Talk:R. J. Rummel

message: :Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.JPG

message: :Image:DP CHART V19.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DP CHART V19.JPG

message: This sentence "Rummel explains that his works are "about the sheer magnitude of democide, and the democratic peace that underlies [President] Bush's foreign policy as the solution to democide and war" is a reduction of Rummels position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.67.8 (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reduction 

message: Some critics say there are exceptions to Rummel's claim that the number of wars between democratic countries is zero (see List of wars between democracies). Please help me to find a neutral, unbiased way of describing the views of these critics. 
Do we make a section in Democratic peace theory, or an entirely separate article, or both? What would be a good title for such a section or article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Exceptions to Democratic Peace

message: There seemed to have been an obvious POV exclusion of the Proyect criticism with summaries like "Given Chomsky's status as a fringe communist apologist" and that it's not "An email or something from 'Marx Mail...'" The author is Louis Proyect and it's a valid source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Louis Proyect?  What is MarxMail.org?  Can you establish this as a WP:RS?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Source reliability questions can be answered by the reliable sources notice board.  We have a bunch of people who are pretty expert in wikipedia's sourcing standards regarding 20th century mass mortality incidents and the academic criticism thereof.  The RS/N suggested question formatting allows editors to quickly investigate and respond. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: CartoonDiablo, can you please comment here and explain if this work was self-published or what makes it a WP:RS?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Contentious self-published materials can only be used in BLP if they are published by subject of the article (Rummel). Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis Proyect criticism  

message: I am deeply saddened to inform that Professor R. J. Rummel passed away on March 2, 2014, according to a message on his website.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
I would be grateful if someone could edit the page accordingly.
Leandrocaracol (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the date of death from a newspaper obituary, and changed the present tense verbs relating to him in the article to past tense. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm really grateful for that. Leandrocaracol (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rummel passed away 

message: The article refers to U.S. involvement in the Sack of Peking. However, this term is confusing. It could mislead people to connect the term with the Sacking of the Summer Palace during the 1860 Second Opium War. However, the incident with the killing of potentially hundreds of people are the incidents in the Battle of Peking (1900). The U.S. was involved in the latter event, not the former. I have made the appropriate article link correction.Dogru144 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sack of Beijing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Rudolph Rummel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/11/reevaluating-chinas-democide-to-be.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/about/nationaladvisors.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217032515/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/02/global-corruption-and-democracy-2006.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/02/happiness-this-utilitarian-argument.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/02/on-ward-churchill-and-academic.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_freedomspeace_archive.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625034003/http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf to http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217032515/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ray.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625034003/http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf to http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221155722/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101fareviewessay84611/john-m-owen-iv/iraq-and-the-democratic-peace.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101fareviewessay84611/john-m-owen-iv/iraq-and-the-democratic-peace.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213094202/http://www.duke.edu/~gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/~gelpi/democratic.winners.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rudolph Rummel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208080713/http://www.isanet.org/awards-grants/award-recipients.html to http://www.isanet.org/awards-grants/award-recipients.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In section Reception, subsect Democratic peace theory is the following: ... and demonstrated Rummel's "unrelenting" economic liberalism and "extreme" views on defense policy. The way in which the quote marks have been used imply the terms used are questionable. The supporting reference is behind a paywall. Is the correct quote from the reference "unrelenting economic liberalism" and "extreme views on defence policy"? Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone can check (paywalled ref). This kind of usage of quotation marks is an actual example of misuse in the MoS.
In the same para is "... a paper that warmly defends the existence of democratic peace ...". I don't think "warmly" sounds like a neutral PoV. Can anyone advise me on these two issues? Prime Lemur (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV in section of this article  

message: Stuff that is merely self-published, especially as electronic/print-on-demand should  probably not be listed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Works

message: User  has tried to add the following to the lede:
:Historian A. Dirk Moses states that "Rummel was uninterested in fatalities caused by democracies".
and at the same time change the definition of democide from "murder by government" to "murder by authoritarian government". From a quick glance at the democide wikipage and Rummels own definition this is simply false. Furthermore, Buidhe aims to add a relatively tangential statement that makes stylistically no sense to the lede. While it is probably true that a historian has said this about Rummel, this is clearly a controversial figure and many people have said many things about him, it is thus not appropriate to add this to the lede per WP:UNDUE. The spot for a discussion on whether Rummel correctly counted deaths by different forms of government and whether he put equal weight on democratic government vs other forms of government is clearly in the article and not in the lede. Alternatively, if you can find a way to articulate this same point well without simply adding a new sentence completely out of context to the lede, this could also work. For example we could change
:His figures for Communist regimes have been criticized for his methodology and for being higher than those given by most other scholars
to 
:His figures for Communist regimes have been criticized for his methodology and for being higher than those given by most other scholars; furthermore he has been criticized for over-emphasizing deaths by authoritarian governments vs deaths caused by democratic governments.
Best regards --hroest 18:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  democide definition 

message: I have reverted 's recent edits due to a complete breakdown in narrative coherence, coupled with the editor's tendentious edit warring over commonplace maintenance tags. It's hard to speculate if Davide King is somehow completely unfamiliar with all of the preceding text in the Rudolph Rummel#Democratic peace theory subsection or if he is engaged in WP:SYNTH or if the issue is one of English-language WP:COMPETENCE, but obviously judicial executions in Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with the theory that democracies are unlikely to go to war with one another, because executions are not "war" and Saudi Arabia is not generally considered a "democracy." More importantly, Davide King's sources fail verification in that they do not, in fact, support his inference to the contrary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, this is complete nonsense and also insulting. You are the one who completely missed the point. "... but obviously judicial executions in Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with the theory that democracies are unlikely to go to war with one another, because executions are not 'war' and Saudi Arabia is not generally considered a 'democracy'." If you actually read the source, you would find that this is not what the source says, or even what I meant to say; perhaps the issue is the placing, which is why you completely misunderstood. It is simply an example, cited in an academic source, that authoritarian regimes (Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan) have not engaged in what are termed "megamurders", while the democratic Sri Lanka engaged in politicide. As Harff says, it is "a challenge to Rudy's basic argument." This is the source with full, relevant quote:  Davide King (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it should be moved after "Some critics argue that there have been exceptions to the democratic peace." Either way, this is simply a case of misplacing, not any of the insulting stuff you said, which borders personal attacks. P.S. I also reverted it only twice, not thrice (it must be clarified that the second was not a full revert because I tried to reword it and add the quote, in hope to help clarify this for you but I think the issue was simply misplacing, which caused you to misunderstood me and the whole point), and as you can see, as a discussion was actually opened, I stopped. This is all in line with BRD. Davide King (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be saying that the source passes WP:V because it mentions Rummel by name and discusses Rummel's concept of democide. However, it does not support your proposed addition suggesting, e.g., that executions in Saudi Arabia are  Furthermore, the line about  is again not referring to the democratic peace theory. Thus, the content fails verification and must stay out unless and until you are able to formulate it in a way that is consistent with the source itself and with Wikipedia's content policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment, before reading yours, here, which addresses your points. Either way, there was no need to be so condescending and remove it outright; the issue is mislpacing per my comment below. Davide King (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Or we can move it to the section about democide, if you think democratic peace theory is only about war. Clearly, Rummel also thought that democratic regimes were much less likely to engage in democide and killings, so I thought it was relevant to the democratic peace theory. Either way, there was no need to outright delete it; the issue is misplacing, and there is no violation about my addition. Davide King (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudolph Rummel →  – The WP:COMMONNAME of this person is R. J. Rummel according to Ngrams: . Rummel used this form of his name for almost all of his books, including Death by Government, and independent reliable sources like , , and  also write his name this way. (Per MOS:SPACEINITS, there should be a space between "R." and "J.".) Malerisch (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 March 2024