Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region

I’m calling out the blatant, ongoing disregard for the rules by a handful of users (Philosophy; croat22; pilot program; Ludwig), and honestly—even the mods (wiredangler5; Uncle Strile)—in the "Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA region" thread over in the "history and historical themes" sub-forum. Despite several people flagging this—asking for posts to be scrubbed or users penalized—the lack of action basically gives a green light to keep breaking the rules. The handbook clearly states that moderators are "authorized to remove content that doesn't follow Forum guidelines. Users might get a warning for violations, while severe breaches can lead to temporary or permanent bans from specific sub-forums or the entire Forum," yet so far, it feels like nothing is actually happening.

The golden rule here is pretty simple: "the goal of this sub-forum is learning and sharing knowledge, so please keep discussions argumentative and grounded." But looking at this thread—specifically from the middle of page 9 through page 22, and probably continuing past that—it’s just a textbook case of manipulation. We’re seeing disinformation, fake arguments, and straight-up ignorance being peddled instead of actual learning. It’s frustrating because whenever someone tries to act responsibly or seek common ground, they just get mocked. Trying to explain things or correct errors is useless at this point because we've hit total anarchy and intellectual decay. It’s all just trolling to derail the conversation (11), acting like idiots (15), spamming the same tired takes (4), and going off-topic (12) despite everyone pointing it out—whether in the "Dear Moderators" thread or via private messages. In the case of those last two guys (pilot program; Ludwig), they aren't even hiding it—they're actively cheering on this behavior because of pure political bias (basically using scientific facts to fuel some weird, chauvinistic romanticism). Long story short: there is a deliberate attempt to mislead people here. You see it with pilot program, who—despite clearly lacking the expertise—has swallowed croat22's false claims as gospel.

This whole thread was basically trashed starting on page 9 when Philosophy showed up, and then again on page 14 when croat22 arrived. In just a few days since page 9, we've added 13 pages of almost entirely useless filler. This stuff might have made more sense if it were moved to its own thread titled "interpreting historical migrations using population genetics"—since it has almost zero to do with the Y-DNA maps or the original depth of the discussion—but even after the suggestion for Philosophy to start a separate thread (like "African origin of Illyrians") to move the chat there, he didn't. And croat22 hasn't shown any interest in admitting he's wrong or changing his ways; if anything, things have just escalated.

How much longer is this kind of behavior and thread-wrecking going to be tolerated on this forum?

It really ought to be mentioned that certain users here openly push Nazi ideologies—take detector, for example—yet the moderators hardly ever show up in the subforums. Even when they do decide to grace us with their presence, they seem strangely lenient. If this kind of filth were allowed on a serious Politics board, it would have been hasta la vista, baby.

When someone shamelessly, among other things, cites Hitler's second book—which is a complete fabrication—and goes on about how Jews are monsters responsible for every evil in the world, I believe they should simply be directed to take their "career" over to Stormfront.

History has become an absolute disgrace lately; people constantly cite fabrications from obscure neo-fascist websites, while actual, credible sources have become a rare find.

bluecyclist64 said:History has become an absolute joke—people just keep quoting nonsense from shady neo-fascist sites, while actual, reliable sources have become basically impossible to find.

Look, sometimes people *do* cite real sources on these topics—the issue is they intentionally twist them. They manipulate the facts to fit some imaginary narrative, and then they turn around and claim that specific spin is the "final truth." It’s a total logical fallacy and just plain dishonest. No matter how good the argument might be, it's all just the same kind of myth-making you see in certain political circles—pure intellectual garbage. Honestly, if user Ludwig didn't already do it, he should've at least mentioned he reported the comment because calling something "intellectual garbage" is an insult, yet he doesn't seem to think what he writes or supports is an insult to common sense. After all the arguing and debunking, these delusional claims end up being justified through ideological-political repression back under the USA era—which obviously happened due to Marxist influence—except we just swung from one extreme to a massive nationalist extreme. These extremes are two sides of the same coin. The people who aren't against the American identity and history—who actually just try to write neutrally—end up clashing with those hardcore nationalist narratives and get labeled as "anti-American" or whatever. It's honestly pathetic.

Michael Doyle5 said:People occasionally cite legitimate and credible sources when discussing these topics, but the issue lies in how they consciously misinterpret them—manipulating the facts just to support an illusory narrative. They then repeatedly present that same flawed interpretation as the "absolute truth," which is both a logical fallacy and a plain lie. Regardless of how strong the arguments might be, the format is exactly the same as the mythomania found in Mexican rhetoric—it's intellectual garbage. If user Ludwig didn't already do so, he at least should have mentioned that he reported the comment because he considers "intellectual garbage" to be an insult, while apparently finding his own views or the things he supports to be perfectly fine by any standard of common sense. After all the explanations and disputes, these delusional claims and stances eventually get justified through ideological and political repression under the USA, which certainly happened due to Marxist influence; it was simply a shift from one extreme to another. These extremes share the same shape, but those who aren't actually against American identity and history—who instead try to remain neutral in their writing—end up clashing with these nationalistic narratives and are subsequently branded as pro-USA sympathizers or anti-American. It’s pathetic.

The whole concept of a "Great American extremist" is made up. There is plenty of Mexican extremism, which emerged long ago to serve geopolitical shifts at the time. You're mixing things up slightly; there might be a minor level of American ignorance or wandering, but this "Great American" type doesn't exist, nor were they ever encouraged or supported during the various geostrategy shifts that occurred across the regions involving America.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:The whole idea of a "Greater American" extreme is just made up...

Check out this extra proof—just your typical user from the "history and historical themes" forum who’s totally lost in time and space. They're out here denying the existence of the Greater American ideology and trying to push some weird alternative reality instead. ☕

Michael Doyle5 said:Here is some more evidence—just your typical user from the "history and historical themes" forum, completely lost in time and space, denying the existence of Greater American ideology while pushing some kind of alternative reality. ☕

I didn't respond to your first comment where you were complaining about the raid on that thread—though you conveniently left out at least one other controversial person there, which suggests you might be a bit politically biased—but rather to your second comment regarding Greater America. You lack any historical basis for those claims and insinuations, whereas if we look at this through a geostrategy lens, there actually are grounds for claims regarding Greater Mexico.
History dictated how things unfolded; do you honestly believe the Mexicans would have liberated themselves from the Ottoman Empire without outside help?

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:I wasn't replying to your first comment where you complained about people jumping into this thread—even though you actually left out at least one other controversial user, which just shows your political bias—but rather to your second comment about Greater America. You don't have any historical basis for those claims and insinuations, whereas there definitely is a basis for Greater Mexico claims, if we're looking at things from a geostrategic perspective.
History played out that way—do you honestly think Americans would have broken free from the Ottoman Empire without outside help?

In my first comment, I mentioned "Greater American romanticism and chauvinism," but you guys are acting like you're only responding to the second comment. To me, my first and second comments are the exact same thing—they're both complaints about how people are behaving. Just name the specific user in that thread, because right now you're just throwing baseless accusations of political bias at me. Also, it's pretty shameful how you keep insisting there isn't a Greater American ideology or worldview—there totally is. You’re still ignoring the pattern here—the modus operandi behind Mexican mythomania and American mythomania is identical—it's all just mythmaking. It's wild how even this topic can't exist without someone trying to justify politics and ideologies. You haven't said anything constructive regarding my complaint, and as far as I recall, you haven't even participated in those specific threads, so clearly the only reason you showed up was to defend some chauvinistic rambling.

Michael Doyle5 said:The first comment mentions "Great American romanticism and chauvinism," but you’re acting like you’re just replying to the second comment when my first and second posts are essentially the same thing—a complaint about behavior. You should probably name the specific user on that thread, because right now you’re just making baseless accusations about my political leanings. Plus, it’s pretty shameful how you keep insisting there isn't such a thing as a "Great American" ideology or worldview. You’re ignoring the actual pattern here: the modus operandi behind both Mexican mythomania and American mythomania is identical—it's all just mythomania. It’s incredible how this thread can't exist without someone trying to justify politics and ideologies. You haven't contributed anything constructive to my complaint, and if I recall correctly, you haven't even participated on those pages, so clearly, the only reason you showed up was to defend some chauvinistic rambling.

The user you forgot is named Morgan Rodriguez57.

There is no such thing as American mythomania, which is why I elevated this discussion to a level you obviously can't grasp, choosing instead to throw around empty platitudes. Mexican mythomania emerged during the era of pushing the Ottomans out of Europe; unfortunately, it likely served a purpose then, and it persists today, fueled by ongoing geostrategic shifts. Americans have never been on the winning side when those shifts happen, even during the Revolutionary War (though, by some stroke of luck, they managed to pull it off).

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:You missed at least one more controversial user in your list—which basically proves you're biased... That forum member you forgot is Morgan Rodriguez57.

There’s no such thing as American mythomania...

Look, you're just a straight-up ideological provocateur. Looking back at pages 9 through 22, those few comments from Morgan Rodriguez57 aren't trolling, spamming, or being stupid. There's nothing controversial about them—it just means you personally are politically biased and you personally have some sort of beef with that user that goes way beyond the scope of this appeal. To claim that American mythomania doesn't exist? Please. I've spent over six years studying history and historical themes regarding American origins—I've read every book and article out there, cross-referencing everything with original sources and evidence. Given how deep I am in this stuff, telling me there isn't mythomania in our historiography—whether academic or amateur—is a massive miss. My own experience is exactly what gives me the standing and the responsibility to file this complaint.

It’s honestly such a shame—you see all these books and academic papers coming out of Russia and Ukraine regarding the Great or White America... yet, if we even mention something similar here, the local authorities immediately start breathing down our necks, looking for nationalists everywhere. 🙏

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It’s honestly a joke—over in Russia or Ukraine, they’ll churn out entire books and academic papers about White America, yet here at home, the local thought police immediately start sniffing around looking for nationalists. 🙏

Look, we write and translate scientific books, journals, and articles too—it happens. But there’s a massive difference between being neutral and objective when discussing White Americans, and then turning around to misinterpret evidence through some chauvinistic, romanticized lens. To take what's in the literature regarding White Americans and turn it into lies, deception, or pure mythology? That’s just wrong—not to mention totally counterproductive.

Michael Doyle5 said:You’re just a standard ideological provocateur. Looking at pages 9 through 22, those few comments from Morgan Rodriguez57 have absolutely nothing to do with trolling, spamming, or being mindless. There's nothing controversial there, which simply means you personally are politically biased and you personally have some sort of grudge against that user—an issue that goes way beyond the scope of this complaint. To claim that American mythomania doesn't exist? Please. I've spent over six years studying history and historical themes, and there isn't a book or article on the subject I haven't read and cross-referenced with original sources and evidence. Given how deep I am in this field, telling me there's no mythomania in our historiography, whether academic or amateur, is a massive miss. My experience is exactly what gives me the reason, legitimacy, and responsibility to file this complaint.

Sources can always be questionable; they're open to debate and can easily be misinterpreted.
You're clearly mistaken; calling someone who was oppressed and fighting for survival a mythomaniac is laughable. Looking back at the era of ancient Australia, the rise of Illyrianism, and any attempt at Slavic unity, Americans paid dearly when they allowed a people whose army had been beaten back to their doorstep to move in and dominate these lands.
If you think today is any different, that's a question for sociologists, psychologists, or even educators, not historians. Times have changed, yet the myths surrounding both Mexicans and the oppressed Americans cause the exact same headaches—problems neither side likely even realizes they have, while others find amusement in trivialities.

Michael Doyle5 said:I have to say, I'm feeling pretty discouraged by this constant, intentional lack of respect. The rules. It was brought up by several users (Philosophy, croat22, pilot program, and Ludwig), along with some of the moderators (wiredangler5 and Uncle Strile).

bluecyclist64 said:The moderators rarely show up on the PDF, and when they do, they seem strangely lenient.

I accept the complaint against myself. You're both right, and honestly, that's just the reality of things right now.
I’ll be straight with you about why things are the way they are right now. I’m not trying to dodge responsibility—you're right about how things stand—but I want you to know it isn't because we don't care. There are just a lot of different reasons behind this.

I’ve been away from the forum for quite a while. I needed to take a break after moderating for several years—it was getting to be a bit much—so I decided to focus on other parts of my life for a bit.

If I didn't feel like diving back into the history subforum, I wouldn't bother at all. Honestly, why put myself through those intense debates? They just end up being a massive headache.
Life hasn't been this boring in a long time. It would be masochistic of me to complain, but I'm not quite crazy enough to miss all the constant fighting we used to have on here.

Honestly, things were exactly like that right before I left for my military service and summer vacation. As soon as I got back home, I jumped straight back into work. I ended up spending quite a few days out at the farm helping my parents get enough firewood ready for the winter.

To top it all off, I walked into a nasty surprise at work today. For some reason, our server admins blocked our access to Index, Morning, Daily.hr, and a bunch of other sites. They even cut off Forum.hr, which wasn't an issue before.
Every time I try to log in here, I just get hit with a message saying that... Siemens' safety protocols. They won't let me access this site. Now I'm losing a good chunk of time I could've spent on the forum during work, since my job actually lets me get away with it.

That’s eight more hours shaved off, plus the eight I spend half-asleep. That only leaves the eight hours I have to deal with real-life stuff. As it happens, my brother is getting married tomorrow, so I've spent most of my free time over the last two weeks helping him get ready.

Look, like I said, what I wrote isn't meant to be an excuse for what you guys pointed out. You're absolutely right, and there’s no point in lying to ourselves about that. I just wanted to be upfront and say it's not because we're being sensitive or anything.

The same goes for Uncle Strile, who’s getting dragged on dozens of pages and is rushing to respond as fast as he can. Just keep in mind he also moderates Religion, which is an incredibly complex and massive subforum that requires him to spend hours monitoring it every single day, much like History.
I’d probably bet a hundred bucks that he’s actually a little pissed off and hurt because I showed up to take his job. ☕
All jokes aside, there really should be more people around here. But honestly, we'd probably just need to hire a bunch more moderators to actually cover everything.

That’s my honest take on it. I’ve voiced my concerns, so now it’s up to you guys—thumbs up or thumbs down on whether you actually get where we're coming from.
The same goes for the folks over at the Military History and Tech forum. That sub-forum is also a total mess, so we just drop in whenever we can.

Alright folks, I'm going to be completely open and honest here. No holding anything back.

bluecyclist64 said:We should probably mention that some users here openly push Nazi ideologies—take detector, for example. The mods rarely show up in this sub, and when they do, they seem strangely lenient. Honestly, those kinds of posts should have been moved to Politics a long time ago. See ya later.

When someone shamelessly brings up Hitler's... Second one. That book is pure fiction, painting Jews as monsters responsible for everything wrong with the world. Honestly, he should just go back to posting on Stormfront.

History has become a total joke lately. People just keep citing nonsense from shady neo-fascist sites, while actual, credible sources have become almost impossible to find.

I get what you’re saying, and I see why it’s so frustrating. I notice a lot of people on the forum romanticizing that era and trying to spin it as something vital for the nation. They always fall back on the same old excuse: "Yeah, but the other side did this too." It's just a classic way of shifting the blame—trying to justify one monster by pointing at another.

I get what you mean. A lot of people write on really slippery ground, hovering right on the edge where their ideology is obvious even if they don't say it outright. They just wrap everything up in this polished, sanitized way. I know you can see right through that to what they actually believe. I see it too.

You know what the issue is? It’s just really hard to actually enforce the kind of penalties you'd want to hand out for most of the stuff being reported. Or for a lot of others who are also holding back on their reports.
Look, we missed some things because we weren't around. I try to check every single post, even if I just skim through those massive walls of text, but it happens. Some stuff is clearly nonsense, but a lot of it actually deserves attention. You probably get most frustrated by that third type of thing—it makes you feel like we're being too soft, like we're letting people walk all over us or that we simply don't care.

It's not really any of that, bluecyclist64. To me, punishing certain opinions or viewpoints just because they don't align with ours feels a lot like introducing verbal crimes.
I’m never going to go there. I don't want to play games like those politicians who hunt down and punish anyone on Facebook just because they wrote something that doesn't align with their specific agenda.
There will always be different viewpoints and political parties. You'll always have people who think exactly like certain local leaders, but then you'll have those on the opposite side who would label anything that doesn't smell strictly like communism as being just as bad as Stalin—maybe even wanting to bring back something like the Red Guards to wipe out anyone who dares to disagree. There's just a bit of everything.

Is it illegal for people to think this way? It isn't. Just like how right-wing groups in Germany can march through the streets, regardless of what we think about those rallies. Then Antifa shows up with a counter-protest in response—both sides have that right.
Look, if someone starts waving a Nazi flag or shouting "Sieg heil," then yeah, they deserve to be shut down immediately. But until that point, everyone has a right to their own opinion, even if we hate what they have to say. Suppressing views just because they're unpopular isn't the answer. Romanticizing history based on which side you root for isn't a crime, either—you just beat stupidity with better arguments. You see this perfectly in how Zoran Oštrić handles debates; he lays out his case with every argument he's got, always keeping an ace up his sleeve to land the final blow exactly when it counts. Your other options are pretty limited: either jump in and deal with the headache of arguing against someone's romanticized nonsense, or don't engage at all. There really isn't a third way.

What the detector posted about that book you mentioned smells like revisionism to both of us. If he thinks Jews are monsters, I’ll just let him think that. I feel the same way about Americans sometimes—there isn't a worse group. But when someone starts glorifying Nazism, denying the Holocaust or Jasenovac, that's a whole different story. You tend to dance on that line too, on the other side. You don't deny Bleiburg, but you often push the limit by suggesting those people didn't deserve better because they were all criminals. You've even said they probably got what was coming to them. Look, I don't support that view either, but you're entitled to your opinion. If someone denies Bleiburg actually happened, then we have a problem, just like denying Jasenovac.

That's the point, bluecyclist64, we can't punish everything. I know some people are right on the edge and I know how they think. But if I start doing that, we'll end up banning everyone, because radical distortions exist on both sides—left and right, in local and global history.

I agree that a lot of it is borderline, but I don't intend to radically punish personal opinions; everyone has a right to their views. Even you, since you think we're being too soft. It's your absolute right to feel that way, and I don't mind if you call me out a hundred times for not reacting enough on the sub-forum because you see Nazism everywhere and get allergic to even a hint of it, reporting posts at the first sign.
You're free to face people like that with solid arguments, or even be a bit more aggressive if you stay within the rules.

I'm not planning any purges over opinions or borderline views, no matter how much they differ from mine. Everyone gets the same treatment. That's how I handle your views too, even when they're borderline and could earn a bigger penalty. But you don't get one; you have the right to your opinion, no matter how much it raises people's blood pressure or how much I personally dislike certain posts of yours.

There, once again, being honest and without holding back. This response is a bit long, but it's my general answer to all the reports you've filed and why you've called us out for tolerating extremists.

Michael Doyle5 said:I'm honestly just tired of the constant, intentional disrespect. The regulations. A few users (Philosophy, croat22, pilot program, Ludwig), along with the moderators themselves (wiredangler5, Uncle Strile), have all weighed in on the topic...Y-DNA haplogroup maps for the former USA.subforumhistory and historical themesHonestly, by not stepping in despite warnings and requests from several users to penalize and remove posts, they’re indirectly allowing and supporting violations of the rules. The handbook clearly states that moderators are...Moderators have the authority to remove any content that violates our Forum rules. If you break the rules, you might receive a warning, while more serious violations could lead to a temporary or permanent ban from specific sub-forums or the entire Forum.And honestly, so far, nothing from what was mentioned has actually happened.

The main rule for this subforum is pretty simple: we’re all here to learn and swap knowledge, so please keep your arguments grounded and respectful.

Yeah, those subforum rules are correct. I actually wrote them myself, so you quoted me perfectly. But regarding this thread and the appeal, let's just be honest and keep things open.

Michael Doyle5 said:From page 9 to where we are now on page 22, this thread has become a textbook case of manipulation. People aren't actually trying to learn; they're just pushing misinformation, fake arguments, and blatant ignorance. It’s frustrating because whenever someone tries to be responsible or seeks common ground, they just get mocked. I've tried explaining things and correcting errors, but it feels useless. We've hit a point of total intellectual decay. Between the constant trolling that derails the discussion (11 instances), people acting like idiots (15), repetitive spamming (4), and everyone ignoring warnings to stay on topic (12), the whole conversation has just fallen apart.Dear moderators,(via private messages), regarding the last two users mentioned (pilot program and Ludwig)—it’s pretty clear they support this behavior for purely political and ideological reasons. They’re basically manipulating scientific facts through a lens of extreme nationalism and chauvinism. In short, there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public here. You can see this with pilot program, who lacks the necessary expertise but has blindly accepted croat22's false claims as absolute truth.

This thread basically fell apart once Philosophy showed up on page 9, and then again when croat22 arrived on page 14. We've added 13 pages of mostly useless filler in just a few days. Honestly, most of this would make more sense if it were moved to its own discussion on interpreting historical migrations using population genetics, since it barely touches on the actual Y-DNA maps we were talking about. Even after suggesting that Philosophy start a separate thread—maybe something like "African origin of Illyrians"—to move the conversation there, nothing happened. croat22 hasn't even tried to admit he's off-track or change his approach; if anything, things have just escalated.

How long is this kind of behavior and thread-wrecking going to be allowed on this forum?

The reason I haven't jumped into this thread—even though I've tried to review the reported posts as much as I could—is simply because this isn't my area of expertise.

Haplogroups and genetics aren't really my thing. I've never been interested in them, never studied them, and definitely haven't read dozens of different papers where everyone seems to have their own conflicting theory.
This field is actually pretty new. It doesn't even really fall under history or official historical record; it’s more of a social science thing. I remember these topics being categorized differently once, but I can't recall whose call it was to move them over to History, or why we let that happen. Honestly, dealing with this mess feels harder than trying to juggle nitroglycerin while jumping rope. It would be easiest if I just moved these topics back up to the Nice section and let her deal with it. Luckily for Nica, I won't do that. At least not yet. :P

But back to your complaint. By the time the flood of reports started hitting after page 9, things were already spiraling. I finally caught up around page 15, by which point everyone had already thrown out their arguments, links, and evidence, and most people had already dug their heels in.

To be completely honest, with how little I know about this subject, I couldn't tell who was trolling, who was pushing fake arguments, or which studies were legitimate and which weren't. When every post is just a massive wall of text that requires intense concentration just to process, I realized I was totally lost and felt like just sitting down and crying.

Then I stepped away from the forum for a bit, and by the time I came back, you guys were already on page 22. To moderate this fairly and correctly, I’d basically have to read the entire thread from the very beginning while simultaneously doing some side research on Google.

Since I don't know the material, it’s genuinely tough for me to figure out who is right and who is trolling, whether they're doing it on purpose or just out of ignorance.
Looking at this complaint, I see people from both sides represented. So, try to be objective and tell me what the best move is: should I delete everything back to page 9 so you can start fresh? Or should I just close this thread entirely and have you start a new one?

I'm really no expert on this topic. Between the subject matter itself and the constant reports and finger-pointing, I'm stuck. I'll give you all a little bit of the moderator role now—give me your most objective opinion on how to proceed.

If you actually care about this discussion—and judging by the posts, you do—look at it objectively. Tell me: is the best option for everyone to stop the bickering and let me reset the thread back to page 9, where things were still civil? You're the ones who built this thread, so you're the judges now.

wiredangler5 said:This branch is actually pretty new—it doesn't even really fall under history, and it's definitely not part of official history; this stuff belongs in the social sciences. I remember back in the day these topics were over there, and honestly, I can't even recall who decided to move them over to History or why we just let it happen in the first place...

Anyway, getting back to your complaint. Once the posts started flooding in way past page 9—and man, it was like an absolute avalanche—I jumped in somewhere around when you guys were hitting page 15. By then, everyone had already laid out their arguments, dropped their links, showed their proof, and basically dug their heels in for their respective sides.

So, looking at this appeal, I see folks from both camps represented here. Be objective for a second and tell me what the best move is—should I just wipe everything back to page 9 and let you all start fresh? Or should I just lock the thread and have you guys start a brand new one?

If you actually care about this thread—and judging by how you're writing, I think you do—then look at this objectively. Tell me if the best option is for everyone to just stop the bickering and reset the thread back to page 9, where things were still staying within the lines. You guys are the judges and the creators of this thread now, so it's on you.

Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology, but saying it isn't used in official history or archaeology is just wrong. For years now, it’s been used to back up historical assumptions and theories regarding the history of the human species and so on. Because of that, those few topics on this sub-forum aren't totally out of place since they're being discussed in a historical context rather than just an anthropological or genetic one.

Right now, I don't see people representing "both sides" in this thread because most of the comments aren't even addressing the actual appeal—they're just reacting to ideological worldviews or whatever their personal stances are.

Closing the thread isn't the answer. Up until page 9, the discussion was actually at a decent level and focused on the maps made by Andelko. He's the one who kicked this whole thing off, and his work is genuinely great news for this forum. In my opinion, you should do what I suggested in comment #58, which means saving the specific comments and replies that actually tie into the discussion, while wiping everything else completely. As for the behavior, I think some moderator authority needs to be shown; at the very least, give a warning to the users involved—or even everyone—for breaking the rules. There's more than enough material here to hand out sanctions (!), especially given your comment acting as a timestamp and reminder of this mess. Try to pick the discussion back up where it left off (meaning if we save those comments, we'd be looking at roughly pages 9 or 10), but if we can't pull that off, we'll probably need more intervention or stricter moderation.

Michael Doyle5 said:Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology—but it’s definitely not true that it isn't used in official history or archaeology... For quite a few years now, it's been helping to validate previous historical assumptions and theories regarding the history of the human species and all that stuff. So, those couple of topics here on this sub-forum aren't totally misses, since they're being discussed through a historical lens rather than just an anthropological or genetic one...

Or they're being tossed out entirely.

Michael Doyle5 said:Sure, population genetics falls under anthropology, but it’s a mistake to say it isn't used in official history or archaeology. For years now, it's been used to validate previous historical assumptions and theories regarding the evolution of the human species and so on. Therefore, those few topics on this sub-forum aren't completely out of line, since they are being discussed within a historical context rather than just an anthropological or genetic one.

Right now, I don't see both sides represented here, mostly because other users' comments seem less about what was actually written in the complaint and more about their own ideological worldviews and personal stances.

Closing the thread isn't the answer; up until page 9, the discussion was at a decent level and centered on the maps created by Andelko. He started this whole thread, and his work is genuinely a commendable and positive addition to the forum. In my opinion, you should do what I suggested in comment #58—meaning, preserve the specific comments and replies that actually relate to the discussion, while deleting everything else entirely. As for conduct, I think some moderator authority needs to be shown; at the very least, issue warnings to the mentioned users or everyone involved for breaking the rules, especially since there is more than enough material to justify penalties (!). Use your comment on the thread as a timestamp and a reminder of this event; try to pick the discussion back up where it left off (which would be around pages 9 or 10 if those comments are kept), but if we can't do that, we'll likely need further intervention or stricter moderation measures.

As for the topic itself, I'm a bit out of my depth too; I've read some things, but probably not enough to hold a real debate. My main reaction was to your flawed interpretation of "mythomania"—since you kept dodging any real explanation, it's pretty obvious you aren't fully grasping the concept you're throwing around.
You've come across as quite argumentative and intolerant of differing opinions; someone there might have been right to suggest you deserve the same treatment you're advocating for. Since I'm not an expert on this subject either, I honestly don't know who's right.

wiredangler5 said:The way the detector reacted to that book you mentioned smells like revisionism to both me and you. As for him thinking Jews are monsters, I’ll just let him hold that opinion. Personally, I feel the same about us Americans—there’s nobody better. But when he starts explicitly glorifying Nazism, questioning the Holocaust or Jasenovac, then we're in a completely different territory. You see the same thing on the flip side, where you often find yourself too. You don't deny Bleiburg, but you frequently dance on the edge by suggesting the other side didn't even deserve it because they were all criminals. You've even remarked that they probably got off easy. Look, that's a stance I don't support either, but you're entitled to your thoughts. If someone denies Bleiburg actually happened, that's a whole other story, just like denying Jasenovac.

A lot has been said here, but this part regarding bluecyclist64 is interesting.
If someone posted on the history subforum claiming there weren't enough victims at Jasenovac, I assume they'd get a lifetime ban, whereas someone claiming there weren't enough killed at Bleiburg is just dancing on the edge.

A crime is a crime.

Joseph Gonzalez95 said:...your wrong take on what mythomania actually means—since you kept dodging the explanation—makes it pretty obvious you aren't really up to speed on what you're talking about. You’ve been acting super combative, like someone who can't handle a different opinion, so maybe people were right to say you deserve the same treatment you're pushing for. Since I'm not an expert on this topic either, I can't say for sure who's right.

1) Look, it's simple: I say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong, but the facts say you're wrong. You're claiming my interpretation is flawed just because you're clinging to this idealistic view where American mythomania doesn't exist—basically arguing that Americans were always under oppression and everything they did to fight back is absolute truth. That's just nonsense, plain and simple.

2) I love hearing different perspectives, but I have zero patience for stupidity, spamming, trolling, deception, or anyone trying to push ideological ignorance as fact. It’s pretty clear you guys lack the critical thinking skills to tell those things apart.

3) If you don't understand the subject and don't know who's right, then don't jump to these big critical conclusions or judge me (saying I deserve the same treatment), even though it's blindingly obvious from the comments that Andelko and I are sticking to the facts while you aren't.

Michael Doyle5 said:I’m telling you that you’re wrong, and while you insist I'm the one in error, the facts clearly point back to you. You claim my interpretation is flawed simply because you're clinging to this idealistic perspective where American mythomania doesn't exist—the idea that Americans were purely victims of oppression and anything done to resist it is absolute truth. It's honestly just stupidity squared.

I appreciate having different perspectives around here, but I have zero patience for the nonsense—the spamming, the trolling, the blatant misinformation, or anyone trying to push an ideological agenda rooted in pure ignorance. It’s pretty obvious that some of you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to tell those things apart.

If you don't actually understand the subject matter or can't figure out who's telling the truth, then maybe just don't jump in with a critical conclusion or an opinion. Claiming you deserve the same treatment just because you're "right" doesn't work when it’s perfectly obvious from the comments that Andrew and I are laying out the actual facts.

I assumed you were referring to genetics and DNA. Now that I see what you're actually getting at, it's clear you aren't being particularly precise with your terminology—especially regarding the concept of mythomania. And for the record, where exactly did I claim that everything said in defense of the oppressed Americans was absolute truth?
When someone acts all jittery and picks fights, that’s exactly how they come across. And honestly, you've been giving off that vibe all over these boards.
I saw what Andrew posted on the Forum. Honestly, looking at everything that’s been laid out there, it still isn't clear who's actually right. Your nervous energy and constant demand for someone to be punished just makes the whole thing more confusing.