Talk:David Stannard

Removed link
I removed this link (shown here with archive.org):
 * http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.eyapaha.net/stannardexcerpt.html

It does not load, it spells Stannard's name wrong, it is amateurish, and there are only about 200 words on the archived page. Inclusionist (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

American Holocaust
Xenophrenic has deleted well-sourced material and falsely claimed that it failed verification. I have reverted his edits; I doubt he read either book. Even an incomplete preview on Google Books would have made clear that the figures were indeed fabricated by Dobyns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "the figures were indeed fabricated by Dobyns" is not what I reverted, and not what I am about to re-remove. Would you care to give a more accurate description of the exact text you say supports the exact content in our Wikipedia article? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic, the IP accurately summarized what both books said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now Xenophrenic is attempting to deny that Born to Die, p. 206, says the following: "More than 90% of the Amerindians were killed by foreign infection."  I invite any editor to check the source for themselves.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see "The Top 200 Chomsky Lies", copyright 2007 by Paul Bogdanor, page 7, Chapter III, Number 10. This edit is a WP:COPYVIO violation.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that the IP copied the text, but now I've quoted the sources directly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again, TheTimesAreAChanging. This article is the biography of Professor David Stannard (a WP:BLP, as you know).  It's not an article with a title like "Debate on the American Holocaust" or "The American Indian Genocide Controversy".  Hence, this BLP is a place where we discuss David Stannard (his personal life, his biography, and his views, some of which might be controversial), but without reliable sources discussing issues and points involving him (for example, a book or peer reviewed article by another academic in the "American Holocaust" arena, who criticized Stannard's work and took issue with it), what you've been attempting to include here is outside the boundaries of what's permissible for a Wikipedia biography.  You've taken material by other academics (Cook and Henige) who were not commenting on Stannard's work, and are trying present it through synthesis in such a way as to refute Stannard's claims that there was a genocide.  That would be great for a paper a student was writing for a college assignment, but it isn't appropriate here.  If you'd really like to see some criticism of Stannard's research included here on his BLP, try looking specifically for academics who have published material taking Stannard's work to task, commenting on his methods, casting doubt on his conclusions, etc.  Alternatively, you could take the Henige criticism and add it to the Henry Dobyns biography (if such a BLP exists, and if it discusses Dobyns work in this field).  Or, you could simply look to participate in articles with titles like I've alluded to above (I haven't bothered trying to search, but Wikipedia is huge and I wouldn't be surprised if articles similar to such themes existed), and participate there.  Hope that helps put things in perspective.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right--it's pure synthesis. If Xenophrenic had said that from the beginning, I wouldn't have made any edits here at all.  I've removed the text.  Cheers,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's okay, we learn as we go, and thanks for self-reverting. As you can see by the length of my response above, it takes a few minutes to write something out that communicates the issue thoroughly and to the clear satisfaction of both editors (to put it another way, Xenophrenic may simply have been in a hurry).  I think you'll find with him that even if your personal viewpoints differ, he's actually really good about following policy and accurately conveying what the sources say, and if you extend him good faith he'll return it likewise.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Applying the Henige criticism of Dobyns' numbers to Stannard's numbers is indeed synthesis, because the Henige source does not convey that the Stannard figure was based on Dobyns. If only Xenophrenic had said that from the beginning; oh wait, he did. Perhaps TTAAC overlooked that; and I could have taken the time to patiently explain further, but nothing chills discussion faster than comments like "User:Xenophrenic clearly never heard of WP:NPOV", "You are a POV-pushing vandal", "I doubt he read either book". As for the "Born to Die" source, of course I read it, and I saw that it did not support the sentence that I removed from our Wikipedia article. The source does not contrast disease deaths with war and massacre, and certainly isn't based on "recent scholarship", as that 1999 passage is cited to a 1975 book which, in turn, cites its information to an 1841 description. Thank you for the assumption of good faith, AzureCitizen, that I might simply have been in a hurry, but the simple truth is that I grow somewhat terse after baseless attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you were killed by disease, you could not also have been violently killed by war or massacre.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or auto accident, or lightning strike, or grizzly bear mauling; which were also not conveyed by the cited source. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the edits you made to Ward Churchill do, indeed, show an unwillingness to accept NPOV as a policy. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and still baseless. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With this edit, you seem to have conceded the point that your previous revision lacked neutrality.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. My previous revision specifically indicated that it was his opinion (instead of the personal opinion of the IP and Rmhermen that was reverted). The edit of mine you cited just added redundant wording for readers a little slow on the uptake. If you'd like to remove them, that's fine, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, after having looked at the edits, edit summaries, and collective interaction going on here, it is readily apparent that things got off track when editors stopped focusing purely on the content and started commenting on other contributors instead. Be careful about casting aspersions on other people's motivations and intentions; you have no idea what they're really thinking, and at the end of the day the edits must be judged by the attributes of the edit, not the perceived attributes of the editor.  As WP:NPA says right at the front of the policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."  Going forward from here, let's all just stick to the content, k?  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

numbers confusion
Hello, I changed the article to say that "millions" instead of "100 million" were killed in what he terms the American Holocaust. 100 Million is his estimate for the total number of Pre-Columbian Amerindians and as they were almost completley destroyed also his estimate for the overall number of deaths, as stated in the source given. If he concedes that the majority died due to diseases, as the sentence in the article states, he can't also be saying that they all died in the "American Holocaust" "Millions" is of course vague by me and he surely has certain estimates but they are not on the given page and I haven't read the whole book. Could someone who did help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:BCB5:9B4C:1032:DCB8 (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at his work more closely, you'll see he has included some of the death by disease figures in his calculations. The cited sources by Rummel and Lewy also note this.  When asked if Stannard felt that the genecide was intentional, in his Hawaii figures for example, he responded: "Genocide occurred, that is, the mass killing of an ethnically identifiable people. Whether it was murder or whether it was manslaughter might be worth arguing about." Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While I do have issues with his statements I do realize that this part is merely for what he said so they don't belong here. What I meant is that the sentence makes it sound as if he considers the 100 million in addition to a majority of deaths by disease. Now, I know from reading the Lewy source and Stannards estimate of 100 million people living in pre-columbian America that he doesn't actually say that so the sentence needs to be reworded. Maybe I'm the only one who ready that sentence this way though >.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:BCB5:9B4C:1032:DCB8 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood your concern to be:
 * If he concedes that the majority died due to diseases, as the sentence in the article states, he can't also be saying that they all died in the "American Holocaust"
 * So I indicated where he (at least according to Lewy) does indeed include some death by disease in his figures. Your concern now appears to be:
 * it sound as if he considers the 100 million in addition to a majority of deaths by disease.
 * I don't see where it says that in our article. Our article also doesn't give a total population estimate of Native Americans pre-colonization, but I do see in the above mentioned sources numbers including 145 million for North America; 60-80 million for Central and South America, for example. Would it make the sentence clearer if we added "as a result of the European invasion of the Americas" (from Stannard's book) to the sentence? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't intentionally say that in the article but like I said the sentence makes it sound that way to someone who doesn't the source (which you seem to do) It would be clearer if in the American Holocaust is replaced with your suggestion tough you might consider that watering his statement down which isn't my intention. Overall I found the whole section somewhat confusingly formulated including the part paraphrasing and quoting Lewy that follows. For me at least it only really fell into place what the article is saying after reading the source page in Stannards book and the section about him in the linked Lewy source. And reading the sources shouldn't be required to understand individual sentences and how they fit together in an encyclopedia.

You're right that the article doesn't give estimates about the pre-kolumbian population, my statement were about Stannard's estimates which I got from the same book from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#cite_note-37 (This actually brought me to this article) Reading them again I see now that they aren't his personal estimates but what he considers minimum estimates of "serious scholars" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1CC0:11D4:F1E5:9E00:9F31:AABB (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)