Talk:Genocides in history

Needs a better title

Better title would be Genocides, democides and alleged genocides and democides in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.183.18 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Formatting and linking

I have cleaned up this article again because it seems that a bunch of my edits were incorrectly reverted. Here are my edits:

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, for quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics.
• remove date links
• remove repeated links (e.g., "genocide") and links to plain English words per WP:REPEATLINK (e.g., nation, disease)
• remove boldface per WP:BOLDFACE
• spell out acronyms (like PKK) on first use per WP:MOS
• use a person's first and last name the first time he/she is mentioned (Tito, Obote, Mao)

Ground Zero (talk) 29 November 2010

Genocide by smallpox exposed blankets? Urban myth or documented fact?

The article says: Smallpox-exposed blankets given as gifts at Fort Pitt were part of one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare

This story of native people being killed by exposure to smallpox exposed blankets seems to pop up in relation to a lot of early explorers, but it has a few problems:

• The germ theory of disease wasn't generally accepted until the 1880s. So how would colonists prior to that time have thought of using germs to kill natives? They didn't know what caused smallpox.
• It wouldn't have worked anyway. Smallpox can't generally be spread by infected blankets. Smallpox spreads directly from person to person via aerosols coughed out by a victim, not by contact with infected objects.
• There are only a few suspected instances of transmission of smallpox via linen, and they are controversial since it wasn't proven that the victims weren't exposed to the disease through the air.
• The smallpox virus can be inactivated by ordinary laundering or exposure to sunlight. Just hanging the blankets out in the sun would have killed any smallpox virus on them.

See CDC: Questions and Answers About Infection Control and Isolation of Smallpox Patients and WHO: Infected inanimate objects (fomites) and their role in transmission of smallpox

I'm just putting it out there that this idea appears to be something of an urban myth, and should have been vetted before going into an article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a myth; it's been well-established fact for some time. If something you read in Wikipedia seems odd to you, the best thing to do is examine the source citation after the information. The information you quoted happens to be heavily cited to high-quality, reliable sources:

• David Dixon (2005). Never Come to Peace Again: Pontiac's Uprising and the Fate of the British Empire in North America. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 152–155. ISBN 978-0-8061-3656-1. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
• Michael N. McConnell (1997). A Country Between: The Upper Ohio Valley and Its Peoples, 1724-1774. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 195–196. ISBN 0-8032-8238-9. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
• Gregory Evans Dowd (2004). War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Empire. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-8018-7892-3. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
• William R. Nester (2000). "Haughty Conquerors": Amherst and the Great Indian Uprising of 1763. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-275-96770-3. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
• Francis Jennings (1990). Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies, and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America. Norton. pp. 447–448. ISBN 978-0-393-30640-8. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

If you don't want to do the heavy reading, this is an excellent summary.

As for your personal theories, germ theory has been around since the 16th century, even if not universally accepted until the 19th century. Of course smallpox can be spread by exposed items, for almost 3 weeks - the CDC says so. And of course, there are the documents from the individuals themselves, explaining their intent and actions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And here is an analysis that indicates there is some academic fraud here. I hate all the academic fraudsters running rampant on the Internet. See Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Fraud here? The only mention he makes of the incident is to say this: ... the Lord Amherst affair of 1763, in which there is compelling evidence that British colonial forces distributed smallpox-infested goods to Indians in New England. So I think citing Brown undermines your theory, unless you meant that this analysis which indicates Mr. Brown's analysis is fraud, supports your point? Welcome to the internet. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Through the miracle of Googling the Internet, I discovered that in 2007 the University of Colorado found Professor Churchill guilty of academic misconduct, including plagiarism and research misconduct, and fired him for cause. See: Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill. It's a real dog's breakfast of things unethical researchers do. He stands convicted of not reading his sources and just making things up whenever he felt like it. My favorite is him publishing things under his wife's name, and then quoting himself as a reference without mentioning that it is his wife he is citing, never mind the fact he wrote it in the first place. Naughty, naughty, naughty. Anyhow, read the report. Facts are facts. You can reinterpret them, but you can never make them go away, especially on the Internet.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Through the miracle of reading, you'll see that the issue we are discussing — The 1763 incident of biological warfare at Fort Pitt — is not cited to Churchill. And even if it were cited to him, his scholarship on the matter isn't contested. So you climbed up on a soapbox to shout "fraud", citing an essay that doesn't even address the smallpox incident - except to say that it happened? And now you continue to march down that irrelevant trail, declaring that someone not cited in this article, who was accused of academic misconduct on matters not at all relevant to this article, and was fired - and this supports what here, exactly? (And just FYI, Jury Says Professor Was Wrongly Fired, but this isn't the venue for such off-topic rambling.) Google is very powerful and useful indeed, but one must be able to read in order to benefit by its use. Enjoy your breakfast, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Through the miracle of reading, I actually read some of the references, (unlike Prof. Churchill who allegedly didn't read his references... and the jury was overturned by the courts but appeals are ongoing through the miracle of the American legal system). If you do so, you'll find that in 1763 the smallpox epidemic was already running wild, decimating both Europeans and Indians, and had started before the alleged blanket incident. Dixon (2005):

In 1762, during negotiations with the Indians at Easton one observer noticed that the Indian agent had "the pox so badly that he can't live long ..."

and also

The most probable source of the smallpox epidemic that struck the Indians during the late summer of 1763 was not British perfidy but the Indians themselves, who contracted the disease while raiding isolate wilderness settlements.

Basically, I'm saying the blanket theory isn't credible because it wouldn't have worked on scientific grounds, regardless of British intentions. At that early date, neither the British nor the Indians knew what caused smallpox (a virus), and both were being killed by it indiscriminately. Theories about intentions are somewhat moot. The Indians got smallpox because one of them was coughed at by a Brit who had smallpox, not because the British intended it. Neither of them knew enough to control an epidemic.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the jury wasn't "overturned" (juries don't get overturned), but the monetary award Churchill never asked for was vacated by the judge, and according to the same judge, the University had quasi-judicial immunity (read: loophole), so he was SOL on getting his job back. Even the American Legal system can't stop political witch hunts. Irrelevant. I've read Dixon. (I put that ref there, in fact.) And I also put in the refs that shred Dixon's apologetics and theories completely, including demonstrating that Dixon's "already there" example was over 100 miles away. I'm not sure what "blanket theory" you refer to; we're not getting into anything theoretical here. As for the simple facts: gentlemen at Fort Pitt gave blankets and a handkerchief (wrapped in a linen), from their hospital full of pox-infected people, to a couple native emissaries for the express purpose of conveying smallpox to them. Yes, they actually wrote that reason in their ledger. That alone is the required genocidal intent, regardless of whether the tainted gifts successfully killed 10,000 natives or not. Did some natives also get the pox from Brits coughing on them? It wouldn't surprise me, but that has nothing to do with what this article is about. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, for a more detailed rundown on not only the genocidal attempts, but the subsequent attempts to cover it up, and even attempts to bury or rewrite the historical record of such events, you can read Siege of Fort Pitt. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that my analysis indicates this incident falls heavily into the urban legend category.

1. The timing (1763) was around a century before the germ theory of disease was proven. Prior to the work of Louis Pasteur, around 1850, people did not know what caused smallpox, and did not really know how it spread.
2. The WHO document indicates that the method (dirty blankets) probably would not have worked. The British might have thought that it would, but they were wrong.
3. The Dixon document indicates that the dirty blanket method did not work in reality. The Indians did not get smallpox from infected blankets, they got it by face to face contact with infected white settlers.

People have been spreading this story and calling it genocide, but it is more a case of attempted germ warfare by people who don't know anything about germs. The net effect was sort of like attempting to murder someone by giving them dirty socks for Christmas. (Redacted) I've seen similar things pop up in articles elsewhere, but they suffer from similar credibility problems: Nobody at that time knew enough about germs to do germ warfare, and the method people think was used wouldn't work in a real war. If terrorists want to use smallpox as a biological weapon, they are going to have to use something like an aerosol bomb. The CDC has more info on their web site. The problem with stories of this sort is they sound credible, and get people disturbed and upset, but in reality they are not credible. People who don't know just think they sound real and repeat them over and over, which is how urban legends get started. Just watch Mythbusters on TV for innumerable examples.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that my analysis indicates...

That's fine. Just as soon as your analysis is published in a reliable source, we can consider using it to modify our Wikipedia articles. And as I said above, reading carefully is important (i.e.; Dixon never indicates that the genocide "did not work", but he certainly did his darndest to raise doubt about its success, in his defense of the genocide attempts). I enjoyed our discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Dixon does go on at great length about how the perfidious plot failed to work.

Having established that it was deliberate policy to infect the Indians with smallpox, it is also important to examine whether the plan succeeded. An undetermined number of Indians did become infected with smallpox at some point during the war. Much less certain, however, is how the Indians contracted the disease.

-----

Ironically, the evidence most often cited by historians to prove treachery is the statements of Killbuck and Hicks. While these two accounts indicate that smallpox devastated the Ohio Country people, they also disclosed that the epidemic was not likely not caused by Ecuyer's distribution of infected blankets.

-----

On July 26, a full month after Turtle's Heart and Maumaultee received the infected blankets from Captain Ecuyer, the same two chiefs once again appeared before the fort to parley. Since the incubation period for smallpox is about two weeks, these two Indian leaders should have exhibited the full range of symptoms...

-----

Although it is plausible that both chiefs had at one time already contracted smallpox and acquired immunity, it is more likely that Ecuyer's attempt to spread the disease failed. (p. 154)

And, in the broader context it should be noted that the British commanders were overruled from the top that same year. King George III signed the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which forbade all settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains and gave Ohio Country to the Indians. He also said colonists could only get land from Indians by signing a treaty and paying fair market value. The American Revolution changed that in the US, but in Canada, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is still the law. The courts have ruled compliance is not optional. Otherwise the Indians still own the land. Anybody in Canada who didn't pay for Indian land over the last few centuries is having to pay up now, and the asking prices are getting well into the high billion$$$.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your Dixon quotes, I again note that he never indicates that the genocide "did not work", but he certainly did his darndest to raise doubt about its success, in his defense of the genocide attempts.

gave Ohio Country to the Indians!

Thanks for the levity. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dixon said,

it is more likely that Ecuyer's attempt to spread the disease failed.

which I took as meaning "it did not work".

As for the Royal Proclamation of 1763, there isn't much levity involved. I used to work as a business analyst in the Land Department of a Canadian oil company and know a lot about Indian land claims. Unlike the US, the Royal Proclamation was never revoked in Canada, so it was ALWAYS illegal to steal Indian land in Canada. In fact it has been grandfathered into the Canadian constitution, so it cannot be overridden by any law. Fortunately, in most of Canada, Queen Victoria signed the numbered treaties, so the Indians got paid for their land in blankets and horses. Unfortunately, in British Columbia the provincial government thought they were playing by American rules and didn't sign any treaties for over 100 years. That created what lawyers call a title defect in ownership of most of the land in BC. A title defect is

...any irregularity in the chain of title of property (usually real property) that would give a reasonable person pause before accepting a conveyance of title.

British Columbia is significantly larger than Texas, so this is a lot of land whose title is clouded. The Indians have their own lawyers nowadays, so they are claiming they still own it all, and they have a valid legal case.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

...which I took as meaning "it did not work".

Well, that one is on you. Speculating that one thing is "more likely" than another thing doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the fact that his arguments have subsequently been challenged and found to be deficient just makes his speculation even less relevant. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

United States: Genocide of Natives

The Genocide of Natives section led with the following sentence:

Authors, such as David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide.

That content is only from one half of that discussion, which goes against our editing conventions. For balance, I added the following sentence after the lead sentence:

While other authors, such as Holocaust scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy, reject the label of genocide and views the depopulation of Native Americans as "not a crime but a tragedy".(Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?)

Editor Xenophrenic (talk) pointed out that the article now had a duplicate "not a crime but a tragedy” quote from Guenter Lewy. His preference was to delete my entry in favor of keeping this version, which appeared in the “Americas” section:

Holocaust scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy rejects the label of genocide and views the depopulation of the Americas as "not a crime but a tragedy.:

I pointed out the fallacy in his action. The source’s context is very specific. It is only about American Indians (i.e Native Americans within the current border of the continental USA). Nothing in the source mentions the rest of the "Americas" (i.e. Canada, Mexico, South America, etc…).

Therefore, I removed the duplicate from the “Americas” section and properly reinstated my original addition to the Genocide of natives within the United States section. This was done in order to balance that discussion (which goes along with our editing conventions). Also, removing the duplicate from the "Americas" section did not alter the character of that section.

Oddly, Xenophrenic deleted my entry yet again. He modified the sentence and placed it in the “Americas” section. His modified version is,

Political scientist Guenter Lewy rejects the label of genocide and views the depopulation of the native Americans as "not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values.”

There are two issues:

1. The replacement of, “Holocaust scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy...” with “political scientist Guenter Lewy...” His standing as a Holocaust scholar is an important distinction considering this page is about genocide.
2. The sentence was moved to the section that benefits from it the least. The source is specifically about genocide of Native Americans. It makes better sense for it to balance the Genocide of Natives within the United States section. Moving it out of the “Americas” section doesn’t change the character of that section. Adding it to the "Genocide of Natives within the United States" section completes the content from both halves of that discussion, which goes along with our editing conventions.

I moved to revert the "United States: Genocide of Natives" section to lead with,

Authors, such as David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide. While other authors, such as Holocaust scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy, reject the label of genocide and views the depopulation of Native Americans as "not a crime but a tragedy".(Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?) OoflyoO (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You mistakenly labeled your content move as per WP:BRD (which means that you would have reverted to pre-June 16, when the problematic was first introduced). If you'd like to revert to that version while the problematic edits are discussed, we can certainly do that.

I removed "Holocaust scholar" from the intro to Lewy because I didn't see that in the cited Commentary source (or evidence of scholarship in that field on his Wikipedia page), although he has written some regarding it.

I also expanded Lewy's quote to be more complete, and I replaced "the Americas" with "native American" per your expressed concern about that wording. There is significant content under the "Americas" section (Lewy included) that also applies to the more specific "United States" subsection; would you have any objections to moving that content along with the Lewy sentence? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The problematic was realized on your revert notes on 07:48, 22 June 2016 and following steps were taken to remedy‎. Therefore, I WP:BRD to the post before that revert.

Fair point on removing “Holocaust scholar” and I no longer consider that one of the issues.

I am not interested in changing the character of the “Americas” section.

At this point, my concern is balancing out the “Genocide of Natives” leading sentence with the Lewy source as follows:

Authors, such as David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide. While other authors, such as Guenter Lewy, reject the label of genocide and views the depopulation of Native Americans as "not a crime but a tragedy".(Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?)

Another alternative is to remove the following sentence from “Genocide of Natives”

Authors, such as David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide.

Will you agree to that alternative? OoflyoO (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "balancing" one sentence with another, as the debate around genocide of native Americans certainly isn't a 50/50 situation. But it is true that there has been at least some argumentation against describing the destruction of the native population as genocide, so there should be something there. The Lewy sentence you proposed doesn't really tell the reader anything (other than some guy named Lewy doesn't think the tragedy should be called "genocide"). I've temporarily moved the Cesarani sentence from the "US" sub-section to the "America" section, while I work on expanding the content about the academic debate in the US and other subsections. You are welcome to help, of course. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion, as the debate is 50/50 as far as reasoning goes. And, the Cesarani sentence doesn't really tell the reader anything either (other than some guy named Cesarani thinks the tragedy should be called "genocide"). Your opinion on the matter is very obvious. Still, you have to make sure to avoid pushing one side over the other. Otherwise a balance is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OoflyoO (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You should read the Cesarani sentence more carefully, and you'll discover that not only does he think the tragedy constitutes genocide, it further explains that the reason is because of the United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny. As for my "opinion"? I don't have one; I can only go by what reliable sources tell me. And while you are reading, you should brush up on Wikipedia Policy regarding the difference between what you think is "balance" and what is WP:FALSEBALANCE: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If Mr. Lewy is "just some guy", then so is Cesarani. I think Mr. Lewy's view is a significant viewpoint and not a minor one. OoflyoO (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Lewy's view is that there is just one Holocaust or genocide, and describing anything else by those terms is something to be argued against. Also, I never said Lewy's view wasn't significant. I said: The Lewy sentence you proposed doesn't really tell the reader anything (other than some guy named Lewy doesn't think the tragedy should be called "genocide"). It doesn't convey to our readers anything about Lewy's view. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this hypothetical genocide from the aboriginal side. Fortunately the aboriginal peoples have their own web sites now. I must warn you I'm Canadian, not American, and I've talked to the Blackfeet about their history, so be prepared from some disconnects from the more common US delusional systems of history.

THE BLACKFEET NATION

Like so many of the Great Plains tribes, the Blackfeet originally lived far to the east in the area north of the Great Lakes. It is thought they even ranged as far east as Labrador. Therefore, anthropologists sometimes classify them in prehistory as one of the eastern woodlands tribes.

(Many native people have the myth that they have always been where they are, but they all came from somewhere else. The Blackfeet know where they came from.)

After arrival of the Europeans along the Eastern seashore in the 1600's it is believed that the Blackfeet were probably one of the first tribes to begin moving west. Pushed westward, initially by their traditional enemies, the Cree, the Blackfeet soon were roaming over the huge portion of the northern plains from northern Saskatchewan and central Alberta to the Rockies, the head waters of the Missouri...

• 1700's Blackfeet probably living in valley of the Northern Saskatchewan River near the Eagle Hills in Canada. Hunt buffalo on foot with bows and arrows.
• 1730 Blackfeet attacked by Shoshone who are on horseback. First time the Blackfeet have seen horses which they call "elk dogs."
• 1730-50 Blackfeet acquired their first horses in peaceful trade with their neighbors, the Flathead, Kootenai, and Nez Perce.
• 1780 Hudson Bay Company builds Buckingham House on the Saskatchewan River in Canada, reaching Blackfeet country. Blackfeet obtain guns through trade.
• 1781 Small pox epidemic sweeps through Blackfeet country, killing hundreds.
• 1780-1805 Blackfeet almost exterminate the Shoshone in battles over hunting territory
• 1787 Blackfeet warriors journey south toward Santa Fe. Encounter Spanish miners and steal their horses.

All of these new items produced a technical and cultural revolution for the Blackfeet. Furthermore, they soon became perhaps the best horsemen of all the Great Plains Indian nations. They rapidly and aggressively expanded their territory by pushing the Shoshone to the southwestern corner of Montana Territory and pushing the Flathead and Kootenai across the Continental Divide into the western valleys of the territory. By 1780, there were as many as 15,000 members of the Blackfeet Nation.

(At this point in time, the Blackfeet had largely pushed out their enemies, and were in total control of the plains. Instead of having walk everywhere with only dogs to carry their goods and bows and arrows to shoot buffalo, they had horses to ride and guns to shoot game. Life became much better for them because of the European invasion. A few hundred had been killed by smallpox, but where's the genocide? But then ...)

In 1855, the hostility between the Blackfeet and the U.S. government culminated in the Baker Massacre. This incident was precipitated by a band of Piegans having killed a prominent settler, Malcolm Clark, outside of Helena in the Fall of 1869. The army decided to retaliate that winter, so Colonel E.M. Baker departed from Fort Shaw and went north to the Marias River and in a surprise attack on January 23, 1870, killed almost all of Heavy Runner's band--mostly women and children who were ill with smallpox.

Even though, in 1880-1881, the Blackfeet still had some successful buffalo hunts, their staff of life had been virtually eliminated. By the winter of 1882, the Blackfeet were destitute. They were forced suddenly to rely on their enemy, the U.S. government. That winter more than 600 Blackfeet died of starvation. In 1877, the Bloods and the north Blackfeet signed a Treaty Number Seven with the Canadian government, restricting them to designated reservations in Alberta. The Piegan Blackfeet remained south of the 49th parallel, occupying part of the vast reservation north of the Missouri and Marias rivers.

Note that the Canadian situation was different from the US because of what they called the "medicine line" - the 49th parallel beyond which the US cavalry would not pursue them because the Canadian police would have stopped them and taken their guns away. (And, I know Americans will say, "No, Canadians wouldn't have dared to fight American soldiers". Yes they would have.) Their real problem was not smallpox but that the buffalo disappeared and they had to negotiate treaties just to get enough food to survive. Many people blame the disappearance of the buffalo on the white buffalo hunters, but there were few white hunters on the Canadian side of the border but the buffalo disappeared anyway - in fact, they disappeared on the Canadian side first. So - who killed the buffalo? My guess is that it was the Blackfeet. We shouldn't have given them guns and horses because we should have known they would kill off all the buffalo with them. You can call it genocide, but I call it just not being aware of consequences. It was kind of like giving American civilians assault rifles, to be provocative about it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I have a fair understanding of your position as you've expressed it above:

... this hypothetical genocide ... peoples have their own web sites now ... common US delusional systems of history ... Life became much better for them because of the European invasion ... where's the genocide? ... who killed the buffalo? My guess is ... You can call it genocide, but I call it ...

So if I have this straight, it is your opinion that academic descriptions of genocide are "hypothetical" (although I have yet to see you actually engage those arguments); anybody can have a website (you even linked to a dubious one that claims a massacre was caused by events 14 years in the future); US history is "delusional"; the last surviving indigenous peoples should thank the European invaders for making life "much better"; it was the natives, not the colonists, that caused the buffalo to nearly disappear; you acknowledge you don't know where the genocide argument comes from; and lastly, you apparently think what I "call it", or what you "call it", matters in some way with regard to Wikipedia article improvement (hint: our articles should reflect what reliable sources say, not what you or I "guess"). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I use the phrase, "hypothetical" is because this article says things like, "A 2010 study suggests that a group of Anasazi in the American Southwest were killed in a genocide that took place circa 800 CE", which implies the Anasazi were wiped out. However, if you go and talk to the descendants of the Anasazi, they strongly disagree. Also, they don't like the word, "Anasazi" because it was a Navajo word meaning "Ancient Enemy", and they prefer to use "Ancestral Puebloans" instead. Other people believe that it was prolonged drought and starvation that caused them to abandon their settlements and chop up their neighbors for food. The article also said, "Smallpox-exposed blankets given as gifts at Fort Pitt were part of one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare." I did some research into germ warfare, and discovered that smallpox can't be spread by this method. If you are going to use it as a biological weapon, you need to aerosolize it, which you can't do with blankets. Also, I saw a documentary last night about the Battle of the Belly River between the Cree and the Blackfoot, narrated by a native person. Apparently the Cree Indians believed the white man's rumor that the Blackfoot had nearly been wiped out by smallpox, so they send a band of warriors to finish them off. Well, it turned out the rumors were false - only one band of Blackfoot had been decimated, and the rest of them were healthy. So it turned into a rerun of Custer's Last Stand with no white men involved. The entire Blackfoot Confederacy, including the Blackfoot, Blood, and Peigan tribes descended on the Cree and wiped out almost all of them. Only 4 or 5 Cree warriors survived. So, the stories of white genocide against Indians are often not as accurate as some think. (But then there's Indian genocide against Indians.)RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy (talk), what is you position regarding the Lewy sentence that was moved out of the "Genocide of Natives" section to the “Americas” section when the source is specifically about genocide of Native Americans. I believe it makes better sense for it to balance the Genocide of Natives within the United States section. Moving it out of the “Americas” section doesn’t change the character of that section. Adding it to the "Genocide of Natives within the United States" section completes the content from both halves of that discussion, which goes along with our editing conventions.

I prefer this in the lead of "Genocide of Natives within the United States" section:

Authors, such as David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide. While other authors, such as scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy, reject the label of genocide and views the depopulation of Native Americans as "not a crime but a tragedy".(Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?) OoflyoO (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, your preferred sentence tells us one of the reasons behind Cesarani's position (pursuit of Manifest Destiny) , while it doesn't tell us any of the reasons behind Lewy's position, which is non-informative. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cesarani's definition of "Manifest Destiny" is rather creative re-interpretive of the history of the term. Manifest Destiny was invented in the 1840's to describe the United State's intention to expand west to the Pacific Ocean by taking over Canadian and Mexican territory. The American slogan at the time was "54 40 or fight", which is to say the US wanted everything on the west coast of North American as far north as Russian Alaska. It resulted in a war with Mexico in which the US seized California, Arizona, New Mexico, and several other states. In British territory, it resulted in a negotiated agreement giving the US Oregon and Washington, while Britain kept British Columbia. Later, the US bought Alaska from Russia which ironically gave it the coast north of 54 40 plus interior Alaska. The Indians were only involved in that they were in the way of American settlers in all this new American territory, and the US pushed them onto reservations despite their violent objections. So, all things considered, I think he's just trying to make a political point without much historical justification. In the 19th century the rules of war were different. It was just ruthless military expansion, which was standard operating procedure for empires at the time. Genocide is a term only invented in 1944 to describe Hitler's deliberate attempt to exterminate the harmless Jews using gas chambers, which is an entirely different sort of thing than fighting a war with someone who can shoot back.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, did David Cesarani actually say the words that are attributed to him. I'm having trouble finding the references. In fact, a lot of the references in this article are extremely flaky and of dubious authenticity. Reading some of them is why I used the phrase "delusional system" in my comments above. Not that I know anything about anybody here, so if I somehow offend someone somewhere, I'm sorry about that.15:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If a reader wants more information about Lewy's position they can go to the source. I am thinking there is a consensus that either 1) we remove the Cesarani sentence or 2) supplement it with Lewy's to make:

Authors, such as David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide. While other authors, such as scholar and political scientist Guenter Lewy, reject the label of genocide and views the depopulation of Native Americans as "not a crime but a tragedy".(Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?)

RockyMtnGuy do we have a consensus on this? OoflyoO (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view criteria, we should do the latter.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

However, I'm having trouble verifying the David Cesarani quote. Unless we can verify it, we should delete it, because he may not have actually said it. It is fundamentally unethical to someone else's words in a famous person's mouth, although a lot of politicians and political activists seem to like to do that.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@RockyMtnGuy: it is agreed, we do have a consensus on the matter. Do we use the latter until we can verify the David Cesarani quote? I'll leave it up to you to make the edit

I did do the edit, but I left in the Cesarani quote, changed it to "Cesarani is alleged to have said" (the media's favorite phrase when a case has not been proven), and flagged it as dubious with a link back to here. There are are a lot of sources who say that Cesarani said that, but they all use exactly the same wording, which to my mind indicates there is a lot of academic plagiarism going on in the genocide research field. Did any of these sources read the original? If not they should get an "F" on their term paper. Or, if they are like one person I could name, they should get fired by their university for academic misconduct. If you can find the original quotations, feel free to remove "alleged" from the edit.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And then Xenophrenic deleted the Lewy quote under the pretext of confirming the Cesarani quote, which I can only assume he has seen with his own personal two eyes, so I won't dispute that Cesarani said it. Let me remind him that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I have my own thoughts on the subject, but I have confined most of them to the talk page. I have not indulged in deleting everything from the article I disagreed with. I would prefer he do the same.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

then Xenophrenic deleted the Lewy quote under the pretext of confirming the Cesarani quote

I did no such thing. Please pay attention to the edit summaries. Grab another cup of coffee, take a cold shower, whatever it takes, then re-read the edit summary and kindly explain to me just how many times you think our article (worse, the very same section) needs to repeat "Lewy says it's not a crime, it's a tragedy". And since we're sharing Wikipedia editing convention wisdom, please refrain from inserting the names of your fellow editors in the edit summaries. Why? Because you can't go back and edit or delete an edit summary if you say something ludicrous, and it is that much worse if the nonsense appears next to someone's username. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If you had simply left the original edit by OoflyoO stand, we would be okay on the points I am making. The changes you made unbalance it from a POV standpoint, and the quote by Cesarani only applies to the United States and not to the Americas as a whole. For instance, Canada - the northern half of North America - was not depopulated of native people. In fact Canada today has far more native people than it ever had, if census figures are to be believed. The Blackfoot and Cree Indians in particular did well and increased in population. Central and South America were generally not depopulated by European diseases, they were mostly depopulated by African diseases such as malaria and yellow fever, which Europeans also had no resistance to. That is the reason the Spanish and Portuguese brought over African slaves. Africans were the only ones with resistance to African diseases - e.g. the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia also made them immune to malaria. Much of the section header really only applies to the United States, but is generalized to cover the rest of the continent. And then it ends by quoting Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chávez - whose half-baked economic ideas turned the country with the largest oil reserves in the world into an economic basket case that can't even feed its own people - as an authority on history. It is highly political, littered with radical rhetoric, and needs a rewrite.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@RockyMtnGuy is correct, Xenophrenic (talk) is going against the consensus here. We don't need the Lewy quote twice, we need it once under the United states section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OoflyoO (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've scanned this whole page (and the archives) and I can't find where that alleged consensus was developed (or even where it was substantially discussed). Would you mind pointing it out for me, Oo?

RockyMtnGuy, the original edit by OoflyoO had several other problems, described in detail above, which were never addressed and fixed; so no, letting that edit stand would degrade our article when we should be striving to improve it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Parenthetical insertion

An unregistered editor has added the following parenthetical addition to the article, and I have removed it as problematic:

(and the Europeans brought back to Europe a strain of syphilis which killed millions of people there, the Great Pox)

While that is a known theory, the proposed wording states it in Wikipedia's voice as an assertion of fact, when it is actually widely disputed, and far from a resolved issue. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any relevance to the subject of this Wikipedia article, which is about Genocides. I am interested in knowing why it was introduced here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you posted? It says the very thing I tried to add to the article: that they brought a strain of syphilis, not syphilis in entirety. The article offers two theories: either syphilis was entirely from the new world or not, but in either case the strain was brought over. The strain of syphilis they brought back is written in that article to have caused the 1495 outbreak known as the Great Pox.

I also see that other editors resist your attempted changes to the article and your edits in general here are broadly against concensus. You stopped responding to RockyMtnGuy above, why?

I looked into the matter you had with RockyMtnGuy. The first source doesn't mention Amherst nor Fort Pitt but just a vague mention of smallpox blankets. The second citation does but states that some doubt it. Why isn't this mentioned? The first of the third sources firstly says that it was decimating both Indians and Europeans and that the plan may have been a failure due to reasons it then lists. Later it states that the epidemic wasn't likely caused by blankets. The second of the third sources states the same. The others either don't seem to mention it or are inaccessible. Why are these important bits being left out? Also, this would have taken place hundreds of years after the native populations were actually truly "decimated" by the brought diseases. This belongs at the end of the paragraph if anything because it takes place hundreds of years later. 93.106.50.229 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the article you posted?

No. I just like the title, and thought it had pretty pictures.

in either case the strain was brought over

No. In one of many competing theories, yaws (which shares a Treponema characteristic with syphilis and other diseases) was brought from the new world, and may later have morphed into syphilis in the old world. I also see where the article says What we still don’t know, though, is where syphilis came from. and More than anything, though, it serves as a case study for just how murky the origins of syphilis remain, and how far scientists are from reaching a consensus. We shouldn't be inserting one preferred side of a multi-sided, unresolved issue - and more importantly, as I asked above, what does that have to do with the subject of this article (Genocide) anyway?

your edits in general here are broadly against concensus

I seem to have missed the development and posting of that consensus. Could you please provide a link to the discussion where that development took place?

You stopped responding to RockyMtnGuy above, why?

I've never stopped responding. He stopped asking questions. I tried to respond to every relevant question he posed.

The second citation does but states that some doubt it. Why isn't this mentioned?

Because in the very next sentence, and the rest of the essay, all the evidence is laid out "to set the record straight". Some "doubt" that the earth is round instead of flat, or that it doesn't revolve around the sun instead of the sun circling the earth, but we don't add to the end of our articles on the earth and sun: "but some doubt this".

...it takes place hundreds of years later

Later than what? A previous paragraph gives figures from 1997. I understand the logic behind having things chronologically ordered, but I'm not convinced you are applying that correctly in this instance. Can we discuss that further? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the available literature, it appears that the bacterium responsible for syphilis (Treponema pallidum) originated in the Old World, was carried to the New World by humans when they first populated it c.14,000 years ago, and was carried back to the New World by Christopher Columbus's crew around 1492. The subspecies causing yaws, pinta, and bejel are indistinguishable from syphilis by examining old skeletons, and T. pallidum shows very little genetic variation, so tracing its path using DNA testing is very difficult. Since most of the suspected variants are extinct now, it is impossible to do DNA testing to determine at what point T. pallidum started causing syphilis instead of the other diseases. It also occurs in non-humans so we don't know that non-humans weren't responsible for introducing syphilis to the human race. This is all very interesting, but has little to do with genocide. The take away message is, "Don't introduce new diseases to people who may not have any immunity to them." Since the germ theory had not been invented at the time (c.1492) that syphilis and smallpox were cross-transmitted between the Old and New Worlds, it was really just plain old ignorance rather than genocide that caused the deaths of millions if not billions of people on both sides.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with much of what RockyMtnGuy just said, but would like to add a couple clarifications: (1) The stigma associated with syphilis is such that there has been great motivation to pin its origins (and thus "responsibility") to some "other" group of people, but that matter is far from conclusively settled. (2) The scholars in the field of Native American Genocide are already aware that disease was a major factor in the depopulation of the "new world", and that its spread was mostly unintentional, but that doesn't negate their position that genocide was perpetrated against the indigenous inhabitants by the invading colonists - in fact, it just made it much easier. Had the inhabitants not also been subjected to slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, destruction of land, livestock and culture, then they would have likely survived and prospered through the pandemics just as the Europeans had done. Or so they argue. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think accidental destruction of a people counts as genocide - yes, there have been incidents throughout history and prehistory when people were wiped out by accident, but more where they wiped themselves out by accident. And, speaking of slaves, it was not just Europeans who kept slaves. I once worked in a town called Slave Lake. It was named after the the Slavey Indians. And why were they called that, you might ask? Because the Cree Indians who gave them their name routinely captured Slavey Indians and keep them as slaves. It's similar to the Slavic people of central Europe who got their name because the Vikings, who took over Russia, had a thriving business capturing the Slavs and selling them in the slave markets of the Middle East. Slav, Slave, Slavey, it's all the same root. "Slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, destruction of land, livestock and culture", Yeah that was kind of the Viking business model, and it worked for the Cree, too. And then there were the Blackfeet, who leaned more toward "kill", especially toward the Cree. I know too much about these people to think they were all eligible for the Goody Two-Shoes award.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

No one said "accidental destruction" counts as genocide. There was nothing accidental or unintentional about the "slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, destruction of land, livestock and culture". As for why Slaveys and Slavs are called what they are, I'll wait until your theories are published. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not my theories, they are already published. Try reading Encyclopedia Britannica "Slave People"

Their name, Awokanak, or Slave, was given them by the Cree, who plundered and often enslaved numbers of them, and this name became the familiar one used by the French and English, for the Slave had a general reputation for timidity or pacifism, whether deserved or not.

or the BBC World Service "Roots of Slavery"

The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD.

Except that it was really the Vikings who captured the Slavs after they took over Russia, and sold them down the Volga to the Muslims. Slavery and subjugation, forced relocation, rape, war, etc, was just what everyone did back them, and sometimes things were already so bad that people would volunteer to be slaves just to get fed. OTOH, the Mongols wiped out 90% of the population of Romania in the 13th century and came close to that in other countries. The Mongols pioneered germ warfare by catapulting black death victims over city walls to infect the residents. The British were much more enlightened in their colonial expansion, so I don't think their actions qualify as genocide. The Spanish were less gentle in treating native people, so maybe some of their actions do qualify. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, they were interesting. But slavery has existed since before recorded history, so I do not see how that fits as an argument against the description of genocide. I never implied that the colonists from Europe were the only people to enslave others. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help? OoflyoO (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on what, exactly? I can't tell what issue you are commenting about, or with what "reasoning" you agree. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Then go back and read the talk between you, RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229. IF we need a consensus, I agree with both of them. OoflyoO (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on what, exactly? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit consensus

So, I'm once again checking everyone's (Xenophrenic, RockyMtnGuy and OoflyoO) opinion on the edit: [1]. Let's just take this in two parts and handle the Amherst matter first. Who thinks the edit mentioning the witness testimonies is just and who thinks the Amherst note belongs nearer the end of the section rather than amongst the early Columbian times? If you want to delve into the second matter right away, see History of syphilis. Etsybetsy (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more productive if you could explain what information about Genocides in history you are trying to convey to our readers with your edit. If I am reading your edit correctly, you've made three changes:

• added the text: (and the Europeans brought back to Europe a strain of syphilis which killed millions of people there, the Great Pox)

I don't see the relevance of this text to the article subject (Genocide), and especially no relevance to the article subsection subject (population decimation of indigenous Americans). Are you trying to convey by implication that native Americans made a genocidal attempt at people in Europe by giving them the Great Pox? Perhaps you could clarify.

• added the text: However according to testimonies by Gershom Hicks, a trader turned "white Indian" and captured by the British; and a captive to natives, John McCullough: the Indian settlements in question were already ravaged with smallpox.

You added this sentence immediately after two other sentences which convey that (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas authorized/ordered the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans, and (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans. Can you explain what information you are attempting to convey to our readers with your added sentence, and how the "However" juxtaposition applies?

• You moved the Amherst orders and also the Ft. Pitt incident content "nearer the end of the section rather than amongst the early Columbian times". It wasn't part of the "earlier Columbian times", which was covered in the two prior paragraphs. The content you moved was at the beginning of the discussion about whether genocide, defined as a crime of intent, accurately describes the colonization experience. Could you please explain more clearly why you would want to move those 2 examples of intent during colonization elsewhere?

You asked for "opinions" about your proposed edit, and I can offer a great many, on the messed up ref formatting, misuse of terms like "testimony" and "Indian settlements", to the use of content unsupported by the cited references, etc., -- but I think a better (re-)starting point would be to get your input as to just what it is you are trying to convey to the reader about Genocides in history. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out the edit and wrote it's about the Amherst matter. (Personal attack removed)

• And like I wrote, the matter at hand is also of the Amherst matter first, not the syphilis. Again you ignored that completely and just do what you want and read what you want. Even then the syphilis was to showcase the Columbian Exchange.
• When you actually start writing about the Amherst matter, you write that Amherst authorizing the blankets at Fort Pitt and the blankets being handed out at Fort Pitt are separate incidents. If they are, then Amherst doesn't even deserve a mention for it's pointless. I don't understand why you're now arguing against it. (Personal attack removed) If testimonies say they were already infected then the blankets were also pointless. All you're trying to do here is paint it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic amongst natives.
• And you have placed the Amherst paragraph near the beginning where it talks about early colonization instead of near the end where it talks about the American West. Like I wrote before, you try to paint it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic amongst natives.
• Lastly you complain of ref formatting, completely pointless and besides the matter, (Personal attack removed). Settlement is used by the sources and so is deposition. Do you want testimony changed to deposition? Is that your complaint?

In summary, you offered absolutely no counterarguments and instead actually argued against keeping the Amherst bits. Etsybetsy (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Etsybetsy. Please refrain from making personal attacks upon your fellow editors; thank you for your consideration. As for your comments on the three matters - the syphilis issue, the Fort Pitt event, and the Amherst issue - your concerns are somewhat unclear to me, but I'll (again) attempt to respond as clearly as I can:

the matter at hand is also of the Amherst matter first, not the syphilis

The order in which we handle and resolve the concerns isn't important to me. What is important is that we resolve them all. (I note that this thread was initiated about your syphilis content addition, and only about your syphilis content addition - but, no matter.)

... the syphilis was to showcase the Columbian Exchange.

Please remember that this article is about Genocides in history, not about the Columbian Exchange article, or about theories about origins of diseases, etc. Unless you have found a reliable source which says that Native Americans intended to "sex to death" the whole European colonist peoples with venereal diseases, your syphilis content has no relevance to the topic of this article. I've asked you multiple times above to explain what you think syphilis has to do with the subject of Genocide, the subject of this article, and you still refuse to explain.

...you write that Amherst authorizing the blankets at Fort Pitt and the blankets being handed out at Fort Pitt are separate incidents

They are two separate incidents; examples of what has been described as genocidal intent: (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas (Amherst) authorized/ordered (Colonel Bouquet) the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans and "Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race", and (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia (Captains Ecuyer, Trent and McKee) actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans, hoping "it will have the desired effect". Amherst's orders & recommendations were made chronologically after this specific biological warfare attempt at Ft. Pitt, so yeah, they are separate incidents. (It's perfectly possible that Amherst also gave similar orders earlier to the folks at Ft. Pitt, but evidence of that hasn't yet surfaced.)

Amherst doesn't even deserve a mention for it's pointless

Huh? Amherst's expression of intent is in this article as one of many examples researchers have cited to make their case of "genocide against Native Americans". Pointless, you say? You'll need to explain.

All you're trying to do here is paint it as the singular cause of the smallpox epidemic amongst natives.

False. History is full of many examples of smallpox epidemics among Native Americans. As for this specific biological warfare attempt made at Fort Pitt, our article already says "it is uncertain how successful the attempt was against the target population." How effective the attempt was can't really be proven, but that's okay because it also doesn't need to be proven, as the sources say only "intent" needs to be proven, and not actual "success" in wiping out a people.

Settlement is used by the sources and so is deposition.

Indeed they are, but I never mentioned those. I mentioned "Indian settlements", which won't appear in any reliable source, because the Indians weren't the settlers, and I mentioned testimony, which is a solemn statement or declaration of fact under oath, as opposed to the statements given under duress when deposed by your captors. And you seem to forget that he later changed his "deposition", and your sources were refuted in later scholarship (as you were previously informed here).

In summary, you offered absolutely no counterarguments...

...because the burden isn't on me. I am still patiently waiting for you to:

(1) Explain why content about syphilis origin theories has any reason being in a Wikipedia article about Genocide.

(2) Explain why a sentence about Hicks and McCullough has any reason being in a paragraph about two "genocidal intent" examples?

Until you provide those explanations, there is nothing for me to "counter argue" against. Once you've made it clear what it is you are trying to convey to our readers with your edit, we can open an RfC to get wider community input on the merits of your proposed additions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(Comments having nothing to do with article improvement moved to user Talk page for further discussion. -Xenophrenic)

Let's get to the main matter. Firstly, you again state you don't care about which matter should be discussed first. The earlier section was about syphilis but the section before that was about Amherst.

You write about the Amherst case, again arguing against their inclusion. Like you have written, this is an article about Genocides in history. This isn't an article about Intents of Genocide But Which Weren't Followed Through With in History. I can't understand why you even want to include Amherst in that case. The only reason I can think of, considering how especially vague you yourself have worded the paragraph, it seems that you try to masquerade Amherst as having authorized it. Possibly it matters to you more if you make a high-ranking officer seemingly having done it rather than lower-ranking officers? I'm just trying to understand why would anyone even bother with such a pointless case when in the paragraphs above and below we're talking about the Spanish colonization, which if you know anything about the depopulation crisis of native Americans ranks at numbers 1-20 on the list of top 25 causes of native American depopulation. And you try to refer to your own writing as a source? Pretty much all sources state that it likely didn't do even little if anything. And settlement is used in the very source you use. I used your sources. I didn't dig up any of my own. Are you saying your sources are unreliable? What? The first of the sources also states "the epidemic was likely not caused by Ecuyer's distribution of infected blankets." The sources state in clear that it wasn't likely or particularly effective. You also offered Mann 2009 but haven't added it as a source and don't offer any links. When I google "mann 2009 amherst" I get nothing.

This is about Genocides in history and whether smallpox was genocide or not is the matter at hand. Pointing out the Columbian Exchange and exchange of diseases illustrates that perfectly. I added 20 words in parentheses. I have explained all of this many times already.

And the two are witnesses who state there already was smallpox among the Indians the lower-ranking officers gave the two blankets two. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Like you have written, this is an article about Genocides in history. This isn't an article about Intents of Genocide But Which Weren't Followed Through With in History.

I don't understand what you mean. "Weren't Followed Through"? Our articles convey that some scholars cite as evidence of genocidal intent the following incidents (I'm not saying whether I concur or not, but my personal opinion matters not here):

• (1) the highest ranking British officer in the Americas (Amherst) authorized/ordered (Colonel Bouquet) the use of germ warfare against the Native Americans and "Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race", and
• (2) in a separate incident, British officers and militia (Captains Ecuyer, Trent and McKee) actually attempted germ warfare against Native Americans, hoping "it will have the desired effect", and
• (3) When smallpox swept the northern plains of the US in 1837, Secretary of War Lewis Cass ordered that no Mandan (along with the Arikara, the Cree, and the Blackfeet) be given smallpox vaccinations.

Amherst did indeed follow through in giving such orders; Trent, et al., did indeed follow through in giving tainted gifts to Natives; Cass did indeed follow through in giving such orders. Or are you trying to argue that "genocide" isn't really genocide unless it is actually successful, regardless of intent? Now please provide the reliable sources indicating why "syphilis" should be introduced to the Genocide articles as a "counterexample" of genocidal intent.

And settlement is used in the very source you use.

"Indian settlement" is not, which is what I said. I am very anxious for you to point out the reliable source, with exact page number, that refers to Indian settlers and their "Indian settlements".

You also offered Mann 2009 but haven't added it as a source and don't offer any links.

The Tainted Gift; Barbara Alice Mann; ABC-CLIO; 2009; Pgs. 1-18 and especially the footnotes, is what I referred to. There is also Elizabeth Fenn (1999), and many others that examine Hicks, McCullough, and others in much more detail than your sources. And I haven't added them as sources because this isn't an appropriate article to argue how effective the attempts were or weren't, just that the intent was there and action was taken.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So, it's just intent? And if you're drawing a comparison with my syphilis edit you think doesn't belong and removed, aren't you stating that you think yours should be removed as well? I also took a look at your Mann book and it doesn't refute the testimonies whatsoever? It points Gershom out among a case I hadn't seen before as well? There is a Mohawk messenger now possibly having had smallpox or syphilis too. Mann concludes there was an epidemic, but is seemingly unsure about the origin of it. And this is from a book with the title "The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion," written by a native history historian. This likely the most opionated source on the matter and even it questions this. Your two main sources used in the article state that it wasn't likely, or particularly effective. I'm literally quoting them. Etsybetsy (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So, it's just intent?

No. It's intent and action, as exemplified by examples (1), (2) and (3) above. You appear to want to also argue "success" in this article, which is not a factor. And if you read the sources I indicated, then you already know that "depositions" you cite were recanted, and when re-questioned, there was no mention of smallpox.

I'm still waiting for your reliable source citation which says syphilis was used for attempted genocide (successful or not - doesn't matter). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

But it's not even the weasel word "action" if there is no indication the lower-ranking officers intended genocide unlike Amherst who you have described as a completely separate case. The action also likely wasn't successful as written by your main sources. Success very much is a factor. Add to that the likelihood of it being successful, which in this case is non-existent due to the method and the testimonies of the natives already having been infected.

There are now three cases saying otherwise and out of the three of them one described a part of his story false. As to what part,it's anyone's guess. No description of any requestioning and lack of smallpox. It's even still one of three now.

And syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical.

You have just made a case for adding it, along with 100s of other accidentally introduced diseases, to a Wikipedia article about "what is not genocidal." This article, however, is about Genocides, and you have not explained why it should be added to this article.

Success [for it to be considered genocide] very much is a factor.

You are quite mistaken (from our lead paragraph): "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 groups 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."

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did explain. Syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical, like smallpox. Smallpox is talked about at length here so it would only make sense to very shortly mention the flip side. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. It's part of the same event. What I tried to add were a few words in parenthesis.

And you quote a sentence which disagrees with you. Amherst didn't commit any of what you mentioned. Trent did. So again Amherst should be cut completely? Even then success is still a factor and so is the group targeted. Trent never gave out his intent. He was at war and only stated that he "hoped it will have the desired effect". Is that your genocide listing? All while there are three testimonies of the tribe already having smallpox? Etsybetsy (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? And (again) what source says Trent, et al., and Amherst or Bouquet also tried to spread syphilis? You really do need to provide sources for this, Etsybetsy, regardless whether you use parenthesis or not.

Amherst didn't commit any of what you mentioned. Trent did.

Incorrect. Amherst committed the act of ordering that smallpox be used against the natives, to "extirpate the race". Trent (and crew) committed the act of physically delivering the smallpox-tainted articles to Native Americans. None of them, as far as I know, expressed the intent, or ordered, or used, syphilis to commit genocide. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you need assistance with reliable sources? I have all of the sources here if you need help. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's it. You just admitted you're trying to paint the 1763 blanket case (decribed by sources as not likely or particularly effective) as the cause of the widespread smallpox epidemic in the Americas that has been verified by all sources to have began in the 15th century.

You're also completely mistaken at the end. Ecuyer did it before Amherst: "At the time of this exchange, neither Amherst nor Bouquet knew that Captain Ecuyer, without authorization, had already put the plant into motion." It was done in June and Amherst brought the matter up with Bouquet in July. One of your sources (the website post thing) is quoting a NY: Facts on File book which for some reason incorrectly states the letter was to Ecuyer, but it was to Bouquet a month later as verified by all other sources. It seems Trent may have been an accomplice of Ecuyer.

I noticed that your paragraph repeats this same mistake. I don't know how I didn't notice this myself before. This needs to be fixed immediately regardless of the syphilis edit. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please cease misrepresenting what I have said.

you're trying to paint the 1763 blanket case ... as the cause of the widespread smallpox epidemic in the Americas...

I am not. Don't be ridiculous. Our article doesn't say that, and neither have I.

You're also completely mistaken at the end. Ecuyer did it before Amherst...

That is common knowledge, and I've never said otherwise. That is why I referred to them as separate incidents above. Careful reading of sources is required, Etsy. Please meet that requirement.

I noticed that your paragraph repeats this same mistake...

"My" paragraph? Please be specific. You are aware that no one owns an article, or the paragraphs within an article, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I wrote it's the flip side of smallpox. You then ask what syphilis has to do with the blankets. Thus you directly equate introduction of smallpox in the Americans with the two blankets....

And seemingly you have indicated that Amherst ordered the Ecuyer action? This rose from the NY: Facts on File book mistaking the letter being sent to Ecuyer and not Bouquet, and it even missed that it was a month later at that. Etsybetsy (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You then ask what syphilis has to do with the blankets.

No. I did not. Careful reading of sources is required, Etsy. Please meet that requirement. I asked: How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? Note the lack of the necessary INTENT in your irrelevant syphilis content. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this about the sources for the syphilis introduced to the black communities again? There is cited intent for that. I don't know why there would be intent in accidental introduction? It's part of the retort that it was accidental. Etsybetsy (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked: How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? Note the lack of the necessary INTENT in your irrelevant syphilis content addition.

Is this about the sources for the syphilis introduced to the black communities again? There is cited intent for that.

Again? Sorry, you lost me. It sounds to me that you are now introducing a wholly new topic. Black communities? I am looking forward to reviewing your reliable sources showing there was genocidal intent in your "syphilis introduced to the black communities" content. Shall we create a new discussion section for that? And does this mean we've finally resolved the issue of your proposed insertion of syphilis origin theories into the content about genocidal acts toward Native Americans? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Algerian Genocide

Hi, more than 2 million Algerians were killed by the French. This constitutes an Algerian Genocide and should be defined as such. -Ribbontool (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It is more accurate to describe it as a war of national liberation. It is true that the French killed a lot of Algerians trying suppress the Algerian revolt, but I don't think their intention was to destroy the Algerians as a people, it was to keep them as colonial subjects. I think it devalues the sheer evil of The Holocaust in which the Nazi attempt to kill all the Jews in the world just because they were Jewish to equate it to the Algerian war of independence. I think it was a typical war of national liberation with a lot of casualties, not genocide. "...much water, or shall we say much blood, has flowed under the bridges...", to quote Rudyard Kipling. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this topic, but my understanding is that probably fewer than one million were killed, and both sides were guilty of horrific atrocities.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty much summarizes it. Neither the French nor the Algerians were eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize or the Goody Two-Shoes award. It was just another bloody war in history, but as the old saying goes, the winners get to write the history books. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Algerians were invaded by as modern colonial power which liquidated a third of the indigenous population. The revolt against what is acknowledged as genocide was led by a local commander who (a) drew up peace treaties with the French invader, systematically dishonoured by the latter as their territorial designs grew; (b) united the local tribes and introduced a form of modernizing centralized administration, including the local Jewes and Christians; (b) fought the French on their terms and on several occasions utterly humiliated them by inflicting military defeats. The French only won by resorting to methods of genocide. The consequences are still with usNishidani (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Does this edit belong

We've already been through this, but for perfect clarity: does this edit [2] belong at the article, yes or no? Etsybetsy (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You asked the same thing just above: here. Have you since come up with an argument for introducing irrelevant "syphilis" content to a "Genocides in history" article (or can produce reliable sources which explain how "syphilis" is relevant to genocide)? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This time it's made simpler as I just mentioned. And how much time did you give me between posting there and here? 0 seconds? You posted in both sections the same time stating I still haven't come up with a response? What? And did you just delete editor RockyMtnGuy's comment from here? Etsybetsy (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you come up with an argument for introducing irrelevant "syphilis" content to a "Genocides in history" article (or can produce reliable sources which explain how "syphilis" is relevant to genocide)? If so, could you please post here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As for your arguments, the logical flaws in them are too numerous to mention. Here's a list of informal logical fallacies for your edification.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the list you linked, and unless it has changed significantly since the last time I reviewed it, I won't be reviewing it now. I haven't made any arguments. I've been requesting that Etsybetsy provide his/her argument (backed by reliable sources also making that argument) for adding irrelevant content about syphilis theories to an article about genocide. The reliable sources are key here. If you could make the argument for Etsy, and provide the required reliable sources showing the relevance to genocide, that could speed things up considerably and would be greatly appreciated. Or should I interpret Etsy's and your refusal to provide the requested reliably sourced argument as the end of the matter? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Europeans brought deadly viruses and bacteria, such as smallpox, measles, typhus, and cholera, for which Native Americans had no immunity (Denevan, 1976). On their return home, European sailors brought syphilis to Europe. Although less deadly, the disease was known to have caused great social disruption throughout the Old World (Sherman, 2007)."

"The Voyage of Columbus Led to the Spread of Syphilis to Europe."

Ancient Spanish historics describe the origin of the Naples disease as having been from the crew of Columbus:

"Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474-1566) censured Oviedo's work strongly, but they both agree that the natives of Haiti gave syphilis to the white race. After referring to the spread of the disease to Naples..."

and like de Las Casas and Oviedo, so does Ruiz Diaz de Isla, who similarly records the spread of the new disease to Naples and leading to the epidemic.

The American origin of syphilis has been written as early as our modern understanding of diseases goes. There are writings of "the American origin of syphilis" as early as from the 1920s and 1930s.

And only that late because:

"Except for the matter of syphilis, few took much notice of the effects of the Columbian exchange on Europe, Africa and Asia until the twentieth century."

right after talking about smallpox and the Columbian exchange.

We have established that the first epidemic of syphilis in Europe happened in Naples. By this point we have established they brought over the strain of the Great Pox that caused the wide epidemic. It's not a matter of whether the disease pre-existed or not, it's a case of the strain. You have scientists who believe in pre-Columbian but who still assert the new strain was brought over, the strain that was then named "the Great Pox." The term was used to differentiate from smallpox, which didn't affect Europeans as much anymore after gained resistance. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That is all wonderful content for the Columbian Exchange article. But you seemed to miss the question I posed above:

I've been requesting that Etsybetsy provide his/her argument (backed by reliable sources also making that argument) for adding irrelevant content about syphilis theories to an article about genocide.

I don't see any of those sources you just listed making the case that orders were given to use syphilis to commit genocide, or where actual attempts were made to intentionally spread syphilis with genocidal intent. So are we through here? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That question is ridiculous. To illustrate: what do concentration camps have to do with genocide? Gas chambers and firing squads were to be the means of the Holocaust, not the camps; but the camps proved very deadly themselves. Smallpox is mentioned in our article as genocide. Then there are retorts that it was accidental. Syphilis is there to illustrate that. What more do you want? Syphilis is actually cited as genocide multiple times as it was tested on black communities in America's history. The section is about America. If I add a mention of the black communities genocide, you'll be happy? Etsybetsy (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Smallpox is mentioned in our article as genocide.

No, it is not. Official orders to use disease to "extirpate their race" is mentioned as genocidal. Note the intent. The actual act of intentionally giving deadly disease tainted items to the Native Americans with the hopes of giving them smallpox is mentioned as genocidal. Note the intent. See the difference? There has to be INTENT to do harm for it to be genocidal. Where in your list of sources is the necessary intent? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you mention the Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident at all, it should be nuanced because in the context of genocide it is something of an urban myth and an example of historical negationism. You should note that the incident cannot really be genocide by germ warfare because, 1) The germ theory was not developed by scientists until much later and at that time nobody knew what caused smallpox, 2) It wouldn't have worked anyway because smallpox cannot be spread by giving people infected blankets, 3) It wasn't British policy to kill the Indians, it was just an isolated incident by a rogue commander, and 4) His commander in Chief, George III, recalled Amherst to London and put a stop to the French and Indian wars that year by granting the Indians what they wanted. However, if you mention smallpox, in the interest of balance you should also mention syphilis, which apparently was transmitted in the reverse direction in the Columbian Exchange, and is a counterexample to the charge of genocide.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You should note that the incident cannot really be genocide... --RockyMtnGuy

Reliable Source Citation, please. By now you should know that we can't cite "your personal opinion", despite how much you've filled these talk pages with it, and that applies to your original research and your synthesis, too. If you want to add content that "the Amherst incident is a myth", please provide the reliable sources that state that. (I've already showed you reliable sources which say he really did exist, he really did order the use of smallpox-exposed blankets, and any other available method, to "extirpate the race" of Native Americans. He's really not a myth.) If you want to add content that says syphilis in Europe is a "counterexample to the charge of genocide" of Native Americans, please provide the reliable sources that state that. This was already explained to you in considerable detail here. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident is similar in that it was NOT genocide, and even fewer people, i.e. nobody, was killed. How can it be genocide if nobody was killed? It basically is an urban myth and an example of historical revisionism by modern people imposing modern standards on people who didn't have the same standards or even the necessary technology. It should not be included in a Wikipedia article except as an example of urban myth and historical revisionism. --RockyMtnGuy

You are repeating yourself, without advancing the discussion. I am really going to need to see your reliable sources now. Reliable Source Citation, please. By now you should know that we can't cite "your personal opinion", despite how much you've filled these talk pages with it, and that applies to your original research and your synthesis, too. If you want to add content that "the Amherst incident is a myth", please provide the reliable sources that state that. (I've already showed you reliable sources which say he really did exist, he really did order the use of smallpox-exposed blankets, and any other available method, to "extirpate the race" of Native Americans. He's really not a myth.) If you want to add content that says syphilis in Europe is a "counterexample to the charge of genocide" of Native Americans, please provide the reliable sources that state that. This was already explained to you in considerable detail here. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Should we add content about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment?

You mean the sources for the syphilis introduced to black communities? There seems to have been a lot written that it was fully intentional genocide? Etsybetsy (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not split into a section by me. Etsybetsy (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked: How (again) is syphilis "the flip side" to colonists deliberately giving smallpox tainted blankets to Native Americans with the intent to infect them? Note the lack of the necessary INTENT in your irrelevant syphilis content addition.

Is this about the sources for the syphilis introduced to the black communities again? There is cited intent for that.

Again? Sorry, you lost me. It sounds to me that you are now introducing a wholly new topic. Black communities? I am looking forward to reviewing your reliable sources showing there was genocidal intent in your "syphilis introduced to the black communities again" content. Shall we create a new discussion section for that? And does this mean we've finally resolved the issue of your proposed insertion of syphilis origin theories into the content about genocidal acts toward Native Americans? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Etsybetsy is referring to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment in which the U.S. Public Health Service denied hundreds of black men in rural Alabama access to treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. It is truly similar to the Nazi treatment of minorities in Germany, but doesn't really count as genocide. A lot of federal bureaucrats should have gone to jail for it, but in this context it is a red herring.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We are already aware that Etsybetsy is likely referring to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, as was mentioned in this discussion several days ago. You appear to have now caught up to the rest of us. Of course it has nothing to do with the syphilis in Europe we've been discussing, so it may indeed have been a red herring on Etsy's part to distract from having to provide the requested reliable sources supporting his content addition proposals. But the idea may merit separate discussion, pending review of the reliable sources Etsybetsy produces. A quick check into the matter shows that Tuskegee's Truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study edited by Susan M. Reverby notes several sources calling it genocidal, and so does Bad Blood by James H. Jones. On the other hand, The Search for the Legacy of the USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee: Reflective Essays Based upon Findings from the Tuskegee Legacy Project edited by Ralph V. Katz and Rueben Warren, has some powerful articles examining the subject, including whether it can be classified as genocidal. I'm not yet familiar enough with where the scholarship stands on the matter to be comfortable introducing the content in our article. Which reliable sources are you paraphrasing, RockyMtnGuy? (And if you are only speaking from personal opinion again, please just exit the discussion.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

However, Xenophrenic, you are clouding the issues by introducing large numbers of logical fallacies into the debate, creating semantic discord rather than producing facts, and trying to put the philosophic burden of proof on other people (a form of argument from ignorance) rather than providing proof of your own debating points. The point of Wikipedia is to create good articles, not trying to score debating points and promote your own POV through invalid and specious arguments.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand (yet again), RockyMtnGuy. I'm not debating. And I've not once offered a personal point of view in this matter. Would you care to substantiate your empty claims and mischaracterizations? No, of course you wouldn't. You can't. Red herring much? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you are not debating, you are just pontificating and playing semantic games. You brought up the topic of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, I didn't. I just identified what it was and cited it as an example of an incident that should NOT be considered genocide. The Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident is similar in that it was NOT genocide, and even fewer people, i.e. nobody, was killed. How can it be genocide if nobody was killed? It basically is an urban myth and an example of historical revisionism by modern people imposing modern standards on people who didn't have the same standards or even the necessary technology. It should not be included in a Wikipedia article except as an example of urban myth and historical revisionism. (Personal attack removed) RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You brought up the topic of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment...

Incorrect. Etsybetsy brought it up, likely as a red herring, according to you.

I just identified what it was and cited it as an example of an incident that should NOT be considered genocide.

Yes, you did indeed. To which I responded: Which reliable sources are you paraphrasing, RockyMtnGuy? (And if you are only speaking from personal opinion again, please just exit the discussion.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As for your ramblings about Amherst, I'll respond in the Amherst section above. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

As a judge would say, this is all irrelevant and immaterial. These are all non-logical forms of argumentation. I only do logical argumentation. I have better things to do at this point in time, such as canning vegetables.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Please do so. One should stick with one's forte. Thank you for ceasing to be disruptive from this point on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits - original population estimates & disease

I've moved a couple paragraphs from this article, which consisted only of argumentation about what the pre-Columbian indigenous populations might have been before dying off due to disease, to the article on Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. While some later population background information is necessary and relevant to the subject of this article, the whole "how many were here before Columbus arrived" debate is beyond the scope of this article. An editor (Stumink) recently re-added some of this information, with an edit summary stating:

(The diseases in important since Stannard described the entire death toll as genocide even though most source describe it otherwise.)

and also:

(Population history is frequently and closely talked about with reference to the genocide question. It also relevent since we have sources on this page describing the disease induced population decline as part of the genocide.)

I've reviewed the Stannard sources (as well as the others), and I am not seeing where Stannard "described the entire death toll as genocide". Could the editor please indicate the specific sources here? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to this "the destruction of the American aboriginals population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history". Stumink (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of disease there, and that isn't a specific source - that's a sentence from our article. I was asking for a specific source. You've added a lead sentence to the 'Americas' section which states:

From the 1490s when Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas to the end of the 19th century, the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined precipitously, mostly from diseases brought from Europe, from over 50 million to 1.8 million, a decline of 96%.

That says nothing about "genocide", and neither does the cited source for that sentence. (There are other problems with the sentence which can be addressed later, if it is to be used. I've removed it for now.) Please keep in mind that this article is about genocide. So that sentence is completely out of place (and a rather undue breach of our NPOV policies) as the lead to that section. I also find it curious that you would say in your edit summary that depopulation by disease is "important" only to Stannard "even though most source describe it otherwise", yet you would try to make a sentence about depopulation only by disease the lead for that section? Odd. If you'd like to expand on the disease role in depopulation in this article, we could certainly discuss that. Could you please explain why, and indicate your sources?

Stannard's position, as he explains in the prologue to his book which we cite: "It is true, in a plainly quantitative sense of body counting, that the barrage of disease unleashed by the Europeans among the so-called 'virgin soil' populations of the Americas caused more deaths than any other force of destruction." But he insists that should not be the focus of this discussion. "From almost the instant of first human contact between Europe and the Americas firestorms of microbial pestilence and purposeful genocide began laying waste the American natives. Although at times operating independently, for most of the long centuries of devastation that followed 1492, disease and genocide were interdependent forces acting dynamically--whipsawing their victims between plague and violence, each one feeding upon the other, and together driving countless numbers of entire ancient societies to the brink--and often over the brink--of total extermination. In the pages that lie ahead we will examine the causes and the consequences of both these grisly phenomena. But since the genocidal component has so often been neglected in recent scholarly analysis of the great American Indian holocaust, it is the central purpose of this book to..." Note that Stannard distinguishes between the catastrophic depopulation from disease (the topic of the afore-mentioned Population article), and the actual genocide perpetrated on natives (the topic in this article). If we're going to have content here about death from disease, it should be presented as it relates to the topic of this article. Don't you agree? Wikipedia policy does.

...we have sources on this page describing the disease induced population decline as part of the genocide.

Please specify those sources here, so we can take a closer look at them, Genocide isn't mentioned in any of the sources you added for the first sentence you placed in the lead of the section, nor in the three sentences you added near the conclusion of the section. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you (Stumink) have resumed editing rather than address the concerns and questions outlined above. Shall I assume that the sources you mentioned will not be made available? Please let me know if you'd like to resume discussion on the matter. I've made the following improvements to the article:

• removed the "human rights abuses" verbiage not conveyed by the cited source
• removed the paragraph about disease with no correlation to genocide, the subject of this article, in either the text or the sources
• moved the Fort Pitt out of USA section (USA didn't yet exist)
• moved text about "genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas" from USA-specific section into the section about peoples of the Americas
• Fixed a redundancy (2 sentences both saying there is a dispute among scholars on whether it should be described as genocide): "Some scholars characterize the experience of ... colonization ... as genocide... others dispute." & "Some historians disagree that genocide ... should be used to describe the colonization experience"
• Returned mysteriously deleted reliably sourced 1769 figures that natives only comprised one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million, and Balboa content

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just checking in here (again) to see if there has been any response or explanation for the recent edits and unexplained deletions of reliably sourced content. You have apparently opted out of discussion, and your deletions were re-implemented by another editor. I do see that you have left some brief comments in the edit summaries, so I'll do my best to respond to those below, but I think it would be more productive if we actually discussed those concerns here. Please consider it.

Edit summary: (My objection is that it is using a source arguing there was a genocide to lead the section. There is also no need to reiterate Stannard's position twice.)

I don't understand your objection. This is an article about genocide, and the section is about genocide in the Americas, so of course the sources used will convey that there was a genocide. In fact, it is required that they do. That's rather a no-brainer. You added the following sentence to the very beginning of the section: "Some scholars characterize the experience of Native Americans during the colonization of the Americas as genocide or genocidal whilst others dispute this characterization." There are at least two problems with that proposed addition. (1) The most obvious problem, it is unsourced. (2) It also appears to set up a false equivalency with no substantiation. Of course there are some people who may question or voice disagreement, and we can mention that, but we certainly don't create a section on genocide by first adding content that says it isn't genocide, followed by the content on genocide. I've re-ordered those paragraphs. Please let me know if you disagree. As for reiterating Stannard's position twice, you'll need to be more specific. Are you saying Stannard sources cannot be cited more than once?

Edit summary: (Re-added sentence describing debate and removed redundancies referring to some historian. I also removed some of the specific instance of referenced described atrocities since it is undue to mention any given atrocity that is vaguely related to genocide.)

Of course we shouldn't name every single genocidal atrocity; that would take many pages. That's why we don't, and we have only a small sample. If you feel that specific content may be undue, could you please specify here which content, and explain why you feel it is "undue"? When you refer to "some historian" or "some instance", I can't make heads or tails out of what exact content you have concerns with, or why. Likewise, if you feel something is redundant, please be specific as to what (see my example above where I quoted the redundant parts). I'm not seeing the redundancies you say are there.

Edit summary: (Retained some of the more specific examples. However there is no need to reference the Fort Pitt instance twice and the Mandan incident makes no refererence to genocide)

I agree that there is no need to reference Fort Pitt twice, which is why it is only referenced once. And I added a source by Dirk Moses which explicitly includes the Mandans in the reference to genocide. Let me know if that addresses your concern sufficiently.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The massive changes you're making have now been reverted by multiple editors. Please, suggest and discuss any hefty, controversial change here at the talk first. It's what you were warned about at the edit warring noticeboard. Please also don't change the Amherst bit without getting prior concensus here first.

As per your edit:

You changed from a section mentioning disease as the foremost cause of loss of life in the Americas but also heavily describing the crimes of the colonialists into just describing that Europeans and "white" Americans perpetrated crimes against the natives? I also don't know why in the worlds you had to specify white in such a editorializing way. Etsybetsy (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't made any "hefty, controversial changes" to the article. As for your request that I not "change the Amherst bit", which "bit" are you talking about, specifically? If you have concerns with any edit I make, I would be happy to discuss that with you, but you will have to express your concern here. I'm not a mind reader.

Regarding one of my edits, the sentence I added reads: Over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." There was no "editorializing", as the description "Europeans and white Americans" came directly from the reliable source. I've no objection, of course, to using alternate wording that still conveys the same meaning from the source. Do you have any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that you have resumed editing without suggesting alternate wording you would find suitable. Please let me know if that is still an outstanding concern of yours. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That one "sentence" you added you put as the lead of the section. It's from a blatantly sided source, not representing the center view of the matter.

The next paragraph begins with your fringe Amherst case. You removed the testimonies against that. You blatantly use it to push your view that in the American West they committed genocide with smallpox, wiping all of the natives at this time; even though pretty much all sources agree the native population decrease happened long before and from the smallpox spread by the conquistadors. Etsybetsy (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the paragraph which leads the section on Genocide in the Americas:

Over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." [-Stannard] The indigenous peoples of the Americas have experienced massacres, torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination. [-Ortiz]

The peer-reviewed work published by Oxford (Stannard), and the paper by the Native American history professor (Ortiz), do present the position that indigenous peoples of the Americas suffered genocide. I don't understand what you mean by "It's from a blatantly sided source". The subject of the article section is about genocide in the Americas, and that's what they write about. What sources "represent the center view of the matter", so I can read up on this center view?

The next paragraph begins with your fringe Amherst case.

No, it doesn't. It begins with Balboa's exclamations of genocidal intent in the 16th century. Then it mentions Ecuyer's genocidal act in the 1700s. Then it clarifies that we can't know if such acts were effective, but mentions the historian's view on the use of biological warfare by various parties "as an ignoble means to an end" against the Indians. Then it mentions Amherst's exclamations of genocidal intent. Then it mentions genocidal actions against the Mandans in the 1800s. So that paragraph appears to be a chronological sample of the events. What exactly is "fringe" about Amherst? And I don't recall him ever appearing before a court, but if someone testified against him I would be very interested in seeing the source. Could you produce it (or them), please?

You blatantly use it to push your view...

No, you misunderstand. "My" view is completely different, and doesn't appear in our article. The views you are reading in our article is that of Stannard, and Ortiz, and Thornton, and Moses, et al.

...they committed genocide with smallpox, wiping all of the natives at this time

Really? Our sources do not say that and neither does our article. Where are you getting that? Our sources don't say that the early decimation of native populations because of disease has anything to do with genocide (although it did make the later genocide easier because there were far fewer natives). Our article only mentions the few intentional acts to spread smallpox to illustrate the intent and mindset at the time, while making clear that we cannot know if they were effective or not. So I'll ask you again, where in our article does it convey that the 90% drop in populations due to disease during the first century has anything to do with genocide? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Stannard as a source has been discussed on this and related pages. His methodology, perspective and accuracy have all been called into serious question by historians and researchers. --Tobby72 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tobby72: His work has certainly been discussed several times, but I'm not sure that there's been consensus as to his being fringe. Can you point to any other related articles where there has been consensus on the matter? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Every researcher worth his salt has had his or her work "called into question"; that's also an euphemism for peer-review. Now if you are suggesting that findings and conclusions published by a cited researcher (such as Stannard) have been effectively refuted, then we will need to review that. Can you be more specific than "on this and related pages", please? Oh -- and please stop reverting to what you claim is "the last stable version" when it is nothing of the sort. That's disruptive. If you have specific concerns with specific content, please convey them here so they may be addressed and resolved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just reviewed this whole Talk page and every archive page for this Talk page, and there is no challenge to Stannard as a source. He is called "controversial" numerous times, but that label automatically applies to any scholar working in the field of "genocide". (And I observed that Lewy was called "controversial" more than Stannard, and also unreliable and a professional "genocide denier", yet he is still cited in this article.) I must reiterate my request in stronger terms that you provide actual substantive objection to citing Stannard in this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've also checked the RSN (where he has never been discussed), as well as related articles (where he's never been discussed). There's no consensus for excluding his work. Discussions are just that: discussions with different editors taking a personal position as to his credibility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

His work is already included in the text and I have no problem with that, but per Stumink there is also no need to reiterate Stannard's position twice, in violation of WP:UNDUE. I personally support Stumink's version of the article (see diff) -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When you say "there is also no need to reiterate Stannard's position twice", to what, specifically, are you referring? Can you please quote the position and the reiteration here for review, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Tobby72 is referring to the use of Stannard's work in the "Americas" and "United States" sections. Personally, I don't believe it to be undue as one is the broader overview, the other region-specific. I do, however, consider the recent restructuring slightly problematic. It was an improvement to some degree, but the sections aren't as intuitive as they should be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:

A) Stannard's work in the "Americas" and "United States" sections.

B) Stannard's work in the "Americas" section :

1st paragraph – "Over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas." – Stannard 1993, pp. 146–7.

4th paragraph – "Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginals population ..." -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I see those two sentences you have quoted, @Tobby72:, but you haven't explained an actual concern with that text. Like Kiernan, Rummel, and the other sources who deal extensively with the topic of genocide, Stannard is likely to be cited more than once. As noted above, those excerpts you partially quoted are not conveying the same thing. The sentence in the first paragraph is a general summary of the assertion/position advanced by the scholars who say the indigenous peoples of the Americas suffered genocide. The sentence in the fourth paragraph is a statement of scale attributable to Stannard (native population is down to a mere 1/3 of 1%, and "worst in history" holocaust). The content in the United States section is also different, being specifically Cherokee-related. Since there is no prohibition in this article against citing a reliable source more than once (see for example Kiernan, Rummel, et al., being cited a dozen times each), and the content items you've mentioned from Stannard are unique and not redundant, I'm having trouble identifying what your concern is. Please elaborate? Or perhaps propose a specific rewording you feel would address your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Iryna Harpy - I also have several concerns with the present structure. Not just with the Americas section (which I actually feel, along with several other sections, is somewhat bloated), but with the article as a whole. It appears to be oscillating between a "List Article" in some sections, and a complete topic article in other sections. Some headers have just a single sentence or two of content, while other headers have many lengthy paragraphs of content which could qualify as standalone articles themselves. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: There have been all sorts of changes to genocide related articles since this blocked editor - and who knows how many socks - engaged in serious OR content development, article moves, etc. from mid-year until September. Despite having reverted them at least once, I managed to overlook the suspicious activity here until checking the history now. I don't have the time or energy to go over this article with a fine-toothed comb immediately, but that person's obsessive behaviour has impacted on the integrity of the content here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Renewed revert warring

I have undone this problematic edit which has an edit summary stating:

(Reason was given at talk. Get concensus before making controversial, massive changes to the article. There are now 5 editors who oppose your different changes.)

Closer examination of this problematic edit revealed it is actually a clever rollback of the last 30+ edits by multiple editors to a version containing Etsybetsy's preferred content. That is a problematic version implemented without first establishing consensus, as requested by Administrator User:EdJohnston, who notes Etsybetsy's claim to consensus "looks to be full of synthesis". I agree with that polite understatement. In addition to introducing objectionable content without consensus, Etsybetsy's edit also inserted a misquotation, removed spelling corrections, reference formatting, new reliably sourced content additions, and additional reliable source citations for existing content.

The edit summary claims "5 edits oppose your different changes", which couldn't possibly be more vague and uninformative (and wrong). Looking at the Talk page above, I see concerns only from Etsybetsy and Stumink, and I believe I've addressed the issues raised by Stumink and resolved those. Who else am I missing that has raised concerns here "opposing" the recent changes? The edit summary also says "Get concensus [sic] before making controversial, massive changes to the article"; which may be a reasonable request in general - but I haven't made any "massive" or "controversial" edits. If you think something is "controversial", could you please indicate specifically what it is so we can discuss and resolve your concerns about it? The edits I, and the other editors, have made are normal article development and improvement edits, and as such don't require your prior approval. If you plan to undo someone's edit, you'll need to explain why so your concerns can be addressed here, which you have not done. You've not made a single comment about the edits you've undone, including those on the Canada schools, the Mandans, the correct spelling of Kyrgyz, Moses as a source, etc.

One final note: Would you, Etsybetsy, be willing to join me in a moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to resolve whatever remaining content concerns you may have? If you agree, I can fill out all the paperwork and get the process started for us. Please let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I did the same revert as Tobby72, reverting to the last stable edition. I told Ed I'll ask Rocky for clearer statement which he gave. What would you even suggest taking to the noticeboard? The fact that you remove sourced content part of the stable version? Etsybetsy (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly; You did the same revert as Tobby72. Tobby72 picked an arbitrary old version, called it a "stable version" (it's not, there were several edits in the 48 hours before and after that version), and reverted to it without explanation. That wiped away 30+ non-controversial article improvement edits. Exactly what you have done, and it is disruptive. You also appear to be weirdly claiming that Tobby72 "opposes" my edits, yet he has said no such thing. It looks to me like he opposes Stumink's and Wbm1058's edits. We won't know until he comes here and gives his reasoning for his proposed rollback.

What would you even suggest taking to the noticeboard? The fact that you remove sourced content part of the stable version?

I would take to the noticeboard any content issues with this article with which you still have concerns. I've moved, removed and reworded several items of "sourced content", each for different applicable reasons. Can you please be more specific as to exactly what content you have concerns with, and what that concern is? If not, I'll assume you are arguing to not have Amherst mentioned in the article because it is "fringe", and we'll start with that.

I told Ed I'll ask Rocky for clearer statement which he gave.

What you told Ed was: That's what there was, a talk thread with all of the people participating where the consensus was stated. Do you want it in even clearer terms from RockyMtnGuy? I can just ask him to state it more clearly... A clearer statement of consensus is what you wanted, but what RockyMtnGuy gave instead was his personal opinion about the subject matter. Here is the actual response given by RockyMtnGuy, which is still on this Talk page above:

My opinion is that if you mention the Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst incident at all, it should be nuanced because in the context of genocide it is something of an urban myth and an example of historical negationism. You should note that the incident cannot really be genocide by germ warfare because, 1) The germ theory was not developed by scientists until much later and at that time nobody knew what caused smallpox, 2) It wouldn't have worked anyway because smallpox cannot be spread by giving people infected blankets, 3) It wasn't British policy to kill the Indians, it was just an isolated incident by a rogue commander, and 4) His commander in Chief, George III, recalled Amherst to London and put a stop to the French and Indian wars that year by granting the Indians what they wanted. However, if you mention smallpox, in the interest of balance you should also mention syphilis, which apparently was transmitted in the reverse direction in the Columbian Exchange, and is a counterexample to the charge of genocide.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

When I pressed Rocky for his reliable sources for his assertions, including points 1 through 4, he decided he would rather can vegetables. No surprise there. It's all still on this page above. Rocky has tried and failed to convey that very same personal opinion of his in a related article, and was told his original research doesn't work here by yet another editor. Rocky also didn't say a word about the establishment of this "consensus" you keep claiming to have, perhaps because he knows that there can never be a consensus to introduce unsourced personal opinion into Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

So here's an offer for you. Let's ask Ed. You told Ed that you had consensus for the contested edits you reverted (against his warning) into the article: User_talk:Etsybetsy#Another_revert_at_Genocides_in_history.3F in this discussion. Ed disagreed, saying that your argument about achieving consensus "looked to be full of synthesis". You offered to have RockyMtnGuy more clearly state where consensus was achieved, but instead Rocky just presented his personal opinion on the content while declining to provide the requested reliable sources. If Ed says he is now satisfied that you have achieved consensus for the contested edits you keep reverting into the article (as recently as today), then I'll agree to stop removing them. If Ed says he is not satisfied that you have achieved consensus (or if Ed simply ignores this), then you agree to cease your revert warring. In either case, I'd like you to work with me through the dispute resolution channels to resolve whatever remaining content concerns you have. Fair enough? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:EdJohnston Xenophrenic (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I got the message, and I am looking forward to hearing whether User:Etsybetsy will respond to Xenophrenic's suggestion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I became tired of his edit warring and took a break, and meanwhile he's been edit warring with Tobby as well over the same matter? Tobby made an edit warring noticeboard listing too.

How many editors have you edit warred here over the exact same matter now? The fact that you haven't gotten blocked has just encouraged you to edit war even more blatantly against concensus.

And I asked in clear whether the edit belongs or not and Rocky wrote in clear of course it does. Before that and after that he has stated multiple times that he opposes your edits. What else do you want? Rocky to make the edit himself? No one else but you is willing to participate in this constant edit warring.

You againt misrepresent by stating an editor didn't want Rocky's edit "here", but that's another article you linked to and another article you've been edit warring at. This is the kind of utterly vandal-like and bothersome talk edits you do there and here. Whenever someone points out your bad behavior at an article you remove it and add the rpa template. Your bad behavior at an article explained politely is pertinent to that article. You're deliberately misinterpreting Wikipedia rules.

I asked what do you want listed at dispute resolution noticeboard. The fact that you keep removing the testimonies against the Amherst case again? This kind of removal of content sourced by all the sources YOU USE is incredibly vandal-like too and I can't believe Ed is just letting it slide again and again.

What is your other suggestion now? Are we asking about concensus or edits? This is just some delay plan of yours to make it seem like you're not currently edit warring against multiple editors. I'll ask some other admin to take a closer look into this matter because this is incredible. Etsybetsy (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Responding to your only comment related to article improvement:

I asked what do you want listed at dispute resolution noticeboard. The fact that you keep removing the testimonies against the Amherst case again? --Etsybetsy

Okay, let us start with that. I am unaware of any "testimonies against the Amherst case", but if you can quote the exact content and reliable source here, I'll take that information to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and open a request for assistance. Let's see if some uninvolved volunteer input can help us with what you are trying to do here. Alright? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Residential schools and genocide

There is a lot of politically correct crap in what Xenophrenic posted, for instance:

The Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools were primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until 1996, and were designed to remove children from the influence of their families and culture, and assimilate them into the dominant Canadian culture. Over the course of the system's existence, about 30% of native children, or roughly 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally; at least 6,000 of these students died while in attendance

If you actually read the historical documents, you get a completely different picture of what was going on. For instance this document from the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs to the principle of the Residential School on the Sarcee Reserve in Southern Alberta:

Ottawa, February 17, 1917.

Very Reverend Sir: The attention of the Department has been called to a condition existing at the Sarcee Boarding School regarding the practice of allowing children to go home on sick leave at the request of their parents. During January last, three pupils became ill and were allowed to go home, with the result that they did not get proper treatment for their illness and became much worse. As there is a nurse at the school and a room provided for pupils who became ill, they should be kept in the school, in order to receive proper supervision and the necessary medicines and treatment. In cases where children in ill health are allowed to go home they do not receive proper medicine or food and the hygienic conditions of their homes are usually of the poorest.

If this system of granting leaves is allowed to continue it will be very detrimental to the health of the pupils and should, therefore, be discontinued. In future you should grant no leave to children who are sick without the doctor first approves of such leave being granted, as all such children should receive proper medical care and treatment in the school instead of being allowed home. You should deal firmly with the parents in this matter and not permit them to take their children home for treatment.

Your obedient servant, L.D. McLean, M.D.

Asst. Deputy and Secretary

The main concern of the Indian Affairs Department was that the Indians were all going to be wiped out by disease if they didn't do something about it. There was no cure for tuberculosis at that time, and the only prevention was to isolate the patients and give them good nutrition. In that case it meant isolating the children from the disease source, i.e. their parents, and feed them better than their parents would. Tuberculosis was not an imported disease, it existed in Western Hemisphere before the white men arrived, and white men were equally susceptible to it. In England it was called "consumption" and it was considered rather fashionable to be slowly dying from it.

There is still a major problem with tuberculosis in the world even though many people think it has been conquered. No, it hasn't. Millions of people still die from it, 1.5 million last year. Many of them are people in Western countries naive enough to believe it has been conquered.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No one is interested in your flimsy OR, RockyMtnGuy. And "politically correct crap"? You should keep in mind WP:CIVIL. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Original research? I didn't make this stuff up, I only read it. I was just quoting from the original documents at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, which is the largest museum in Western Canada and has a huge archive of documents about native culture available on-line. And what it says is often different from what people who apparently have political agendas say it says.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

quoting from the original documents at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary

But that is clearly OR. Citing a single original document is insufficient. Secondary sources only, written by people who are familiar with all the relevant documentation! This is, and has to be, non-negotiable. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? There's no prohibition against OR on talk pages. (If secondary sources conflict, OR can even be a useful tool to determine which one is correct.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not in this instance. I don't find it edifying, and it reminds me of the Stolen Generations issue in Australia. Such documents only express the mindset of the writer without broader context for the policies and impact. It doesn't represent the intent of anyone other than that of L.D. McLean and his concerns regarding how ill students should be handled. That's why secondary sources are a must for articles of this calibre. On the other hand, BowlAndSpoon's strident commentary is unnecessarily antagonistic... nor do I find RockyMtnGuy's sarcastic interpretation for other editors to be anything other than condescending. Where is the documentation demonstrating that students who remained in the care of the school had a profoundly higher survival rate? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no prohibition against OR on talk pages.

Indeed not, as one can learn from the lead to WP:OR, but his OR (probably too generous a descriptor) consists of a derisive ad hominem ("politically correct crap") and a single document. That's it. That's the basis in which he is proposing to alter the article. I think my unhappiness with his looming alterations was merited.

If secondary sources conflict, OR can even be a useful tool…

This is irrelevant, for where are the conflicting secondary sources? All we have laid before us is a single original document and some grouching. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going back to the original historic documents to vet the sources in the article, and it didn't go that well. They all have a high political content without much historical fact checking. The article said that "at least 6,000 of these students died while in attendance" and my question is, "Was that unusual for native children at the time?" So, I checked, and in the case of the Sarcee Reserve, there was a major tuberculosis epidemic going on. All the Sarcee were dying like flies, especially the children. From an original population of 450 when they settled on the reserve in 1881, the population fell to 160 by 1924. Letters in the archives indicate that Indian Affairs was in a state of panic about the situation and were worried that the entire tribe would be wiped out. The Department even sent out experts to do "rescue anthropology" on the Tribe so their culture would not be lost even if they all died.

The only medical solution at the time was to isolate the infected from the non-infected. They tried excluding children who had tuberculosis from the school, but testing revealed that ALL the children who were of school age already had tuberculosis. However, in 1921 things started to change. A tuberculosis sanitarium was established and the children with tuberculosis were isolated, given a better diet, and flush toilets. The improvement in their health was immediate and significant. Vaccinations for tuberculosis were invented and the children were all vaccinated. After 1932 students no longer had to reside at the school and were sent home. Then post WWII drugs to cure tuberculosis were invented, and the Canadian government accepted the responsibility of providing all Indians with free medical care. Then in 1966 we white Canadians got free medical care, too, while you Americans? Well, you're still waiting for it, aren't you? You can read "Medicine that Walks: Disease, Medicine and Canadian Plains Native People, 1880-1940" by Maureen Katherine Lux for more details.

For the record, the Sarcee population has rebounded from the low of 160 in 1924 to over 2200 today. And, today the Tsuu T'ina First Nation (formerly Sarcee Reserve) is one of Canada's wealthiest reserves due to oil and gas royalties. They are planning a massive series of commercial developments along a 10-kilometre stretch of Calgary's future southwest ring road, which they condescendingly agreed to let the white men build across their land, and they also have their gas station, casino, and real estate developments. Just so you know how things are going for them today. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy, your issue is with the content at Canadian Indian residential school system, not with me. If you are proposing changing or adding encyclopedic content to the Canada schools section in this article, I can't tell from what you have posted here. Some indication of reliable sources would be helpful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have serious doubts of the validity of that article, but I'm not going to bother to edit it. My main concern is the idea of classifying sending children to residential schools as "genocide" since that is what the British upper classes did with their own children. Historically Canada was a British Colony. Before the end of WWII when the wheels fell off the British Empire there was no such thing as a "Canadian Citizen" - all the people of Canada were "British Subjects". The British upper classes shipped their children off to residential schools for someone else to raise. I guess it avoided them having any responsibility for their children's education. Apparently they thought it would work just as well for lower class and native people as well. Close to where I live is the Prince of Wales Kingsley Fairbridge Farm School on Vancouver Island. The British used to sweep up "waifs and strays" from the slums of industrial British cities and ship them off to Australia and Canada to be educated and employed. They sent most of their criminals to Australia, but they sent most of the slum children (80,000 or so) to Canada. The Canadian residential schools for First Nations were just an extension of that idea. In the modern perspective, it was not a good idea, but that was then and this is now. Is it genocide if you treat some other people's children as bad as you treat your own? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop using comparatives as if this were a game of who has the monopoly on suffering. Home Children has, indeed, been treated as a serious issue (known as Forgotten Australians in Australian lexicology). Focus on the article per its WP:TITLE. Reiterating: it isn't our function as editors to analyse and draw conclusions from primary sources because we WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or, conversely, we like it. Our function is to reflect what secondary sources actually say on the matter. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant because we a neutral parties... well, that's the theory. Scrutinising secondary sources in order to establish whether they are WP:FRINGE is essential. If, however, it is demonstrable that scholarly discourse genuinely considers a subject to be a valid area of Genocide studies, it must be accepted. There is much in the way of discourse over trivialising genocide, and this discourse runs the full gamut from using the term too loosely to the denial of events that bear all the characteristics of genocide/genocidal intent. That's not for us, as editors, to quibble about because we run behind the ball. We don't kick it or set the goalposts. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no genocide of Afghans during the Soviet Occupation

Soviet Communists never wanted annihihalte the Afghan People. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was just like the Vietnam War of the USA.--Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I edit andcontribute to this this source

Can I edit this source? I really want to contribute to this wikipage.