And incidentally this pattern began long before the establishment of the U.S. TFD (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] TFD statement above says, "failed policies" 19th century were not genocide, they certainly were not, as I say. Why does TFD then argue for including the term? This is mere disruption of the discussion page. Then TFD refers to a 1914 the coal strike camp Ludlow massacre by US troops using 'petrol' to set tents on fire with women and children hiding in trenches dug to avoid army machine gun bullets fired from a train. While early 19th century whale oil was replaced by late 19th century kerosene for home lighting, there was no 'petrol' refined anywhere in the world "before the establishment of the US" in 1776. This is why I want to know TFD sources, because otherwise it sounds all WP:madeup imaginary America. More unsourced disruption of the Talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD: "No, I "conceded" that residential schools were genocide is an opinion, which is how it is described in the reliable source I provided." Setting aside for now why you insist on calling a book by a fringe Marxist political activist that relies heavily on disgraced academic fraud and virulent anti-American activist Ward Churchill for the pertinent section (the definition of unreliable source), how is "genocide" an opinion in one example but a fact elsewhere? If a party was legally convicted of "genocide" then we could report on that verdict as a fact, but the opinionated tossing around of emotive labels by a few political activists who each seems to have his own peculiar definition of the word doesn't rise to the level of warranting inclusion in a generic country article. It's POV agenda pushing.

Multiple posters have provided a lengthy list of well reasoned objections to including the word, but so far you've cited no reasons for including it, apart from vaguely expressing a desire to ensure that the United States article contains an adequate level of "negative aspects". Anything else? Are there any facts you believe would be lost by deleting the POV term "genocide"? VictorD7 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. To you, books published by Routledge and other academic publishers are "fringe Marxist political activist" while articles published by political pressure groups that support your views are "mainstream" "reliable sources." You say that because scholars agree that some cases are genocide and disagree over others that the term is a matter of opinion. That has the same logic that because astronomers disagreed on whether Pluto was a planet, therefore Earth is not a planet. If you have a point to make please be consistent avoid logical fallacies. TFD (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Once a 'moon' was discovered orbiting the larger 'Pluto', the definition of a planet was refined to center-of-gravity in a system within the largest sphere. There is no disagreement about Pluto, because the center-of-gravity between 'Pluto' and smaller 'moon' lies outside the larger. The center-of-gravity of the earth-moon system lies inside the earth. Simple. Not the "logic" of non-sequiturs, but observation governs clear thinking. What are your sources? Now you have WP:madeup astronomy; your non-sequiturs are still not sources.

If there is no purposeful, government-sanctioned policy to end the existence of Amerindians, there is no genocide of them by that government. At the very least you must distinguish between actions of British colonies, states, county militias and national governments in American history, which you have not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You're sputtering. Your skeptical tone is amusing since I actually cited your source's activism and political bent from his own website, and even then I had to post it again after you challenged my claim, since you often don't read the posts you respond to, much less the sources you use. If you wanted to include undisputed facts that would improve the article I wouldn't mind if you used activist sources, even proven liar and propagandist Ward Churchill. This discussion is about whether there are good, compelling reasons to use the POV word "genocide" in the article. That Churchill and Jones believe Amerindian treatment can be described with that label (which we've established has no widely agreed on definition among academics), by itself, isn't sufficient reason for inclusion even if we all agreed with them. There are lots of things you, I, and every scholar in the world probably agree on that nevertheless shouldn't be included in the article for reasons ranging from space concerns to obfuscatory impact to contextually inappropriate tone. You still haven't provided any reasons why including "genocide" would improve the article. Please do so now. Again, if there is pertinent information that you believe would be lost by deleting it, we can discuss adding it with alternate language. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD and others, please see my above insert. We are trying to make a general statement about Indians and settlers overall. Hence "genocide" doesn't begin to address the siutation and the span of time involved, esp since "genocide" never actually occured.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose use of the term per the reasons above. It's a highly politicized term that's not universally used in this instance. Hot Stop 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose use of 'genocide'. however bad leadership, bad policy, bad administration and bad actors on all sides have contributed to tragedy on all sides over the course of American history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not opposed to the use of the term as long as there is context that war was used to settle land conflicts by both Indians and Puritans, French, English, Spanish, and the U.S. Army. Take for example the American Civil War. There was massive "genocide" between North and South Anglo Americans over slavery. I don't think Wikipedia needs to avoid the subject of genocide or "wars of extermination". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

insert : Rubbish. If you can use 'genocide' to describe the Civil War than you can attach the term almost anywhere and in the process trivialize the term where it should be used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose using the bastardized and highly politicized term genocide to define overall history of Indians and settlers over 100's of years of history. Again, cite this to specific episodes if you can qualify it and source it with something other than an activist account, per controversy considerations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the term's use in this context. While numerous sound arguments by multiple posters have been made against its use, not a single argument has been made articulating how its use improves the article or even conveys real information. Looks like an easy deletion call to make. VictorD7 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A single opinion != reason to make any statements in Wikipedia's voice in any article. And the weird claim that the Civil War was genocide of the North against the South beleaguers belief. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Commentary

Gwillhickers, "genocide" was practiced on both sides Puritan and Amerindian. Conflict with the two competing cultures was inevitable. Even today, Indian tribal relations are at times in conflict with the U.S. Department of Interior over land usage. The Puritans intentions were to convert the Indians, however, when this failed war seemed to be the only alternative to settle land matters. Yes. There were intermarriages. The article, however, should not avoid the subject of war, extermination, and genocide. I agree that the term "genocide" may have a modern day usage and would equate the Puritans with being the "Nazi" party of the 1600's. That is not true. I do not have an issue with using the term genocide in the article as long as there is understanding that both Indians and Puritans killed each other through war. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Here is Dictionary.com and World English Dictionary online definitions of the word "genocide". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your dictionary reference doesn't begin to address all the theings you have ignored in this discussion. "Genocide" never actually occured. The phrase we may be able to use, in some cases, is Attempted genocide.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you think that Europeans did not kill aboriginals, or do you just not think it qualifies as genocide? TFD (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Am not very familiar with Aboriginal history. I believe I have several times been clear about what the term means and why. Why don't you just tell us what you think about Aboriginal history per genocide, and why. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Should the article also state that "genocide" was commonly practiced by Indians on other Indians? Going by the loose definition proposed by a couple of editors it seems we could say that, very easily. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Genocide occurred on both sides. King Philip's War was a good example of this genocide with 4,000 Indian deaths from disease and fighting. Wars of attrition are genocide. I am not ashamed of our American heritage, genocide, nor slavery. What is immoral is to deny history and make up fiction. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your use of "genocide" is all over the map. Along with defining the Civil War as genocide, now you're using an even broader brush and painting all wars of attrition as such, without any other qualification(s), as usual. As for what is "immoral" -- it is immoral to cherry pick a fact here and there and parade it down 'Main Street' as if it was the rule, ignoring all other facts and context. We need to describe events and circumstances and leave political hyper-speak out. We can say the Sioux almost wiped out several Indian nations without the hyper-speak. We can say Indians suffered heavy loses from wars with other Indians, most of all, and from wars and disease from settlers. As soon as you slime the picture with "genocide" you blur everything and suggest someone lined up Indians and walked them into the death chambers because they were Indians, and for no other reason. "Genocide" does not define the greater picture -- it doesn't even come close -- as has been explained to you several times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no holocaust of Native Americans. I agree with that. There is genocide, however, in every war that has ever been fought. There were no gas chambers for the Amerindians. If genocide is used strictly by the modern UN definition, then that may or may not apply to past events. Yes. The Indians practiced genocide. No one as far as I know is disagreeing with that. The Purtitans did initially attempt to evangilize the Indians, however, the main body of Indians did not desire to convert. This led to war. I appear to be outvoted on this matter. If other editors want to take out "genocide", that is fine, however, in my opinion that is avoiding the subject of Indians and Puritans slaughtering each other in King Philip's War. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I will disagree with that: Indians did not practice genocide, but limited war. In places that would become the US, there was no deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political or cultural group by either US nationals or Amerindians. Certainly Powhatan’s brother tried in the Easter Massacre of Jamestown settlement, but the adjacent Rappahannocks were military allies of the English.

Tecumseh and Sitting Bull called for such an outcome, and there are examples of US nationals orating ‘the only good Indian is a dead Indian’. But genocide advocates on both sides were unable to persuade numbers to effect their intent to exterminate, only sufficient to war for limited objectives --- “genocidal” in the dictionary definition CM gave us cannot fairly be applied either Amerindians or the USG at any phase of their tragic history.

That is not to celebrate killing while we honor the war dead at Memorial Day. “The horrible sights that I have witnessed on this field I can never describe. No blaze of glory, that flashes around the magnificent triumphs of war, can ever atone for the unwritten and unutterable horrors of the scene of carnage." – April 1862, Shiloh, TN - Brig. Gen. James A. Garfield, US Army of the Ohio (20th president of the US). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think we can safely agree that 'some' Indian tribes and 'some' settlers wanted the other to disappear entirely in 'some' cases. However this stuff about all wars amounting to "genocide" is nonsense. Should we now refer to World War II as 'World genocide II', the Korean War as 'Korean genocide'? Cm' in your attempt to inflate genocide to such outlandish proportions you actually obscure the term in the process. You can reassert the opinion but you've presented nothing in terms of substantiating this particular view, still, so perhaps it's time to move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

American Indian population

(Continued from above discussion)

According to the Native Americans in the United States article: Estimates of the pre-Columbian population of what today constitutes the U.S. vary significantly, ranging from 1 million to 18 million It's curious that estimates vary so. No doubt the number of Indians was often inflated for socio-political reasons, as is often the case with historical accounts in general, unfortunately. It would seem the number was in the lower end of this estimate. When Lewis and Clark explored the North West along the Missouri river they encountered many Indian tribes along the way, each tribe numbering from 1 - 10 thousand. Most were in that lower range. Looking at the map on which they recording these numbers, and assuming these numbers were consistent across the continent, it would appear the overall Indian population doesn't begin to add up to "many millions". So the claim in the 'United States' article: After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, many millions died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox.[41] seems inflated, as seems to be often the case concerning accounts of the plights incurred by Indians. Seems we need clarification and that a more accurate statement is needed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely you realize that if the numbers could be inflated for sociopolitical reasons, they could also be deflated for sociopolitical reasons. Also, this is not exactly the place to argue how many Indians were killed; if we can reliably source the figure, then we can use the figure. Your argument is not based on any sourcing so far, which will be required to change the article. (Also, I can't check at the moment, is the source for that 'many millions' referring to the future United States or the whole of the Americas? I suspect that discrepancy could be an issue here.) --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you have a point, some numbers could also be deflated. My intention is only to get an accurate statement as to the number of Indians who died from "white man's" disease. If there were only several million Indians to begin with, the claim "many millions" died seems curious, to say the least. If such epic numbers of Indians did perish from disease it would seem the Indian population overall would have taken a nose dive and that the sources would be in general agreement and reflect this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the most reliable sources would be the ones with the competence to take into account how many people the land could support at a hunter-gatherer to neolithic technology level that lacked the wheel, and/or rely on historical and physical evidence. Remember that early European explorers dubbed a massive chunk of the continent the "Great American Desert". The high estimates of tens of millions in what's now the US are comically absurd and transparently politically motivated (tend to come from activists). The estimates of 900k-3 million seem more realistic. As you said, when we get to less speculative, more concrete numbers, historical tribal groups tend to be in the low thousands. In fairness, most of the supposed depopulation through European contact is thought to have happened long before the 19th Century (all the above estimates are for 1492), though said depopulation surely mostly occurred on the east coast, where the relatively dense populations would have been, meaning that populations west of the Mississippi might not have drastically changed by the time of Lewis and Clark, and, as the Britannica source referenced in the other article points out, the assumptions underlying Dobyns's 18 million estimate aren't borne out by archeological evidence. It's hard to imagine the western two thirds or so of the continent ever teeming with millions and millions of people prior to sophisticated western agricultural/irrigation/ranching techniques and goods transport. Some tribes were barely scratching by on a subsistence diet of things like berries. VictorD7 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, the relatively dense populations on the east coast I mention above refer to Amerindians being more densely populated there than on the Great Plains, which I don't recall ever seeing a credible source dispute. VictorD7 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are accurate stastitics for Indian death rates by disease for North America, I believe that would be appropriate. Since the article is on the United States, I believe the North American continent Indian population needs to be addressed, including Alaska. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have heard accounts were various tribes suffered heavy loses from disease, but for "many millions" to have perished this would have to involve an epic advent that swept across the continent and would be reflected in a sharp decrease in Indian populations. I find this extraordinary for reasons VictorD7 articulated well. Currently the statement in the Native American and European settlement section says "many millions" died, and the source (41) for this claim is Galloway, 1995, pp.4-5, but again, these pages are not not available for viewing on line, so I have to wonder if Galloway actually says "many millions". If we can't verify this statement with Galloway then the statement should read 'many died' not "many millions died". There must be other sources that mention Indian deaths by disease, so we need to see if any of these accounts corroborates "many millions". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I have read allot of determining how many Indians died from disease and what disease any Indians died from is all speculation. I believe the Indian population needs to center around North America, particularly the 1600's. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Black Death emanating from European port cities trading with the mideast, into populations without prior exposure or immunity, is estimated to have killed 20%-60% in varying numbers across diverse European communities. In North America, diseases spread along Amerindian trade routes emanating from Spanish (south), French (north) and English (east) contacts.

By the time English/American settlement expanded west, they occasionally found deserted village sites and cleared/new growth woodland in previously cultivated fields among the old-growth forest. Their settled farming techniques amidst these one-two generations-old ghost-towns nearby water and fishing sources made little impact on surrounding hunting ranges of Amerindian communities surviving, so with a little negotiation and tribute, the initial sparsely settled whites were tolerated.

Amerindians could freely transit through "white" settlement areas until relative white population approached 10:1, when Native-American hunting parties were seen to be excluded, physically barred from transit. Tribute in lieu of European land rents were attractive to the early frontier squatters: shelter a hunting party during an ice storm, lose a beef in a bad deer hunting season every few years.

But times on the frontier changed rapidly on occasion, during a gold rush in Georgia or a war in New York. Or with politics: The planter-Gen. Andrew Jackson political machine in Tennessee turned against frontiersman David Crockett ("I've always been a friend to the General.") when he stood up for the rights of his farming neighbor who was an Amerindian. Crockett lost reelection to Congress in a landslide ("You can go to hell, I'm going to Texas.", which is another story). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "disease" is a general term. What diseases did the Indians die from? I believe there is allot of speculation in this area. Here is a source: New Hypothesis for Cause of Epidemic among Native Americans, New England, 1616–1619 (2010). The Indians according to this study may have died from a disease found in rodents. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The above article states there was an epidemic among Indians prior to European contact in New England. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

TVH, Cm', this is all very interesting, and the insights TVH brings to light are helpful, but we still need to look into "many millions", as again, given the average number of Indians in tribes it would be my speculation that the overall Indian population across the entire continent was only several million. Indian tribes in the west had minimal contact and most individual tribes numbered in the lower thousands. The 'Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas' article claims that the population levels are very difficult to establish but that scholars generally agree that the pre-Columbian Indian population was about 10 million and increased to about 50 million by the 20th century. -- The ambiguous claim that "many millions" died doesn't seem to be consistent with this increase and more than suggests that most of the overall Indian population was drastically reduced because of disease. We need clarification and more than just one source (which can't be verified) here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, just to be clear because you wrote it in kind of an ambiguous way: I thought you initially meant that the Indian population had increased to 50 million by the 20th century. And, in fact, I think you meant it that way, talking about "millions dying isn't consistent with this increase". There is no such increase, you misread the article. It's saying, scholarship from the 20th century has established the pre-Columbian Indian population was 50 million instead of the 10 million that earlier scholarship had figured. (and some say it was as much as 100 million). That article makes no statement on the 20th century Indian population. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to further clarify in case anyone is scanning this discussion fast and sees those numbers, the figures are for the entire hemisphere, not just the future US. Mesoamerica and parts of South America were far more densely populated and urbanized than anything found in North America. VictorD7 (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If scholars can't even determine the Pre Columbian Indian population, then how can scholars determine how many Indians died of disease. For example, how many Indians died because of small pox, a European disease? We need to be specific on what types of disease. Indians were dying out before coming into contact with Europeans. Possibly the Indians own lifestyle or contact with rodents caused an epidemic. To state "many millions" or or "several millions" is not very specific, in my opinion, without any reliable sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Because they're scholars and we're generally just shlubs on a website. Maybe we shouldn't be thinking we're so much smarter than them. --Golbez (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: Melissa Sue Halverson (2007) Native American Beliefs and Medical Treatments During the Smallpox Epidemics: an Evolution. This might help. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep - as soon as Jenner's work was known, the "mean Americans" vaccinated the Native Americans as rapidly as possible. Meanwhile, smallpox was a large killer of whites during the times in question, rumours about Amherst notwithstanding. Collect (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article needs to focus on small pox since that seems to be the disease that had the most lethal effects on the American Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

American Indian population (2)

The statement in the section simply says "many millions" died from disease from settlers. There is ambiguity not only in overall Indian populations but in the numbers of deaths from disease. Trying to sort out which disease came from where and then trying to break it down further, differentiating the various types of disease, seems to be an exercise we will forever be debating. Perhaps we could avert all of this by simply saying 'many died' rather than "many millions". "Millions" of deaths usually occur from a plague, not from an epidemic or various regional outbreaks. Again, the Galloway source isn't much of a help, unless someone has the hard text in hand and that doesn't seem to be case. Until we can (if ever) nail down general Indian populations in the land we now call the U.S.A. along with numbers of deaths from disease, with at least two reliable sources, I move that we simply say 'many died' using the existing source. Yes? No? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style allows us to dodge the hottest scholarly debates. Precisely because they are ongoing, there is no consensus. We can state "many died" with a note citing references to several scholars reflecting a range of numbers. Certainly more died from disease than from fighting, whether against Euros or other Amerindians, in alliances or alone. [aside] More transiting the Oregon Trail died from snake bites than from Indian attack.[end aside]

Everything in the notes does not have to have a one-to-one correspondence to phrases in the text. When the notes have online links to reliable sources, Wikipedia can be used by readers as a research tool, not for the WP article (no-no, too much vandalism), but for its reliable sources cited in notes with links to more than one scholarly view. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think both Gwillhickers and TVH make sensible points and I'd support changes along those lines. One thing to ponder though is whether simply stating "many died" conveys the appropriate ballpark sense of depopulation that occurred in at least some areas. The intro's "greatly reduced their populations" does this effectively without getting into actual numbers. I'm not sure if we should repeat something like that in the history section or if "many died" is fine for the later reference. Maybe the note TVH proposed emphasizing that far more died from disease than warfare would sufficiently handle that. VictorD7 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would put "Native Americans have in part been depopulated due to Western disease, particularly small pox." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to use curious language in an effort to paint a picture worse than it already is. "Depopulated" sounds almost as derogatory as "exterminated". 'Many died' gets the point across in a perfectly neutral fashion. Also, since we are referring to the American Indian in general, it is understood that 'many' is in reference to this greater group and as such the number of deaths referred to is not inconsequential. Until we can nail down more definitive accounts of Indian populations, and deaths, the causes of which vary considerably, 'many died' seems to be the best approach. It is not an under-statement or an over-statement, IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing derogatory concerning the words "exterminated" nor "depopulated". The term "many" could imply that only 2 or 3 Indians to infinity Indians died from disease. The term "many" is not specific. What does "many" mean? 2, 3, 100, 500, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000,000. Take your pick. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : "exterminated" and "depopulated" sound like activist speak. If someone were to die of small pox in the hospital, would you say that person was "exterminated"? Re:'many'. As I have already explained, the term 'many', used in the context with the American Indian as a continental group, refers to a number that is by no means inconsequential. As I have also explained, since there are no "specific" numbers of Indian populations, let alone deaths caused by disease, and because it is next to impossible to differentiate deaths from disease contracted from other Indians, settlers, starvation, etc, etc, the term 'many', in reference to all Indians should be more than adequate for any person with average intelligence. Please read messages more carefully. There are no "specific" numbers from which to "pick". Were there groups of physicians running around the frontier doing autopsies, determining who died from what? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, to clarify, I'm fine with "many died", though I'd also be fine with a note with more info attached. VictorD7 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how this works for the disease analysis because I'm more interested in migrations, where fleeing disease there is only one 'push' factor. However, on the even-handed scales of a scrupulously balanced online encyclopedia, in the same way Old World small pox was fatal to Amerindians without immunity, New World syphilis etc. was fatal to Europeans without immunity. Any reference to primary source of decimating (1/10+) epidemic among one major group in the future US (Amerindians) warrants reference to decimating epidemic among another major group (Euros). Not sure how our disease buffs will sort that out for the narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Historians have speculated that over a million Native Americans have died due to Western disease from contact by Europeans." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"The population of American Indians was signifigantly reduced in the millions due to Western diseases from contact by Europeans." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have two reliable sources that refer to "millions" of deaths caused by disease, from settlers only? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources:

• Charlie Samuel (2003) Medicine in Colonial America, p. 9
• David A. Rausch (1994), Native American voices, p. 56
• (2005) Encyclopedia of Native American Wars & Warfare, p. 301

These sources state or suggest millions of American Indians died from European diseases. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ballard C. Campbell (2008), Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History: A Reference Guide To the Nation's Most Catastrophic Events, stated on page three that 48 million American Indians died from 1492 to about 1700 from European disease. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"state or suggest"? Actual quotes with the page numbers would be nice. So would any qualifying explanation as to how causes and numbers of deaths were differentiated and arrived at. Given the wide gap between estimates and because this is a controversial issue we should be choosy and use only sources that can at least explain how deaths were determined. i.e. Anyone can make an unqualified claim, for any number of reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for numbers of deaths

• Samuel is the only source that refers to millions, with no qualifying text. Apparently it is a book for grade and high schoolers.

• Rausch speaks of wide spread deaths but doesn't mention they were in the millions. However, to be fair to the debate it easily could be interpreted as such.

• Encyclopedia of Native American Wars & Warfare, pp.78-397 are not available for viewing.

It looks like we may be able to refer to millions of deaths, however I would not go as far as to say "many millions", as 'many' would mean ten or more. i.e.10 million or more. In any case we need more sources that are specific, and ultimately those that can qualify such claims. Also, when diseases are mentioned, similar deaths to European settlers from Indian diseases should also be mentioned. From what I have seen thus far, this whole topic seems largely one of speculation when it comes to differentiating and determining numbers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I am for putting "millions". I believe that that would be accurate. Millions is specific enough to let the reader make up their own minds on how many American Indians died of Western diseases. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute among reliable sources how many Native Americans were killed due to the European colonization of what is now the United States. So we can give a range based on what the reliable sources, or we can say that the population declined.

Again please see Americans#American Indians and Alaska Natives.

The reliable sources say that there are multiple reasons for the decline of the population of Native Americans, which also include fighting between Native Americans. To only state one reason for the population decline is disingenuous and inserts a POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we settle for some final edit instead of bickering among ourselves? Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Upon the first contact with Europeans in 1492 the Native American population signifigantly declined by the millions, in part, due to Western diseases, including small pox." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This at least gives the reader something to work with. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

From reading through the article on small pox I am astonished on how nasty that disease was or is, supposedly eradicated in 1980 world wide. I could understand how millions could die from this horrible disease. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No one can dispute the potential for widespread death from smallpox in those days, however we still need more sources that are specific and can qualify any claims about deaths from diseases with something more than general claims about westward expansion. RCLC's above article/section reference echos what TVH, VictorD7, myself and others have said previously. i.e.Causes for Indian deaths were many and are obviously next to impossible to differentiate in terms of specific numbers and specific causes. At this point all we can say is 'many died' in reference/context to the American Indian overall. To insist otherwise, and without specific references, would be asserting a POV, and I think we can all safely say there are a lot of POV's regarding this issue. In particular, the word "genocide" is a 20th century activist holdover term. i.e.Socio-politically and/or racially motivated propaganda. 'Genocide' means the elimination of a race of people. In spite of heavy losses from wars and diseases from both settlers and other Indians nothing close to that ever occurred. As with most propaganda, such hyper-speak doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you stated that the term "millions" looks likely. Three sources directly state that millions died from disease. Millions is the best and is not POV. The term "many died" is not specific in my opinion that is POV. The term "millions" is best. Remember this a period from 1492 to 1700, a period of 208 years. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Cm', first off you are misstating what I said. I didn't say "looks likely" -- I said we may be able to say "millions". Secondly, only one source says "millions", without any qualification. This is why I believe we should keep the claim on the neutral side and not be specific without other sources. That is not POV, that is taking precautions not to push a POV. For now I will change "many millions" to millions, however, unless we can find sources to qualify 'millions of deaths from settler's disease only' that too will have to be corrected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be true, but how many died directly due to European immigration to what is now the United States?

For instance I can say that millions died in the United States next year, it'd be statistically due, but then to say they all died because they once somewhere in their live bathed in water would be OR and incorrect.

This is the reason for our disagreement with what is attempting to be asserted.

The sources give multiple reasons for the decline in population, the sources disagree on the beginning population prior to arrival of Columbus to the Americas, and although all agree the Native American population declined, they do not all agree how much, and there are multiple reasons for the decline, not just one reason. IMHO, the best thing we can do for the readers, is to state there was a decline and provide a wikilink to the article which has that decline as its primary subject: Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can replace the current sentence

After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, many millions died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox.

with the following wording

Following the European colonization of what is now the United States, the population of Native Americans declined due to various reasons, including ....

We can either stop with various reasons, or list (with references) the multiple reasons for the population decline, as I had done in my example that I provided before.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We should of course list reasons and at the same time mention that Indians and Settlers suffered from diseases that were exchanged. Does anyone know how many settlers died from Indian diseases? Does anyone even care? Or have we been conditioned by years of 20th century hyper-speak and propaganda to only have concern for those we have been instructed to regard as a scared cow, i.e. "Indigenous peoples"? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out that it's not clear whether the Samuel book being used to source "millions" is referring exclusively to the future US or the entire hemisphere. The pertinent passage does go on to mention a couple of salient examples of smallpox impact in Virginia and Florida, but it's immediately preceded by a picture of Columbus arriving with an inset about the French carrying diseases to Canada. I'll also restate that the dispute isn't whether diseases dramatically reduced Amerindian population in the Americas (they did, including diseases probably carried by Europeans), but how many Amerindians there were to begin with in what's now the US, on which there is widespread disagreement, with the lower (and I think most realistic) estimates precluding even an overwhelming decline from killing "many millions", and making even just "millions" questionable. VictorD7 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Cambell (2008), on page 3 is a source that states 48 million Indians died from 1492 to about 1700. I believe we need to keep "millions" in the article. Of course disease and war took a toll on the Indian population. The reader needs to understand that small pox and other western diseases were devastating for the American Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide more than just a name and date. At least a title...preferably a link. Maybe even an actual quote. Regardless, unless the author is totally insane, that number is for the entire hemisphere, not just the US. Amerindians were far more densely populated in Latin America than the US. Update: Oh wait, I see you just misspelled the name here and gave the title earlier. VictorD7 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And a quick check of the source shows I'm right. The author is explicitly speaking about the "Western Hemisphere" and "Americas". That's not sufficient if our interest is pinning down specific estimates for the territory that would become the US. VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The stastitics refers to the post Columbian death toll (after 1492) for Native Americans. Remember the Spanish were in North America before the English. The Spanish were in Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas all before the English arrived at Jamestown. That is why we need to link Columbus and the date 1492. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, the issue isn't dates but geography.VictorD7 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Alas - the sources given (other than a high school text which does not give a source) do not seem to provide any basis for a claim that "millions" died as a result of settlements in the current United States. While the claim might be used in an article on general indegenous polulation in the Western Hemisphere, that is not quite the same as relating specifically to this article. We do not know, for example, what the disease was in Massachusetts which decimated the population before 1620, only that whatever it was, the Pilgrims had no immunity to it, so it was unlikely to have been a European plague of any sort. For Massachusetts at least we have Behind the Frontier: Indians in Eighteenth-Century Eastern Massachusetts and the like: This was in 1759. In the space of about three months, more than twenty of them died, all of the same disease, which was a putrid fever; it carried them off in a few days."73 The terrible tragedy wrought by the war is reflected in the dry statistics of the Vital Records. Mortality rates for Natick Indian males peaked after 1740, stayed high until the start of the war in 1755, and then immediately plummeted to their lowest levels. No male deaths are reported after the end of the war, suggesting that most of the adult men vanished in the war. Women and children at home were the victims of the 1759 epidemic: the deaths of women shot up from six in the previous half decade to eighteen, and the deaths of unnamed individuals, almost certainly children, went from one to nine. which suggests the numbers for death from disease were a tad modest. This book also calls "consumptive sickness" (tuberculosis?)[4] a major cause of Indian deaths in Eastern Massachusetts. Considering the conditions under which they lived, that seems not unreasonable for at least that one specific area of the current United States. In short, not a topic for which a "short answer" is feasible, and certainly not one based on a lack of sources. Collect (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert: VictorD7. That last time I checked Florida, the Carolinas, and Georgia are in north America and in present day United States. We have to accept the Spanish were in America before the English. 02:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The issue here isn't Europeans but Amerindians. The article text's preceding portion mentions the "U.S. mainland", therefore indicating that "millions" of Amerindians died there. Yet the only sources presented so far using the "millions" language refer to the entire hemisphere, not just the US mainland. Do you have a source that deals precisely with the Amerindians on the land that eventually became the US? VictorD7 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. European contact spread disease to the Native Americans. The Spanish were the first to contact Native Americans on the U.S. Mainland, not the British. Millions of Indians died from European diseases, especially small pox. Right now historians are concentrating on Amerindians as a whole group. That needs to be in the article. There was no United States until 1776. The United States was not Coast to Coast until 1850. France, Britain, and Spain controlled much of the continental U.S. If there are statistics on Indian depopulation on the U.S. continent then those can be used also. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And there were native diseases which killed many Europeans. Any time two groups meet, there will be cross-over both ways - that is how nature works. And there were many deaths due to inter-native wars - with much evidence being found. Now what precisely is your point? That smallpox is intrinsically racist? That venereal diseases are racist? That tuberculosis is racist? That unknown plages are racist? Or what? Collect (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, it sounds like you're advocating for a larger edit, and I'm not commenting on that. The discussion here is over numbers of Amerindian deaths in the US mainland. Do you have any sources justifying the "millions" language for the US mainland or not? VictorD7 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am advocating that Wikipedia use reliable sources. Cambell (2008), page 3 stated 48 million Amerindians died of disease. If you have a dispute with Cambell, that is not my problem. There was not a "continental United States" until 1912 when Arizona was admitted into the Union. The North American Continent was controlled by the British, France, Spain, and the United States. I can check to find a source that specifically states Amerindian deaths within the geography of what is now called the continental United States. Until then we need to use the Cambell (2008) source and any other sources that directly state millions of Amerindians died of disease. There seems to be an attempt by certain editors to minimize the impact of European disease on Amerindians. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. I have no problem with Campbell, but that book doesn't support the claim being made. The article currently refers to the "U.S. mainland", while the only sources you've produced for "millions" (including Campbell) refer to the entire hemisphere. The Wiki article currently reads, "The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland migrated from Asia beginning between 40,000 and 12,000 years ago.[40] Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that millions died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox." That the article is focusing on Amerindians in what's now the US is reinforced by the earlier intro segment reading, "Paleo-indians migrated from Asia to what is now the United States mainland around 15,000 years ago. After 1500, Old World diseases introduced by Europeans greatly reduced their populations. European colonization began around 1600 and came mostly from England." The intro segment sidesteps the numbers issue with vague wording, but the later use of "millions" is problematic, and so far you haven't supported it with sourcing, much less adequate sourcing. VictorD7 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. The best I could find on American Indian disease is in colonial England and that was after Prince Philip's war, no numbers were given. There was no United States in the 1600's. We have to go by time period rather then being confined by geographic location or borders of countries or territories. Cambell (2008) goes from a time period of 1492 to about 1700. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No one's claiming the US existed in the 1600s, but it's possible to discuss the territory that would eventually become the US, as this article and countless people routinely demonstrate. VictorD7 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe we can ignore the issue of the depopulation of Amerindians due to Western diseases if there is not specific source that pertains exactly with the United States current geographical boundaries. I am all for adding information on early British colonial and Spanish colonial America and any deaths of Amerindians caused by Western diseases. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What we do have is some books about individual colonies where the causes are enumerated -- and the biggest single cause is war, followed by what appears to be tuberculosis in early Massachusetts history. Historians also point out intermarriage as being a cause of reduction in numbers. By the way -- IIRC someone asserted that the Puritans haed the Indians -- but in 1663 the very first Bible printed in the Americas was printed in an Indian language in Massachusetts (The "Eliot Bible"). Collect (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying the depopulation should be ignored, just that the word "millions" may not accurately describe reality for the US mainland since the total population may not have been large enough there for "millions" to die from disease. VictorD7 (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "millions" has already been edited out. I believe mention of King Philips War needs to be mentioned in terms of the aftermath of death, disease, and slavery for Amerindians. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

King Philip's War

I added information and references on King Philip's War. This was the first major war between the English and Indians. Casualties were given. This war in essense set the trend for Anglo-Indian relations. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in the section below, if that's to remain then the segment needs to include more than just casualties. The war was started by various local Amerindian tribes and, judging by its scope and intensity, was apparently an attempt to destroy the colony. Also, the settlers lost women and children too, not just military men. VictorD7 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with what VictorD7 stated above. If we are to include a specific mention of this conflict, we should in a summarized way expand it to include those aspects that are presently left out, thus giving the reader a fuller understanding why we mentioned that conflict out of all the American Indian Wars.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with any expansion. The purpose of the edit was to add casualty numbers in order to show there was massive devastation on both sides. This war was the first major war between the English and the Puritans. We can put King Philip "started" the war as long as Wikipedia does not take sides on the Puritans or Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of CMs "trend" of warfare is that the English veterans brought the kinds tactics they saw in northern European service. In the Hundred-Years War the German principalities Protestant and Catholic had developed a brand of 'total' warfare against civilian populations in winter and the land itself. Metacom's War began when a consensus of Amerindian tribes would permit, in high war season, June.

Immediately effective was the Euros strategic advantage attacking in winter to destroy villages and food stocks, forcing the out-migration of all survivors before spring and evacuating a "buffer zone" for settler expansion the following year. In war years, the colonies typically redoubled efforts to attract fighting aged non-tradesmen with promises of land grants to surviving veterans. The Amerindian warfare traditionally extended from first thaw to first frost, alternately winter survival in each village took priority. Hence the fall "Indian summer" still used in American English idiom, -- the warm weeks after first frost when harvest could be got in without the Amerindian raids according to their customary traditional warfare. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the section in part to show that there was a gradual growth of hostilities between Puritans and Indians that culminated in King Philip's War. Apparently the Indians were reluctant to convert to Christianity or the Puritan form of Christianity. There was a definite clash of cultures. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And in the case of the Mohicans, there really was a "Last of the Mohicans". Once the Christianized Mohican tribe swore allegiance, whenever the Massachusetts British Governor asked them to war against the Iroquois, they answered the call. When Iroquois massacred Mohican villages, the British Governor might not find defending the Christian brother Mohicans convenient, so he would not. There really was a "Last of the Mohicans", the title of a book by James Fenimore Cooper, the first acknowledged "literature" from the New World by European critics. The point of the novel, you put it down and you do NOT say, I am the privileged backstabbing British officer who found some element of courage, you DO say, I am the last of the Mohicans, a man of integrity to all men of all races. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You left out what actually happened, namely that the war started when Amerindian tribes started attacking white towns. You just say hostilities happened and list casualties, along with dire consequences for the tribes after their defeat. Also, I'm not sure what "Euroamerican" is supposed to mean in the context of the 17th Century, but oh well. That paragraph has become such a train wreck that such language is low on the priority list. It's also funny that the segment on King Philip's War precedes specific discussion of the various colonist groups' first arrivals. VictorD7 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The content now seems too long, more characters are devoted to that one conflict than all other conflicts on this article. Perhaps that is too much.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. The Euroamericans, I believe, killed three Indians, and this is what set off King Philip to attack. War does not always have a simple cause. There was a build up of hostilities between the English and Indians. The Puritans had tried to Christianize the Indians, but the Indians did not fully accept Christianity. The two cultures could not exist side by side or tolerate each other. There was intoleration and lack of trust between both Puritans and Indians. Philip believed the being a Christian was a sign of weakness. The Puritans could not tolerate any other faith or philosophy. The Puritans attacked Merrymount community in addition to burning witches. I was going by the source referenced in the article. I can look up the exact "trigger" for the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I was first told the content needed to be expanded. Now I am told the content needs to be reduced. This was an important war for the Puritans because now the English controlled the continent or at least the North East part of the continent. In other words, the Puritans had to fight for the land from the Indians. The King Philips War was the foundational war for the beginings of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was also an inter-Indian war - and since intermarriage was widespread, the need to fight for land was problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A Christian Amerindian named John Sassamon, who had connections in both societies, warned the Puritans that King Philip was preparing to attack and was later found murdered. Another Christian Amerindian claimed to have witnessed the killing, and the three suspects were convicted by a jury consisting of both colonists and Amerindians and executed. Background is one thing. The section doesn't have room for much if any. The war started when various local tribes began attacking colonial towns. BTW, some Amerindians fought alongside the colonists as allies against King Philip. VictorD7 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, there is no need to state the over obvious. John Sassamon, a converted Indian, was killed by other Indians. The Puritans killed three Indians in retaliation. That is when King Philip launched the war. That was the trigger underneath a powder keg of misunderstanding and differences in faith mixed in with suspicion of each culture. POV is stating that the Indians all of sudden started killing the white Puritans. This was bound to happen. There were allot of Puritans who wanted any excuse to slaughter the Indians. I am sure King Philip was looking for any excuse to slaughter the Puritans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I love how after all that meandering, speculative, pc garbage, you claim that simply describing what happened--that the war started when local tribes started attacking colonial towns--is somehow "POV". VictorD7 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. Are you even reading what I am stating? Yes. The Indians attacked the Puritans. Yet the Puritans killed three Indians in retaliation for Indians killing and converted Indian. Underneath all of this was a powderkeg of misunderstandings and religious differences between the two cultures. Yes. It is POV to simply state that Indians started attacking Puritans. There were underlying issues behind the attacks, particularly the three killings of the Indians by the Puritans. There was in effect a chain reaction. Both the Puritans and Indians wanted to kill each other. The Indians believed they had the right to kill other Indians, John Sassamon, even though Sassamon was a Puritan convert. When the Purtians killed the three other Indians in retaliation, the Indians did not believe the Puritans had the right to kill the three Indians. And again all of this was a trigger underneath a powder keg of religious intoleration and misunderstandings by both the Indians and the Puritans. The Puritans had in good faith attempted to evangilize the Indians. King Philip did not want other Indians, i.e. Sassamon, to be converted. King Philip believed the Puritan faith was a weak. King Philip's war was started in part due to differences in religious practices between the two cultures. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

But the article leaves out the part where the actual war is described, presenting only your background wording and then skipping to casualties (Indians first) and dismal results for the Indians. Describing what happened in neutral language isn't POV. The current text leaves the impression that the colonists attacked the Amerindian tribes in a war of aggression to push them off their land, and, despite your detail level, no mention is made of the Puritans' Indian allies. Do you feel the Iraq war line is POV? After all, it just says "In 2003, the United States and several allied forces invaded Iraq to engineer regime change there." No background at all.

Actually, while I'd ideally prefer background and at least a brief description of the war, this segment seems really out of place in an article where WW2 and the American Revolution only get a few lines. No other war has casualty figures. It might be better to shorten it to one or two sentences and move it down to after the segments on the colony's arrival and early development (for the sake of chronological sanity). Maybe something along the lines of (rough suggestion):

"King Philip's War was a major attempt by a tribal coalition to destroy the Puritan colony, and was defeated with heavy losses on both sides, breaking tribal power in the region and becoming a formative event in shaping colonists' perception of Amerindians."

Possibly with a preceding line like: "Mostly peaceful relations between Puritans and Amerindians gradually deteriorated." VictorD7 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I again agree wiht VictorD7 here, this one early conflict is given far too much weight than any other conflict in the history section, except maybe for the Civil War section, and needs to be trimmed.

Please let us know what changes are made; I would rather this be collaborative rather than adversarial.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

KPW Edit Break

This was not a one sided affair and that is POV. The Puritans wanted to destroy the Indians and the Indians wanted to destroy the Puritans. This was the major battle that would settle who would control New England. This segment is not out of place. To deny that there was no King Philip's War is a lie. We can't compare KPW to other wars. This was a major Puritan versus Indian war. The POV is an attempt to make the Indians look like the bad guys. The colonists killed three Indians. This set off the war. Philip did not attack until after three Indians were killed by the Puritans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I added that King Philip attacked Puritan colonists and that the Puritans retaliated. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is of some contemporary significance that displaced Amerindians who fought on both sides eventually removed and found refuge not among their enemies the Iroquois to the west, they settled in William Penn's Pennsylvania. [aside] Penn's sons behaved badly, had Benjamin Franklin at one time lobbying in London coffee houses for Pennsylvania to become a royal colony.

Article text, 'resoundingly', may be a little wp:puffery. idunno. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not against the reduction of the article text. However, the context needs to be kept. I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. The KPW opened the door for American expansion and settled the matter that the Euroamericans would take over the continent. This war has the same signifigance as Cortez taking over the Aztecs. One hundred years later the United States would form and move westward. The other signifigance is that the Indians for the most part would not accept Christianity. The two cultures were destined to clash with each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777: "To deny that there was no King Philip's War is a lie." Okaaaay. Double negative aside, no one's denying the war happened, but you didn't answer my question or address my points. Do you think the Iraq War line...and for that matter the WW2 segment...both of which just briefly described what happened as I proposed we do here, without delving into background like Iraqi ceasefire violations or explaining why the US violated its neutrality to help the Allies or why Japan suddenly attacked Pearl Harbor (out of the blue?) are POV? Also, in depth or not, shouldn't the King Philip's War segment, covering a specific event and not broadly describing centuries of interaction, be placed in logical chronological order? After all, it'd be tough to fight the Puritans before they arrived. VictorD7 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, the Puritans arrived in the 1620's. The first generation had passed and the second took over. The second was obviously more agressive then the first and the same could be stated of the "second" Indian generaation under King Philip. The chronology is in order. The KPW was highly signifigant since the Euroamericans had established control and expanded New England. The Indians lost. Correction: "To deny the King Philip's War is a lie". Iraq, Japan, and Pearl Harbor have nothing to do with KPW so I can't respond to your query. I can reduce the segment by combining possibly three sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

By "chronology", I'm referring to the segment's placement in the text. It currently precedes not just the Puritans' arrival but the Spanish arrival! The questions about the Iraq and WW2 lines are relevant for establishing precisely why you feel my above proposal is supposedly "POV". VictorD7 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I can move the sentence to the beginning of the King Philip's War information sentences. VictorD7, what does WWII and the Iraq War have anything to do with King Philip's War. Iraq was fought in Iraq, while in WWII this war was fought in Europe and Asia. Hawaii was a territory at the time and the Japanese struck with planes. The article would be a complete lie if there was no mention of hostilities between Indians and Puritans. The Indians and Puritans fought for the land that would become the United States. We can't compare the signifigance of WWII, the Iraq War, and King Philip's War in terms of relevance for the article. These wars are seperated by times and peoples. There was no United States in 1675, as has been stated before. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is King Philip's War important, because our nation was founded on war and slavery. The English were slavers. Even Isaac Newton invested in the "South Sea" slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

King Phillip's War is important, but not for that. The US is founded on ideas of self-governing community and individual liberty. You have observed that there was war, but all did not war, and some would not. War was not one an idea that founded the US, else Quakers would be excluded, and religious liberty was one of the US founding ideas. After initial squatters accepted by Amerindians, most settlers moving to frontier lands believed they held lawful title, their idea was to family farm and defend five acres, not war.

You have observed that there was slavery, but slavery was not an idea that founded the US, regions of the greatest populations had family farms without slavery, land with slavery was abandoned every two generations or so. But the US was founded on majority rule with ever-expanding democracy, in places of political community --- it was not founded on slave-power interior deserts of exhausted depopulated lands. That lie is so old, Lincoln looked up the facts reported in the Lincoln-Douglas debates: A majority of slave-holding representatives of the founding generation voted in Congress to end the international slave trade January 1, 1808 -- the first instant permitted under the US Constitution. Englishmen Newton, Swift and Defoe invested to sell slaves to Spanish colonies. More non-sequitur wp:madeup imaginary America disruption of this Talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

TVH, there were 500,000 slaves in the United States in 1776 according to Eric Foner. By 1810 there were a million slaves in the United States. Slaves were considered property. The Constitution stated that this property counted for 3/5 person. This enabled the South to have and advantage in electing the President of the United States. 4 out 5 first Presidents were from Virginia. That is slave power since the House was controlled by the slave holding gentry due to the 3/5 clause. The last I checked Americans killed British soldiers on the battlefield. The U.S. had to fight for their freedom known as the Revolutionary War. Our first President, George Washington, was a general in the Continental Army. In addition to King Philip's War, there was also the French Indian war. Even during the Revolutionary war, Washington ordered attacks on Indians to clear the land for Americans in the West. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

TVH, prior to the Civil War, all five Presidents who served two full terms in office were from the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

CMG, please see WP:NOTADVOCATE. Wikipedia, especially the article page, is not a place to push a POV (see WP:NEU). The content has been given far too much weight and the words above

Why is King Philip's War important, because our nation was founded on war and slavery.

betray the purpose of giving this event undue weight. I was previously assuming good faith, but with the statement above, I do not believe that the content, as it now stands is appropriate for this article.

As VD7, and TVH have stated, a brief statement about the event, one or two very short paragraphs might be appropriate, but this overly detailed summary is not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not expressed POV. There have been countless books written on the Revolutionary War. Americans fought for their freedom from the British crown. Eric Foner stated that slavery was embedded in the Constitution particulary the 3/5 clause and the fugitive slave clause. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As a U.S. citizen I honor this Memorial Day Weekend the 8,000 American patriot soldiers who died in battle to give the colonial states independence from Britain during the American Revolutionary War . If that is POV, then I don't know what POV is. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, you're the one here who is pushing POV. As others have observed, you're also throwing out non sequiturs like rice at a wedding, and you never did come close to answering my question. VictorD7 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced the weight of the content, while retaining all the sources (which were added without availability of a url for others to review on the internet (not a requirement, but helpful for other editors to verify)). This reduces that paragraph to 95 words/610 characters more inline with the size of other paragraphs in that section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, with all due respect, I dont have to answer any of your questions. This is not an inquisition. I made good faith edits in regards to KPW with reliable references. I can't compare WWII and the Iraq War with the KPW since the United States did not exist yet. Remember, New England was the property of the King of England, whom the King could charter land to companys or people. The KPW is signfigant because the Puritans gained control and expanded New England. The foundations of the country were being set, in this case, war had to settle the disputes between Puritans and Indians. "Founded on war" is not meant to be controversial, but a historical observation. Sometimes disputes can't be settled by treatys, good intentions, or legislation. War is the only alternative. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter if the US had been founded yet or we're talking about the North American continent at all? Are you not allowed to comment on whether you find post 1776 war descriptions "POV"? VictorD7 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And why do editors insist on unsourced POV? CMG imagines the US is “based on” slavery and war. The engine of democracy in the US republic ended slavery. British slavery was about 160 years, the Constitution's about 75 years, slavery ended about 160 years ago. At the Constitution, those held in slavery were not counted for owners power as equal to free men in the House, --- but free blacks in New York were counted. Pro slavers were national minorities, beginning with abolishing international slave trade within 20 years. In another 40 years, no new "slave" states were admitted: 1846-1861 saw six new "free-soil" states. CMG describes personally tragic circumstances benefiting only the privileged few in a backward region --- it is made morally peculiar, economically marginalized, permanently a minority, numerically minimalized, then abolished, --- so slavery is hardly the "basis" for the US.

Washington attacked Amerindians who were warring allies of the British at war with the US. As president Washington met with Alexander McGillivray for peace, but the Creek Nation threw in with the British again at 1812 as it had in the Revolution. It is customary among nations that making war on one another abrogates previous treaties. Amerindians were not innocent babes in the woods, nor inept victims. They were nations of warriors who faced down larger European populations, armies and technologies --- more effectively and longer than populations on any other continent of world history, --- in that century or any other, yes? --- Despite some good contributions previously, CMG at this turn of the discussion just offers more unsourced wp:madeup America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

More accurate picture

The existing statement on the U.S. page (posted above) gives us a very skewed and narrow picture. As soon as it mentions contact between the two contrasting civilizations, Indians and Europeans, it goes right into 'depopulation', 'genocide' 'war', 'disease'. etc. Aside from passing mention of "intermarriage", it doesn't mention anything else about the meeting of these two civilizations, the cultural exchange nor anything about the many Indians and settlers who got along, traded with and helped each other. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) -- Given modern day stigmas and other distortions about "whites" and Indians the existing statement easily leads the naïve reader into thinking that settlers just flooded into the continent and set off on a campaign of shooting poor helpless fish in a barrel. We need to do more than just remove a word, "genocide". We need to paint the entire picture. We can begin by introducing new drafts, in brief summary form at this stage, whose basic themes can be expanded on once they have been established and cited. Let's try to keep commentary separate and not mixed in with proposed drafts.

• Upon the arrival of European settlers, explorers and traders to the new world various settlements were established, trade occurred and a cultural exchange resulted. (To be expanded) Soon after disputes over land use occurred between some settlers and tribes, often resulting in deadly conflict resulting in great losses of life between Indians and settlers. (to be expanded) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on proposed drafts

I agree/disagree with Gwillhickers' draft because ...

• Agree with principle and start. While keeping in mind that this the United States page and not the Amerindian page, lest we lose focus and get carried away, the article is currently missing some key elements. At some point we should say something about assimilation. VictorD7 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree. As the writer of the content, I only used the reliable sources that I could find online. My attempt was not to push a POV but only state in a summarize style what the reliable sources that I found said were some of the causes of the decline of population of Native Americans. If we look at the multitude of reliable sources (including the ones already used in the article) that verify genocide occurred, to not use the word would sidestepping what has been verified by those reliable sources. The word, or using other words to describe the population decrease, can be argued by both sides as falling under WP:EUPHEMISM; so I am neutral as to rewording to meet consensus, but if this is done it is my opinion that the reliable sources should not be removed from this article (which one has already been deleted, as the diff is linked above by someone else).

The first sentence of the proposed draft, could be added, but given the multitude of reliable sources that verify that a population decrease occurred, it should not be sidestepped, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. The original version in more comprehensive and does mention that Indian population declined. I thought that original intent of Gwillhickers was to remove the word "genocide". The above edit is going beyong the scope of Gwillhickers original intention. Why not only remove the word "genocide" from the original sentence without changing the whole sentence context. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Origninal Version: "After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, it is estimated that their population declined due to various reasons, including diseases such as smallpox and measles, intermarriage, genocide and warfare with European explorers and colonists, as well as between the indigenous peoples." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why are you only interested in 'depopulation'?? MUCH more occurred "after European explorers and traders made the first contacts..." -- Why are you not interested in giving the readers the whole picture here? There are plenty of works and RS's to do this with. We will of course speak of overall population decline over 100's of years, for reasons discussed, without "genocide", but this doesn't mean that 'depopulation' is the only thing we should relate to the readers. What is your problem with that? As sources go, and since there are many, we need to stay away from one's that go so far as to use terms like "Holocaust", esp in the title. If you insist on using terms like "genocide" and "holocaust" then we will have to make it clear that the Indians committed "genocide" and conducted a "holocaust" on other Indians and on settlers also. We can start with the Sioux and mention the various Indian nations they almost wiped out entirely. Also, why are not half breed Indians considered and counted as Indians, esp since most remained in Indian societies? Obama is half white, but he is considered black. When terrorists and enemy combatants were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan they were counted as "civilian deaths" by activists and other individuals with multiple issues. What a shell game. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is my view that the statement

as well as between the indigenous peoples.

makes it clear the the population reduction occurred due to actions by some Native American populations upon other Native American populations as well. The source that was removed by the above editor verifies that Native Americans did play a role (in warring with other Native Americans) in the overall population reduction of Native Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We should remove "genocide" regardless. I see this as a separate issue. I'm also not opposed to emphasizing Amerindian population decline, though, as by far the most salient cause, disease should have primacy in the text, as it used to. I see no reason not to add at least a line or two about topics other than displacement or population decline, as long as we don't overdo it and threaten to turn this into the North America page rather than the United States page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Agree. We need to keep things brief and give a general overview of the American Indian and give equal weight to the various topics. The American Indian impacted American culture, and vise-versa, greatly. Much went on between the two civilizations besides war and disease. These things deserve mention to the same brief extent as 'depopulation', such that it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The thing about removing the word Genocide, is that there are multiple reliable sources (which I had previously linked a search verifying that fact), two of which are presently used in the article, that specifically use the word to describe the actions of both non-Native American combatants and Native American combatants against their opposing parties.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

While it would be interesting to ponder the meaning of "reliable source" when we're discussing opinionated, even inflammatory language, it's not necessary since sources say countless things and only an infinitesimal percentage ends up in the article, as is currently illustrated by the fact that the page makes no mention of Benjamin Franklin, nor does it mention "genocide" in relation to WW2 or any other context. The term has no widely agreed on definition and its use in this abbreviated context doesn't convey any useful, factual information. VictorD7 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point I am happy to agree to disagree with the above editor. That being said I would not be opposed to inclusion of a mention of Benjamin Franklin in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)