Please see this result on the topic of Genocides in history, and read the warning to both parties there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment copied here from an article Talk page for additional discussion. -Xenophrenic)

You don't seem to understand what a personal attack is. Me stating that you're behaving badly isn't a personal attack as Wikipedia understands it, especially if I explain why. Additionally, you're just doing it again. Just now you're again bizarrely just edit warring against my edits at History of syphilis. In general I don't remove your edits but that's always your first and foremost reaction when it comes to others. You accuse me of weasel words (in your definition a personal attack) yet quote an article as stating adding "another wrinkle to a debate that doesn't seem likely to be resolved any time soon" when a scientific editor earlier criticized you of using that exact article as a source on the page. You don't care, you add it back. I even wrote that if we're quoting magazines let's quote them fairly. Of course you remove any and all of my magazine quotes and keep yours. You also keep adding studies cited by no one, which the same scientific editor criticized you of. There is an interstellar difference between a peer-reviewed study cited by 60 and a 2-page report cited by no one from unnotable scientists. You of course remove any mentions pointing this out. You also keep edit warring the two separate theories into one without any understandable reason. The subtheory should clearly be marked with two stars as subcategory, but you keep edit warring it to be mentioned BEFORE the main theory's evidence and studies, as if to discredit the main theory and studies in a blatant way. You even misquote the Italians as "criticizing" the 2011 study, which they did not. There were no "scare quotes" added by me except if you mean leading scientists quoted in the few mainstream articles written about the matter. None of this behavior is new to you as you were given a hefty block just over a month ago for edit warring. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Etsy. Of course I understand what a personal attack is. You can get an idea of what is, and is not, a personal attack by looking at the examples given here. Of particular relevance to this situation is this one: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. And no, expressing concern about your use of weasel words is not a personal attack. Also, if you want to discuss editor behavior issues, can you please keep the discussions on user Talk pages (or file a formal report at an administrator noticeboard), out of consideration for the other editors at article Talk pages who wish to focus on article improvement?

As for "scientific editor", I don't know who that is. I suppose I'm a "scientific editor", when it comes down to it. I do recall adding that quote from The Atlantic, which is a reliable source. I also recall an editor removing it, with an edit summary saying "Controversial claims like this require a strong secondary source - a review article from an academic journal. Atlantic article is a poor source for scientific claims. The study has been published, but not yet cited (Google Scholar)". When I added it back, I was careful to make sure it was accompanied by a strong secondary academic journal source, one that has been cited by at least another source according to (Google Scholar). So I'm not sure what your complaint is.

There is indeed a difference between peer-reviewed papers which are heavily cited, and those that have fewer citations, but both meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. And I'm sure you are aware that "number of citations" is not directly translatable to "accuracy", as some of the most heavily cited papers receive that many cites because they are heavily and negatively criticized. I don't know if that is the case here, but the bottom line is if you want to challenge the reliability of an academic peer-reviewed source, counting citations in Google Scholar is not the way to do it.

You also say I'm "edit warring the two separate theories into one without any understandable reason"? Do you realize they aren't "separate" theories? They are both "Columbian theories"; one being a more modern update of the other. And I'm not the editor who put them together; that was another editor (I linked the edit for you on the article Talk page). I agree that they should be together. And the lead-in to those theories still says there are two main categories of theories, so it makes more sense anyway.

As for "misquoting the Italians", can you please provide me with the exact quotation? I'd like to review it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you seemingly don't. Wikipedia says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. I have provided evidence, like mentioned by pointing out falsehoods in posts I reply to, and now also with diffs of the posts I'm replying to as that's so important.

CatPath is the editor, who reverted part of your edits at History of syphilis some time ago. He stated that The Atlantic isn't a reliable source in this matter: [1]. You didn't address his concerns about Austrian study: [2] and you added a quote using the article.

The 2011 study is both reviewed this way by multiple publications and also cited heavily, 60 times. The Italian study is again two pages long, mostly images and tables and only really posits findings. It's been cited zero times. It was published in a self-reportedly peer-reviewed online-only Italian journal, which on the other hand is published by biomedcentral.com. The study's credentials are flimsy to say the least.

The modified theory is listed as a third source by the sources available. That's what it even used to say at Columbian exchange, that it's a third theory. Currently the article for History of syphilis is also repeating the same information of the combination theory twice, below the two theories and in the Columbian theory listing. This makes no sense.

You quoted the Italians as having "criticized" the 2011 study. Etsybetsy (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. --Etsybetsy

Actually, it says: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

I'm still waiting for the diffs and links.

He stated that The Atlantic isn't a reliable source in this matter.

No, he didn't. Here, let me quote what he really said: (Not a new theory, despite what's said in the Atlantic article, a poor source for scientific claims. The modified Columbian theory is not new and is not based on new genetic evidence (though it fits with the new evidence). Moved passage up..)

See the difference? In his opinion, it's a poor source for scientific claims. It's not "poor", of course, and nothing in the article is incorrect. But academic sources are usually better, when available, which is why we added them.

You didn't address his concerns about Austrian study.

Yeah, I did address his concern. He wanted a stronger secondary source, so I added the peer-reviewed published academic paper, as well as a Science Daily article for good measure.

...and you added a quote using the article.

You mean from The Atlantic? Yes, I did. A general, non-science claim, quote. It's very much a reliable source for such things.

...a self-reportedly peer-reviewed online-only Italian journal...

I have no clue what that is. Are you making stuff up again? Like "subtheory"? It's a peer-reviewed journal that is almost a century old. If you want to challenge its reliability, raise your concerns at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Don't bother arguing with me about its reliability.

You quoted the Italians...

False; I didn't quote the Italians. I SAID the Italians criticized the study -- see the difference? There was no quoting or misquoting. Now if you'd like to argue that I am wrong, fine, but quit accusing me of "misquoting". And I have never "misquoted" OoflyoO or MtnGuy, either. You need to brush up on your English (and Ellipsis and partial quotes) before you start casting silly accusations around.

...repeating the same information of the combination theory twice...

Well, sort of -- I see what you mean. But it actually does make sense, because he briefly describes the modified theory before explaining why he thinks a different theory altogether is more likely, in contrast to it. Do you have a suggestion as to how we could make it less redundant, but still serve the same purpose? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the misquoting at Ed's talk, what more than a day ago? Of what do you want diffs here?

And what is the difference between what a Wikipedian refers to as a poor source and an unreliable source? Because to me it seems like unreliable is a more polite way of saying poor. Was I intending on making his statement about your source seem better than it was?

The academic paper as a source fills what he asked for much better, but he still had qualms about the study itself and the citations like mentioned. And just as a sidenote I have doubts about Science Daily being a reputable reviewer. Don't they just republish university news releases? That's what is written about the site. There doesn't seem to be reviewing as part of it.

If you also quote The Atlantic's journalist and are perfectly happy with it, why do you remove quotes from the scientists researching the matter from the other magazine articles? How do you explain this dichotomy of yours?

The Italian journal may be a hundred years old but it became listed by SCOPUS only two years ago. It's not exactly the biggest journal. But this was a minor sidenote.

And you stated that the paper criticized the 2011 study, which it did not. That's half-way between a quote and a paraphrasal. You also did fully quote OoflyoO with the quote template and twice at that. Are you now paraphrasing me with the green bits? Because just so you know, they are used to literally quote.

And the redundancy is probably best talked about in a new section, because this has gotten too messy as it is. I'd wait for editor CatPath as he seems to know better than either of us. Etsybetsy (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of what do you want diffs here?

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. I'm still waiting for the diffs and links. If you already provided them elsewhere, I appear to have missed them. Could you re-copy them here, please?

...the difference between what a Wikipedian refers to as a poor source and an unreliable source?

"Unreliable" shouldn't be used as a reference, while "poor" might be usable, but a better quality source should be found. (See Reliable Sources.) CatPath didn't say The Atlantic was unreliable or poor. S/he said it was a poor source "for scientific claims", which is debatable (and in this case, I disagree), but other sources were easily added to address the concern, so it was resolved. The Atlantic is indeed generally a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's requirements.

why do you remove quotes from the scientists researching the matter...

You'll have to be more specific. If you'll check the article Talk page where I gave explanations for my edits, you'll find several possible reasons. One quote that I recall from memory was from a gentleman who boldly claimed there was no evidence, when the very next paragraph presents evidence (albeit some of it challenged as yet inconclusive), making him look uninformed at best, and foolish at worst, which we shouldn't do in Wikipedia articles.

That's half-way between a quote and a paraphrasal.

Now you are just playing with words (is 'paraphrasal' even a word?) You accused me of intentionally misquoting, which I didn't and wouldn't do, so as long as you've stopped making that baseless accusation, we're good.

You also did fully quote OoflyoO with the quote template...

That is correct; I only quoted the part relevant to what I was discussing at the time. We were discussing the reasoning for including your syphilis content in a genocide article, and your claim that you had consensus to do so. Now if I wanted to quote OoflyoO regarding your Hicks and McCullough stuff, I would have to quote more of what he said. Here, I'll cut & paste exactly what I said:

Regarding "your" consensus, I see where RockyMtnGuy says ...introducing syphilis to the human race. This is all very interesting, but has little to do with genocide. I see where I then responded, I agree with much of what RockyMtnGuy just said..., and I see where OoflyoO said, Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy.... What I'm not seeing is a consensus to add your syphilis content.

The only person to offer "reasoning" for or against adding your irrelevant "syphilis" stuff to a Genocide article was RockyMtnGuy, and he doesn't see the relevance to genocide, and OoflyoO agrees with his reasoning. Hopefully that's clearer now. I didn't "misquote" anyone (which would be stupid anyway, because all discussions are recorded here for review - duh).

I'd wait for editor CatPath as he seems to know better than either of us.

S/he's the Wikipedia editor you refer to as the "scientist who patrols the page"? May I ask why you describe CatPath as such? CatPath appears to log in sporadically, so I don't think article improvement should hinge on their return, but their participation is certainly welcome. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I have accused you of misrepresenting and misquoting and those are of what I provided the examples of? Here are the diffs: [3][4][5] Here's what he actually wrote: [6][7]

And that rule page concerning sources states that poor sources about people should be removed? Other than that it mentions "poor reputation for checking facts" as a description questionable sources. "Poor source for scientific claims" versus stating it's "poor" is arguing semantics.

Bruce's opinion is "Despite many efforts to suggest otherwise, there is no Old World evidence of syphilis prior to 1492." He directly points at the efforts to suggest otherwise. It didn't make him look like a fool at all. You also didn't explain this?

And again you misquote OoflyoO, who wrote:

Well, if we need a consensus, I prefer the reasoning and edits of RockyMtnGuy (talk) and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229 (talk) over those of Xenophrenic Does that help?

and

Then go back and read the talk between you, RockyMtnGuy and the unregistered editor 93.106.50.229. IF we need a consensus, I agree with both of them.

RockyMntGuy also didn't oppose the mention. He wrote that neither is really genocide. That doesn't mean he doesn't want a mention of smallpox or it included. He might want a mention specifying how smallpox wasn't genocide like there currently is and agreed by all except you. OoflyoO agreed with both my arguments and his and Rocky's argument was so vague that if you deduce OoflyoO stance logically he agrees with what I just wrote.

And CatPath edits mostly articles related to disease. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read more carefully? I asked for evidence supporting your baseless accusations, and the diffs you've provided do not show any misquotes or misrepresentation. And WP:RS says, Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. -- so is there material about a living person that you feel is unsourced or poorly sourced? You posed it as a question, but you aren't clear about what you are asking.

"Poor source for scientific claims" versus stating it's "poor" is arguing semantics.

His words versus your word; if he's arguing semantics with you, I think he has the better argument. But I'm staying out of it. Good luck with it.

And again you misquote OoflyoO...

You are back to that unsubstantiated claim again? Please show where the misquote is. Still having trouble providing a diff showing a misquote? You need to brush up on your English (and Ellipsis and partial quotes) before you start casting silly accusations around.

May I ask what your rationale is for proposing to put syphilis content into the in the Americas section of a Genocide history article? If you can explain your reasoning clearly, it would go a long way to formulating a RfC to gather wider community input on your proposal. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In those diffs you posit that OoflyoO opposed me, when he had actually written that he supported me, twice. You were also perfectly aware of this as you discussed with him about this at the time.

You brought up the rule page, not me. That's the mention of poor sourcing there.

And it's you trying to posit as what we say as different. I wrote that he wrote it's not a reliable source in this matter, when you think he didn't, because he wrote "poor source for scientific claims". That's 99% the same thing in the context. We were talking about a scientific claim.

You stated there was concensus against me which was perfectly clearly false. And it's deliberate misrepresentation if you quote someone as "loving having a hardie" when the full quote is "loving having a hardie hat" and when you even participated in the conversation showing full knowledge of the hat.

And syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical, in the smallpox paragraph. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you posit that OoflyoO opposed me... - More unsubstantiated lies. Please quote here my exact words where I "posited" that he opposed you.

You stated there was concensus against me... - More unsubstantiated lies. Please quote here my exact words where I "stated" that consensus was "against" you.

What did I actually say? What I'm not seeing is a consensus to add your syphilis content.

What else did I actually say? [The discussion] does indeed arrive at clear consensus on the syphilis matter. Given that the discussion was opened about the repeated insertion of the parenthetical text stating: (and the Europeans likely brought back to Europe a strain of syphilis which killed millions of people there, the Great Pox), where I pointed out it has nothing to do with the article topic of Genocide, and RockyMtnGuy pointed out the same, while not a single editor (not even Etsybetsy in their one and only comment) voiced an argument showing how it was relevant to the article topic - consensus is clear. Or alternatively, if you prefer, the status quo consensus remains unchallenged.

There was no consensus argument to add syphilis content to the article about Genocide. I never said OoflyoO opposed anyone, nor would I - and he didn't participate in consensus anyway, so it's a moot point. He merely posted a "me too" response. (Hey! You aren't just trolling me, are you?)

[syphilis] was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox.

By Trent? Do you have a source for that? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just point nigh the same words afterwards and that's just a part of the conversations in the diffs. Most outrageous is that you kept cutting the latter part of OoflyoO's post where he wrote he agreed with me. You've cut it now what three times when quoting him? Why can't you quote the last few words? Why is it so hard? And later Rocky came back and wrote: Later, another author brought up the matter of syphilis because it is an example of a disease that made the return trip from the Americas and killed millions of people in Europe, which I agreed with. This didn't fit into Xenophrenic's world view either, so he has been repeatedly deleting it and things like it from the article. Would you like to interpret that in your own words? You also ignored the third diff when you wrote that "s/he now contends that smallpox shouldn't be mentioned in Genocide articles either" which is not even close to anything I wrote. And obviously not the didn't-even-succeed Trent hundreds of years after the fact, but the Spaniards... Etsybetsy (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...you kept cutting the latter part of OoflyoO's post where he wrote he agreed with me.

Incorrect. And you keep repeating this, so let's spend a little quality time to help you to better understand. OoflyoO has posts all over that discussion page. I quoted the part of a post that I was presently talking about (and left an ellipsis indicating there was more to the comment), and didn't "cut" anything. Are you following so far? OoflyoO said he agreed with MtnGuy's reasoning. I quoted that, and only that, and not all the other stuff he typed. Still following along? Now OoflyoO also said some other stuff about an IP, and about me, and also many other things in a dozen other posts on that page, but I wasn't discussing those comments. I quoted the part I was discussing, and it wasn't a "misquote" because I was careful to cut and pasted the exact words I was quoting, and added ellipsis. So far, so good? Now, you seem very upset that I didn't also quote "the latter part of OoflyoO's post where he wrote he agreed with me." That's because I wasn't discussing that part of his comment at the time. But we can certainly discuss that, too, if you're feeling left out. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"s/he now contends that smallpox shouldn't be mentioned in Genocide articles either" which is not even close to anything I wrote.

Let's take a closer look at that, can we? Here's what you said (the part I referred to, anyway):

You only focused on the case I wrote was less important. [RockyMtnGuy] also wrote that he agrees the strain was brought to Europe (which you disagree with), but that neither smallpox nor syphilis really belong at the article for genocides. The only reason I'm adding syphilis because smallpox is already mentioned, as a counterexample. --Etsybetsy

When I read that the only reason you are adding syphilis to the article is because smallpox is in the article, and it wasn't all that important to you, you were more concerned about Amherst content, etc., I understood that to mean that you would be okay leaving both smallpox and syphilis out of the Genocide articles. Are you now saying that is not your position? I certainly didn't "misrepresent" what you said, but it is possible I didn't fully understand you when I made my proposition to Ed. So let's try this: If we could re-write that 'Americas' section, would you prefer to include smallpox, or syphilis, or both or neither? Maybe that will give us a good starting point. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And yes, I saw RockyMtnGuy's steaming pile of post today, so let's ping him to see if he's willing to back up his rubbish. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A steaming pile of what? It's a pile of facts, lying there in the sunlight, steaming away. Xenophrenic, you are extremely annoying. You are bullying other editors in attempt to force your own personal biases on Wikipedia in an attempt to convince innocent readers they are facts. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborate effort and is supposed to be a balanced representation of verified facts. You are subverting this process by deleting everything you don't agree with, misquoting sources and other editors, and generally distorting whatever facts are involved. The "smallpox infected blanket" myth is a particularly egregious example, because a little research I did into biological warfare disclosed that smallpox cannot be weaponized this way. It needs to be aerosolized to be effective, which was not within the technological limits of the 18th century. A survey of the literature also indicates it didn't work, because the supposed victims showed up for the next set of meetings. Is it genocide if nobody was killed? (Some people would argue yes, but I prefer not to argue with them.) This puts it into the urban myth category, and Wikipedia should not be spreading urban myths without specifically identifying them as urban myths. In addition, the Amherst incident of 1763 was an isolated incident because in the same year King George III brought an end to the French and Indian wars by giving the French the sugar island of Guadeloupe in exchange for Canada (which most French thought was fair and most English thought was overgenerous because they thought Canada was a frozen money sink and Guadeloupe was producing a fortune in sugar at that time). He also issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which settled the dispute with the Indians and shut down American expansion westward. It said that American settlers could no longer take Indian land away from them without paying for it. (This was extremely unpopular with American settlers and was one of the causes of the American Revolution of 1776) Does this sound like genocide? Not to me it doesn't. Royal Proclamation of 1763 is of particular interest in Canada because we never had a revolution and it has been grandfathered into the Canadian Constitution. The courts have ruled that anybody who didn't pay for it originally is going to have pay for it now, or give it back. I was doing some research into this for a friend who works for the National Energy Board because everybody who wants to build a pipeline in Canada better make sure they own the land before they start laying pipe. Natives are asking prices starting in the low billions and increasing from there.15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't miss this suggestion by Xenophrenic in the middle of a long discussion. You may wish to respond. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Etsybetsy (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]