Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 5

message: This incident, in which the Japanese Army in 1937 was released on the Chinese city of Nanking and directed to annihilate 300,000 Chinese civilians over the period of a few weeks, is considered a genocide.  See Nanking Massacre article for sources.Jimhoward72 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Rape of Nanking]] 

message: From the edit history of the article:
:11:40, 5 September 2007 202.163.92.135: The Indian forces genocide against the Kashmiris should be added to the article.
See archives Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 1#Kashmir, Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 2#Kashmir --PBS 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir 

message: I find that the photo depecting a "racial cleansing" in action with a Pak army checking the private parts of a Bengali has been removed. Is there any particular reason why it was removed by PBS? Thanks.--Idleguy 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 11:40, 5 September 2007 202.163.92.135 (The Indian forces genocide against the Kashmiris should be added to the article.)
I have no opinion on the photo. --PBS 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any reason for Bangladesh photo removal? 

message: Why is there no mention of the +100 million Native Americans that were killed by the Europeans?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asach (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Holocaust? 

message: why aren't there any statements about his genocide in canaan?YODAFON 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joshua's genocide of canaan people 

message: This section seems awfully long for a subject that most scholars do not consider to have been a genocide.  I know it was previously deleted altogether, which would be acceptable to me, but I know some editors think it should be included.  I suggest it be reduced to two modest paragraphs at most.  All the info about the deaths by disease seems superfluous (a simple statement that most of the deaths were by disease and a cite or two should be enough). Mamalujo 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it stinks of anti-western POV as well (as historical revision tends to do), omitting the fact that the Aztecs delivered atrocity akin to the worst of genocides upon their neighbors until the Spanish arrived, as well as the extermination of the Hurons by the Iroquois. Just off the top of my head, there could be more amerindian on amerindian hate crime... The Jackal God (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americas 

message: Hello, I added this paragraph under "Americas" but it was removed:
Slave Trade
The human toll resulting from the Atlantic slave trade (which includes the conflicts and forced procurement of slaves in Africa and deaths resulting from the trip also known as the Middle Passage is estimated at between 8 and 16 million people.
I am wondering why it was removed?  While some may see the loss of slaves as as "losses in inventory" others view it as a holocaust.  I am quoting from the wikipedia article Atlantic slave trade: "The slave-trade is sometimes called the Maafa by African and African-American scholars, meaning "holocaust" or "great disaster" in Swahili."  
Because of the number of trips over a number of decades one could say that the traders expected and planned for the losses of life they incurred.  While it wasn't intentional extermination (the slaves were part of a business venture after all) one must say that the losses, if they weren't expected on the very first trip across, were factored into the "costs" of later trips.  If the traders were willing to accept the costs of millions of deaths... I think that counts as a genocide. 
71.252.124.129 23:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To whoever did it, thank you for putting "Slave Trade" back.  However, now that I reflect on it,  should there be a separate section called "Africa/Atlantic Slave Trade" since the slavery process extended from Africa to the Americas?   According to the Atlantic slave trade wikipedia article one estimate is that half the deaths took place in Africa.  Also, perhaps there should be a note explaining why this counts as a genocide -- that the business of slavery included the decimation of African villages and the expected attrition of lives in the middle passage. 71.252.124.129 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about recorded genocides, unless a reliable source third party source claims that an action was a genocide it should not be included on this page. Please read the genocide article, as you say "it wasn't intentional extermination" then if can not have been a genocide because the legal definition of genocide includes the phrase "with intent to destroy" and it only relates to certain types of groups. --PBS 12:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave Trade 

message: ---- David Hiskiyahu, 12-Oct-2007 ----
This is a bad sentence:
' ..  upwards of 11 million people (excluding Jews) were systematically "exterminated" (a Nazi term) by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Holocaust, of which over 10 millions were Slavs.[45] ..'
One may think that 10 million of collaborators were Slavs, while the intention 
of the article is to say that 10 million out of 11 million people killed, in
this given context, were Slavs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bad sentence 

message: I have moved this section here because neither the main article or this text has any sources -- let alone a reliable source -- claiming that this was a genocide. Several sentences have had  on them since June and there is a quote without a citation (see WP:POINT) --PBS 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatia 

message: I removed the following recent addition stating in the edit history that the source does not use the word genocide:
A recent (as of August 2007) book by Amaresh Misra estimates that the number of people murdered by the British in retaliation for the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was 10 million. His calculations are based on triangulation of several different sets of records. If Misra's estimate is proved correct, this was the greatest genocide in history, worse than the Holocaust or Stalin's purges. Other historians have questioned these figures suggesting that the total includes refugees (as the figures are based on regional depopulation figures) and famine (a not uncommon occurrence in India at the time).(Guardian August 24, 2007 India's secret history: a holocaust)
However I am aware that some might argue that holocaust and genocide are interchangeable and that the Guardian use the word holocaust. But there are several other points on this particular entry:
* To be a genocide there has to be intent to commit genocide, and the proportion killed must meet the "in part" requirement.
* WP:Undue weight: One historian publishing a book on such a controversial issue, does not provide evidence that a consensus is emerging among historians to revise the historical consensus. If over the next few months more historians publish works supporting him then this may well become an event that I would support adding to this page, even if the majority view is still that it was not a genocide.
*Also the sentence "If Misra's estimate... is unsourced and is WP:OR until sourced.
--PBS 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: We seem to have missed the primitive genocides.  ex.  The Erie tribe of the Americas was exterminated by their fellow American Indians so recently we have the written records from Western observers.  Just noting there is a LONG way to go to make this an acceptable page.67.161.166.20 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primitive genocides 

message: Since when is it appropriate to identify the religion of historians cited in encyclopedia articles?  Do we identify elsewhere "Soandso, Baptist historian", "Soandso, Orthodox Jewish historian" or "Soandso, atheist historian".  It is just not appropriate it is an attempt to discredit the historian's work not based on the work but on an ad hominem and, that being the case, it is impermissable POV.  I am removing it. Mamalujo 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit was done "added additional context, rem non-authoritative statements." without discussing it here first. Secondly what makes "Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Solveig Bjeornson, non-authoritative? --PBS 09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The likes of Jonassohn and Jones have merely published a book. Just because something is written down, does not make it authoritative. Again, why would you want to keep a claim or claims, in an encyclopedia, that is in deference to the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion? What purpose does it serve? - Ledenierhomme 15:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what Wikpedian policy are you judging that Kurt Jonassohn is not a reliable source? --PBS 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See above. "Secher's book (along with recent compendiums by Jones and Johansson et al) are merely publications - they are not peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. All the peer-reviewed, scholarly articles that I have cited in the article, refute the characterization of genocide." - Ledenierhomme 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Reynald Secher]] [[Traditionalist Catholic]] historian" is POV 

message: In a recent edit in the France section I deleted an unsourced reference to Adam Jones and others as "non-expert, non-authoritative authors".  One problem with unsourced statements of this kind is that they are not verifiable.  Sometimes, even when partly true, they are misleading.  Other times they are completely contrary to the facts.  That is the case here. To demonstrate, I've included the bio of Jones from the book referenced: "Adam Jones, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. Prior to that, he was Research Fellow for 2005-07 in the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, and taught for five years at the CIDE research institute in Mexico City. He is editor of two books on genocide: Gendercide and Genocide (Vanderbilt University Press, 2004) and Genocide, War Crimes & the West (Zed Books, 2004). He has also published two books on the mass media and political transition. His scholarly articles have appeared in Review of International Studies, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Journal of Genocide Research, Journal of Human Rights, and other publications. He is executive director of Gendercide Watch, a web-based educational initiative that confronts gender-selective atrocities against men and women worldwide."  Perusal of scholarly reviews of the subject book and other work by Jones shows exactly how false the unsourced posting regaring his work was.
The Vendee is not universally recognized as genocide. Jones says as much in his book, and others who consider it genocide admit that.  But attempts to cast it a a fringe view or a discredited theory advanced only by dilettantes are wrong. Mamalujo 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a review by Yale University press in 2007  of another book that Jonasson co-wrote "The History and Sociology of Genocide Analyses and Case Studies" by Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn. In the review it says "Frank Chalk is associate professor of history and Kurt Jonassohn is professor of sociology at Concordia University, where they direct the Montreal Institute for Genocide Studies".  Jonassohn's book mentioned in the French section has been quoted and cited in other publications, eg Valerie J. Hoffman  quotes Jonassohn  in "What Role Do Religious and Cultural Identities Play in a Global Society?" an article published in  "Swords into plough shears." (The bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). --PBS 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now positive book reviews are evidence of scholarship? I can find positive book reviews for Mein Kampf as well. These are special interest books, published for mass consumption, they are NOT peer-reviewed, and they are NOT experts or authorities on the Revolt in the Vendee. Ledenierhomme 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is that the reviews state that the authors are professors and work in the area of genocide studies, that their books are published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis & Transaction which are "respected publishing houses"(WP:V) and are not to use your words "Recent non-expert, non-authoritative authors", because they are experts in the field of genocide studies -- an area of research with its own journals like Holocaust and Genocide Studies and courses at some of the most prestigious universities in the world ( eg Genocide Studies Program at Yale University) -- and in that respect their publications fit the Wikipedia policies for inclusion in an article about genocide. --PBS 12:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they are fit to be included, but it needs to be mentioned that they are not experts on the Revolt in the Vendee or modern French history, or French history at all. An expert on, say, espionage, is not an authority on, say, The War of the Roses. See the difference? Ledenierhomme 13:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was the main article (Revolt in the Vendée) you point would have some validity, but this is an article about genocides in history and they are experts in this field. Using your logic, someone could add to this article an unsourced comment that the  historians of this period of French history are not qualified to judge if it is a genocide or not, because they are only historians and have no standing in the field of genocide studies. --PBS 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Au contraire, the article is called "genocides in history". This is not (or at least shouldn't be) an article devoted to apportioning blame or guilt to certain parties. It is historians who engage in research related to events that happened in 1793 - not contemporary specialists on genocide. I refer you to my initial analogy. If the Vendee revolt was happening as we speak, it would be entirely different. But, like the War of the Roses, it is a matter for historians - genocide specialists have to (or at least should) rely on what historians have to say. And in this case, historians are virtually unanimous that there was no genocide in the Vendee. Ledenierhomme 15:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That is precisely what I am saying. I thought that was clear. That's why one group are called "Historians", and the other, well... "genocide studies" is a very recent development, no one is clear exactly where such "specialists" stand. I'm not familiar with any top university that has a "Genocide" department. Jones and Johansson have to rely on the work historians like Langlois carry out. Ledenierhomme 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-expert, non-authoritative authors" 

message: I would like to know why PBS censored any mention of the genocide of Slav population along with the references in this chapter and made it a lite version of a Holocaust article. This radical change was made on October 29 without any discussion and with clear bias.  Edit: I can see someone corrected this vandalism done by PBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.7 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this edit. If something is a genocide then it needs sources that state that it was a genocide and not a democide, the source provided did not make the difference. Also the claim that was in the article "Other targets of the Holocaust ..." was contradicted by the Holocaust article itself. Hence the change. --PBS 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany and occupied Europe 

message: Folks,
This article is hurtling towards protection if the edit wars continue. Please remember to keep within the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]. Stifle (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR/Protection 

message: user:Gatoclass in Revision as of 14:34, 9 November 2007 you wrote "War of the Three Kingdoms - Still POV as it fails to adequately contextualize the violence" what context would you like added to the section? --PBS 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no mention of the Irish Catholic massacres of Protestants which preceded Cromwell's campaign. The whole war was very dirty, the English Parliament effectively accused the Irish Catholics of trying to commit a genocide against the Protestants (although of course the word wasn't in use back then, I think the word they used at the time was "exterminate"). So this is the context in which Cromwell exacted his retribution. Gatoclass 10:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Exacted his retribution"???? Do you have any idea what you are talking about???? In the Rebellion of 1641, at most 2,000 PLANTERS were killed, not ordinary civilians, voluntary colonists/invaders. And they were killed by in an uprising, not by a professional army. By contrast, Cromwell was the leader of a nation, who ordered his professional troops to massacre civilians of cities who resisted, civilians who he regarded as inferior because of their race and religion. Read a book FFS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.173.30 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV War of the Three Kingdoms 

message: I am not a historian but it is common fact that during WW2 the Japanese army killed, tortured, raped and scientifically used many Asians. I do not know why it is not noted on Wikipedia and why no one has raised any comments about this. Almost all Asian history books – except for Japanese history books – record this genocide and many organizations are petitioning the Japanese government.
Interestingly, I went to the genocide museum in Rwanda and found there was no record of the treacheries the Japanese military committed and was baffled, but then saw that the genocide museum was funded by the Japanese government.
Anyway, I would appreciate if a historian who knows more about this would write about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.61.100.2 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese killings of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and other Asians 

message: Irish meteorologist Austin Bourke, in The use of the potato crop in pre-famine Ireland disputes some of Woodham-Smith's calculations, and notes that during December 1846 imports almost doubled. He opines that
“ it is beyond question that the deficiency arising from the loss of the potato crop in 1846 could not have been met by the simple expedient of prohibiting the export of grain from Ireland. ”
Two things on this: 1) A meteorologist, is noted for their work on famines? No I don't think so. 2) "during December 1846 imports almost doubled" what about the rest of the time? In addition, this refers to imports, and the quote refers to the export of grain. Totally different thing is it not? --Domer48 (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meteorologist? 

message: I realise that this article is an ongoing work, but it would definitely not be complete without mentioning the "alleged" genocide of Jews by the Roman Empire in the section titled "Timeline of genocides and alleged genocides"
One only has to look at the works of Titus Flavius Josephus and Lucius Claudius Cassius Dio to realise that not only was the Roman Empire at war with Jews for the most part but also that the Roman Generals were quite indiscriminate in terms of targeting military units and civilians.
I only have one online source that puts this "allegation" forward but since the word "alleged genocides" is in the title of the section concerned I think it would fit right in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For it to be included on this page verifiable reliable sources need to be cited confirming it was a genocide--PBS 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see the Wikipedia article on the author of http://www.hirhome.com (Francisco Gil-White) I think that several other independent sources would be needed to back up his research so that the section did not give undue weight to one persons point of view. Also www.hirhome.com appears to be a self published site and is a such not a very reliable source.  --PBS (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I just skimmed over the verifiability policy so I must have missed the section on self published sources. I think the author does have the relative credentials though for this kind of work(historiography) but I´ll look around for some other sources anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Genocide of Jewish Population 63BCE-135CE 

message: Might as well add the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and other instances for the sake of completeness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.244.15 (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible is a primary source. As the word genocide was not defined until long after the Bible was written the word can not appear in the Bible so quoting the Bible is not sufficient for inclusion on this page. For incidents such as  Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc. to be included on this page verifiable reliable secondary sources need to be cited confirming that in the opinion of the reliable source such and such an incident in the Bible was a genocide --PBS 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) So, if the Great Flood is a Genocide, who's the culprit? :) Dpotop 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, well I was actually trying to make a point here also with regard to the alleged genocide of Midianites and Amalekites, no matter what Yehuda Bauer or Adam Jones say there is absolutely no historical evidence(Torah does´nt count, since there is no corroborating evidence) that a genocide actually occurred there is also absolutely no archaeological evidence that Midianites and Amalekites actually existed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyMech (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" (Armenian quote), Just because there is no specific "archaeological evidence that Midianites and Amalekites actually existed", does not mean that they did not. To try to keep the page under some sort of neutral point of view, it is not up to the editors of the page to judge whether a genocide took place it us up to us to judge if the sources used in the citations that state an event was a genocide meet Wikipeida's policies. And BTW I do not think that a source that alludes to a genocide is sufficient, the author of the source needs to state that the event was a genocide. --PBS (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the use of the "Old Testament" as a historical reference of alleged genocides 

message: :see also Talk:Genocides in history/Archive 4#Congo
What about the Congo Free State? It may not be considered genocide to some, but it was state sponsored murder against a race of people.
Chewrockan (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a section on that in the article. But it was decided that it was WP:OR to include it here because not one source was provided that claimed it was a genocide. --PBS (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see, thanks for the info. Chewrockan (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congo Free State 

message: Why delete the description of Tom Reilly when most other authors are described on the page?  Does someone not like the facts?  Hughsheehy (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His work is only representative of the majority view on this issue ie that Cromwell may have been a nasty piece of work by the accepted standards of warfare at the time he was acting with the norms (This was after all an event that took place at the tail end of the Thirty Years War). Now we can stack up references on both sides, but the majority view is that the NMA was brutal  in ending the Royalist cause in Ireland but most do not suggest it was a genocide. Attacking the Tom Reilly on this page does not help present a neutral point of view for this brief overview. Is it your wish to present a neutral point of view or would you like it to present a specific point of view as the only point of view?  --PBS (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide some support that his view represents the majority view.  His book has been described in very negative terms by leading specialists of the era.  As for me "attacking" Tom Reilly, please tell me how I am doing that?  He describes himself as an amateur historian.  HIS description, not mine.  Should we list (with names and descriptions) all the authors and professional historians that DO describe the Cromwellian era in Ireland as genocidal or near genocidal? It would be a long list and wouldn't include many self-described amateur historians.  Presenting Tom Reilly as an authoritative reference is misleading.  Describing him accurately is beyond criticism.  Hughsheehy (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now PBS has deleted all reference to Tom Reilly.  Why would someone delete a reference just because the reference gets characterized accurately? Hughsheehy (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said we could replace it with another -- For example using a book I have to hand Royle does not think that the NMA was exceptionally brutal (compared to the Scottish war) or went beyond the laws of war as they were in their day -- but in my judgement there is no need to give balance to the POV of the section -- the word "some" does that. I am not aware of any historian (in the books I have read -- although it may well have been addressed in specific journals) who has addressed the issue of whether it was not a genocide directly. Instead they tend to discuss the facts (and from the references added -- if they think it was a genocide then make the point).  However I do not think that it is a coincidence that the suggestion that the Cromwellian clearances may have been a genocide were published after ethnic cleansing occurred in Bosnia, and since the ICJ made its judgement on the Bosnian Genocide Case earlier this year and concluded that ethnic cleansing is not in its self genocide, I suspect that we will hear less of historical incidents like this being called a genocide. --PBS (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Reilly 

message: I wanted to ask you if someone knows why there is no mention of the Islamic invasions of India in the Genocides in history page? Will Durant said in the famous quote that it was probably the bloodiest story in history. Is the problem that nobody has made the effort yet, or because it was removed? Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic invasions of India 

message: User:Editingman I have copied your entry for Chima from the article page for further discussion:
During the mid-nineteenth century, the Muslims and the Miao people of China revolted against the Qing Dynasty, 
most notably in the Dungan revolt (1862-1877) and the Panthay rebellion 1856-1873) in Yunnan. These little known revolts were suppressed by the Manchu government in a manner that accounts to genocide,(Levene, Mark. Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State. I.B.Tauris, 2005. )(Giersch, Charles Patterson. Asian Borderlands: The Transformation of Qing China's Yunnan Frontier. Harvard University Press, 2006. )(Muslim History in China)(Ridwan Khan The challenges and opportunities of Chinese Islam  cites Dillon, Michael.  China’s Muslim Hui Community.  Curzon, 1999. )   killing a million people in the Panthay rebellion(Damsan Harper, Steve Fallon, Katja Gaskell, Julie Grundvig, 
Carolyn Heller, Thomas Huhti, Bradley Maynew, Christopher Pitts. Lonely 
Planet China. 9. 2005. )(ref name=chineseciv: Gernet, 
Jacques. A History of Chinese Civilization. 2. New York: Cambridge 
University Press, 1996.), several million in the Dungan revolt(name=chineseciv) and  five million in the suppression of Miao people in Guizhou.( 
name=chineseciv) A "washing off the Muslims"(洗回 (xi Hui)) policy had been long advocated by officials in the Manchu government.(Jonathan N. Lipman, "Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China (Studies on Ethnic Groups in China)", University of Washington Press (February 1998), .)
Please see WP:CITE#Full references: "Full references for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional." The reference given do not include page numbers so are not adequate. Please can you supply page numbers for the books cited.
Please see WP:PROVEIT Looking east: The challenges and opportunities of Chinese Islam  by Ridwan Khan  is an essay and therefore not a reliable source. This is probably also true for the other web page cited Muslim History in China can you explain why you consider it a reliable source. --PBS (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the books, I gave page numbers. I don't have the other books available. Is there anything else I can do about it?Editingman (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: In his book Death by Government, Professor R.J. Rummel argues that "a full scale genocide was carried out in the Vendée in which possibly 117,000 inhabitants were systematically murdered." [dubious – discuss] 
Ledenierhomme  What is dubious about the statement? It is not a statement of fact or are you saying that the Rummel is dubious source? --PBS (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could your political/ethnic/cultural/nationalist agenda be any more transparent? the 117,000 figure comes from Secher, whereas reliable sources such as Martin estimate 250,000 insurgents and 200,000 republicans.  See Hugh Gough for an analysis of Secher's flawed methodology. For the millionth time, you need to learn to evaluate the quality of your sources. Professor R.J. Rummel is no specialist on the French Revolution or the war in the Vendée. And "Transaction Publishers" (which I assume you got online from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM where Rummel admits it is "often reported as a civil war" and states that "possibly" 117,000 people were indiscriminately murdered) doesn't quite measure up to peer-reviewed journals. That's why it is dubious, as stated in the edit summary, in contradicts the conventional wisdom of the established authorities on the issue. There's no wriggling out of this one I'm afraid. Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the notes section of Rummel's book his source on this is Laurent Ladouce. But anyways, Rummel is not some hack but a reputable historian and a specialist on Democide so just because some historians disagree with his assertions doesn't mean he's is not a reliable source. And looking over the article it seems others concur with his views.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and Rummel 

message: Both of these countries' alleged genocides are under the heading of International Prosecution of Genocide rather than in the main list of alleged genocides.  This seems wrong, but as a reader who came here to just to read the article, I would rather leave this edit up to someone more involved in this page.  The heading "International Criminal Court" seems to have no text under it that relates to the heading.  Has something gone missing? --CloudSurfer (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rwanda and Sudan