User talk:Etsybetsy

Result of your complaint at WP:AN3
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)

Discussion about personal attacks and edit warring
(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)


 * 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)


 * 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: . You didn't address his concerns about Austrian study: 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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:
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * But I have accused you of misrepresenting and misquoting and those are of what I provided the examples of? Here are the diffs: Here's what he actually wrote:


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.
 * I am late to this party. I do not support Xenophrenic.  I do not oppose Etsybetsy. OoflyoO (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * ...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 paste 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)


 * "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):
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1. You used it in a conversation to prove there was concensus against me. 2. The conversation he used it in was to prove there was concensus against you.
 * I never wrote "it wasn't important." There's your misrepresentation once again. I wrote it was less important than Amherst at one point. You interpret that as "not important"? I'd include both like I've always written. It's been my stance from day one. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. You used it in a conversation to prove there was concensus against me. 2. The conversation he used it in was to prove there was concensus 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. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I never wrote "it wasn't important." There's your misrepresentation once again.
 * I also never wrote that, so please get your facts straight. What I said was, "It now sounds as if Etsy considers his syphilis content to be unimportant...", and I stand by that.
 * I'd include both like I've always written. It's been my stance from day one.
 * You are welcome to that stance, but I asked you to please explain why "syphilis" is at all relevant to an article on Genocide, and I asked you to please explain why you think mentioning an origin theory about syphilis is somehow a "counterexample" to the arguments made by scholars about genocide against Native American peoples. I've been waiting for a response since day one. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to that stance, but I asked you to please explain why "syphilis" is at all relevant to an article on Genocide, and I asked you to please explain why you think mentioning an origin theory about syphilis is somehow a "counterexample" to the arguments made by scholars about genocide against Native American peoples. I've been waiting for a response since day one. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not the only thing you wrote. You wrote altogether:


 * Regarding "your" consensus


 * What I'm not seeing is a consensus to add your syphilis content.


 * It does indeed arrive at clear consensus on the syphilis matter.


 * consensus is clear. Or alternatively, if you prefer, the status quo consensus remains unchallenged..


 * Because of your distortion, Ed thought there was no consensus or even concensus against even though there clearly was consensus FOR ME.


 * OoflyoO was in support of it and RockyMtnGuy's opinion couldn't be deciphered by anyone and later he decreed that bringing 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 he agreed with. It was 2-to-1 and 1 not voting.


 * So now you think "not important" and "unimportant" aren't the same thing? The dictionary lists "not important" as the definition of unimportant...


 * I have also explained syphilis countless times but each time you just state again no explanation given. You always ignore the explanation. Syphilis is again used as an example of an accidentally introduced disease inadvertently killing millions but not being genodical, like smallpox. Smallpox is talked about at length here so it would only make sense to very shortly mention the flip side. It's even more related when it was spread by the same people who originally spread smallpox. It's part of the same event. What I tried to add were a few words in parenthesis. Etsybetsy (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ...there clearly was consensus FOR ME and also It was 2-to-1 and 1 not voting.
 * Perhaps you have identified the source of your confusion. Consensus is not for or against an editor; it also has nothing to do with how many people agree or disagree.  Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE.  WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work that way.  If 10 editors say "we think our Wikipedia article should say the Earth is flat", and just 1 editor argues "that reliable sources X, Y and Z say that the Earth is not flat, while no reliable sources say that it is flat", the consensus will be against saying the Earth is flat -- because that is where the strongest argument, and policy compliance, is, despite 10 editors holding a different personal opinion.  You and OoflyoO didn't present an argument for why syphilis is relevant to an article about genocide, while RockyMtnGuy and I at least discussed it, and we can't really see what it has to do with genocide.  (Note: MtnGuy is also of the personal opinion that "smallpox" shouldn't be in the article either, "except as mythical cases of genocide", but that is a separate matter entirely, and reliable sources are unanimously against his opinion.)  In fact, OoflyoO's comment doesn't affect consensus at all, since his comment was basically a "me too!" vote without adding anything of substance to the discussion.
 * what do you want me to do rewrite what the others have written? I think a "me too" will suffice.OoflyoO (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So would you mind if we moved ahead with an RfC to get wider community input on the policy compliance of your proposed additions? Or would you prefer to continue to rehash your one single brief comment you made in a discussion from way back in June?


 * Ed thought there was no consensus or even concensus against...
 * I don't recall Ed taking any position about the consensus. It appeared to me that he was just happy someone was at least proposing a modest step forward (RfC) toward dispute resolution, instead of piling more circular argumentation on his Talk page.
 * Syphilis is again used as an example of ... not being genodical
 * You've said that already. And each time I've reminded you: that is exactly why it is not relevant to a genocide article.  Smallpox, at least, was ordered intentionally used, as well as actually intentionally used, to try to kill Native Americans.  Syphilis was not.  And in some documented cases, vaccination against smallpox was intentionally ordered withheld from Native Americans. Repeatedly I have asked you what syphilis is a "counterexample" of, or a "flip side" of, in a Genocide context.  And each time, you avoid answering.  Why is that, Etsybetsy?
 * Smallpox is talked about at length here so it would only make sense to very shortly mention the flip side.
 * No. It makes no sense at all, because it is not a "flip side". Show me the source (title, author and page numbers) where syphilis is discussed in terms of genocide, please.  You are conducting synthesis and original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia's core policies. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Interlude with RockyMtnGuy
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)
 * Hi, User:RockyMtnGuy! I understand that you "don't have a lot of interest in this subject" and you monitor this infrequently, but if you could participate just a little longer, I'd like to see if we could clear up some misconceptions and reach understanding on a couple points.
 * Xenophrenic, you are extremely annoying.
 * I get that a lot, almost exclusively from editors who get frustrated when their ideologies and preconceived notions come into conflict with actual reliable sources. Since I'm the one presenting these reliable sources to these editors, I end up being the misplaced focus of their ire.  They really should be directing their frustration at the scholars and researchers who produce this information they find so challenging and upsetting, and not direct their anger me just because I brought it to their attention.  After a decade of this, I've grown used to it as an inevitable part of volunteering to edit in highly contentious subject matter.  So I will take your comment in stride.
 * You are bullying other editors in attempt to force your own personal biases...
 * That is false, and we both know it. There is a reason why you haven't provided a single supporting example.  How can you test that your accusation is false?  Accept this simple challenge: present one (just one!) instance where you assume I have "forced a personal bias into Wikipedia as a fact", and I'll show you that what you incorrectly perceived as personal bias is actually information conveyed by reliable sources.
 * ...misquoting sources and other editors, and generally distorting whatever facts are involved.
 * That is also false, and I note that you have again deftly avoided providing a single supporting example. The above test & challenge applies.  No doubt the results of your attempt will just add to your existing frustration.  Take the challenge, Guy, and you will prove to yourself that I'm only a copy-editor relaying the relevant information found in reliable sources.  Any "bias" you perceive because the reliably sourced information doesn't jibe with your "personal knowledge" isn't my fault (and certainly isn't "my personal bias").
 * You are subverting this process by deleting everything you don't agree with...
 * Again, Incorrect. I am participating in the article improvement process by deleting everything that doesn't agree with reliable sources or doesn't comply with Wikipedia editing policies (or both).  Our discussion at "Urban myth or documented fact?" after I reverted your problematic edit is a perfect example supporting this fact.  Your content was deleted because Wikipedia doesn't like you conducting WP:SYNTH by taking unrelated content from different sources and combining them to produce your very own conclusion (that infection via tainted blankets didn't happen).  And even if Wikipedia allowed you to publish your own synthesis, you didn't convey your sources accurately, violating WP:NPOV like when:
 * → you added: However, it also had a fatality rate of about 30% in European colonists, who were not immune to it.
 * → when the source said nothing about European colonists, but said: Historically, variola major has an overall fatality rate of about 30%; however, flat and hemorrhagic smallpox usually are fatal. (Hemorrhagic smallpox was most prevalent in indigenous Americans.)
 * → or when you added: It seldom is spread through contact with bedding. The alleged plot also occurred in 1763, over 100 years before the germ theory of disease was accepted or viruses were discovered.
 * → when the sources said absolutely nothing about alleged plots or germ theories, but said: Generally, direct and fairly prolonged face-to-face contact is required to spread smallpox from one person to another. Smallpox also can be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects such as bedding or clothing. Also, Naturally, such clothing has to be considered as a potential source of infection. [...] Thus, it would appear that variola virus is likely to remain viable in infected clothes for a maximum period of 30 to 40 days if kept bundled in a well ventilated room and for 60 to 70 days if kept in a dark, cool and poorly ventilated room. [...] While susceptible persons may vary occasionally contract infection from heavily infected clothing, the likelihood of contracting infection from other objects is most improbable. (And your latter source appears to be unpublished, with a disclaimer saying it is solely the view of a health officer no less.)
 * So it appears you need to re-acquaint yourself with "this process" of editing articles in compliance with Wikipedia's requirements and standards.
 * The rest of your paragraph is just a rehash of your own personal opinions and assumptions, completely devoid of reliably sourced support, so I'll just refer you back to our previous discussion. But this one statement of yours can be easily answered here:
 * Is it genocide if nobody was killed? (Some people would argue yes, but I prefer not to argue with them.)
 * Level of success has no bearing on whether an action is genocidal. Acts with specific intent is what defines genocide.  Read the lead section of the two Genocide articles Etsybetsy and I are discussing (Genocides in history and Genocide of indigenous peoples) for your answer.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course you get that a lot, because you keep trying to force your own opinions on articles while trying to represent them as "facts". This annoys a lot of editors who are just trying to create a good article by putting only properly quoted facts from legitimate sources into them, while presenting both sides of any controversial issues. Also, if you don't want to annoy people, don't say things on Wikipedia talk pages like: - because that pops up an alert on my Wikipedia banner line. And, here I am, autopinged and annoyed.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have misread, again. I get that a lot from editors who get frustrated when their ideologies and preconceived notions come into conflict with actual reliable sources. Editors who stick to reliable sources and not attempt to edit their personal opinions and pre-conceived notions into articles don't experience the annoyance that you experience.  And if you get annoyed at having your rubbish pointed out as rubbish, and at having me ping you to back up your claims, then here's a solution: don't post rubbish. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Etsybetsy certainly thought she was being mentally bullied, which is why we are having this conversation. And, originally I was thinking of saying delusional system rather than personal bias, but thought better of it. Now, I am leaning back toward my original thought.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We are having this conversation because Etsybetsy is frustrated that Wikipedia won't allow him/her to edit against policy. If Etsy equates that to "mental bullying", that is unfortunate.  99% of the thousands of Wikipedia editors feel otherwise. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I often check people's sources to see if they say what people say they say, and in your case, they often don't. I don't document these, it's just a quality control measure. I do this because a lot of people, notably political groups, are fond of misquoting sources and using creative ways to make them support their favorite cause. When you get onto nebulous topics like "Genocide", there are a large number of special interest political groups misquoting original sources, and quoting each other, which doesn't help the process of verifying sources at all. To help me, I get daily e-mails from a source called "Retraction Watch" which notifies me of which research papers have been retracted because they are academically flawed. If I recall correctly, at least one of your sources was fired by his university for academic misconduct.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I showed that your assertion (a personal attack, actually) was false, and as a test, I challenged you to provide just one example to back up your rubbish. Just one. Now you claim you can't, because you don't document these. How convenient.  It isn't a surprise to me as I already knew you couldn't, but at least now we have it from you in print.   Now you've doubled-down on your completely unsubstantiated rubbish.   Should I again challenge you to provide just one example of "at least one of your sources was fired" that is cited as a reference in our article?  Why bother, you'll excuse your way out of that as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've edited hundreds of articles, so I think I know how to do it. But, the fact is that you are deleting other author's edits because they don't say what you want them to say. I said smallpox and the source says smallpox:  so you deleted it because the source doesn't mention European colonists. Well, why would it? They are among the population sampled to get the overall fatality rate. Now you go on to say,  Well, how do you know that? They had medicine men instead of doctors, they didn't perform censuses, and they didn't have writing except in a limited sense. Most of them (people theorize) died before the white men settled the lands they formerly occupied so we don't know how many of them there were or what the fatality rate was. The numbers anyone comes up with for pre-Columbian populations or death rates are purely speculative.


 * As for the spreading of smallpox on blankets, I went to the hospital authorities for data. They indicated it wasn't a risk except for hospital laundry workers, and even then they weren't sure. You are not going to find modern data because smallpox is extinct now and was very rare in developed countries after vaccination was introduced. And if you start to research it, Homeland Security will probably start to monitor your computer, so watch it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That (again) is false. When what you edit into Wikipedia articles does not accurately say what is conveyed in reliable sources - and you did that - then your edits are likely to be reverted or changed.
 * ...and the source says smallpox: "has an overall fatality rate of about 30%"
 * No, it actually said: "Historically, variola major has an overall fatality rate of about 30%; however, flat and hemorrhagic smallpox usually are fatal." You aren't allowed to misrepresent sources like that.  Your edits get reverted because Wikipedia "doesn't like it".  After hundreds of edits, I shouldn't need to explain this to you.
 * Hemorrhagic smallpox ... Well, how do you know that?
 * Reliable Sources. Were you trying to be funny? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yours is more the Alice Through the Looking-Glass definition:
 * Whereas I prefer a simpler definition, the Oxford dictionary one:
 * The United Nations has a definition but it has the problem that 1) Joseph Stalin had a hand in defining it, so he managed to define it so that starving to death six or seven million Ukrainians for political reasons did not constitute genocide, and 2) Some anti-birth-control lobby groups managed to include supporting birth control measures in third world countries as genocide. So, there are a lot of different definitions which mostly follow the Humpty-Dumpty rule.RockyMtnGuy (talk)
 * Incorrect. I don't have a definition, or even a "preferred" definition.  I defer to what the preponderance of reliable sources convey, as Wikipedia requires.  Of course there are nuanced differences in how "genocide" is defined and applied, and that is explained in our various genocide articles.  Apologists, deniers, and those with ideological agendas might pick and chose their "preferred" definitions to suit their purposes, but Wikipedia editors can not.  After hundreds of edits, I would think you would have learned this. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * While you are here, could you please clarify, without ambiguity, for myself and Etsybetsy, what you meant regarding the syphilis content when you said: This is all very interesting, but has little to do with genocide. ... it was really just plain old ignorance rather than genocide that caused the deaths of millions if not billions of people on both sides. I took your comments to mean that you are of the opinion that since the deaths of millions by disease (both syphilis and smallpox) was "accidental", or at least unintentional, they have nothing to do with genocide.  If I'm misunderstanding your position, could you clarify it for me? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, I prefer the Oxford dictionary definition of genocide: so that the accidental killing of a large group of people through sheer ignorance does not constitute genocide. As I said, several times, the germ theory of disease was not invented until the late 19th century (and the term genocide was not invented until 1944), so anything suggesting that germ warfare was used to commit genocide before germ warfare was invented is highly dubious. In most case it's a case of historical revisionism and should be identified as such in an article. The smallpox blanket stories appear to be nearly pure urban myth, and fall into the same category as the moon landing conspiracy theories. People repeat them over and over, but that doesn't make them true. So, they should not be mentioned in an article on genocide except as mythical cases of genocide, and if they are mentioned, the reverse transmission of syphilis from the Americas to Europe should also be mentioned in the interests of producing a balanced article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent; so I did understand your position correctly after all.
 * Reliable sources disagree with most of your position, of course. You are generally correct that "the accidental killing of a large group of people through sheer ignorance does not constitute genocide", but our Wikipedia articles do not argue that it does.  So that is a bit of a straw man assertion.  Let's stick with "intentional" attempts to kill groups of people, and leave accidents for another discussion.  With specific regard to syphilis, reliable sources agree with you:  there are no credible accounts in reliable sources of anyone trying to use syphilis to kill a large group of people, so syphilis content in an article about genocide is nonsensical.  But as for the rest of your position, reliable sources disagree (and, in fact, definitively refute) your assertions.
 * the germ theory of disease was not invented until the late 19th century
 * During the events under discussion (we're talking mid-1700s and later), the participants were fully aware of the concepts of contagion, inoculation, quarantine, and deadliness with regard to smallpox.
 * The smallpox blanket stories appear to be nearly pure urban myth...
 * False. The orders by Amherst to use tainted blankets "to Extirpate this Execrable Race" exist in multiple documents which are preserved in national archives. The journal entries by Trent and his crew, which describe in detail how they presented tainted blankets to Indian emissaries during a parley, "to convey the smallpox", are also carefully preserved.  As are the inventory records for the fort, and Commander Gage's (Amherst's successor) reimbursement for the blankets and other sundries used "which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians", also carefully preserved.  This is all well documented fact.  This was all explained to you, and the voluminous reliable sources provided during our discussions.  There is no "myth" of smallpox blankets; just the reality.  Now you can certainly debate the effectiveness of such attempts, but you can't wave away such highly documented events as "urban legend", and still expect people to take you seriously.
 * they should not be mentioned in an article on genocide...
 * Thank you for your personal opinion, but as was explained above, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, not our personal feelings. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Same argument from a different angle
The smallpox blanket stories [...] they should not be mentioned in an article on genocide except as mythical cases of genocide, and if they are mentioned, the reverse transmission of syphilis from the Americas to Europe should also be mentioned in the interests of producing a balanced article. --RockyMtnGuy
 * Wow. Such a statement is stuffed with all kinds of wrong.  I think your confusion may stem from your conflation of two facts into an inaccurate conclusion:
 * "Deliberate attempts were ordered and actually made to infect Indians with smallpox via blankets" (a well documented fact)
 * "The population of indigenous peoples of the Americas, estimated at between 80-145 million in the 1400s, was reduced to less than 10% of that over the span of just a few generations, with disease being a major cause of death" (a well documented fact)
 * And from those two facts, you think our Wikipedia article is claiming that "smallpox blankets killed millions of Indians"? That would be not just "myth", but downright silly.  Our article doesn't make that claim, and shouldn't.  You are doing some really weird mixing of two completely different facts involving smallpox and Native Americans.  The first fact is mentioned in an article about genocide because those are deliberate acts intended to kill a large group of people.  Adding irrelevant "syphilis" content to it, unless you can show me sources of Indians attempting to intentionally convey syphilis to Europeans, doesn't "balance" squat, and is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.  The second fact is mentioned in an article about genocide not because scholars and historians are claiming that initial colonists brought and released disease with the intent to kill the native populations.  The case actually made by many reliable sources is that, just like the Europeans had, the Native American populations in the Western Hemisphere would have survived the disease pandemics (and even grown stronger and prospered), had they not also been subjected to simultaneous genocidal forces from the invading colonizers.  Reliable sources do not claim that the unintentional carrying of disease equals genocide. So adding irrelevant "syphilis" content to it doesn't "balance" squat, and is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, unless you can show me reliable sources of Indians sailing into Europe and attempting to enslave and subjugate the people in Europe, force their relocation, rape, war, and destroy their land, livestock and culture, all while the Europeans are struggling with syphilis.
 * One of many scholars explained the argument well:
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal from Xenophrenic about an RfC
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)

✅ Etsybetsy (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Another revert at Genocides in history?
Per user talk:EdJohnston an editor has stated you should be blocked for this revert at Genocides in history. If you believe you got consensus for this on the article talk page, please link to it. If not, there may still be time for you to undo your change, to avoid a block. You and the other party were both warned about this article on September 1, per AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been the question about consensus for syphilis but not the Amherst case. Just look at the talk page and you'll find RockyMtnGuy has been arguing about the same thing for a long time: Talk:Genocides in history Then in section Talk:Genocides in history I join in and OoflyoO clarifies his support for my edit: . Rocky isn't sure about the syphilis insertion, which is separate. In the last section at the bottom things got a bit heated and Xeno removed a few of Rocky's posts for some reason. In the edit summary here: Rocky writes that it "of course belongs". At this point it's 3 vs 1. This might mean the syphilis parenthesis has consensus as well with new sources from the talk too. Etsybetsy (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to see a talk thread, in which several people participate, that concludes your change is correct. Is there such a thread? Your above argument looks to be full of synthesis. I recommend you undo your contested change until a clear thread of support appears on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what there was, a talk thread with all of the people participating where the consensus was stated. Do you want it in even clearer terms from RockyMtnGuy? I can just ask him to state it more clearly... He said he was on some boat trip so understandably he had difficulty participating at max capability. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How odd is it that you would need another editor to clearly state for you what you just recently claimed was "a clear consensus"? When you say, "At this point it's 3 vs 1", you display a clear misunderstanding of what WP:CONSENSUS is. It's WP:NOTAVOTE. Try replacing those numbers with valid arguments / valid Wiki-policy, and the discussion will advance. There are presently 3 editors who have participated in the development of consensus: Myself, RockyMtnGuy and Etsy. OoflyoO hasn't logged on since August 3, before Etsy registered an account, and even back then OoflyoO didn't participate in consensus building (he merely said he agrees with anyone who disagrees with Xenophrenic on any issue). The outstanding issues to still be resolved at this moment (read: no present consensus) are: Items 1, 2 and 3 were implemented in Etsy's latest edit. Number 5 is new as of last night. Hopefully this help. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Addition of this problematic text: However according to testimonies by Gershom Hicks, a trader turned "white Indian" and captured by the British; and a captive to natives, John McCullough: the native tribe in question was already ravaged with smallpox.
 * 2) Addition of this inaccurate text: A month before Amherst's authorization, smallpox-exposed blankets were given as gifts...
 * 3) Relocation of a block of text to an illogical position in the section.
 * 4) Proposed insertion of irrelevant content about a syphilis origin theory into an article about Genocide.
 * 5) Possibly proposing to add content in a new section about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments as genocide against African Americans.
 * No, I don't agree with anyone who disagrees with Xenophrenic on any issue. Simply put, I disagreed with Xenophrendick's edits and reverts, etc... I can't help it if I agreed with other editors who disagreed with Xenophrendick. I am pretty sure my edits (reverted) to the article speak to what I think and the consensus I agreed with.  I participated by agreeing with those I agreed with.  Simple enough. OoflyoO (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Genocides in history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Our Talk page policies clearly state that personal attacks upon editors may be removed, and off topic discussions may be moved to the user's Talk page. That has been done, and you are now edit warring. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My independent analysis indicates that it is YOU, Xenophrenic, who are creating edit wars. Etsybetsy had some significant contributions to make to articles, and the other editors who you have reverted would have made significant contributions to Wikipedia as well. However, YOU insist on personally controlling all the edits. This is at variance with Wikipedia's policy of group collaboration. In my personal, very annoyed opinion, YOU are the one who should be blocked.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * His talk page would be absolutely littered with these notices but he removes them all. Etsybetsy (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at History of syphilis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)