Talk:David Stannard

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed link

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Xenophrenic, the IP accurately summarized what both books said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ...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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ...and still baseless. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

text: With this edit, you seem to have conceded the point that your previous revision lacked neutrality.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  American Holocaust