Talk:R. J. Rummel/Archive 1

message: One should focus on presenting Rummels view, and the cited criticism and claims maintained to have been furthered as criticism ("Some have found the data that he uses to be questionable" / "However, he fails to establish evidence of actual killing."), should be documented. The truth is in the details, isn't it?
:References to Rummel often cite his allegations as referring to mass murder, but his definition is not so limited.
I have NO idea why this is in the intro paragraph. Is someone saying that Rummel's findings are incorrect? Mere "allegation"?
And why bring up the "mass murder" definition? It smells like a red herring.
If "references ... often cite" then it should be easy to supply a couple of them. Then we can repair this sentence and put it back into the article. --Uncle Ed 16:53, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentation, not polemical rhetoric

message: One example from 
 Rummel states in row 304 that the pre war population of the former German 
provinces was 6500/9000/10000 thousand people low/middle/high
 Evacuation row 321 4000//5000 with 618 dead
 Remaining population was row 317 100/617/1134
 Found in W.Germany row 346 6000/6944/7400
 Crude deficit of population he estimated in 319 meaning rows 307-317
6400/8383/8866
 How he could calculate that number? My understanding that the proper caluclation is:
 pre-war population of 9000 with error margin 2500
 remaining 617 with error margin 517
 gross deficit is 8383 with error margin 3017
 So his number is obviously guesswork.
 Another Rummel calculation:
 Now he drops his numbers and use another set:
 All kinds of migration to Germany row 338 7017/7144/8369
 Then he substracts those who reached Germany row 346 again 6000/6944/7400
 Deficit according to him is row 349 200/969/1017
 I would calculate 7144 with error margin 1225  
 minus 6944 with error margin 944 and 
 the result is obviously 200 with error margin 2169! 
 His  number is obviuosly wrong!
 In addition it is not clear wether he included the Jews killed during holocaust / I would reserve at least 100 000 killed, Poles and other minorities sent to concentration camps 100 000 is also good estimate /soldiers killed in action at least 500 000 / victims of bombing of the cities I don|t know how many/ his number of victims of evacuation 618 000/ deported to USSR around 200 000 and so on.
 By the way, according to Polish sources Polish citizenship was granted to around 1 500 000 former Germans, not 200 000 Rummel claims, and it is obviuosly true, since the emigration of ethnic Germans from Poland continued since 1945. I read recently, that in 1980/ties emigrated 1 000 000 of people on the status of ethnic Germans.
 I am going to remove Rummel numbers, since they are obviously not relaible Cautious 21:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germans 1945/47 How realiable are Rummels calculations)? 

message: Rummel accuses "Poland". The majority of his readers ignore that Poland was a Soviet protectorate 1944-1956. The Polish government in London didn't have any power. The puppet government Lublin/Warsaw was imposed to the Polish nation by the SU, USA and UK, never elected by the Poles.
Rummel uses overestimated numbers of German victims, ignores recent research, e.g. by Ruediger Overmans or Polish historians.
Rummel suggestively describes the tragedy of expelled Germans. This tragedy has been prepared by the Allies in Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. Imagine former prisoners of Auschwitz or Gulag organising humanitarian travels for people, who mistreated them or their families weeks ago. The Germans weren't enemies of the Communist administration. They were to leave. Polish activists were to be tortured, murdered, deported to the SU.
I used to discuss with Rummel, but he doesn't accept any critics. He knows.
Xx236 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland - quality of Rummel's "research" 

message: The minute controversy and misunderstanding regarding Rummel's blog post is too unimportant too mention. As such, it should be removed.Ultramarine 21:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to oppose the delberate suppression of Rummel's self-inflicted embarassments. Septentrionalis 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, nothing has been suppressed or removed yet, we are discussing it one the talk page. Wikipedia should not mention every minor detail. Please explain why Wikipedia should mention that some people misunderstood a blog post? Ultramarine 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they misunderstand it? Some would call it quite clear. Did Rummel flip-flop? Let the reader decide. Septentrionalis 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog post

message: You want to consult the link on this one. One of Rummel's fans is a Swedish politician, who said that he always nominated Rummel when the Nobel Committee requests nominations, as they do from scads of people. Rummel himself is eligible to nominate, as a professor. This got into an AP story about Rummel being on a non-existent Nobel shortlist; which Rummel saw in his local newspaper and proceeded to disseminate. The link is Rummel's retraction. Septentrionalis 23:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel prize

message: The article has been nominated for speedy deletion by a DPT opponent. I must question the good faith of this. Rummel easily passes Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. For example, very well-known in his field, has produced numerous scholarly works, inteviewed in media, and nominated for the Nobel Prize.Ultramarine 02:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without going to his website or those of his supporters, demonstrate to me that he was "nominated" for a Nobel Prize. His scholarly works are published on the web almost exclusively, and a local channel interviewing you does not make you notable. I have been interviewed a number of times. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW see Pmanderson's comments above. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a peer-reviewed article that documents his importance in this field. And I can read Swedish and can document that the statement regarding the Nobel Prize is true. If you do not believe me, ask someone else who understands Swedish.Ultramarine 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I previously noted, any claim about a Nobel prize nomination of any person within the past 50 years is, perforce, nonverifiable.  The only possible source for such a claim would be announcement by a person who has solemnly undertaken not to announce any such thing -- i.e. the testimony of an admitted liar, which should not be taken seriously. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Here he is in the Washington Post.Ultramarine 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, you have provided a paper by Ray, who is arguably one of Rummel's biggest supporters. The article was written by a researcher at the Hoover Institute, a libertarian think-tank , and it was a "commentary". That is your proof? --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Google gives over 100,000 hits for "R. J. Rummel" Ultramarine 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got 1.9 million hits for "Ultramarine". What's your point? --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got 0 hits for "R. J. Ultramarine".Ultramarine 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I got 10,300 hits for it. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion

message: Please give an explanation. Ultramarine 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive weight to dubious claims of honors (see section on Nobel Prize).  Pushing of Rummel's specific version of DPT, which already has a main article of his own, thereby amounting to advocacy.  Negligible attention to criticisms of the person bio'ed.  Robert A.West (Talk) 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Npov tag 

message: Something really needs to be in this article about how Chang's book is pretty damn controversal and her "new information" is alot of "non information". Just because Rummel believe's her book does not make it fact. If anyone editing this article has read the book, feel free to chime in here. Many in the field have criticized her book as well. Chang saying the GLF was intentional, and Rummel agreeing, does not make it fact. (Majin Takeru 22:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read more here . Rummel also inlcludes a critical review of the book here: . He states "Where the authors touch on an issue most important to my own work -- on the famine -- the review gives me no reason to question my reevaluation of Mao's responsibility for the famine. As to the famine total, it is in contention among experts and former high CCP members, and some estimates go as high as 50-80 million, so I still may be underestimating its human cost." Ultramarine 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All estimates of democide are more or less controversial. For example, Turkey still officially denies any genocide of Armenians.Ultramarine 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I added that this, like almost all other democide estimates, is disputed.Ultramarine 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Leap Forward 

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Google should not be considered as reliable judge of what is "widely used".   An example, the article Bullshido, was deleted as a wikipedia article for being just a "promo". But google search for the term "bullshdo" would produce lot of search result.  Do something more verifiable and NPOV and the descrition will be restored. FWBOarticle
I can not see how anyone would think Democide is a widely used term. This whole article is a little shady. It makes it seem like all of his research is fact, when it simply is not. I think I mentioned this to Ultramarine earlier. For instance, him saying (and agreeing with Chang) that the GLF was intentional. Good example, of something sounding a whole lot like fact, when it clearly is not. (Majin Takeru 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Democide" Widely used? 

message: Hi. I just came across the democide article yesterday, and had some concerns that are in this string:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democide#Validity_of_Democide_as_term--Delete.2FMerge_with_other_articles.3F
Just wondering what you folks, who seem to know far more of this man think. NormalGoddess 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-notable neologism. The article on it should, in principle, be merged here. Septentrionalis 05:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More common in Google than Congo Free State and used by many other researchers.Ultramarine 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Google results do not make something notable. --Scaife (Talk)  Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge This Article with Democide?

message: Wikipedia must be very careful with articles about living persons. Unfortunately a small group of local opponents to the democratic peace theory in now trying to use inaccurate smear against this respected researcher when their factual arguments are failing. Ultramarine 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that Septentrionalis has on other articles repeatedly deleted every advantage of democracy, even if very well-sourced, insisting that only claimed disadvantages of democracy, having no sources, should be included. Ultramarine 18:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above paragraph is pure ad hominem and has no place here.  Please address the edit with which you disagree on the relevant page, not here, then please delete the above comment from this page. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this remains: My reasons for that edit are clearly stated here . I have left the present version, which is not subject to those objections, in the article.Please feel free to remove this with the two above it.  Septentrionalis 04:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is how Rummel describes it in his faq "Start with the answer of the philosopher Immanual Kant to why universalizing republics (democracy was a bad word for Classical Liberals in his time) would create a peaceful world. People would not support and vote for wars in which they and their loved ones could die and lose their property. But this is only partly correct, for the people can get aroused against nondemocracies and push their leaders toward war, as in the Spanish-American War. A deeper explanation is that where people are free, they create an exchange society of overlapping groups and multiple and crosschecking centers of power. In such a society a culture of negotiation, tolerance, and splitting differences develops. Moreover, free people develop an in-group orientation toward other such societies, a feeling of shared norms and ideals that militates against violence toward other free societies." Ultramarine 05:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the above, I fail to see what Ultramarine's objection amounts to. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: *Bad faith attempt to delete the article See comments here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Rummel Ultramarine 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion attempt

message: *Baid faith selective citation "Rummel has responded to the criticism that this definition is narrow and artificial with: "if I had my way I would wave a wand and extirpate from political science all concepts that have political (as in social justice) connotations. I would rename the idea of justice alpha, freedom beta, and democracy xocracy." Complete citation: "Q: Isn’t the problem that when people push for a definition of democracy, they often want, implicitly, their definition; and if you give anything but their definition the retort is that you are reading out by definition cases that go against the democratic peace? A: Yes, if I had my way I would wave a wand and extirpate from political science all concepts that have political (as in social justice) connotations. I would rename the idea of justice "alpha," freedom "beta," and democracy "xocracy." If I then argued that xocracies (that is political systems with certain characteristics) do not make war on each other and here is the data, the empirical results, and the theory, there would be much less of a problem with people accepting and understanding this. This would be, of course, because few would have any prior meaning or allegiance to attach to this type of political system." Ultramarine 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: X-ocracy

message: *False description "Rummel holds that democracies (properly defined) never go to war each other. Most other researchers say that wars between democracies are rare, or acknowledge the marginal or barely excluded exceptions. Those who do find that there have been no exceptions acknowledge that this is a statistical claim, and exceptions are possible ." Their own source disagrees with them. See also Talk:Democratic peace theory#33 29 and User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 13:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zero war claim

message: *False description "Many other researchers hold that the "pacific union" has arisen from a combination of democracy, international organizations, and free trade. They quite frequently argue that democracy is a necessary condition for the other two, but not sufficient.  Rummel, as stated, holds democracy alone sufficient." False description, see Talk:Democratic peace theory#24_19-withdrawo.
**Another lie. Septentrionalis 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Triad vs. Monad

message: *False description "Most theorists explain the democratic peace either on the institutional pressures which make for peace; or that the culture of democratic states induces its citizens, including its politicians, to attain their goals by discussion rather than force. Rummel dismisses both these as superficial (see "The Conflict Helix, [21]chapter 2) relying on Kurt Lewin and Andrew Ushenko's proposition that democracy involves a pervasive social mechanism (called a "social field") in which, "The primary mode of power is exchange, [the] political system is democratic, and [the] democratic government is but one of many groups and pyramids of power." In contrast, authoritarian systems involve a "social anti-field", "[which] divides its members into those who command and those who must obey, thus creating a schism separating all members and dividing all issues, a latent conflict front along which violence can break out." Thus, the citizens of a democracy are habituated to compromise, conflict resolution, and to viewing unfavorable outcomes as temporary and/or tolerable" This is a strange description. Anyhow, this is compatible with democratic norms. 
**I see that Ultramarine is no longer bothering even to check sources when given. This description, and the dismissal of other causes of the democratic peace, derives from Rummel's book as cited, which his website reprints. Since it appears to be unique to Rummel, it is notable here. (The only other use of "social field" in conjunction with DPT appears to be this, which has the sense in the field of social science.) 
:Here is how Rummel describes it in his faq "Start with the answer of the philosopher Immanual Kant to why universalizing republics (democracy was a bad word for Classical Liberals in his time) would create a peaceful world. People would not support and vote for wars in which they and their loved ones could die and lose their property. But this is only partly correct, for the people can get aroused against nondemocracies and push their leaders toward war, as in the Spanish-American War. A deeper explanation is that where people are free, they create an exchange society of overlapping groups and multiple and crosschecking centers of power. In such a society a culture of negotiation, tolerance, and splitting differences develops. Moreover, free people develop an in-group orientation toward other such societies, a feeling of shared norms and ideals that militates against violence toward other free societies." Ultramarine 05:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the above, I fail to see what Ultramarine's objection amounts to. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Field

message: *False description "Rummel used to publicly claim that he was a finalist for the Nobel Prize for Peace, based on an AP report, reprinted in his local paper, about an alleged Nobel short list of 117 names. He has retracted that. Per Ahlmark, Swedish writer and the former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, pledged in 1999 to nominate Rummel for a decade.[8] The existence, and if they have been made, the significance of such public nominations is doubtful; Nobel nominations are inherently impossible to verify, since the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation [9] expressly prohibit both nominators[10] and the foundation itself from disclosing information about nominations for a period of fifty years. Rummel continues to use the original mistaken claim on his vanity-press books. [11] Rummel has further stated: "What is evident in communication on this is that the Northern Europeans with whom I am in contact seem to have a nonchalant attitude toward the Nobel Peace Nomination. Americans do not. Of whatever I've achieved, this is the one thing that people center on, and that gives my research on the democratic peace and its promotion the most credibility for Americans." [12]" Per Ahlmark did state this, there is nothing doubtful about it. Anyone who undertands Swedish can easily check the links and those who do not can ask someone on Wikipedia who can if they doubt this. "Vanity-press" is pov, the fiction books and factual supplement were self-published, not "vanity-press", and are sold by for example Amazon.com.Ultramarine 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel Prize Claim

message: *Neutrality: Undue weight The section "Censorship" is given undue weight considering the small controversy the blog post caused. Should be condensed to one or two sentences.Ultramarine 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship section

message: The present  tags are on statements demonstrated and sourced in the main article democratic peace theory. It would be preferable to move those notes here than to make these frivolous objections. I will not remove them for now; the lsborious process of transferring the notes will probably benefit both articles. Septentrionalis 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious tags should be removed

message: Some of you might be interested to know that Prof. Rummel has also been active in promoting seminars not only on his many blogs, but also in the synthetic world of Second Life. This could also be listed under his biography on his efforts to bring the theory of Democratic Peace to every corner of the world, using whatever tools Prof. Rummel has available, and the Internet is certainly one of them. A few students of political science have already participated in those seminars as part of their doctorate thesis. Reference here. Gwyneth Llewelyn 04:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. J. Rummel's seminars in Second Life 

message: I think the term "crackpot" describes him perfectly (it's even got it's own entry in Wiki, look it up).
I have no objection to him having his own page at Wiki. I find it embarassing for Wiki but I don't make the rules. I do think that any intelligent person who looks into this guy's BS, (I can't think of a more apt term) will come to the same conclusions I have. The Nobel Peace prize dodge is an old and venerable one. I'm sure Rummel has had some other crackpot (sock puppet) send letters of nomination to the Nobel folks. They were promptly and duly round filed. But claiming to have been awarded the Susan Stange Award in 1999? (That's in his self-penned Amazon bio):
"has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field"
That's a flat out lie. The first award was presented in 2000 and it wasn't presented to this huckster.
http://www.isanet.org/committee/Strange.html
Wiki can do better than this. I shudder to think of all the historical articles that make reference to this charlatan and crackpot. I really don't like to see this wonderful resource being made a mockery of by the inclusion of hackery from the likes of the R.J. Rummels of the world.
Wikkid Won 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually your link states "Established in 1998".Ultramarine 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. If you make another one, I will report you. Again, that page states "Established in 1998", so there must have been a recipient in 1999.Ultramarine 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, obviously there was a 1999 recipient and neither do they list the 2006 recipient. If you are so convinced of fraud, then I suggest that you contact the Association for confirmation. Also, read Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Defamation is a pretty serious matter.Ultramarine 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then we will wait for the answer.Ultramarine 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is in.  Rummell did indeed receive the award in 1999.  The updated award listing is now on the site: http://www.isanet.org/committee/Strange.html Sperril 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: - which Rummel probably penned himself! Gatoclass 10:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rummel is a shameless self-promoter, fraud and liar 

message: I think the article should be a bit more clear that Rummel isn't just controversial, but is pretty much a libertarian crackpot. At least that's my impression of what historians think of his scholar ship, especially all the imaginative tinkering with casualty figures.
Peter Isotalo 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rummel the historian