Talk:United States/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Use of "America" to refer to the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox(Drives on the)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British overseas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese overseas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French overseas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thread transcript (condensed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veiled POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer review, or peer pressure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote "f?"

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

|iso3166code = Template:ISO 3166 code United States

|iso3166note = ^[f]

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

|iso3166code = Template:ISO 3166 code United States{{ref label|ISO3166box|f|} (removed a bracket to make it read normally)

But, the text always ends up reading

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

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