This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Stub‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Stub‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Stub‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indigenous peoples of the Americas Stub‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have no sources to offer, just passing through, but I'm struck by the omission of the USA here. Why is the Spanish empire is the only one listed? The land grabs and reservations and massacres and the Trail of Tears took place over a longer period of time, but the forced relocation to unarable land and the holocaust-like levels of deaths and reduction of population can hardly be overlooked? Ukrpickaxe (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Massacres against the Native Americans in the territory of the United States is a recurrent theme among public life. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

America will be the next section, I need to expand the one on the British Empire first. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“To identify the class of events that the atrocity prevention community wishes to prevent.” --- I paraphrase Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and a professor of political science at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – an effort to develop a conceptual standard. (p. 25)

Genocide is a form of extensive, group-selective violence whose purpose is the destruction of that group in a territory under the control of a perpetrator. (p.4-5). Genocide has a logic of group destruction apart from the political violence which conforms to a coercive logic: political violence is designed to change the behavior of specific audiences. Group destruction implies a different causal logic, namely, that from the perpetrator’s perspective the targeted group cannot be negotiated with, tamed, or repressed (p.10-11).

Mass atrocity is emerging as the dominant alternative, broader standard than genocide. Christian Gerlach defines mass violence as “widespread physical violence against noncombatants, that is, outside of immediate fighting between military or paramilitary personnel. Mass violence includes killings, but also forced removal or expulsion, enforced hunger or undersupply, forced labor, collective rape, strategic bombing, and excessive imprisonment”. Unlike genocide, mass violence is not necessarily group-selective (p.21-22).

For the USA apart from the Indian Wars on combatants of declared enemy nations, military allies of the British, etc., we should use “mass violence” to describe the violence perpetrated by local regulators and state militias, Army commands and sutlers, and Interior Department agents and commissaries, against Native American civilians over the centuries of US history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should call it what the sources indicate it was, which was genocide. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is debate in the sources about whether it was or wasn't genocide and that debate should be represented here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP editors deriving an intuition as to what sources may indicate is Original Research. No original research. Reliable resources are not broadsides, they make distinctions, which is why I have a scholarly reference on how to make use of the word "genocide" and how it is too narrow to describe a suttler not fulfilling his contract with the US Army to supply food in a timely manner in quantity on the Trail of Tears, for instance. I want to call it what it was, mass violence perpetrated on the Cherokee in both "voluntary" and coerced removal-migrations.

Okay, recalling that "all sources say" is not a source, ( 1 ) What is the source that says the USA controlled some land under discussion and had adopted a policy of extermination of a noncombatant ethnic group there by systematic, sustained, state-sponsored means, in that place? That is "genocide" by Scott Straus of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Okay, ( 2 ) What other scholarly source of the definitions should we entertain? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response: ( 1 ) There are a number of sources, about 15-20, listed below, that support the use of the term 'genocide.' These include statements by white political and military leaders that their goal was extermination of Native Americans. ( 2 ) The most common definitions in use today and the sources either quote or closely tract the UN definition. GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. 'All sources say', '20-30 sources say' are no sources. You are back to your inferences of indicators of “mass violence” in references without a scholarly citation to define --- what agency of the USG --- perpetrates the eight elements of UN definition in state-sponsored activity “substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time”.

2. Eight elements in the UN definition of genocide. 1) racial discrimination. 2) lack of legislative protection, independent judiciary, 3) illegal killing agents sponsored by the government, 4) Motivation of leading actors, 5) A long term plan of extermination, 6) Acts of mass violence. 7) Hate speech. 8) Triggering factors.

These --- by UN criteria --- must be substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time by the USG to qualify at sometime for some period as committing genocide to some specifically named group. Sources below do not ascribe “genocide” to the USG. For the most part the actors are states militias, extralegal local regulators or rogue actors later court martialled, each episodically perpetrating a kind of atrocity properly called, “mass violence”, but not “genocide”. The idea here is to properly label mass atrocities so that they can be more clearly objected to in the past and then form broad coalitions to oppose them, in every degree, for the future of humanity. This is my last post for this section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legal definition of genocide, in the first paragraph of the document you cite, states (my comments in italics):

"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; (no question on this, look at the numerous massacres of Indians)

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (ditto)

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (forcing the groups into concentration camps called "reservations" without adequate supplies, food, or water)

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] (blood quantum laws)

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (Indian boarding schools, a practice of removing Indian children for adoption)

All of the elements of the definition are met, and the sources refer to it at genocide. Case closed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only aspect that is seriously discussed is the question of intent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's obvious too. Comments made by political and military leaders all through U.S. history support intent.

• 1779, Major James Norris: "Civilization or death to all American savages." Quoted in Mieder, Wolfgang (1993). "The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian": History and Meaning of a Proverbial Stereotype". The Journal of American Folklore. 106 (419): 38–60, 39. Retrieved 31 August 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• 1875, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Alfred B. Meacham: "They are Indians and three-fourths of the people of the United States believe and say that the 'best Indians are all under the ground." Ibid. at 41 (emphasis in original).
• 1868, during Congressional debate, Rep. James M. Cavanaugh (Mont.): "I have never in my life seen a good Indian (and I have seen thousands) except when I have seen a dead Indian . . . I believe in the policy that exterminates Indians. . . ." Ibid. at 42.

That's three, from one source, in 10 minutes. There are plenty more out there, including the famous quote by Sheridan. There is overwhelming evidence of intent. GregJackP Boomer! 18:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally a mountain of sources that call the US treatment of Native Americans genocide. There are also sources that dispute this. Both points of view will be in the article. The UN criteria are only relevant in so far as the sources use them, but they tend not to because no one is suggesting bringing the US for the international court. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a spirit of collaboration, let me see if, I can, one last time, help here. No source says Norris, Meacham, or Cananaugh were in a position to command the murder thousands of a targeted group under USG control systematically, substantially, across a widespread area, over a sustained period of time, which is "genocide". No scholar calls the spouting of one Congressman "genocide". You are left with no sources: 'all sources', '20-30 sources', 'mountains of sources' -- are no source.

More episodic cases during war, outside USG control, against USG law, or by actors found guilty in USG courts cannot be construed as USG genocide -- so incidently, you have no reliable source to say so for 1779, 1868, nor 1875. None say the USG has been guilty of genocide at all times, in all places for everyone Native-American. You are not a reliable source as you are not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal independent of WP.

While Virginia has state reservations and over a dozen federally recognized tribes, many Native American communities have been preserved only by USG interference with those states militias and extralegal vigilantes, imposing federal reservations within their territory. Please object to mass violence in a way that gains near universal condemnation, instead of merely embarrassing yourself by a failure to use sources according to WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of genocide is not the same as the one used by most genocide scholars. Genocide does not require a government decision to exterminate in any definitions I know of. Although, yes, many sources do consider the US to have made a genocidal decision to remove and confine Indians, and in the 20th century to disintegrate then as coherent ethnic groups. Many scholars argue that not even intent is required, only the genocidal effects of discriminatory polices or actions by states or civilian groups. It is of course true that there has not been one single sustained genocide with intent to destroy by the USG, but that genocidal events and processes have been sporadic and combined with attempts to help (some of which also had dire consequences). The point of this article is not to mount an international court case indicting the US or any othr nation for genocide. The point is to summarize the literature on genocide against indigenous peoples, and the US treatmnt of its indigenous populations is a part of this literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Governments are competent of substantial, systematic, sustained, widespread, targeted murder; little else is. The Hatfields and the McCoys family feud are not defined as 'genocide' by scholars. Still there are no sources on your part; ‘mountains’, ‘many’ and ‘most’ are no source. For a definition of genocide I have 1) Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – and

2) Eight elements in the UN definition of genocide, which is referenced without a link and ignored in discussion. Again, page 3, note 5: “Efforts should be made to gather information on a sufficient number of incidents to determine whether the abuses were substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time.“ Editors will not take the time to make such a demonstration for the USG in their original research, nor can they find a scholar who has published in a reliable publication to source broadstroke USG namecalling. On the other hand, there are serious mass atrocities to describe in a scholarly, inimpeachable way without using the word 'genocide' indiscriminantly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are five elements (which I listed above), and eight factors to be considered to determine if the five elements have been met. You have to have the elements, you don't have to have the factors present, as the paper you linked to notes. But in the interest of fairness, let's address the factors anyway.

1. Relations between the dominant group and the indigenous group as far as power and economic relations. The tribes have no power, never did. The Cherokees won a case at SCOTUS to keep their land in the southeastern U.S. and President Jackson moved them to the Indian Territory anyway. Tribes have repeatedly had to go to court over monies that the U.S. held in "trust" but never provided to the tribes. The illegal (as determined by SCOTUS) taking of Lakota/Dakota lands (the Black Hill case). Past and present discriminatory practices, excluding the minority from positions of power. For example, there have only been three Indian Federal judges - ever. Indians weren't even U.S. citizens and couldn't vote until 1924. Denial that genocide ever happened.
2. Effective access to structures to protect their rights - yeah, right. The tribes lose 80% of the cases that get to SCOTUS. Patterns of impunity and lack of accountability. Check.
3. Presence of armed groups. Not now, but they have historically been present throughout U.S. history.
4. Motivation to target the group and separate it from the dominant society. Really? What do you call removal to concentration camps (reservations) guarded by the army? Or allotment?
5. Introduction of statutes to limit the tribes authority. Major Crimes Act, Indian Reorganization Act, etc. Prolonged conflict - the Indian Wars. Propaganda, check.
6. Less obvious methods. The denial of water rights for western reservations. Forcible removal of children (Baby Veronica anyone?), the Indian schools (Haskel, Carlisle) where they build the man by destroying the Indian (paraphrase from Col. Pratt).
7. Hate speech by those involved - clearly met. Displacement - how many tribes are still in their original lands? Atrocities - scalping, etc, which was started by whites (there was a bounty paid for each scalp). Destruction of cultural and religious symbols - Black Hills, peyote, etc. Targeted elimination of leaders? Sure, imprison them and send them to a malarial swamp in Florida, the U.S. has been there, done that.
8. Elections - federal interference in issues, such as the Freedmen / Cherokee issues. Termination of the Menominee and Klamath tribes in the 1960-70s.

I could list more and provide cites for all of them. And no where in the factors does it limit genocide to being directed by members of the government. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it becomes relevant to reiterate that it doesn't matter what we as wikipedia editors think is or isn't genocide. It matters what reliable sources say. I think this discussion is interesting, but unless it is based on sources and explicitly aimed at improving this article it should probably run it course on either of your individual talkpages. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is not only content but internal links to other articles being removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're being repeated in the article. But links are also added. Behold! "shit" (and revert it). --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and you removal of content? Why remove the link to the Herero? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, abd already explained there: [1] (disporoprtionate attention to some small incidents a single country in the article about global history). And it was me who wrote "excavated ruins" (and attributed the date). Now, revert what you yourself call "shit". Geez. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what part of "Because they're being repeated in the article" you don't understand? Herero was already linked, above it. OF COURSE. --Niemti (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize of course that those "few hundred" are entire villages wiped out? And are a part of the ongoing genocide? I know you are not big on genocide, you seem to think Germany did not commit it after all, perhaps you need edit articles less stressful, all caps is a bad sign, Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am of course referring to Leopold, not Germany. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Leopold? What are you even talk about? "OF COURSE" is a running joke, villain talk trope in B movies. I seriously don't care if you make an entire separate article about "entire villages wiped out" in Bangladesh or what not, this article is about global history in its entirety (spaning more than 2,000 years on all contients), not a situation in a small part of the world in the late 20th century (it was way too long even in my version, it really should just mention there are also massacres in addition to the "genocide through rape" accusation mentioned there). And now go and revert yourself already. --Niemti (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I just realized the Zulu stuff was pretty modern history, well into colonial era actually, not quite "early examples". So after a revert you might think what to do with this. --Niemti (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Russian Empire / Soviet Union might be mentioned, in particular in the Caucasus but also Siberia and Central Asia. The Mongols (and Turco-Mongols) seriously need more attention, they laid some serious devastation to most of the known world and killed off then world's largest city (Baghdad), then did it again. --Niemti (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can find reliable sources that discuss the Turco-Mongol devastation as a case of genocide against indigenous peoples.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I restored the most of your changes, I have not removed the content on Bangladesh though as I think it belongs. The Russian empire certainly warrants a section, but I want to finish writing up the British Empire one first. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest the Japanese Empire, in particular in China, but it's debatable. (Yet the Rape of Nanking was not committed by impersonal or distant perpetrators, nor was its intent genocidal. The incident is difficult to explain, even in the context of a war which routinely violated the norms of civilian immunity. To return to theme of rape and sexual violence, for example, why were Chinese women subjected to these outrages? Rape was a weapon against "enemy" women, an action that was both misogynist and xenophobic. It humiliated the victims and demonstrated power, over both women who were the immediate victims and men who traditionally were regarded as their protectors. The Japanese military encouraged a rape culture, and rape as well as murder was a means to avenge the 70,000 Japanese soldiers killed or wounded in first six months of the war in China. Explanations for the behavior of Japanese soldiers should probably focus on their brutalization, in training as well as in warfare, and the military culture that encouraged them to see enemy human beings as animals. This was not exclusively a trait of the Japanese army, of course, but it was carried to an extreme there. Specific conditions of a particular time and place, not national character, led to the massacre.)

The WWII German conduct in Poland and the USSR is a much more obvious case (see Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin). --Niemti (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanking falls under genocidal rape, already working on that article, I was thinking a grief summary here would be good though? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were to my knolwedge no indigenous peoples involved in either Poland or Nanking. This article is about massacres against indigenous peoples, not just about genocide against people who inhabit a specific territory other than the one inhabited by the perpetrators.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish people are pretty indigenous to Poland. (There were Celts before them, but they moves on long ago.) --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Indigenous peoples and the section below on "Definition of Indigenous" to understand why being "indigenous" and being and "indigenous people" is not the same thing. Polish people are indigenous to Poland but they are not an indigenous people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish people (or the descendants of several Westen Slavic Polish tribes that fell under the domination of the Polans) are native to Poland, and should I even mention the Germans were absolutely "politically dominant" in both the annexed and occupied territories, as there was no Polish administration at all? German actions were both unquestionably genocidal and mostly colonalist in nature (Drang nach Osten & Lebensraum). See Generalplan Ost for the loosely defined long-term plans regarding (former) Poland and the native population. And yes, there are no "truly indigenous peoples" in Poland other then the Western Slavs themselves (who were all supposed to: be exterminated, turn into Germans, become illiterate slaves/serfs serving the colonialists, or be deported further east). --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native people != Indigenous people. Read the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So who are those "true indigenous people" of Poland - and in this specific case, of the Third Reich-annexed territories and of the General Government and the western parts of the Reichskommissariat Ostland? (Also the Hunger Plan and so on.) What are these supposed differences from, say, the German colonial territories in Africa (discussed in this article)? --Niemti (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any (except arguably the Gorals, the Silesians and the Kaszubians). Read the article to understand what an "indigenous people" is within academic discourse and under international law.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accoriding to Wikipedia (the lead of the article that you linked me to): "Indigenous peoples are peoples defined in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations that are often politically dominant. [1] The concept of indigenous peoples defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states that may still be formed from the colonising populations, or by politically dominant ethnic groups." So, how does it not apply? Is this article (that you linked me to) wong or what? The German non-indigenous (even if largely pre-existing) minority in Poland became totally (100%) "politically dominant" after Poland ceased to exist (part of it becoming part of the Greater Germany nation-state, other parts turned into brand new colonial territories) and included "colonising populations" too, with the Poles becoming "particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression" alright (and to physical extermination). You're actually right about "the Gorals, the Silesians and the Kaszubians", but they that's only for their own territories (I might also add that there were the Polish Ukrainians, Polish Belarusians and others in the former Kresy, but they were also indigenous peoples suffering from the German genocide). --Niemti (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to make the argument that Poles were an indigenous people before the creation of the nation state Poland, but I dont know of anyone who has made that argument, and Poles are not generally considered in the literature on indigenous peoples and discussions of genocide against indigenous peoples do not generally include the Holocaust against the Poles. Unless you can find a case that discusses the holocaust against Poles as an example of a "genocide against an indigenous people" and not just as a case of genocide in general then the Poles will not go in this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so who were the indigenous peoples of say, the newly-incorporated western parts of the German Reich (for example, in the area of the town of Oswiecim, which was renamed as "Auschwitz") circa 1942? Nobody? Were there always only the Germans? What is a fundamental difference between the General Government and the African colonies in this article, in the light of Drang nach Osten, Lebensraum, Generalplan Ost, and so on?

Also I'm actually totally against the concept of a "holocasust against Poles". The Holocaust/Shoah was the WWII genocide against the Jews, lumping every WWII German genocide and even all WWII German crimes against humanity into the category "Holocaust" is totally distorting its meaning. And when people even say the Croat (and non-German!) WWII genocide against the Serbs of Croatia was a part of it, then it's just obnoxious. --Niemti (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the only recognized indigenous people of Europe are the Sami and the indigenous people of Northern Russia, and sometimes the Basque. I don't know of any sources that describe the events in Europe during the holocaust as involving any Indigenous peoples. Being an indigenous people as you can see from the definition in the article I directed you to is not just about "being there first", you can be there first and still not be "an indigenous people". This article is only about genocides that have been described specifically as affecting "indigenous peoples". Not just about genocides against people who claim to be native to the place they inhabit.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you didn't even read the article (to quote you: "read the article") that you keep sending me to it. So I'm going to quote it to you:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of the term "indigenous peoples"; however, the four most often invoked elements are:[7] a priority in time[ambiguous]; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession; and self-identification

So, which points did the ethnic Poles in former Poland (including the Greater German Reich) fail in the early 1940s, according to you? --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? --Niemti (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there was no genocidal intent. Which is everything (contrary to popular belief that genocide is where there are organized mass murders or even just mass deaths in general). It was a My Lai style incident on a massive scale due to the completely dehu13:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·manized and out-of-control (civilian control) state of the Japanese military. Just compare the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was very different than the Generalplan Ost, where Japan was supposed to be liberating the other peoples from the colonialists - and in the case of China, from the depraved military regime (that had a horrific human rights record on its own). --Niemti (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no definition of genocide that requires "genocidal intent".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't understand the basics of the subject. Maybe you should start reading:[2][3] --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do you as you have demonstrated at length here. Your link to a google search is utterly irrelevant. Read this article: Genocide definitions. Some of them do include intent, but not "genocidal intent", simply intent to destroy or denationalize in part or whole. Most definitions do not include intent, and many events considered genocides did not have "genocidal intent".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do. The most common (and totally incorrect) definition is that genocide is basically any organized mass murder. In reality, all you need (but you do need) is the premeditated genocidal intent (or intent to destroy, yes), and according to the UN definition no one even has to die at all. Which is different then, for example, out-of-control actions of the military, or reprisal operations. There was no deliberate intent by the Japanese to destroy the other peoples and cultures in Asia (including the Chinese), but there was the German intent to destroy the other peoples and cultures in Eastern Europe (including indigenous peoples, such as the Poles of Poland), all while their reprisal/anti-partisan massacres in France and Italy were not genocidal. (And so the incidents like the Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre weren't genocidal, but kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany and the destruction of the Polish culture during World War II were an a part of the campaign of genocide even if it wasn't exterminatory.) --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in arguing with you about what was and wasnt genocide. We will just follow the sources and describe the various POVs.14:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

Wasn't contraction of diseases from the Spanish expeditions an accidntal occurence that just happened due to a first contact transmission? Like Coronado's doomed Eldorado search led to a series of devastating epydemics in today's USA (and he himself died of a disease upon return). --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 1 documented (possible) incident of such biological warfare in America, and it was a British fort commander, whose plan was approved but it's not even sure if it was carried out successfully. (Siege of Fort Pitt) --Niemti (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many documented cases of this happening during settler colonialism in South America, particularly in the Amazon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article[4] describes the fort Pitt event as simply the best documented case and describes others. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article(Patterson, Kristine B. MD; Runge, Thomas. 2002. Smallpox and the Native American: Review. American Journal of the Medical Sciences: April 2002 - Volume 323 - Issue 4 - pp 216-222) describe it Native Americans as "the victims of what was probably one of the earliest episodes of biological warfare".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're going to with a speculative comment from journal that doesn't document that it was in fact biological warfare, but just that it went from here to there unintentionally? Hires an editor (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I listed a whole series of articles and books that provide support for the intentional introduction of disease to the Native American population, from General Amherst's actions with smallpox infected blankets to the Choctaw Trail of Tears intentional routing through a cholera epidemic, all from either peer-reviewed scholarly journals (available via JSTOR) or from books published by academic publishers. See the list a couple of sections below. And no, it does not include anything by Churchill, who as far as I'm concerned is not a reliable source. GregJackP Boomer! 01:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A review article in American Journal of Mecical Sciences is about as reliable a source as they come. GregJackP has shown a large handful of other sources making the same claim. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant, it is an existing non-fringe viewpoint.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They may be reliable scientists, but as for reliable historians, I might take a pass. And for what it's worth, are these ideas noted that it was non-historians (and therefore non-experts) making these claims? That, in spite of the fact that they are "mainstream" people making these claims, it shows in the article this way? Somehow I think not. In addition, I've noticed that you don't really address the concerns of others by actually proving your point with "chapter and verse" as it were, of your sources to show the validity and correctness of your points. Hires an editor (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources I listed are historical journals. There are some law journals too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the superfluous content about Bangladesh should be moved to Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict. --Niemti (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the introduction of disease was accidental, the sources describe it as genocidal. The content on Bangladesh is staying, so stop going on about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it isn't. Unless you provide reliable sources describing all of these incidents as specifically acts of genocide (like in the case of court rulings for Srebenica massacre and Halabja attack). Like there was a plenty of massacres of Romans (captured soldiers, settlers in the colonies, even of the Citizens in Italy itself via 'barbarian' invasions or rebellng slaves), but they were not victims of genocide. And of course it does matter if it was accidental, you don't get "whoops genocide" incidents, it has to be planned and organised, they would had to be knowlingly and deliberately spreading the diseases with a specific intent to destroy the native populations. --Niemti (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The sources call the actions in the CHT genocide. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Cite/link them to me, and especially tell me exactly who are "the sources" (let's check credibility of the claims). --Niemti (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh-East Pakistan has a four page entry in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against humanity by Dinah Shelton.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity =/= genocide. Who's Dinah Shelton and what exactly it says regarding these random massacres that are allegedly so important they need to be detailed in an otherise short and laconic article about the history of the world? --Niemti (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is a professor of Law at George Washington University, and president of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. I think she is quite aware that genocide and crimes against humanity is not the same. Which probably explains why she included both words in the title of the encyclopedia she edited. I don't know what the entry on Bangladesh says as I havent read it. The short laconic article is currently undergoing expansion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the current section focuses too much on rape and not enough on showing who argues that the treatment of the Chittagong Hill tribes is genocidal and what the arguments for and against might be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should have a better discussion of what genocide is and how it is often an open discussion whether something is genocide or not, even among academics. For example Alfred Cave's chapter on Genocide in the America's in Dan Stone's The Historiography of Genocide discusses at length how different scholars have argued that even though most of the Native Americans died due to disease many still consider it to be genocidal, especially because it was exacerbated by violence and by settler racism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines and have begun a section for the debates over the American genocides. Will go read Cave now. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't "genocide through the introduction of disease" (maybe except the Ft. Pitt incident). And in case of the United States, there were even XIXth century vaccinations by the government (which is incidentally almost unknown, unlike the urban myth of the American soldiers deliberately spreading diseases, invented by the fake "Indian" white man named Ward Churchill). --Niemti (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disease was introduced, people died, a lot of them, it has been called genocide. Argument over. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I guess Spain is also responsible for huge "genocide" all over the world in the XXth century, eh? --Niemti (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this a highly inappropriate comment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I consider "Argument over." a highly inappropriate comment. If me or you accidentally transmit a disease on another person who dies, it's an accident and nothing else. Back at this time, people didn't even really understand diseases, and how they are being transmitted (no knowledge of germs and viruses). Oh, and also: WP:FRINGE. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the sources, Your insistence on simply opining without backing your opinions with sources is becoming disruptive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Exactly? Ward Chuchill and fellow travellers? Outlandish claims are WP:FRINGE. Labeling totally accidental and unpreventable deaths of natural causes as "genocide" makes all of this article totally wrothless, and Wikipedia a laughingstock. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people of the early colonial era didn't know diseases, didn't know how to prevent transmission, how to contain outbreaks, often even how to treat the victims with normal immunological resistance (not to mention they weren't even anywhere around and didn't even know about anything happening somewhere). They had no more real knowledge of things like smallpox than they had of magic (and for them it was often actually magic, see the witch panics over outbreaks). To make completely accidental and unpreventable random deaths labeled "genocide" is just beyond ridiculous and a travesty of encyclopedia. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continously making categorical claims based on opinion and not on sources is ridiculous and a travesty of encyclopedia. You do not decide what is and isn't genocide, sources do. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded claims by pseudo-historians and politcial charlatans = WP:FRINGE. Deal with it. --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also don't 'forget' to point out to me which of these points in your own favourite definition allegedly don't apply to the ethnic Slavic people in former Poland during early 1940s. (A 'reminder' for you: There is no single, universally accepted definition of the term "indigenous peoples"; however, the four most often invoked elements are:[7] a priority in time[ambiguous]; the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness; an experience of subjugation, marginalisation and dispossession; and self-identification.) --Niemti (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there is nothing to "deal with". If you begin to include materials about Poles that is not backed by reliable sources discussing it specifically as a case of genocide against an indigenous people then I will deal with it according to policy, which means removing it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come and tell me what makes the planned total destruction and wholesale massacre and deportation of Carthage (discussed in this article) okay but not the planned total destruction and wholesale massacre (ordered on the highest levels of power, actually limited in scale by the otherwise genocidal field commander) and deportation of Warsaw. Tell me this alleged fundamental difference between the German colonialism's racist and genocidal policies in Africa before WWI (discussed in this article) and in Eastern Europe during WWII. And tell me why did you insist so much that I should read this Wikipedia definition of 'indigenous peoples' but now, when I cit:ed it and it does apply, you suddenly avoid the subject instead of admitting you were wrong. --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The definition does not apply to Poles and you have provided no source to suggest otherwise. Including Carthage is only OK if it is discussed as a case of genocide against an indigenous people (which I doubt it is). Just present sources, your attempts to mount an OR argument about the inclusion of all kinds of genocides that are not against Indigenous Peoples as defined by scholars and in international legislation. The reason I insist on following policy is because that is what we have policy for. If your next comment does not include support by reliable sources I will consider you a simple troll and proceed to ignore you. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on how it allegedly "does not apply to Poles" - starting on which exactly of these 4 points, and why. And you also "provided no source to suggest otherwise". Yes, Carthage is in the article (complete with an illustration). And so are the Mongol invasions (to which you also objected). No, I added neither of them. (I added nothing to this article, only made it it a bit less horrible through general cleanup and copyediting: original state.) --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also a cool personal attack ("a simple troll"). If your next comment anywhere on this page does not include an apology I'm going to report you. --Niemti (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For fucks sake, Carthage is discussed in the sources used as an genocide of indigenous peoples, I would not have added it otherwise. Everything I expanded the article with does. If Niemti has a source which discusses the genocide of indigenous peoples in Poland lets see them, otherwise this is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, DS. There is no source suggesting that carthaginians were an indigenous people. They were a state. And Maybury-Lewis clearly does not suggest that they were. The exmaple may be apt in a general article on the history of genocide but not in this one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Genocide of indigenous peoples ... examples of genocide have been given ... the city state of Athens ... against the indigenous peoples of the Americas." Surely "the City state of Athens" happened before the Americas were discovered. Can you amend please Victuallers (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is very clear that it were the European Empires which carried out genocides in the Americas, the article does not even come close to what you are suggesting it says. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article include a discussion of what 'indigenous' is. It need not be a detailed discussion of the debate, but the article currently seems to exclude the Jewish holocaust without any clear reason given--that is really problematic. The claim that the Jewish were not 'indigenous' (not the word used) to Germany or Eastern Europe was of course part of the genocide against them. This doesn't mean that I want to include the holocaust in the article, but simply that the reader would be aided by a brief discussion of what indigenous means so that they don't come away with any incorrect perceptions about other genocides. Since the claim "they are not indigenous" is often a key part of genocides (this was often stated in Rwanda, for example), the article should be attentive to the appearance it may provide about who 'is' and 'is not' indigenous. I'm willing to help add this section, but would prefer to be more of a second editor (fixing and adding to content--rather than creating it). AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something along those lines would fit in the debates section, the article still is in the middle of expansion really and I keep getting sidetracked into other subjects, I am also working on a FA at the moment and another article in userspace. I will see what I can dig up on this and add to the article ASAP. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the internationally established definition of indigenous peoples, (which is not the same as a people that is indigenous). And yes we should include a discussion of this, and give examples of genocides that are not against indigenous groups. The discussion should be attentive to not confuse the common sense meaning of "indigenous" and the technical term "indigenous peoples" and it should be sourced to relevant reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the internationally established definition of indigenous peoples would be? Cos I am reading Maybury-Lewis right now and he says it cannot be just who was there first, as if that were the definition then it will not work for anywhere but Oz and the Americas. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few different ones by ILO, WTO and UNESCO, but they all share the definition of indigenous groups as those that are cultural minorities that existed in a territory prior to colonialism and the formation of a nation state. So the definition is both cultura, historical and political. Danes are not an indigenous people in Denmark for example, in spite of the fact that they are the only group that can claim to be indigenous to the territory - that is because they are the majority group controlling the nation state. The article on Indigenous peoples spend a great deal of space talking about the definitions.12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH, of course. Just trying to suggest a needed direction. And I agree with Manus about those issues. For the start of a definition of indigenous people, this is the best place to start. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Maunus. That is roughly along the lines of what Maybury-Lewis has written, so I will go with that one. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Maybury-Lewis and other anthropologists have been part of the discussion that has defined the international legal concept of "indigenous peoples".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinsert the swection with Roman and classical material as they are not described in the sources as instances of genocide against INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. Maybury Lewis mentions Carthage, but as a general example of the antiquity of genocide, but explicity not as an example of genocide against idnigenous peoples which only occur in the context of imperialist colonialism. The inclusion misrepresents his article and muddles the question of the topic of this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here I insert the section I removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Empire carried out acts of genocide during the Gallic Wars. The Gauls, led by Vercingetorix having defeated and massacred the Romans at Cenabum, led Julius Caesar to lay siege to one of the largest cities in the Gallic Confederacy, Avaricum. When the city fell, the Romans put 40,000 people to death, and, according to Caesar's own reports, his legions had killed 1,192,000 men, women and children during the conflict. This has been described as proportionally one of the worst genocides in history.^[1][2] Earlier, the Roman conquest of Carthage has also been described as genocide,^[3] and Lemkin cited it as an early example of genocide.^[4] Director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, Ben Kiernan, believes that one of the most well known examples of inciting genocide was uttered by Cato. Following every speech at the Roman Senate he would end with "Delenda est Carthago" (Carthage must be destroyed). The Third Punic War began in 149 and, before Cato died, Rome had laid siege to Carthage. In 146, the city walls were breached and what has been described by Kiernan as "the first genocide" began, as an estimated 145,000 had been killed out of a population of about 200,000. Following the surrender of the city, the survivors, estimated at 55,000 (which included 25,000 women), were sold into slavery.^[5][6] The Athenian attack of the Isle of Melos during the Peloponnesian War, when upon taking the island the Athenian forces put to death every male they captured, has been described as an act of genocide.^[7] There were many acts of genocide by Genghis Khan during his campaigns, the destruction of the Khwarazmian empire has been cited as an example. Tamarlane also carried out genocidal actions.^[4]

Kiernan's mention of Carthage is as "the first genocide", not the first genocide against an indigenous people. Maybury-Lewis writes:

"Genocide committed against indigenous populations was a particularly nasty aspect of the European seizure of empires from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, but it was neither invented nor practiced solely by European imperialists. Genocide is in fact a new name, invented in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, for a very old outrage, namely the massacre or attempted massacre of an entire people. Such annihilations took place in antiquity, such as when the Romans destroyed Carthage and sowed its fields with salt. They were later carried on by conquering peoples such as the Huns and the Mongols and countless others. European imperialism and the massacres of indigenous peoples to which it gave rise added a bloody chapter to the history of genocide, which began much earlier and is unfortunately not yet finished."

Note how he uses Carthage as an example of genocide and contrasts it with genocide against indigenous peoples which only arose much later with European imperialism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you there, he is talking about indigenous populations, and then says "for a very old outrage, namely the massacre or attempted massacre of an entire people" and cites Carthage and the others as examples, it are obvious he means that these are an indigenous people, and given the Carthaginians supplanted the Berbers (memory may be washy here) but as a city state stood for around 300 odd years they would have been the indigenous population at that time. I will go reread my history, but am sure that is quite close. In the meantime, any chance when you remove content you can remove the cites from the bibliography as it has caused a load of ref errors. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading is clearly wrong, and based on both a misreading of the text and a misunderstanding of how Maybury-Lewis defines "indigenous peoples" - to be indigenous means to be an ethnic and political minority within a state. You cannot be an indigenous group and the dominant group within a state at the same time. What he writes is that Lemkin supplied the name genocide for a very old outrage namely the massacre of entire peoples - carthage was an early example of this outrage. Genocides against indigenous peoples arose only with European imperialism and added a new chapter to the history of genocide. I will remove the citations meanwhile.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a dominant group within a state, be an indigenous people and still suffer from a genocide, ask the Irish. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish are not an indigenous people, perhaps they were before independence when they were not in charge of a state (and perhaps they still are in Northern Ireland under one particular analysis that sees religion as defining Irishness), but they are not generally defined as such no. Not under international law, and not by Maybury-Lewis and other scholars. The FAQ at Talk:Indigenous peoples specifically mention the Irish as not being an indigenous people under the definition used.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take offense to that, the Celts are most certainly the indigenous people of Ireland, and the Irish are funnily enough, Celts. Being Irish I obviously know this, but here is a cite , shall we go with Stannard? "The English treatment of Ireland's native people" American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World OUP (damn good read) (ec) For gods sake, do not cite a bloody Wiki article to prove me wrong, you know better than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the offense you like, the Irish are not an indigenous people under the definition used in international law or in scholarship on indigenous peoples. Neither are the celts. Native people is not the same as "indigenous people". Everyone is native to somewhere, and that definition would make the concept meaningless. Bretons, Manx, Welsh, Scots may be considered indigenous peoples although I have never seen them referred to as such in the literature. The wikipage reflects the consensus of a very large group of editors who actually know what "indigenous peoples" means and how it is used in the literature. If you are not willing to read the article and understand the basis for that decision then you have no business editing pages about Indigenous peoples. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of Wiki editors also said the 2002 Gujarat article was accurate as well pulease. Look, I will admit I am on new ground with regards to the definitions of an indigenous population, I sure as hell do know my shit on human rights and genocide however. Look to my response on my talk page, I have no issues with learning, nor being wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you do like human rights editing maybe you should start by reading the declaration of rights of indigenous peoples and find some sources suggesting that the Irish (or Poles, or Germans or Danes) fall under the provisions of that declaration. Also this short explanation[5] is good.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, another, completely different attempt at definition after first championing and then ignoring the "wikipage" definition: now to be indigenous means to be an ethnic and political minority within a state. So maybe now tell me how, according to you, were the ethnic Poles somehow NOT an ethnic and political minority within the national borders of Germany (including after the expansion by partial annexation)? Here are the policies (according to a "wikipage [that] reflects the consensus of a very large group of editors", and which I never even edited at all): Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Expulsion and genocide of Poles and Jews, Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Reducing biological growth of Polish population, Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany#Kidnapping and murder of Polish children. --Niemti (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy way out of this (and it is one that Maunus proposed above), we don't have to define "indigenous" or "genocide" precisely and then fill the examples from the overlap of these definitions. That would be OR and the discussion should take place on those pages. Instead, the question is: What does the mainstream literature related to "Genocide of Indigenous Peoples" give as examples? And include those. If there is a literature on the Celts as indigenous people who are victims of genocide, then they get included. If there is a literature on the Columbian exchange diseases being genocide of Amerindian, then they get included. The rest of the discussion is unhelpful and going beyond the lines of the literature. The page should not include every genocide and it should not include every ethnic group which lived in the area and experienced genocide. It should focus on "indigenous peoples" as defined by the literature (and where relevant by international law). I cannot see a literature that discusses the Poles or Irish as particular "indigenous peoples" who suffered genocide, if you have that literature please post those sources and we'll evaluate whether they are reliable or not. Otherwise, they don't belong. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I have reviewed three different articles titled "Genocide of Indigenous peoples" today, and none of them mention Poles, Irish or Carthaginians as examples of this topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples --Niemti (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm just angry at the continued open insults, so I'm going to just prove the obvious with few examples:

• "The 13th century also witnessed ethnic conflict between indigenous Poles and foreign Germans, who had proved expansive and did not respect Polish church customs." (Zofia Kaleta, The Surname as a Cultural Value and an Ethnic Heritage)

• "Having failed to secure the political loyalty of Poles to the German state, and having failed to assimilate them to German language and culture, Prussian and German policy toward the indigenous Poles became increasingly 'dissimilationist.'" (Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany)

• "In Silesia, where the landowners were Germans and the peasantry indigenous Poles, the Prussian government was less liberal and the peasants did not get land with their freedom." (Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin, The Political History of Poland)

• "They not only seized the grounds and houses of the indigenous Poles, but they also secured a position that turned them into fairly prosperous residents." (Rosa Lehmann, Symbiosis and Ambivalence: Poles and Jews in a Small Galician Town)

• "Polish refugees as well as most of the indigenous Poles in the region refused to recognize the new political reality." (Omer Bartov, ‎Eric D. Weitz, Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands)

• "Publicists pointed out that as a result of age-long German influence the indigenous Poles, even those who had not succumbed to Germanisation, had qualities which were completely different from those of the Poles in Poland." (Polish Western Affairs - Volumes 31-32)

• "The indigenous Polish residents were expelled, and German nationals as well as ethnic Germans had moved in to replace them" (Betty Lauer, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Incredible True Story of a German-Jewish Teenager's Struggle to Survive in Nazi-occupied Poland)

• "Their role was to form a security barrier protecting ethnic Germans and absorbing any hostility from the remaining indigenous Poles." (John Hiden, ‎Martyn Housden, Neighbours Or Enemies?: Germans, the Baltic and Beyond)

• "Himmler outlined the fate of the indigenous Polish population in a key memorandum entitled 'Some Thoughts on the Treatment of the Alien Populations in the East'." (Koenraad Elst, The Saffron Swastika)

• "His aim was to turn the Warthegau into a model Gau (district). He expressed contempt for the indigenous Poles and took care to implement seriously the detailed criteria the Nazis used to determine which of the Poles could be Germanized and which could not." (Laurence Rees, Nazis: A Warning from History)

• "To create living space for Volksdeutsche, who were to be resettled on territories of western Poland annexed by Germany, approximately one million indigenous Poles and Polish Jews were deported to the General Government" (Holocaust Memorial Museum, In Pursuit of Justice: Examining the Evidence of the Holocaust)

• "When the Recovered Territories returned to Poland in 1945 there were over one million indigenous Poles and a complete ruin of cultural centres." (Bohdan Gruchman, Polish Western Territories)

• "Together with the one million indigenous Poles, who had not yielded to the centuries of Germanization (the largest centres were in the Opole region, Upper Silesia and Olsztyn Province, they totalled 65 per cent of the pre-war population of these regions." (Stanisław Arnold, ‎Marian Żychowski, Outline History of Poland: From the Beginning of State to the Present Time)

• "Verification conducted by Polish authorities in 1945—48, with the strong support of local civic bodies, established the fact that more than 1.2 million indigenous Poles — had survived on the regained area." (Edmund Męclewski, The Economic Development of Poland's Western and Northern Regions)

• "During the time of Governor General Frank's rule, terror and brutality reigned, not only against the Jews but also directed towards the indigenous Polish population." (Aubrey Diem, H is for Holocaust)

• "Himmler's death squad were once again free to roam the occupied areas, bringing death and destruction as they drove the indigenous Polish and Jewish populations from their homes and replaced them with racially acceptable Volksdeutsche settlers." (Gordon Williamson, The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror)

• "Nazi colonialism led to two genocides in Poland and Ukraine respectively: one against the Jews, and another against the indigenous Poles and Ukrainians." (A. Dirk Moses, Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History)

I could go on and on with that.

But of course. --Niemti (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could, but it would be futile since none of them contradict what I have been saying. Poles are indigenous to Polandto be sure but they are not an indigenous people, and none of your sources say otherwise.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, "subhuman" =/= "people" alright. Now answer my question and tell me how your own so fiercely approved definitions from the Wikipedia articles somehow don't apply in this case - cite the exact fragments of these definitions (I cited them for you in their entirity above), and elaborate. --Niemti (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti, they don't apply because not a single source suggests that they apply. Poles are never discussed as an indigenous people in the literature on indigenous peoples, and none of the sources on genocides on indigenous peoples consider the genocide against poles as a genocide against indigenous peoples. You have presented no source to the contrary, and untill you do there is no discussion about this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it doesn;t because you say so. And really? Never?

• "The 'General Plan for the East' (Generalplan Ost) ruthlessly disregarded the indigenous people of Poland, the Ukraine and Russia, and completely ignored their human rights" (Prem Poddar, Rajeev Shridhar Patke, Lars Jensen, A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures: Continental Europe and Its Empires)

Oh no. Trolling intensifies. --Niemti (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't because I am quite familiar with the literature on Indigenous peoples. That source at least uses the term "indigenous people", but it is not using it in the established definition (it would have been "peoples" if it were) and it is not a source about "indigenous peoples" and so not part of the literature. If you like we can have an RfC on whether The Polish genocide should be included in the article or not. If the consensus there sides with you then so it will be. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And "the people" were Slavs, of course. --Niemti (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which:

• "This was far less likely to be the case in eastern Europe where the prime Nazi objective was to create Lebensraum (“living space”) for the expansion of the German race and to crush the indigenous Slavic population." (Tom Buchanan, Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945 to the Present)

• "Nazis linked this “new, utopian vision of an Aryan-dominated Europe” to the destruction of indigenous, Slavic peoples, whose survivors would be reduced to undifferentiated workers and slaves" (Peter Fritzsche, Life and death in the Third Reich)

• "As part of this objective, the Germans began during the war (initially in Poland and then in Russia) enslaving, displacing, or murdering indigenous Slavs, whom the Germans counted as racial subhumans." (Donald M. McKalem, Hitler's Shadow War: The Holocaust and World War II)

And so on.

Trolling overdrive. --Niemti (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is also irrelevant. I have started an RfC below and advertised it broadly to wikiprojects related to Indigenous peoples and human rights. If I have missed some wikiprojects feel free to advertise it there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC asks what should be the scope of this article? Should the article either

A. have a broad scope and include all genocides perpetrated against a people on their own home territory so that the genocide against Poles, Rwandans, Croats, Irish, etc. as well as historical acts of genocide such as the Roman genocide against the Carthaginians are included.

or

B. should the scope be narrowly defined to the international legal definition of Indigenous peoples that only include cultural minorities marginalized by colonial expansion or by the establishment of a nation state dominated by another majority ethnic group, excluding those groups who have or have later achieved their own ethnic nation state?

or

C. ?

• B The literature about "Genocide of indigenous peoples" such as Maybury Lewis 2002, Hitchcock & Koperski all use the narrow definition. Using the broad definition would not only contradict the literature on the subject, but would cause the article to overlap almost fully with the general article on Genocide only perhaps excluding the Holocaust against Jews in so far as they are considered not to be indigenous to Europe.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B - the common useage of this topic in virtually every, if not every, print book that has covered the topic that I have seen has used "indigenous peoples" in the tense of "natives", "aboriginals"; Indians, not Poles. Spreading smallpox-laced blankets to the Native Americans, yes; the Irish Potato Famine, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B - per Maunus and Bushranger. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• C - The "Rwandans" part was totally absurd (once again). Per me. --Niemti (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B: Narrow scope, if only because a broader scope would make this article overlap very substantially with the Genoicide article. Practically all genoicides have been of "indigenous" people if we take a sufficiently broad definition. bobrayner (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• B as per above b votes as seen at Alexander Laban Hinton (2002). Annihilating Difference: The Anthropology of Genocide. University of California Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-520-23029-3. -- Moxy (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B per the above. We go by the sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B The focus of the article is on "Genocide of Indigenous People" and that particular academic/international legal discussion. The focus of the article is not on genocides against people who are claimed to be indigenous to an area. ? AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B per the above. Any attempt to broaden the definition would not meet the sources, especially in the academic and legal fields. To broaden it would also invite WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE into the article. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B. C. We have Genocides in history to describe this for all peoples. However, current content can be significantly expanded. If source A (UN or any other RS) defines a nation as "indigenous people" and source B tells about "genocide" of this nation, it can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B Articles should be about topics that exist in reliable sources, not a collection of unrelated events. TFD (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• C This article seems to mean "European dispossession of non-European native peoples from their ancestral lands" - so that should be its scope. A seems to have been taken care of via another article as a previous person said, and B as a narrow definition still has a problem in that certain other groups, such as the Roma, are "indigenous", and there are others such the Irish, or even the Saxons or those before the Saxons who could be considered "indigenous", and subjected to genocide that aren't included, all mainly because of the fuzziness of the exact meaning of "indigenous". Meanwhile, there's some blatant POV in the article regarding the spread of disease...Hires an editor (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B although I might considered Hires an editor's C as a possibility. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B Asian genocide of Indigenous peoples would probably be appropriate to include as well. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
• B - per Maunus and Bushranger. Kaldari (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B - per above comments. United States Man (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B - Indigenous People in this context is commonly used to refer to popluations outside of Europe. Perhaps change the article title to Genocide of Minority Populations or start a new article called European Genocides. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

would cause the article to overlap almost fully with the general article on Genocide only perhaps excluding the Holocaust against Jews in so far as they are considered not to be indigenous to Europe. - What a silly and absurd (again) claim. But let's see. For example, the already mentioned by me above, the WWII genocide of the ethnic Serbs (relatively recent arrivals) in eastern Croatia - by the indigenous Croats (namely the Ustasha). Or, speaking of the Poles, and WWII, the genocide of the Polish colonialist population in Volhynia, at the hands of the indigenous Ukrainians (namely the UON).

Or, speaking of Ukrainians, and Jews, the slaughter of Jews during the Khmelnytsky Uprising - but just maybe, because it's debatale (and I'd also once again tell you the very basics of the subject):

• "Is there not a difference in nature between Hitler's extermination of three million Polish Jews between 1939 and 1945 because he wanted every Jew dead and the mass murder 1648-49 of 100,000 Polish Jews by General Bogdan Chmielnicki because he wanted to end Polish rule in the Ukraine and was prepared to use Cossack terrorism to kill Jews in the process? The genre of the crime is not contingent on artithmetic; it is intent which differentiates." (Colin Martin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide)

And yeah, the "sources" saying that even completely accidental and even unavoidable outbreaks of disease among free-living populations were genocidal are complete and utter idiots - or "simple trolls", literally and professionaly. --Niemti (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add an option C to the RfC wording so that people know what you are voting in favor of and so that other people can also choose to support that option?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The so-called "choice" was of given to an absurd includion of "Rwandans". (Wikipedia sez: The Tutsi have lived in the areas where they are for at the very least hundreds of years, leading to considerable intermarriage with the Bantu / Hutu people in the area. Due to the history of intermingling and intermarrying of Hutus and Tutsis, ethnographers and historians have lately come to agree that Hutu and Tutsis cannot be properly called distinct ethnic groups.) Which was either some 'expert knowledge' in action again, or maybe actually just "simple trolling". That's all just so stupid. Which is why I voted "C", and which is why that survey is completely invalid. --Niemti (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you claim to be an expert in exactly? When you claim that the Hutus and Tutsis are not distinct ethnic groups what are you claiming exactly? YThat the so-called Rwandan genocide cannot be properly called a genocide but a civil war, or ethno-suicide? I don't understand how you would define the scope of this article so please add your formulation of an option C so that the survey becomes "valid" in your eyes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to think about it in detail, but in another example, Cambodia 1975-79 would probably not be included (even the massacres of the Vietnamese villagers during the incursion into Vietnam were in the "ancient Khmer" lands, or so they said), unless in the case of some still existing pre-Khmer ethnic group, and they were targeting every minority including even the Chinese (China being their ally) so it's actually quite possible. In Poland (pre-war borders): by Germans yes, by Ukrainians not. Croatia 1940s yes, but Bosnia 1990s - not (Serb and Croat presence well predates introduction of Islam to the region, and the Bosniaks are basically the Croats and Serbs who became Muslims). Chechnya-Ingushetia 1944 - absolutely yes, Zanzibar 1963 - probably not. (Some cases are totally obvious, others less so.)

It's not my claim, it's Wikipedia's, and it's you who's holding Wikipedia in such high regard, anyway it was clearly not a case of indigenous people vs invaders/occupiers/colonizers (genocidal violence going either way, colonizers can be on receiving end as well, but it's not a subject of this article) - also the "Rwandans" or rather the Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda AND other the countries in the region have repeatedly commited genocide against each other (depending who was at power while afraid of the other side prevailing, or angry and seeking revenge), "the" genocide was just the largest one and supposed to be total (locally, not in the region). --Niemti (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that your proposed definition is so individual to your own personal understanding of what is and isn't genocide and what is and isn't an indigenous people that it is a clear example of OR. Even if it weren't OR or if OR was not prohibited I don't see how a consistent definition of the scope of the article would be possible following your reasoning.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of your personal understanding, like somehow projecting this "Rwandans" silyness on me, or maybe you were just constructing a strawman argument. Btw (User:The Bushranger), the Potato Famine wasn't genocide at all, of course, it was a natural disaster only made worse by criminal neglect and mismanagement that turned it into a humanitarian disaster. (The Great Leap Forward also wasn't genocide.) Good night. --Niemti (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a personal definition. The addition of Rwandans was not an attempt to project anything onto you but a result of your case being incoherently argued so that I had no way of knowing which genocides would or would not qualify according to you. I still don't understand by what criterion you can include Poles and exclude Rwandans - since both groups are indigenous in the sense of living in their ancestral territories. I also don't understand how you can pretend to categorically say what historical events are and aren't genocide when historians and human rights scholars continue to debate so many of those cases.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rwandans" (really Hutu and Tutsi tribes in the extended region, consisting of Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo) are both indigenous to their territories alright, so it's a texbook cse of NOT a case of outsiders-on-natives genocide (possibly except in the case of Congo, where the local Tutsi rebels worked hand-in-hand with the invading Rwandan army and the victims included local Hutu villagers as well as refugees from Rwanda). Do you think I'm being "coherent" enough, yet? And I never even mentioned Rwanda that you somehow chose for constructing your strawman argument by making my position look absurd. I mentioned the Roman Empire's various genocidal actions, the Mongol deluge, and the Hitlerist genocidal policies and long-term plans in the east that were other the Holocaust/Shoah (which was WWII genocide of Jews, nothing more or less). --Niemti (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti- I understand your argument and actually think it is strong in many respects. If I were making a list of genocides against indigenous people myself, I'd probably be convinced by most of your cases (I think I might even go along with excluding unintentional acts--but that requires more thought). But there is a definite literature on "Genocide of Indigenous Peoples" that I need to respect first before my own decisions come into play for this article. That literature is quite solid, quite important (directly leading to U.S. and int'l court cases), and has a clear focus of attention (typically those groups identified as indigenous by national or international law). I think we need that literature to be the basis of the article, no matter how much better we could make the examples. Listing cases and finding quotes identifying groups as indigenous does not place an ethnic group in the academic or legal discussion of "Genocide of Indigenous People" and is not convincing to me. What I would find most convincing (short of identifying the groups in the actual literature) would be if you could give me a persuasive answer to: why should we depart from the literature and include other cases in the article which are not within the scope of the primary academic and legal treatment of the subject? AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand his argument perhaps you can summarize it for me, because frankly I don't see how it coheres at all. Regarding unintentional acts, there is certainly a debate in the literature about whether they qualify - I see no such debate regarding the Polish or Rwandan genocides. His argument about Hutus and Tutsis not being distinct ethnic groups seems to me to be ethnologically naive and seems to hinge on an misapprehended semi-racialist understanding of what "ethnicity" means. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said about "why should we depart from the literature", when I asked I provided a plenty of sample examples of literature saying the Poles were indigenous to the areas of their unfinished genocide by Germany during WWII (and just anyone can easily find many more, including the use of term "genocide" or "genocidal" about these policies and long-term plans). It was also not limited to the Polish people, or only Poland. Articles about it here on Wikipedia: New Order (Nazism), Generalplan Ost, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, Hunger Plan, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, Lebensraum, Planned destruction of Warsaw, and many more. --Niemti (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fine points. But A. Poles are indigenous, B. Poles are people, and C. Poles suffered genocide does not equal D. 'genocide of indigenous peoples'. I know it might not make logical sense--but the literature has a clear focus (subnational minorities who persist in their unique cultural practices) and the best editing option it seems to me is to follow that literature until the page is more filled. After that, we may decide we want to include genocide of other groups to improve content. But let's get the basics down first, look at the article, then work on what else might be added. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that same syllogism leads to "Hutus and Tutsis are people, Hutus and Tutsis are indigenous to Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis suffered genocide", which Niemti denies. This is why I don't see any coherence in his proposed scope, it seems simply he maintains that he by using logical reasoning is able to decide on a case by case basis whether a particular genocide applies, though apparently the reasoning of most experts on the subject contradicts his.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. I DID SAY THEY DID SUFFER GENOCIDE (very clearly so, even noting that they did it repeatedly, against each other, and not only in Rwanda). I say THEY WERE NOT KILLED BY OUTSIDERS (INVADERS/OCCUPIERS/COLONIZERS). It's like, to compare with individuals, domestic violence, instead of a home invasion (foreign invasion, obviously) or a landlord being murdered by the guy who rented a flat (natives vs newcomers). Why do you keep totally misrepresenting what I say while constructing absurd strawman arguments in order to ridicule my positions? You know what, I can talk for myself. I don't need any more of your bullshit. Stop doing that. You want to counter my sources (and all the others I didn't cite but anyone can find), go and find sources precisely claiming that the Slavs are in fact not indigenous to Eastern Europe (claiming just that, not simply not mentioning that fact) and/or somehow there were no genocidal policies, acts and plans towards them from the invading, occupying and colonising Germans from Germany who took the idea of Drang nach Osten to the extreme (just like they did with antisemitism). --Niemti (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misread me, I say you deny that the syllogism works for the Rwandan case because claim that since both groups are equally indigenous they don't qualify - i.e. you add an additional criterion namely that the perpetrator not be indigenous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article currently has undue weight on Bangladesh, but this will be taken care of during the coming expansion. Regarding disease the article currently includes both viewpoints, as it should. Genocide by disease is not as you claim a fringe viewpoint advanced by Ward Churchill but is supported by other sources such as Stannard and Todorov and mentioned as a possible view in several of the review articles. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Circassian genocide in Russia (19th century) should be included. In addition, Population transfer in the Soviet Union included cleansings of many ethnic minorities noted in article Indigenous people, Operation Lentil (Caucasus) was one of the operations. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Circassian's are not mentioned in the primary literature on the topic and are not active in the UN Indigenous Peoples forum. So, they shouldn't get included. Other indigenous groups in Russia and the former Soviet Union may deserve inclusion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few sources and didn't find mention of the Adyghe/Circassians, but I could be convinced by other sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is active on UN forum is irrelevant. It only matters what reliable sources tell. Yes, the UN list is one of the sources, and Circassians (for example) appear in article Indigenous people. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @GregJackP: the article's already FRINGE (accidental transmission of disease as "genocide") and UNDUE (Bangladesh). --Niemti (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is peer-reviewed scholastic support for the intentional transmission of disease to American Indians, per the following sources:

1. "That garments containing deadly, viable smallpox virus were actually given—sometimes intentionally—by Europeans to Native Americans is undeniable and well documented." Mayor, Adrienne (1995). "The Nessus Shirt in the New World: Smallpox Blankets in History and Legend". The Journal of American Folklore. 108 (427): 56.
2. "Military officers, traders, and settlers advocated the use of smallpox blankets when inconvenienced by tribes who insisted on possessing and exercising authority over their lands." Valencia-Weber, Gloria (2003). "Native Americans and the Constitution: The Supreme Court's Indian Law Decisions: Deviations from Constitutional Principles and the Crafting Of Judicial Smallpox Blankets". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 5: 408.
3. "Its reputation was formed by the actions of government officials who used gifts of smallpox-infected blankets to destroy tribal communities. . . ." Washburn, Kevin K. (2006). "American Indians, Crime, and the Law". Michigan Law Review. 104 (4): 735.
4. "In the Revolutionary War the British did not use [smallpox] infected blankets as British Commander Jeffery Amherst had against the Indians in 1763. . . ." Byerly, Carol R. (2002). "Of Smallpox and Empire: Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82 by Elizabeth Anne Fenn". Reviews in American History. 30 (2): 207.
5. Knollenberg, Bernhard (1954). "General Amherst and Germ Warfare". The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 41 (3): 489–494.

And books written on the subject, per:

1. Gessler, J. E. (2013). Smallpox: A History. Jefferson, North Carolina: MacFarland. pp. 27–30. ISBN 9780786493272.
2. Foster, George T. (2006). Focus on Bioterrorism. Hauppauge, New York: Nova. pp. 47, 59. ISBN 9781600211850.
3. "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." Mann, Barbara Alice (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 41. ISBN 9780313353383.

I could go on, but there is plenty of academic support for the intentional infection of indigenous peoples by Europeans, the Amherst case being documented by the general's own letters and those of his co-conspirators. There is nothing WP:FRINGE about that information. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Journal of American Folklore"? That's right, "American folklore" indeed. Not only there was no biological warfare by the United States, but between 40-50,000 Indians were even vacinated for smallpox by the federal government already in 1832 (founded by the Congress after lobbying by Isaac McCoy, who wanted them out, but kept alive). --Niemti (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this what the Choctaw themselves state about the cholera oubreak on their website: see here" So please, spare me and everybody the BS from Ward Churchill and other extremist charlatans. OK? Those people are mainstream, this guy is fringe. --Niemti (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a pretty bad job at arguing here Niemti, we have shown approximately 15 sources, none of them written by Ward Churchill, that argue that the US at different times made deliberate use of disease to decimate indigenous populations. You haven't read any of those sources and have made no sign of even knowing who they are written by or what arguments they use - yet you keep rejecting them as fringe and associated with Churchill. It is clearly not a fringe view but a prominent view in the literature, and as such it will be included in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let me quote: "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." Not according to the Choctaw. They say they were not deliberately "marched into cholera" and regarding rerouting, they say they were rerouted away to ensure that they would not be "dragged through the heart of the epidemic" (which was the original route). They say the deaths were accidental ("natural, of course"), and that the agents in charge did their best to keep the deportees alive (while themselves exposed to the outbreak, which killed "several hundred" whites), and one even became a "hero". Some genocide. So, what now? You have the word of Barbara Alice Mann vs. the Choctaw nation, two absolutely incompatible narratives. Which one version is fringe? --Niemti (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you care to read our policy on reliable sources and weight you will be able to answer that question yourself. Also just because two viewpoints contradict eachother that does not mean that one is necessarily fringe. You are also misrepresenting the source and your failure to read Mann makes you fail to notice that she elaborates on the account given by Len Green: Armstrong fired Colqouhoun the responsible for diverting the Choctaw and the 1000 Choctaw he had saved were deliberately marched back into the epidemic.... User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's see: "see here" Show me (quote) which part is compatible with her and now also your claim that "Armstrong was fired for diverting the Choctaw and the 1000 Choctaw he had saved were deliberately marched back into the epidemic...." and tell me more about Gaines being allegedly so 'genocidal' in general (speaking of "weak arguments", and fringe claims). --Niemti (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti, Len Greeen who wrote that in 1995 is a journalist, Mann is a historian and the book based on recent research conducted is academically published (not that it matters but incidentally she is also a member of the Seneca Nation).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And http://www.choctawnation.com is not a private website of Len Greeen. Here's about the removal: http://www.choctawnation.com/history/choctaw-nation-history/removal/removal/ Also, here's from the Encylopedia of Arkansas: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2294 ("Supplies of food, fodder, and firewood were arranged along the way by the military, private contractors, or tribal leaders. Even with physicians assigned to most removal groups, many died from infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery, measles, and smallpox.") Wikipedia article: Choctaw Trail of Tears. Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal: [6] Official website of "A Journey of Injustice": http://www.nps.gov/trte/index.htm Nowhere not a trace of her fringe claims. --Niemti (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Niemti - please show me one reference that I cited that was by Ward Churchill. You can't, because I did not cite that Indian wannabe nutcase. Unless you have proof that all of the academic sources are fringe, I would suggest that you rethink your position of denial. As an example, the Amherst case is very well documented and accepted as fact by the majority of historians. Mann's work on the Choctaw and cholera is similarly well regarded academically, with over 800 footnotes, most to primary documents showing the intentional infection of the tribes by whites. You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians (Curtis, Edward S. (1911). The North American Indian. Volume 8 - The Nez Perces. Wallawalla. Umatilla. Cayuse. The Chinookan tribes (2007 reprint ed.). Classic Books. pp. 81–82. ISBN 9780742698086.). You can also look at the following (non-Churchill) sources:

1. Lindsey, Brendan C. (2012). Murder State: California's Native American Genocide, 1846-1873. U. of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803240216.
2. Thorton, Russell (1987). American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 (1990 reprint ed.). University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806122205.
3. Totten, Samuel (2011). Genocide of indigenous Peoples. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781412844550.
4. French, Laurence (2003). Native American Justice. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780830415755.
5. Marder, William (2005). Indians in the Americas: The Untold Story. Book Tree. ISBN 9781585091041.

It is clear that the fact of Native American genocide is accepted in the mainstream historical community. You need to accept this, or it becomes a case of WP:IDHT. It is not a case of all sources having to agree, even tribal sources. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Whitman was just an alleged serial killer working on his own - if it was even true. You see, the Whitman massacre article here on Wikipedia is actually about the murder of Whitman (and his wife). To quote it (the Wikipedia article): "Among the many new white arrivals at Waiilatpu in 1847 was Joe Lewis. Bitter from what he perceived to be maltreatment received in the East, Lewis attempted to spread discontent among the local Cayuse, hoping to create a situation in which he could ransack the Whitman Mission. He told the Cayuse that Dr. Whitman, who was attempting to treat them during a measles epidemic for which they lacked immunity, was, in fact, not trying to save them but instead was deliberately poisoning them. A common practice among the Columbia Plateau tribes was that the doctor, or shaman, could be killed in retribution if patients died. It is probable that the Cayuse and Umatilla held Dr. Whitman responsible for the numerous deaths and therefore felt justification to take his life as per their custom. Other factors that may have contributed to the massacre were outbreaks of cholera, conflict between the Protestant missionaries and local Catholic priests, resentment over missionaries' attempts to transform the Indians' lifestyle and the killing of a Walla Walla chief's son. It was also claimed by anti-catholic ministers, including Henry Spalding, that Roman Catholic priests may have told the Cayuse that Whitman was the cause of the disease and incited the Cayuse to attack. Their motivation was portrayed as a desire to take over his Protestant station, which he had refused to sell to them. Priests named in various versions of this theory include Pierre-Jean De Smet, Jean-Baptiste Brouillet and Joseph Cataldo." So, Whitman could as well be a humanitarian and a victim of a false accusation (and now a black legend, in some circles). And then you say "all sources having to agree"? Seriously? --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming increasingly futile to discuss with you when you keep countering sources with opinion and refusing to even read them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming increasingly futile to discuss with you when you're still unable to admit you were wrong. You also still forgot to explain how anything claimed by this woman and yours (to remind you: "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." followed by "Armstrong fired Colqouhoun the responsible for diverting the Choctaw and the 1000 Choctaw he had saved were deliberately marched back into the epidemic....") might be compatible in a slightest with the account presented by the Choctaw. --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you say that based on what exactly? BAsed on not having read her work? And what about the other 15 scholars are they also "another Churchill"User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you wrote, apparently citing her. Are you now saying you've misunderstood/misquoted her or something? Feel free to cite "the other 15 scholars", now I've got two claims, one that I quickly proved fringe and apparently completely false (the Choctaw) and another's unproven at very least and even of it was true (probably not) it was just one private person (Whitman), so let's see about these 13 others. --Niemti (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is over. I am not wasting any more time on your nonsense. There clearly is neither consensus nor sources nor policy in support of your claims and arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your uncoditional surrender. --Niemti (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here about it according to Portland State University's Oregon Encylopedia: see here --Niemti (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed material from this talkpage that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. GregJackP Boomer! 10:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC asks:

Question 1. Should the article include mention of the claim that disease was used deliberately by US agents and private persons against indigenous populations?

A. No the claim is WP:Fringe, and including it would be undue weight.

B. Yes, the claim is a notable mainstream view found in reliable sources.

Question 2. Should the article specifically mention Mann's 2009 argument that the Choctaw were marched deliberately through the Vicksburg Cholera epidemic?

C. Yes, the claim is well substantiated and notable.

D No, they claim is not accepted in the general literature and it would be undue weight to include it.

• B and C The claim is repeated in many reliably published sources and is a notable claim in the literature on Genocide against Indigenous Americans. Counter claims can be presented as well when they are sourced to sources of equal reliability. Specifically Mann's 2009 claim that the Choctaw were subjected to deliberate routing through the Cholera epidemic of Vicksburg is new in the literature and so has not been widely accepted, but it is well substantiated with evidence in the book, and the book as been generally favorably reviewed. It is however not the only source that makes the claim that disease was used deliberately. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A Mann's odd claim is not repeated in any reliably published sources I know about (not one was presented), and especially not in any encyclopedia (including even elsewhere on Wikipedia). Nothing on the Choctaw website (except claims totally to the contrary), nothing on the gvt memorial website, nothing in state encyclopedias, nothing in Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal, nothing anywhere. --Niemti (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• B and C - The first is a no brainier...just have to read a book over playing video games. As for the Choctaw Nation experience they do consider it a genocide as seen above by the sources - it makes it on the lists every time in reference works for the study of history and social studies in academic settings like the "Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal" despite what is said above -- Moxy (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel F. Littlefield, Jr.; James W. Parins (2011). Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal. ABC-CLIO. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-313-36041-1.

Samuel Totten; Paul Robert Bartrop (2008). Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. ABC-CLIO. p. 208. ISBN 978-0-313-34642-2.

• B and C. At this point, the sources provided make both beyond dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B and C. Both claims are mainstream beliefs believed by a majority of scholars on the issue. GregJackP Boomer! 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• B and C. On the first, per: Finzsch quoted in Jones' Genocide: An Introduction. Pretty much the most mainstream you can get. For the second, the review of the book in American Indian Quarterly obviously shows it is not a 'fringe' theory--although the claim should have in-text attribution to Mann. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither - The question assumes either truth or fiction regarding this...instead, it might be worthwhile to note "controversy" in this question, that there are reliable sources that state it to be true, and others that say not so much...in either case it's a common thing that people think happened, so they would come here to find out. We should present that we don't know, and that various reliable sources don't know, either; or that they think they know one way or the other. Hires an editor (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but that misrepresents the question, which clearly does not suggest that either view should be taken as gospel - it says "a mainstream view" (i.e. not fringe), not "THE mainstream view". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)on is about mentioning both view or excluding one.[reply]

Um, no it doesn't. The question says it's a "mainstream claim", and I dispute that wording of the question, and I dispute the choice of responses. This is more complex than that. It's a "frequent" claim, and it is noted by mainstream historians, as either truth, untruth, or unknown...or it's a "disputed" claim. But in any case, it should be noted that reputable historians think that it did or didn't happen, or that they can't verify with any certainty that it did or didn't happen...The way the question is even worded assumes a certainty that we don't really have. Hires an editor (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly assumes no such thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree, but I gotta tell ya, getting the last word here like this is not cool, and not appreciated. In fact, arguing with my opinion like this in the first place is certainly not getting along or coming to a consensus. I put my opinion, what I felt about the question, and my proposed remedies to it. You are then free to "let it be" instead of fighting me on it. You are being argumentative here. Hires an editor (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Separated comments:

• Question 1: 'B' is suggested by numerous amassed sources and seemingly denied by few or none. First: it seems that all are in agreement that smallpox blankets were used, at minimum, at Fort Pitt. Additionally: a search for "smallpox blanket myth" on Google Scholar turns up mostly articles in reputable journals which confirm that these blankets were used as a form of biological warfare. Other searches yield similar results. I did find this article published by Thomas Brown in Plagiary attacking Ward Churchill's scholarship regarding the Mandan in 1837. I see that this article is currently used here. While it may be worth mentioning, it would not seem to trump sources that are (a) some convincing combination of more credible, better sourced, and more recent, and/or (b) about a different event. Brown's article does not seem to be cited in further scholarship. Meanwhile, this article by Elizabeth Fenn (reproduced from the Journal of American History) seems to acknowledge the existence of some disputes, but argue convincingly that we must accept "smallpox blanket" as a generally recognized tactic of colonial warfare.
• Question 2: The claim that the Choctaw were deliberately exposed to cholera is asserted strongly by Mann. Mann provides evidence, which seems robust, that the US military hierarchy intentionally routed the Choctaw into a cholera epidemic. Although the epidemic may have broken out without foreknowledge, it seems that the military denied requests to re-route the journey, as part of its policy of harsh treatment. Niemti's position that Mann's position contradicts choctawnation.com seems like weak original research; hardly the smoking gun implied by their tone. (I am inferring an argument that the spread of cholera was accidental and that Vicksburg had been chosen as a destination before the outbreak became obvious. Niemti, please let me know if you meant this or something different. Stepping back to look at the big picture on this source, an article by Len Green, it is pretty clear that Green intends to describe a genocidal situation.) Other sources do not go into the same depth as Mann, but do also describe the cholera epidemic as part of a deliberately genocidal situation: example. The Encyclopedia of Indian Removal is probably the best source implying (here) that cholera infection was not deliberate, but again this would be a bit of an inference. IMO, cholera infection as an individualized tactic of biological warfare should not foregrounded as part of the discussion about genocide of the Choctaw. Mann's argument might be mentioned and then discussed in more depth at Choctaw Trail of Tears.
• On a side note, I want to extend some very sincere gratitude to those folks, particularly Darkness Shines and Maunus/ʍaunus/snunɐw, who are doing the difficult but important work of constructing this article. groupuscule (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Groupuscule: A group of some one/third was rerouted (talking about "rerouting") to Memphis, which was dangerous gambit because there was no alternate route was prepared, and so there was no food and no ships waiting for them there. There's actually no word of "cholera" (or "Vicksburg", for that matter) at all in the page you linked to [7] in your preferred source, it's only in on another page: [8] (where it says they were "dodged by sickness" and generally "suffered dreadfully from cholera" citing the acount of their friend agent Armstrong who decided to get them through Memphis, and how the rumours of cholera caused the hired wagon drivers to flee in Memphis further complicating the already grave situation) - why did you claim it does also describe the cholera epidemic as part of a deliberately genocidal situation when this is totally untrue, and this page you linked doesn't even mention cholera (or even any disease at all)? It's just another book with not a trace of Mann's claims, of course (like apparently about 99.9% of the literature and 100% of encyclopedias), contrary to what you just stated. And if Green "intends to describe a genocidal situation", he would write about "a genocidal situation". Stop coming here with a confirmation bias, actively looking for something instead of just checking the literature and then forming an opinion, and assuming what someone "intended" yet didn't write. Also, colonial warfare: I don't even try to dispute the Ft. Pitt incident, but it had nothing to do whatsoever with the subject of "United States colonization and westward expansion" (it was British colonialism). I stated this repeatedly so. --Niemti (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti, I agree with you on Question 2 that we don't have enough sources at this time to foreground Mann's argument about deliberate infection with cholera. However, there does seem to be enough evidence to describe the whole of Indian Removal as a genocidal process—Choctaw Trail of Tears included. Regarding the issue of Britain or the U.S., the underlying issue is genocide committed by Ango-American settlers and their descendents. Typically Wikipedians seem OK with including British settlement as part of the pre-history of the U.S. (See United States and History of the United States.) The purpose being to describe an essentially continuous historical process. But if you feel we need to change the title of the section that may be possible. groupuscule (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in history of Mexico you've got stuff from thousands of years before even an arrival of Columbus, even as the country of Mexico didn't exist until centuries and even millenia later, does it mean the Mexican government is guilty of human sacrafices? It's not "United States colonization and westward expansion". It was British military, that the Americans later fought and defeat to create their own country (which only then started to expand, because prior to that it didn't exist). I mean, so obviously. --Niemti (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Sorry if the placement of my answer makes this suvey harder to tally. I just want to specifically endose Niemti's point above. Thank you for taking the time to look at what the source actually says. Wikipedia has the very real ability to change history (or atleast how it is commonly understood) Thank you for your research into what the actual source says. It make a difference. As for the first question. I vote B. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This random list is false and misleading. --Niemti (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that states any of those sources are false or misleading? If there is a question on the reliability of any or all of the sources, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. GregJackP Boomer! 23:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of non-existing sources (other than Mann's 'revelations'):

• https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=bks&hl=pl&q=Choctaw+cholera+deliberately
• https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=bks&hl=pl&q=Choctaw+cholera+knowingly
• https://www.google.pl/search?tbm=bks&hl=pl&q=Choctaw+cholera+rerouted

Case closed. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the list 'random', 'false' or 'misleading'? If you are accusing Maunus of misrepresenting sources, you'd better have some pretty strong evidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did add some sources presented by User:GregJackP which I have not myself read, and so I do not vouch for all of those sources myself. Luckily most of his sources are equipped with quotes from the text.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presented evidence the "deliberately rerouted to the cholera" a claim by Mann's and Mann alone (in the books and encylopedias). --94.246.154.130 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source (1) checks out, in as much as the abstract states that "...Native Americans were victims of what was probably one of the earliest episodes of biological warfare". [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only documented incident is from the Colonial times (Siege of Fort Pitt), nothing to the with the USA because it didn't even exist. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source (2) states that "It was a matter of frequent observation on the American frontier that disease outbreaks, particularly of smallpox, were devastating to Native Americans. Some of these outbreaks might have been deliberately instigated. There are sporadic records of attempts to do so over 300 years of nearly continuous frontier warfare" (p.16 - the sources cited for this statement are unfortunately not visible via Google books). [10] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Excerpt from source (4) can be found here: [11]. It states that "Smallpox blankets and the Supreme Court's Indian law cases are inseparable from historical relationships between the American Indian sovereigns 3 and Euro-Americans. These specific objects and decisions are a result of the historical relationship. Smallpox blankets infected American Indians as the result of intentional acts where the donor knew of the deadly microbes.".

At this point, I suggest that Niemti retracts the assertion that the list is "random" or "false and misleading", and stops wasting everyone's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where's any mention of Mann's Choctow cholera allegations in all of these random quotes? --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - is this really an RfC about things they teach everyone in grade 10? Grade Level: 10th grade U. S. History Or is it just about the Choctaw Nation experience? -- Moxy (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the first, and secondarily about the second.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"they teach everyone". Reality: "Since I teach on an Indian Reservation and more than half of my students are Native Americans, I would like to create a unit based on their history." Nice man(n)ipulation, man. --Niemti (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Conclusion of review of Mann 2009 by Margaret Bruchac (American Indian Quarterly, vol 35, iss 1, 1011) "Overall, Mann's work is provocative, informed, and refreshing. She provides crucial historical evidence that effectively answers the charge (by some modern scholars) that disease epidemics were largely accidental and that complaints of genocide are merely polemical. She stresses the need for meticulous research to establish clear lines of accountability. Most important, she makes it clear that the intentional spread of disease abetted a general discourse of destruction that promoted death (by whatever means) as an appropriate "final solution" to the Indian problem. That toxic dream informed the vision of manifest destiny, resonates in American popular culture, and continues to threaten Indigenous survival today."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Review "Barbara Mann has done it again. Abundantly documented, lucidly written and, best of all, utterly unequivocal in its conclusions, this is quite simply the best book ever written on the topic" Ward Churchill, author of A Little Matter of Genocide (also printed on the back cover). A different book, same stuff from the same circle. Oh, and her dedication of The Tainted Gift: "for Ward Churchill" (page 6, the only text there). It wasn't just dedicated for Ward Churchill, it was dedicated for Ward Churchill only - and then some people here try to argue she's unrelated to "that Indian wannabe nutcase" (to quote one of the users here) and it's a "mainstream" view. Maybe you want me to lose my little remaining faith in Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The main difference is as follows:

Churchill did not provide any footnotes to support his claims with the Mandan tribe being infected, with neither primary nor secondary sources (using the academic, not Wikipedia definition of those sources). When confronted, Churchill claimed that he used "oral story-telling" as sources, but could not provide any supporting interviews, tapes, etc. to support this.

Mann provided both primary (documents written within six months of the event) and secondary sources (documents from after six months) to provide support for her work. Mann refuses to use oral story-telling except under two conditions: 1) it is from her tribe, or 2) she has explicit permission to use the material from the involved persons and tribe. If she uses oral story-telling, it is identified as such and supporting documentation provided. (BTW, this is shown in her book, if you would read it).

You are taking general material and coming to a conclusion that is not stated in the source - which is original research. We don't base articles on OR in Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All you people. Few things that you forgot, or maybe didn't know in first place:
• You can't have a genocide by private individuals. It's being a serial killer or mass killer. (And in these areas there was often no law enforcement at all.) For example: a skinhead gang murdering dozens of minorities in systematic attacks in Moscow is not a genocide (even when they had a support among some members of local OMON who gave them an access to their gym among other things) - you'd need a deliberate program by the city authorities to "clean the streets" by dispatching death sqads for that.
• <removed BLP violation> And, to repeat myself again: her all of sudden, a new revelation "they were deliberately rerouted into the cholera!" claim is not repeated in any books by other authors, let alone featured in any encyclopedias (even elsewhere in Wikipedia). So mainstream.
• There were, of course, acts of genocide (Chivington's Sand Creek massacre being arguably the most known, and most odious - and he did have many supporters among the public and local authorities, but the army and congressional investigations condemned the incident in strongest terms) and quite possibly also genocidal policies/programs regarding Indians in the United States. I don't even try to dispute it. But nothing to with diseases, and regarding this issue the federal gvt even actually vaccinated tens of thousands of Indians so they wouldn't die off of the smallpox (already in the 1820s).

If you want to make a travesty of an article, go on. It will be another reason why Wikipedia can't be trusted. In that case, I'll wash my hands of it any further and stop caring anymore. --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your claims which are based on nothing but POV nonsense. 1. Genocide can be by private entities. This will be kinda a major point when the Irian Jaya content is added--you'll learn something neat. 2. A reputable historian and non-reputable polemicist may reach the same conclusions about events; our question is about method. Mann's method puts her in the mainstream--just because Churchill likes the conclusions doesn't mean jack. 3. The "U.S. agents have been alleged to have used biological agents to destroy the Native American population" is a claim made frequently in the literature on the topic. As a National Research Council publication (pg. 34) summarized the academic literature (without referencing either Mann or Churchill by the way): "During the 1800s, U.S. government agents were alleged to have deliberately infected the Plains Indians by giving them trading blankets infected with the deadly disease, decimating the population." AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "were alleged". By Ward F. Churchill. That's not A FACT. And the FACT is: the only such documented incidents involved the British military (it's unknown whether it worked or not, but the intent was there, and it is the intent that counts - BUT the incdent was completely unrelated to "United States colonization, westward expansion, and Indian Removal" and "Indian removal and trail of tears", it was the British colonisalism). It's a ciclejerk of "POV nonsense" activist "researchers" all suddenly coming up with sensationalist "revelations" regarding events from over 100 years ago (despite the previous research by thousands of people over more than a century - how strange everyone was mistaken all the time). Churchill used to be celebrated and cited (36,600 Google Books results!) before his 9/11 comments (yes, a whole aticle) put him into national spotlight and subsequently exposed him as a psychopathically self-hating white man he is, and apparently Mann cites him in her books too (plus Churchill also wrote featured reviews for her, a foreword for one book, and so on, they're so closely associated), that's also facts. I admit I've never heard about this Irian Jaya person/place/nation/whatever it is, the article's telling me "This section requires expansion. (August 2013)", very informative, thank you very much. --Niemti (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association fallacy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and Churchill's lies were not lies when Mann said they were "all true", and if all the "reviously unknown" stuff is in her books (dedicated to him) then it's okay, and they're facts, and even "mainstream", and all the other research by the thousands of others who somehow all the time didn't know about her "mainstream facts" doesn't count. OK. And Marcus Whitman surely "poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians" - not allegedly, not maybe, not rumored, and absolutely he wasn't a victim of a false accusation by the other whites leading to his brutal murder and a massacre of a dozen other people by superstitious people - it's just indisputable, because Mann or someone else claimed so, and so it's a fact. Great thinking, folks. --Niemti (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so "You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians" (quoting you guys) just because one source said so 112 years ago, while most sources (including encyclopedias, ad that's including even Wikipedia) say he was most probably an inncent victim of a brutal (mass) murder. Sure, if one uses such unquestioning approach to selected sources (while compltely ignoring and refusing to acknowledge all the other sources and positions even if they're prevailing, and presenting unproven allegations and rumors as "mainstream" facts), you will find "genocides" everywhere you want for a confirmation bias. That's just so... dishonest, you know? Like with this "they teach everyone" false claim, and all the other dishonesty on this page. That's really a shame. --Niemti (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation of "unquestioning acceptance" is laughable given that you haven't read the sources you are seeking to refute with recourse to evidence from wikipedia articles and "common knowledge". The way an article about genocide is written is by finding the events that are described as such in the literature and including them AND any arguments to the contrary which is what we are doing in this article. The article would by now be much more advanced in terms of including a nuanced discussion of different viewpoints if we hadn't had to waste so many valuable hours on your ridiculous opinionated opposition and IDHT style argumentation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are laugahble given how you present improbable rumors and allegations as facts ("You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians" - where is "rumored case" or "allegedly poisoned", or anything?). And all while you outright reject the clear and noncontroversial cases like this of Oskar Dirlewanger and his merry men, not even after I showed you many sources say the victims were "indigenous" and they fit Wikipedia's definitions - the very defintions that were championed by you and then you refused to elaborate on it after I quoted them here and it all fit. And all of your ostantiously dimsissive and insulting approach, calling me "a simple troll" and all, I don't know why I even bother. --Niemti (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown no such thing as the clear majority of contributors involved in this discussion can attest. You have wasted a lot of peoples time by failing to listen to other peoples arguments, by contradicting literature and by providing no literature in support of your own opinions, in a way very similar to disruptive trolling. If it is such a bother to you to waste our time, then please dont bother anymore. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BS. I showed a plenty of literature, you disregarded it, wanted something else, I gave you, you still disregarded it. And from you people I get unlikely rumors presented as facts (example: Whitman, and here's the literature and about the rumor behind his murder in particular), dishonesty, selective sourcing for a confirmation bias, and more. You yourself wrote, in the article: "The Choctaw were deliberately marched through zones where a cholera epidemic was raging causing many to die from disease.", which you stated like a proven fact, without a shadow of doubt, based on a single recent "revelation" book that is dedicated "for Ward Churchill" (out of all literature on the subject - over 9,000 books), despite this unproven allegation not being presented as fact or at all in any other book, encyclopedia, or a reliable website, which I showed you and you refused to acknowledge, and you continue to deny that I even did). Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia is not a propaganda forum. Well, in theory, at least. I always strive for NPOV on Wikipedia even on the subject I have a very strong popular opinion myself. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Niemti (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti, your original research via Google is of no relevance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My "original research"? I didn't write any of these ~9,189 books not dedicated "for Ward Churchill". Maunus asked me to provide literature on the subject, and I did. Of these, I could present 10, 100, 1000 books that don't confirtm her claims. Ealrier, I showed you no one in the whole world wrote about the Chocwa being exposing "deliberately" (or "knowingly") or "rerouted" - out of 9,000 books discussing the Chcotaw in the context of cholera, or 2,850 books in the context of Choctaw removal precisely and the cholera, but some users want to selectiovely use claims for only the single one (1) book "for Ward Churchill", ignoring all the rest as inconvinent. Examples of the mainstream view: the book entire on the subject, The Removal of the Choctaw Indian; the encyclopedia, Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal; The Trail of Tears; Indian Removal: The Emigration of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians; The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic and so on, and on, and on - nearly 2 centuries of research by thousands of authors, all to be ignored in favor of 'sensational rebelations' fedicated "for Warch Churchill". --Niemti (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Google result counts are a meaningless metric". [12] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you can start discrediting these books I showed you, or to find ny trace of a support for the claims of a deliberate exposure to cholera to destroy the Choctaw Indians during the removal. Some more: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and enough. I heard something about "providing no literature in support of your own opinions", here you go, some (and might give you more easily). Or maybe - you give me some other than Mann, because I heard hers is a mainstream position and there's a lot of literature not contradicting her. Or maybe it isn't? --Niemti (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the more flagellant BLP violations that Niemti inserted about Mann and have warned him on his talk page. If he continues to make unsupported allegations of academic misconduct about her, or misrepresenting sources to that effect, I will start an RfC/U on the issue. Niemti, you need to stop and look around. Consensus is clearly against your position and this is rapidly becoming a situation of WP:IDHT, to the point that it is becoming disruptive. You've made your point, you don't agree. We understand, but we do not agree with your position. You need to drop the WP:STICK and back away from the dead horse. GregJackP Boomer! 23:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to remove your own "flagellant BLP violations" when you called the living person (and Mann's hero) Ward Churchill "that Indian wannabe nutcase". --Niemti (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should have listed sources. Here they are:

1. "Self-nominated Indian wannabe and academic charlatan Ward Churchill. . . ." Buggeigh, Orson (14 April 2009). "A Tale of Two Appointments". PoliGazette. Newstex LLC. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
2. "people might have noticed he's crazier than the love child of David Duke and Ward Churchill (America-hating fake Indian)" Gavin, Patrick (20 September 2012). "Coulter's new book on racial issues". Politico.com. Capitol News Company. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
3. "Ward Churchill was another phony Indian. . . ." "The Week". National Review. National Review. 11 June 2012. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)
4. "Notorious "fake Indian" Ward Churchill is wondering why he didn't think of this alibi first before the University of Colorado at Boulder fired him for academic fraud." Malkin, Michelle (4 May 2012). "'Sacaja-Whiner': Elizabeth Warren and the Oppression Olympics". The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia). p. A6.
5. "Ward Churchill? No, he's the nutcase University of Colorado professor who suggested that the victims of 9/11 were fascists." Zasloff, J (14 January 2008). "Biggest Gaffe of the Campaign So Far". Newstex. Newstex LLC. Retrieved 29 August 2013. (via Lexis Advance)

Thanks for pointing that out. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, man. So, what do you think about choosing allegations precisely from a book "for Ward Churchill" (academic charlatan, academic fraud, America-hating fake Indian) while ignoring thousands of books on the subject that are all not only not dedicated to Ward Churchill but also not containing such allegations, then writing about it as if it was an indisputed fact,[25] then pretending it's a mainstream position when it's not? --Niemti (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Niemti? I find it odd your the only one here with your point of view. Your so adamant that there must be some reason behind this. The books you link to seem to say the opposite of what your saying... so lets break this down. What exactly are you contesting - the fact Natives died of cholera? or the fact its called a genocide or the fact a government body was the one that implement the moves or the fact they were marched deliberately through epidemic areas? -- Moxy (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it odd. Where did you guys all come from, all of sudden? I'm contesting this claim: "In the case of the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera . . . and even rerouted to ensure that they would be dragged through the heart of the epidemic." Mann, Barbara Alice (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 41. ISBN 9780313353383. "American Holocaust" - totally NPOV book, sure. By David Stannard - according to Wikipedia: "Stannard's perspective has been joined by scholars Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr., and Ward Churchill." (yeah, Churchill being a "scholar", and not a "nutcase" as in GregJackP's "flagellant BLP violation"). Stannard was also incidentally the other person who gave the back cover featured review to Mann's earlier book, the other other being Churchill. So, maybe someone other of Stannard-Churchill-Mann circle? Also not "Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, Phil Lane, Jr". Maybe someone out of literally housands of other authors? Maybe some books specifically about the Choctow (there are many), and even about just their removal? And where's the Choctows own support for those claims? I didn't see anything about it on their official website, like I didn't see anything about it in any encyclopedia (and I checked several, from different state encyclopedias, to Britannica, to the Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal) - why? --Niemti (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nice manipulation again (for the second time from you): or the fact its called a genocide (really, it talks about the removal's results of "cultural genocide, tribal ghettoization, and politcial-economic marginalization" which has nothing to do with Mann's cholera allegations) - and here some people dare to say it's me who's "misrepresenting sources". Just hilarious. Oh, and because you chose this book yourself, and it's on the subject (titled Choctaws at the Crossroads) and even very critical of the gvt policies (this quote above), let's see what does it have to say regarding cholera: [26] - ah, again not a trace of the "mainstream beliefs believed by a majority of scholars on the issue" allegations (says the Choctaw just "experienced" it), of course. Like basically everywhere. --Niemti (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Ok I think I understand what your concern is - since you were thinking people are misrepresenting sources I am concluding your points aren't clear on what your talking about, thus we are showing you the wrong things. I understand your frustration i also have the same problem getting my point across many times. So to be clear your only clamming that the phrase "the Choctaw, they were deliberately marched into cholera..." is the problem right? Not that it did happen to others or that the Native experiences is called a genocide be it cultural of fiscal right? I ask because I have been working on the fact you voted "A" meaning you think the whole article is fringe. I would agree to the fact "marched deliberately through the Vicksburg Cholera epidemic" is a bit strong and has been contested. For those of us that know about this we know that many went through the swap to bypass Vicksburg and the crowded boats beyond. But this does not change the fact the were moved during the outbreak and thus exposed without care for there being. I would agree to a wording change like " Were forced to migrate during the cholera epidemic of the 1830s resulting in many deaths."-- Moxy (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a care. The 2 main agents went with them and exposed themselves to a deadly disease (and I don't really think it was some sort of a suicide attack). There, they found the ships abandoned by their crews, but did not flee themselves. The route was predetermined in the original plan, the only rerouting was AWAY of Vicksburg by agent Armstrong (and it was a lucky gambit, because the alternate route was unprepared, they were lucky he managed to commandeer a random ship, pack them into it, and that the supplies were found at the end of river journey), the epydemic was completely unexcepted and the deaths were accidental - not any more deliberate than the later mass deaths of halpless army conscripts camped at Vicksburg during the civil war and also due to cholera[27] (most of the American civil war deaths were from disease, not from combat). It was of course all a tragedy and they shouldn't have been removed to begin with, but what the article claimed was a dishonest manipulation based on the allegation not present in the mainstream sources (outside of the Stannard-Churchill-Mann circle), that is in thousands of other books and in every single encyclopedia in existance. But thanks for understanding. --Niemti (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no valid reason to take your opinion (or that of a blog, or of the journalist who wrote the piece on the Choctaw website twenty years ago) over the words of historians who have read and critically evaluated the actual sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid reason to value thousands of books, and all encyclopedias (like Wikipedia supposed to be an encylopedia, too), over a small circle of authors with extremistic views. And especially in the way you opresented allegations as facts. I don't think the Choctaws had a website 20 years ago, and anyway I think it's being updated, so I don't know what stopped them to sharing these revelations after Mann suddenly enlightened them on their own history of what had happened nearly 200 years ago and they didn't know all the time. I also don't know why no one else cared for these revelations in general, while Churchill's own prior allegations of similar manner became so well known (in a popular urban legend) - I can see only the wacky separatists of the "Republic of Lakotah" citing her, along with Churchill (in their .doc "Ward Churchill provides Examples of Genocide"). If no one did, why Wikipedia? --Niemti (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti has argued vociferouly that a. all mentions of deliberate use of disease against native americans except for the Fort Pitt incident are fabrications and falsifications only believed by Ward Churchill and his fringe supporters. 2. that the view that Native Americans were subjected to genocide is itself a fringe claim that should not be included in the article. The view that the march through vickburg was a deliberate attempt to subject the Choctaw to cholera is proposed both by Stannard and by Mann and is as such a notable view which should be included in the article TOGETHER with the opposing view that the route was coincidental.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to stop speaking for myself. --Niemti (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to stop wasting our time. You did argue this, now you are trying to make it seem as if you have been arguing a nuanced position when in fact you havent, but have been rejecting any attempt at arriving at a nuanced position by misrepresenting sources and other editors arguments.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never, ever, misrepresented any source anywhere on Wikipedia. Now you're just lying. Stop that too. --Niemti (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have when you cited the RaceToTheBottom blog. You left out "Dr. Mann is an eminent historian, teacher and writer at the University of Toledo."; "Dr. Mann’s testimony displayed her very personal, detailed and intimate knowledge of the smallpox epidemic."; "Further, in Dr. Mann’s view, oral history must be treated carefully."; and "Dr. Mann is a repository of minute detail about those events." All of that from the exact page that you cited claiming it proved that she was just a shill for Churchill. The next page on the blog had more - "Professor Mann replied several times that she had not seen primary and secondary sources supporting Professor Churchill’s proposition that smallpox blankets were dispersed to the American Indians."; later explaining that she wasn't saying that they didn't exist, but just that she had not seen the sources. That's a far cry from what you represented the source as stating, and was clear misrepresentation. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used a pro-Mann source to show how she was publicly defending Churchill's lies (which she did - Consequently, she completely backed up all of Churchill’s claims and refuted the findings of the investigative committee.), and you're still compaining? There are many other sources about this debacle (btw, it seems she's actually English professor, not of history). Also, Churchill's website about Mann about Churchill: http://archived.wardchurchill.net/s17-BarbaraMann.pdf (Ward Churchill is renowned for his leadership in the discipline of Native American Studies, not only in his forthright presentation of Native history, but also for his unflinching review of the lingering effects of European colonialism on North America. Over my several years as a practicing scholar of Native American Studies, I have had countless occasions to note Churchill’s citations. In tracking down points referenced by him, I have always found that what he said was there, was there, exactly where and as he said it was. [...] I am also disturbed by the blatantly racial content of ad hominem attacks I have seen on Churchill. It is bad enough to smear the man, instead of considering his work, but to slur an individual on racial grounds can in no way enhance public discourse. I am old enough to remember Dr. Martin Luther King and the racist vituperation heaped on his head - I guess Martin Luther King was actually just a white man in blackface, then.) --Niemti (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did she claim it was "true" in that source? She stated that there was a "reasonable basis" for his claims, not that they were true, and when you take her entire testimony in context, she clearly stated that she had not seen the sources. You have misrepresented the source as saying something that it did not say. You also omit to mention that her position was endorsed by the American Association of University Professors (Eron, Don (2012). "Report on the Termination of Ward Churchill" (PDF). AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom. 3 (1): 6. ISSN 2153-8492. Retrieved 1 September 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)), or that the Investigating Committee itself stated:

"We do not find academic misconduct with respect to his general claim that the U.S. Army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837, using infected blankets. Early accounts of what was said by Indians involved in that situation and certain native oral traditions provide some basis for that interpretation."(Ibid. at 83.)

In other words, Mann said the exact same thing that the university's committee said as regards the 1837 smallpox incident, but in your eyes, Mann supported "lies" and the committee exposed them? You need to step back and look at this clearly, not from a point of view of discrediting someone with sources that you are misrepresenting. GregJackP Boomer! 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're really playing devil's advocate now. Anyway, the historical truth, reality not mere allegations (by Churchill, Mann & co) is that, for example, upwards of 40,000 Indians were vaccinated by the federal government already in the 1820s, as ordered by the Congress (there were also further vaccination programs later). They weren't forced or even asked by anyone (except by their own agencies), not by public opinion (if there was a referendum it probably wouldn't pass), not by international community, not by any conventions (there weren't really any humanitarian laws back then at all, I know), it was just good will towards people who weren't citizens (citizens who also were dying en masse of disease, civilians and soldiers alike - on the scale so great that more Civil War soldiers died of disease than in combat). This was at least well over 5 times more than "7,193 people [who] died from atrocities perpetrated by whites" in documented cases 1511-1890 (when also "9,156 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans"). Instead some Wikipedia editors here really want to various unproven allegations and rumors - even dishonestly presented as facts - and as "evidence" of what they really want to be genocide. That's really...tiresome. --Niemti (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only one misrepresenting facts and sources is you. Racetothebottom is first, not a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145 see here), and second, doesn't even say what you allege it says. As to your comment on Mann's position as an English professor? So what? Native American Studies is an interdisciplinary field. One of the foremost scholars in the general area was Gretchen Bataille, whose field is literature. She was involved in the general Native American Studies field for years, and was the president of a major university, and no one seems to question her bona fides. GregJackP Boomer! 18:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Bataille, let's see: okay. Is there anyone else you would recommend? You know, from among all the authors not assocaited with Ward Churchill. --Niemti (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive seen some stupid and irrelevant argumentum ad googlinem fallacies in my day, but this one takes the price. You may not think you are trolling, but for someone outside of your head it is not easy to see the difference.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: So far the only one misrepresenting facts and sources is you. Ah. Explain/defend each of these (samples): (article edit, Mann's allegations of genocidal intent and conspiracy presented as an undisputed fact); your own You have the case of Dr. Marcus Whitman, who poisoned about 200 Cayuse Indians (about the false accusation rumor that led to the Whitman massacre); [things they teach everyone in grade 10? Grade Level: 10th grade U. S. History]. Go. --Niemti (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, scroll down for more Mann-Maunus extravaganza in another Wikipedia article. --Niemti (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read a little bit of the Mann book about smallpox, and its tone makes it suspect, in that it's breathless, and shrill, rather than neutral and academic in tone. It doesn't just list fact, it reports an opinion and attitude - I haven't found anything in my brief searches that says Mann is other than an academic, or whether or not she is mainstream in her research, approach, or thought process. All of this, to me, calls in to question the use of the source material as reported by Mann. The publisher seems legit, but the slant in the book makes me wonder who vetted this material in the first place, which again makes the author seem less than unbiased in reporting historical fact in a neutral way, and therefore less than trustworthy. JMHO. Hires an editor (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find very few academic authors writing about genocide in a neutral tone, regardless of what side they are on. Your requirement would mean that most literature on colonialism, racism and imperialism wouldnt be considered reliable sources. Stannard 1987 makes the same claim as Mann, and also writes in an accusatory tone, as do most Native Americans scholars writing about the issue such as Vine Deloria. I wonder if Jewish holocaust scholars are also required to write dispassionately about the holocaust to be considered a reliable source? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, writing like that, for example? It's written in such way I've even seen some reviewer wondering if Littell was just a ghostwriter for a real former SS-mann (once fanatical and now unapologetic). It's a novel, yes, but extremely well researched (see Beevor's opinion in the reception, for example). Oh, and even The Turner Diaries was published by a Jew. And so on. But speaking of Native Americans, and the Choctaws precisely, so why are they not alleging anything likethat anywhere on their website? --Niemti (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all we have is to evaluate an author's credibility by their tone or the book jacket (which wasn't even made by the author but by a publisher trying to sell books), then we are asking the wrong questions. Was her book published in an academic series on the topic (hence evaluated by at least three academic reviewers)? Yes. Have there been any academic or RS challenges to the research or conclusion? No. Then it gets included. Maybe we decide to add that it is an allegation by a specific scholar (which I said originally), but there has been nothing mentioned at all which would warrant removing the claim entirely from the article. Done.AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A weird edit during this discussion[28]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually weird edits during this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitman_massacre&diff=570540621&oldid=570334758 (Maunus jumped to the article to add, from the tens of thousands of books about it, the allegations of Mann, precisely - I see Mann is a bible and the only truth everywhere now, so what that great most of the books say to the contrary - while writing "In fact" about her unproven claims, the claims not present in ANY of these 57,800 other books about the subject!). --Niemti (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's funny. It took me no time at all to find a source that said that the Hudson Bay company injected strychnine into Whitman's medicine, or that a white man (Rogers) told the tribe that Whitman intended to poison them. GregJackP Boomer! 22:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny indeed, because it's not facts. And you "forgot" to link to "a source", which is also funny. There are tens of thousands of books about it, tell me how many contain these allegations, and not as unproven rumors and/or false accusations to incite murder. --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]