Talk:R. J. Rummel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This page is longer than recommended. Archiving should be considered.

Contents

[edit] Presentation, not polemical rhetoric

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)

[edit] Germans 1945/47 How realiable are Rummels calculations)?

One example from [1]
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)


Disputation of above comments: The appropriate way to analyze Rummel's work should not involve cherrypicking entries. How many entries did the above writer go through to find these seemingly problematic entries? Citing two numbers out of the thousands listed in Rummel's work, disputing them while providing no sources of one's own hardly seems reliable. BAO

[edit] No wars between democracies

According to his analysis, of 353 wars since 1816, none have been waged between democracies. "We have a solution for war," Rummel says. "It is to expand the sphere of liberty."

What about the American Civil War, Anglo-Irish War and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Philip Baird Shearer 21:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan was a military dictorship, not a democracy in 1971. A.S.B.

Question about the Confederacy: I have never read about any actual elections taking place. And if they had been, would slaves have been allowed to vote? A no to any of these question might arguably make the Confederacy not quite democratic or liberal enough to qualify.

See User:Ultramarine/sandbox3. Spencer R. Weart in Never at War uses similar criteria as Rummel and argues that the Confederate States of America was less than 3 years old at the start of the war. Less than 2/3 of the adult male population could vote in the Confederacy, abolitionists were censored and imprisoned, and in the elections in many districts there were no choice of candidates.
James Lee Ray argues there was never a competitive presidential election and that in many of the elections to the Congress there were no choice of candidates. There was a presidential election in 1861 but only one ticket. Ultramarine 09:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A similar case can be made for the Irish side. Although fairly democratic, and probably would have been elected, the First Dáil was not properly elected, was it? Of course, the same kind of problem will probably occur in any civil war. Still, one might simply argue that Rummels thesis can not really apply to civil wars, since one side is rarely, if ever, democratically elected. His main interest at the time was probably war between countries anyway, so civil wars would need separate handling anyway. DanielDemaret 08:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again from Never at War: The Irish state was less than 3 years old. The initial violence involved rebels acting on their own outside democratic control. Later democratic control of the Irish Republican Army was doubtful and immediately after the war one part of the IRA tried to overthrow the government in the Irish Civil War. Ultramarine 09:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Than you for that information how about Second Boer War? Philip Baird Shearer 09:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"liberal democracy" being defined as nations which have universal franchise, free speech, and free press all enshrined in their bodies of law. "We have a solution for war," Rummel says. "It is to expand the sphere of liberty."
What does he define as a "universal franchise"? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson/DPT#Empirical evidence states:

From an early point on, statistical studies were employed to examine the validity of the theory. Rummel studied all the wars from 1816 to 1991. He defined:
  • war as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle,
  • democracy as a stabilized liberal democracy with voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males,
  • and stability as being older than 3 years at the start of the war.
He also implicitly imposed some other related criteria; for example, the chief officer of the democracy must have had a contested election. (See the analysis of the American civil war below.)
Under these definitions, his study found 198 wars between non-democracies, 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 wars between democracies [2]. Even some of his supporters acknowledge that the exact line between democracies and non-democracies is somewhat arbitrary, drawn to include the maximum number of democratic states while excluding any exceptions to the theory. This can be criticized as fitting the theory to the data. On the other hand, it also holds for all stricter criteria.

If the above is correct then which power in the Second Boer War was not a Liberal Democracy? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Rummelite dogmatists can find reasons to explain away all the obvious exceptions to their theory: the Boer Republics did not enfranchise 2/3 of their male population, the American Confederacy did not have a contest for head of state, the French Second Republic was too new to be a "stablized democracy", and so on. This involves the imposition of arbitrary conditions to deny the evidence; and even so the factuality of the exclusions is debatable.

The deep objection to Rummellism is that it is vacuous: after applying all the criteria Rummell uses to declare that state A is not a democracy, and that war B is not really a war, very little data are left for the democratic peace, and most of them are explicable by other obvious causes:

  1. From 1816 to the 1880's, at most three states count as stable liberal democracies: Switzerland, San Marino, and the United States. They did not go to war with each other; but geography would have made that difficult.
  2. rom then until 1904, there were non-allied democratic Powers in the world: France, the United States, and possibly Great Britain. It is true that they did not go to war with each other, although they were close to war half-a-dozen times. Neither did any other Powers, except for the Spanish-American War, which was fought between an unquestioned democracy and a state which was close to the boundary (which side it was on depends on which edition of Ted Gurr's work you use).
  3. From 1904 onward, Great Britain was allied to France. Most other democracies (including the United States) were either allied or benevolently neutral towards them, in part because the alliance had one of the two largest fleets in the world.
  4. From 1945 to 1991, almost all the democracies in the world were allied against the Soviet Union.
  5. Since 1991, there have been very few genuinely international full-scale wars in the world. None of these happen to have been between democracies. The Rummellites inflate their data count by accepting Freedom House's absurdly optimistic list of present democracies, which include states less democractic than many they dismiss (like the recent government of Ukraine, and the present government of Nepal).

I hope this helps. Septentrionalis 22:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, see the discussions on Democratic peace theory. This is just Pmanderson original reserach.Ultramarine 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
When Ultramarine does not want to admit a fact, he calls it original research. Septentrionalis 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland - quality of Rummel's "research"

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)

[edit] Rummel->Freedomist->Libertarian Fasicst?

I added his view on freedom of speech. Obviously, he is a extrem partisan of libertarian persuation. I would treat his statistics, theory and assertion with pinch of salt. I wouldn't call him a David Irving of Libertarianism but I think the accusation may not be that far off the mark. At least, we should clarify that he is a partisan. Adding "controvercial" in the intro wouldn't be that NPOV in my view. FWBOarticle 12:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He is a former Libertarian. Certainly not a facist. Please respect Npov. Please avoid weasel words like "critics claim", give sources for who says. Also, you cannot make generalization like this, "This methdology seems to be the case in many of Rummel's estimates. He gross over the complex factors of historical event and attribute all deathtoll to his target regime, which help to support his political theory.", using a doubtful single example. This is your opinion and original research. Please cite a critic who says this.
Regarding his "censor the media" he states "In both World Wars I and II, the media reports on the war were strictly controlled. They must be again. Just in lives alone that might be saved thereby, it is necessary. How far should this go? I would use the censorship of World War II as criteria. This would mean, for example, that news reports of secret commando operations in Iran, or the employment of a secret weapon, or . . . well, you get the idea." Read more here [3]Ultramarine 14:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of the section title. This is not the front page. You are not suppose to edit other people's edit including the title name, especially if it is about imposing your POV. You are free to describe him "the Brilliantest Man EVER" in talk page. Rather silly edit outing oneself as a fanboy. FWBOarticle

[edit] John Grohol

Seems to be a person who runs a Wikipedia clone.[4] Thus is seems that the reference to John Grohol is actually a reference to wikipedia itself. Thus, much of the criticism of Rummel is original research. I will shortly remove it unless someone shows that it is not original research.Ultramarine 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As often, Ultramarine's source does not support him. Septentrionalis 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Read at the top, John Grohol's psychcentral. Here is the Rummel article clone which some have though is an original article by John Grohol.[5] I will shortly remove all the original reserach unless a genuine article by John Grohol is presented.Ultramarine 03:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; that does look familiar; it would have been more helpful if you had presented that link first. Which claims are you claiming as OR, in this article? Septentrionalis 04:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I will shortly remove everything for which there is no clear source.Ultramarine 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
A decent respect for the opinion of mankind would requre that you actually bother to search for it first. If you don't, I shall; but I'm sure you'd prefer that I not interest myself in this article. Septentrionalis 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Have searched, found nothing except psychcentral.Ultramarine 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence, however, that it's a mirror. Dr. Grohol chose to republish, as he is free to do, a former state of this article. (He does not, for example, reprint Democide or Democratic peace theory; nor does his article reflect the recent changes made here.) Therefore this is independent publication, and sourced; all that is justified is a reference, which should be sufficient to caution the careful reader. Septentrionalis 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You are actually arguing that a mirror of a former Wikipedia article can be used as a source in Wikipedia? Ultramarine 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I still see no evidence that he is a mirror, as opposed to choosing to republish one article. The source, by the way, is properly Rummel's response...Septentrionalis 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is a mirror of this article: [6] Obviously this should be corrected. Articles about living people are especially sensitive, remember the recent controvery regarding other articles about living persons.Ultramarine 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A nice argument, in the archaic sense of the phrase. Please stop being defensive and try to reach a genuine compromise with this FWBOarticle, or I will interest myself in this article. Don't bite the newbie.

In particular, I deplore the efforts to remove Rummel's unfortunate views on censorship (to which the source is obvious, and readily attainable) and the mention of his democratic peace theory; this is where his view ought to be explained at length. In fact you appear to be attempting to write this atricle as a panegyric on Rummel, without attempting to explain what he actually says at all.

Please try and play nice; not every user is as resilient as Mr West, Mr Scaife, and myself. Rules-lawyering is deprecated. Septentrionalis 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did not remove the minute controversy regarding his blog post. Have noe removed the original research.Ultramarine 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; now please talk to him and see what he actually wants. You may not find it as unpleasant as you suppose. Septentrionalis 05:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The removed material follows. While not, as it stands, up to Wikipedia standard, it is preserved here as a source of possibly useful criticism. I will assume that the use of a word ambiguous between now and not above is a genuine typo, and not an effort to deceive. I deprecate this removal in general; this sort of thing leads either to revert wars, or to drving off potential collaborators. It would have been much more wiki to have labored to improve the criticism.

[edit] General criticisms

One critic, John Grohol, has republished a Wikipedia article, in a state which claimed that Rummel does not consider the number of deaths due to anarchy and the lack of government, through mechanisms such as civil conflict, the breakdown of society, and foreign invasion. Rummel has responded that this is false and that his estimates for each country include that for war dead and internal nondemocidal violence. Moreover, the most anarchical system may be international relations, wars of which he have tallied and included in his analysis.
Another point by the same critic is that Rummel is claimed to calculate the death toll by comparing the statistical data before and after a certain date and derive an estimate about the number of killings that occurred between. He is claimed to fail to establish evidence of actual killing. Rummel has responded that there is no indication of what estimates are claimed to be wrong. He uses all kinds of documents to establish democide, such as refugee reports, memoirs, biographies, historical analyses, actual exhumed body counts, records kept by the murderers themselves, and so on. He has tried to summarize all estimates available in the literature and many of these documents establish evidence of actual killing.
The same critic claims that it is a flaw in Rummel's statistical calculations that he doesn't use error margins. Rummel has responded that his data are not a sample but instead all estimates available in English for all nations over a period of a century, and available in the libraries he worked in, including the Library of Congress. Error margins are inappropriate when dealing with the universe of data and not a sample.
Yet another criticism by this critic is that Rummel's results are based on an absolute trust in statistical data and statistics are prone to errors. Rummel has responded that he is certainly aware that he presents an estimate. He argues that the estimates are accurate enough to be used in to establish the causes of democide and thus for moral criticism and in guiding policy. Some critics allege that he commits a classical error of statistics, that "Correlation implies causation". Correlations between democide and certain political systems do not prove that these political systems are the causes of democide. However, Rummel's research uses much more advanced statistical methods than calculating simple correlations. It is false to state that there is no way to infer the causal structure from statistical data.
NOTE: Rudolph J Rummel has responded to some of this criticism on his blog Democratic Peace.


[edit] Specific criticisms

The same critic thinks that the data that Rummel uses is questionable. For example, his Soviet death toll estimate(and especially his Gulag death toll) is claimed to be based on many outdated sources with exaggerated statistics. Rummel has made his calculations and sources available online.[10] Note that they are from his published books and thus do not include new research and new sources available after the publication date. Regarding Stalin's victims Rummel's counts 43 million deaths inside and outside the Soviet Union. This is much higher than an often quoted figure of 20 million....[defense of Rummel as retained in article]
Another example of alleged manipulation by this critic: Rummel estimates the death toll in the Rheinwiesenlager as between 3,000 and 56,000. Official US figures were just over 3,000 and a German commission found 4,532. The high figure of 56,000 also merited the notation "probably much lower" in Rummel's extracts. Rummel has responded that this is misleading. His estimates generally are close to the ones given above and he ends up with a most probable estimate of 6,000. The low and high are meant to be the most unlikely low and high, and thus to bracket the probable true count. It is to determine these lows and highs that he includes what some others might consider absurd estimates.
Rummel follow those scholars who argue that famines like the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor were deliberate and could have been avoided completely. Some argue that the adverse weather contributed to bad harvests during the Great Leap Forward. Plus localised famine was not a rare occurrence in China. Thus some part of the death toll may have been unavoidable and therefore not a democide.

[edit] Archiving

I suggest we should archive the older material, especially that which original research. Remember, this is a living person and Wikipedia must be very careful with presenting inaccurate information. I will shortly archive the older sections.Ultramarine 03:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; this page is shorter than 32K; and so much shorter, for example, than Talk:Democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 04:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the inaccurate information should be removed. Again, remember that Wikipedia must be very careful regarding articles about living persons.Ultramarine 04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a talk page; not article space.
  • This comment is a further example of the sort of suppresssion being exercised on this page.
  • Even were there consensus for these inaccuracies (and there is not), John Stuart Mill was right in holding that the proper respnse to inaccuracy is to explain the truth, not to censor the falsity. Septentrionalis 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, no evidence has been shown that the accusations are false. Therefore, I will shortly remove them unless evidence is given.Ultramarine 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, you seem to want that Wikipedia should contain personal attacks and very serious unsourced accusations against a living person. Please state here why you want this. Ultramarine 15:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have reread the full text of the talk page. I see no personal attack of any kind. Neither Ed Poor's criticism of the article nor the criticisms of Rummel's theories are personal attacks; and the article is deficient in not responding to them. Please stop commenting out other user's posts: it could be seen as vandalism. Septentrionalis 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Calling someone a "Facist" is a personal attack. Again, the dismissal of his research is original research and very serious accusations against a living person and researcher. Wikipedia must be very careful to avoid this against living persons. Explain yourself, or the text should be hidden.Ultramarine 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, criticism of his research is criticism, just as Ed Poor's criticism of this article is criticism. While the deleted extracts are not up to Wikipedia standards, they could be made so - although with more effort than I have as yet chosen to spend here; and are a useful resource. The only use of Fascist on this talk page is your own misspelt protest; the invocation of John Irving has several interpretations, none of them compliments, but it is impossible to tell which is meant. A rational response would be to quote Godwin's Law, and ignore it.

Further blanking of whole sections of this article will be treated as vandalism. Septentrionalis 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rummel is called a Facist which is certainly a personal attack. Very serious unsourced accusations against a living person should be removed. Again, Wikipedia must be very careful to avoid this against living persons.Ultramarine 17:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, what is this? [7]. Again, please stop insisting that Wikipedis should contain personal attacks and serious unsourced accusations against living persons. If you continue, I must report this.Ultramarine 18:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No, in the case of a statesman or political scientist, it is an analysis. Nor is the use complained of (since you both misspelt it, it was not easy to find) a claim, but a question. Would you object to the comment: "Is Franco [or Mussolini's granddaughter] a Fascist?" Septentrionalis 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I am unfortunately question if you are editing in good faith. Almost all people consider the accusation of being a Fascist extremely offensive.Ultramarine 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the reasons I overlooked the comment was that it was so obviously metaphorical; and hence not meant in the full force of the word. I have Bowdler]ized for comity. This is probably regrettable, since Wikipedia is not censored. Septentrionalis 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, do you to continue to insist that Wikpedia should continue to have personal attacks and unsourced accusations against a living persons? If you do, I will discuss it with the administrators. If you do not answer I will assume that you agree to remove this damaging material.Ultramarine 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Publish and be Wellingtoned! I will present the diffs that show your repeated blanking of Ed Poor's comment and the paragraphs deleted from article. (If you had confined yourself to replacing Facist [sic] with noun, that would have been a different matter.)Septentrionalis 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog post

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)

I continue to oppose the delberate suppression of Rummel's self-inflicted embarassments. Septentrionalis 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Alternate history novels

Why should they be prominently mentioned and not his scholarly books? Please explain. Please also give a source for the statement regarding weapons of mass destruction.Ultramarine 21:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ultramarine, why do you keep playing around with the intro? This article is very badly written and needs to be improved. You don't improve it by either leaving out all references to his publications from the intro (which is directly relevant to why we're writing about him), or else listing them all. You summarize, preferably in an interesting way, which is what I tried to do. By all means, add a couple of the academic ones, if you know which ones were most popular, but otherwise please leave it as it is. Also, don't add descriptions to embedded links in the body of the text. This is done in the references section (or further reading/external links), but not in articles. See WP:CITE. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Please give a source for the statement regarding weapons of mass destruction. It it not mentioned in your link.Ultramarine 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
He says "modern weapons" in the link I provided, but others say WMD. I'll either find a better source or change it. However, that's the least of this article's worries. Parts of it are argumentative and consist of your original research. You've also taken material directly from his website, including his errors e.g. "two-dozen" books. Also, please note the arbcom ruling that if you engage in sterile reverts wars, you can be blocked for up to a week. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't delete any additions I make. Add to them by all means (in a sensible way, and the list of books in the intro wasn't sensible), but please don't delete without discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The arbcom ruling applies to two articles, democratic peace theory and criticisms of communism, nothing else. If you state what material you dispute, I will try to add a source.Ultramarine 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It says if you engage in sterile revert wars, you may be banned for up to a week, and I doubt that would be interpreted as restricted to two articles. If the reverting here continues, I'll request a clarification, because the result of the editing pattern has been to produce a bad article.
It's hard to say exactly what I object to, because it's the whole tone of the piece, and I see you've deleted a lot of criticism from earlier versions. However, here's an example:
Rummel follow those scholars who argue that the Great Leap Forward was intentional and could have been avoided completely. Some argue that the adverse weather contributed to bad harvests during the Great Leap Forward. Plus localised famine was not a rare occurrence in China. Thus some part of the death toll may have been unavoidable and therefore not a democide. More generally, most estimates of democide are uncertain and scholars often give widely different estimates.
Military intervention in order to spread democracy is not an automatic corollary of the democratic peace theory. Other researchers argue that many military interventions in order to spread democracy have eventually failed. They argue that it is generally better to spread democracy by diplomacy and by slowly promoting internal political change.
You don't name a single critic, instead interpreting yourself what unnamed scholars say, with half sentences like "plus localised famine etc." And from earlier versions, I see the criticism is a great deal more extensive than you've presented e.g. that he doesn't include the U.S. as a democracy, which means he can prop up his theory, which would otherwise fail. Note that I don't know whether this is accurate; just that I saw it in an earlier version, and if it's accurate, it should definitely be here.
The sentence "Military intervention in order to ...," whose sentence is that? Is Wikipedia stating this as a fact, or Rummel, or a critic? Who are "other researchers"?
The article needs to be rewritten so that each substantive point is sourced and each critic named. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You have some good points. It is Weart's argument, added. I think Rummel and all the DPT researchers who have presented similar theories state that the US have always been a liberal democracy. Ultramarine 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be a reason why the historical novels should not be prominently mentioned: they are available as free PDF files, and are published by Llumina Press: "a leader in the self-publishing area" (website) Septentrionalis 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Are any of his scholarly books self-published too, do you know? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting question. I just followed the links. I will consult Amazon, and my nearby catalog. Septentrionalis 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of them, especially the democratic peace theory ones, were published by two small presses Sage Publications and Transaction Publications, and many of the earlier books are oop and available off his web site. These may well be ideological presses, but they don't look like vanity houses. There is also one published by NW University, which graduated him; and one by Sogang University Press. I don't see anything from the University of Hawaii Press, which does seem odd. Septentrionalis 22:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I looked up Sogang in WP: the Jesuit college in Seoul. Septentrionalis 22:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I just looked him up on the U of H press, [8] but there's no sign of him, which as you say is odd. Are we inflating his notability, do you think? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Transaction press and Sage press are very well respected publishers of academic literature. On the other hand, I have never heard of the University of Hawaii Press.Ultramarine 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably strongest in geology, to be fair. Septentrionalis 23:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel prize

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)

[edit] Speedy deletion

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)

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)
BTW see Pmanderson's comments above. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a peer-reviewed article that documents his importance in this field.[9] 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)
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)
Here he is in the Washington Post.[10]Ultramarine 03:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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 [11], and it was a "commentary". That is your proof? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Google gives over 100,000 hits for "R. J. Rummel" [12]Ultramarine 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I got 1.9 million hits for "Ultramarine". What's your point? [13]--Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I got 0 hits for "R. J. Ultramarine".[14]Ultramarine 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I got 10,300 hits for it. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Npov tag

Please give an explanation. Ultramarine 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Great Leap Forward

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))

You can read more here [15][16][17]. Rummel also inlcludes a critical review of the book here: [18]. 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)

Ultramarine, I do not need sources, I have about 5 books sitting in front of me on Mao at this moment. He see's no reason? Again, does not matter what "he" sees, or says for that matter. Does not make it fact. Have you read her book? I can give you some examples of how she writes if you want. If her book is a history book, the Wizard of Oz is a documentary. Her book is based on interviews with people who have something against Mao, and then people who no one else can seem to find. Evidence. Ha. And yes I am biased, but I still know what is BS and what isn't. She says the GLF was intentional, that does not make it fact. For instance, her quoting Mao saying "25,000 people might die", does not turn into "Mao said we need to starve 25,000 people", although, she seems to think it does. (Majin Takeru 22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

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)

Uh, no one is saying that many did not die during the GLF. I am saying that Chang's book is a bad book to base fact on, and when she says it was intentional, that does not make it fact.(Majin Takeru 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

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

I think that is better. It still seems like the whole "intentional" thing is fact, based on this ariticle. But I guess you can not win them all eh. Thank you for the conversation, I am going back to Rummels URL to refresh my memory on his theory.(Majin Takeru 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Nobel prize

What is the problem with this? It is all sourced: "Rummel earlier claimed that he was a finalist for the Nobel Prize for Peace, based on media reports, particularly the one from the Honolulu Advertiser in 1996, about being one of 117 finalists for the prize. He now notes that Per Ahlmark, Swedish writer and the former Deputy-Prime Minister of Sweden, stated in 1999 he will repeatedly nominate him during the next decade. Such statements are inherently impossible to verify, since the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation expressly prohibit the Foundation from disclosing information about nominations for a period of fifty years [19][20]. 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." [21]"

Chiefly, the assertion that Ahlmark said any such thing depends, for now, only on Rummel. Considering that he appears to have spread the previous report widely without checking it in the least, I would like to have independent confirmation before having WP state that Ahlmark made any such promise (which is probably useless, if the Nobel Committee does ignore public nominations). Septentrionalis 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, I can read Swedish and can verify his claim. Ask any other Wikipedia who can read Swedish if you doubt me. Ultramarine 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Rummel's remark makes one thing clear -- Europeans understand the rules in a way that Americans do not: peace-prize nominations are a dime a dozen, and a nominee is never supposed to know that he or she was nominated (winning aside). Even a winner should never learn who nominated him or her. Is Rummel's quotation above a case of shaking his head at an American foible, or an admission that he is relying on a half-truth for credibility?
As for Per Ahlmark, it is mathematically certain that either he lied when he promised to abide by the Nobel rules, or he lied about the nomination. Either way, the one thing we can verify is that Per Ahlmark is a liar. 208.20.251.27 22:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Previous remarks mine. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Even if the nominators are forbidden to tell who they nominated, which is not stated in the statues, this still does not apply to Per Ahlmark's comments. He said that he would nominate. Ultramarine 22:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Same difference. The rule is that, "[Nominees] are not supposed to be told that they were ever considered for the prize." (see Nobel prize#The nomination and selection process. That condition would be meaningless if nominators began to announce either their past or intended nominations. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That statement has no support in the statues. Ultramarine 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's absurd. There is no reasonable way to read the statute that does not include the nominator in the confidentiality. To do otherwise would render the confidentiality vacuous. The Irish Independent seems to have grasped the point, "Candidates must be nominated in writing, and in strict confidentiality, by a competent person." [22] Yes, they note that many sponsors violate this -- there is not much the Nobel committee can do except perhaps ignore such nominations (as do many boards that give prizes under similar rules). Robert A.West (Talk) 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a citation showing that this is the understanding of scientists as to the Chemistry prize. [23]Robert A.West (Talk) 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, even if the nominators are forbidden to tell who they nominated, which is not stated in the statues, this still does not apply to Per Ahlmark's comments. He said that he would nominate. And even if somehow making a statement about the future is forbidden, Per Ahlmark still did make that statement. Ultramarine 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Another citation that the responsibilty of confidentiality is the common understanding of the rule, as well as the natural way to read it. [24] Again, the distinction you attempt to make is meaningless. If I tried to weasel out of my confidentiality obligations on such a strained reading of statute or contract, I would be in jail, bankrupt or both. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, even if the nominators are forbidden to tell who they nominated, which is not stated in the statues, this still does not apply to Per Ahlmark's comments. He said that he would nominate. And even if somehow making a statement about the future is forbidden, Per Ahlmark still did make that statement. Ultramarine 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Nobel Prize website: Are the nominations made public? The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restricts disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, until fifty years have elapsed. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators as well as investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. [25] So, yes it does matter. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, even if the nominators are forbidden to tell who they nominated, which is not stated in the statues, this still does not apply to Per Ahlmark's comments. He said that he would nominate. And even if somehow making a statement about the future is forbidden, Per Ahlmark still did make that statement. Ultramarine 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
His claim is tantamount to me saying that I will summon Jesus back to Earth on Tuesday. It is non-verifyable, non-notable, and clearly being used as a ploy to make Rummel seem more important that he really is. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It is verifiable and correct. I have read the original statement by Per Ahlmark in Swedish.Ultramarine 00:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. It still doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevent. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, you may ask any other Wikipedia editor who can understand Swedish. Rummel's statements are correct.Ultramarine 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand verifiability. Statements made by people about their own actions are valueless as to whether the action took place, which is here the only question of interest. The fact of the statement itself is not encyclopedic, except to partially excuse Rummel's faux pas in mentioning the alleged nomination, and should not be included, because it will be misinterpreted by casual readers as asserting the truth of an unverifiable statement. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC). See also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

This is open to fairly simple settlement. Ultramarine, where was Ahlmark's letter published? Swedish or not, that would be a source for the promise, and then a sentence beginning "Ahlmark promised on date link" would cover the matter. Septentrionalis 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, I believe that Mr. West and I are in agreement that producing proof is moot as it is irrelevent. What do you think? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The source is a public speech made by Per Ahlmark in 1999. It can be found here in Swedish.[26]Ultramarine 03:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the article says that he will (would?) nominate Rummel for the next 10 years. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes.Ultramarine 03:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I presume this is the intended passage:

DÅ ÄR DET OFRÅNKOMLIGT att ta sig till Hawaii, där R J Rummel bor och verkar. Jag presenterade honom för svenska läsare och liberaler i den bok som 1997 kom ut på Timbro, Det öppna såret. Sen dess har jag fullföljt de studierna och jämfört Rummels resultat med andra forskares. Huvuddelen av hans storverk är publicerat de senaste tio åren.
Jag kommer under nästa årtionde att uthålligt nominera Rummel till Nobels fredspris. Den norska Nobelkommitténs ledamöter kan då inte längre undvika hans namn, genom att hänvisa till att de inte har läst hans böcker. På Rummels egen hemsida, som öppnades förra året, finns drygt 4 000 sidor och omkring 900 dokument i form av analyser och tabeller. Den är föredömligt pedagogisk och rymmer flera av hans böcker. Där är lätt att leta fram de länder, perioder och massmord som man vill ha fakta om.

It is reassuring, in a way, to observe that all nations are capable of electing men who can believe Spencer Weart knows his proverbial from his proverbial.

Given this evidence, I would have no present objection to "Per Ahlmark pledged, in 1999, to nominate Rummel for a decade." This should probably also go in his own article, whether he is cheating Rummel, his audience, or the Nobel Committee. I suppose the necessary explanations that this is a meaningless promise, which any of several myriads could make, might be disproportionate.

Of course, the fact that Rummel is still printing the original falsehood in his vanity publications [27] (pdf) is also part of the story; but I suppose that's why it's called vanity. Septentrionalis 06:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

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

[edit] "Democide" Widely used?

Google should not be considered as reliable judge of what is "widely used". [28] 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. [29] 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))


[edit] Merge This Article with Democide?

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)

Non-notable neologism. The article on it should, in principle, be merged here. Septentrionalis 05:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
More common in Google than Congo Free State and used by many other researchers.Ultramarine 05:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Google results do not make something notable. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality and factual accuracy

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)

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.[30] Ultramarine 18:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
While this remains: My reasons for that edit are clearly stated here [31]. 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)

[edit] Deletion attempt

  • Bad faith attempt to delete the article See comments here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Rummel Ultramarine 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, it was in good faith. Scaife believes Rummel non-notable; I believe him marginally notable, and that this article would be better off started over from scratch. I nominated to stop the CSD revert war. Septentrionalis
    • This comment does not belong here. Either the text of the article is accurate and NPOV or it is not. Bringing up a now-moot nomination is ad hominem and irrelevant. Moreover, if Ultramarine believes he can prove bad faith, let him follow the relevant administrative procedures. If not, he should refrain from libel. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The attempted deletion is even more strange when considering that they have created and expanded numerous vanity articles about non-notable relatives to a least one of them, various Baron West and Earl De La Warr. Why should persons whose only achievement were to born into a class exploiting the rest of the population be included, but not a a respected researcher who have spent his life on something as important as how war and mass murder can be prevented? Ultramarine 19:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Since I voted to keep [32] this article, I am not sure whether to laugh at the above paragraph, or be furious. Also, you might actually read policies before referring to them. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-ocracy

  • 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)
    • Much of this is irrelevant to the point; one more sentence might be added, but might be overbalancing. Septentrionalis
    • Please re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. That said, I see no reason to prefer the longer version over the shorter: they say the same thing. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero war claim

  • 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 [33]." 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)\
    • Lie. Ultramarine, please read the articles cited at [[democratic peace theory. Septentrionalis 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The word, "lie", is very strong in this context. If you believe that Ultramarine is deliberately falsifying, and that you can prove it, then you should seek administrative remedies -- obvious vandalism would be preferable to a diligent editor who lies. If not, please refrain from libel. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Ultramarine is misquoting Ray, who does say that this is a statistical claim. I am reluctant to go to arbitration - again; and if this matter can be settled without it, that would be preferable. Septentrionalis 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ultramarine, it does look as if you are taking Ray's summaries at face value rather than reading the actual sources. If so, that is poor research technique. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triad vs. Monad

  • 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. [34] Rummel, as stated, holds democracy alone sufficient." False description, see Talk:Democratic peace theory#24_19-withdrawo.

[edit] Social Field

  • 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[35], 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)
Reading the above, I fail to see what Ultramarine's objection amounts to. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Prize Claim

  • 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)
    • Per Ahlmark pledged to nominate in a public speech, as stated; that he did do so is unverifiable, and dubiously meaningful. Ultramarine clearly lacks the Sprachgefühl to recognize that "vanity-press" is the standard English term for Llumina Press, that "leader in the self-publishing area"; for Wikipedia to use "self-publishing" would be euphemism and peacockery. Septentrionalis 16:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Moreover, "self-publishing" these days can simply mean an unedited PDF and a decent quality laser printer. "Vanity press" (note the Wikipedia article title) suggests correctly that the books are available for purchase, and that perhaps a professional editor was involved, which is a service that some vanity publishers do offer. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I have placed a request for input concerning the general question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nobel and Other Secret Prize Nominations. I see no reason that Rummel should be treated any differently than anyone else claiming a nomination. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Per the above-mentioned discussion, it is clear that there is strong support for excluding claims concerning Nobel nominations unless there is signficant and documented controversy. Accordingly, failure to discuss the inherent problems with such a claim would remove any reason to mention the alleged nomination at all. I see no valid basis for the "dubious" tag to remain on this section and have removed it per consensus of the community. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I've rephrased slightly, and find no source for the claim that Rummel retracted the Nobel-finalist claim. Do we have one? Robert A.West (Talk) 17:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship section

  • 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)
    • Such a whitewash would be contrary to consensus on this page and in the edit history. Rummel does not seem to be ashamed of his views; it is not our business to be ashamed for him. Septentrionalis 23:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious tags should be removed

The present {{dubious}} 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)

[edit] Soapboxing

I have notice that this article rarely contain citation from third party sources. Lot of reference are sourced from R. J. Rummel's personal blog or website. If this kind of behaviour is allowed, any advocacy group or person can soapbox wikipedia by using their own website. "Self reference" exemption cannot be used as an excuse for reference to opinion of the organisation or person. It only o.k. to source some mandane fac such as Rummel's career or date of birth. So don't give me "it's usefull" argument. If it is not mentioned in academic journals or academic publication or newsmedia, then it is not usefull as defined by wikipedia. In wikipedia, judgement over "fairness" or "usefullness" are left to outside verifiable sources.

I'm invoking verification criteria. I will add [citation needed] to any fact/opinion which doesn't have source, or sourced only from Rummel's website. I will leave Rummel's "accademic" publishing. If no verifiable/reliable sources (any third party sources with editorial oversight) turn up subsequently, I will delete. Vapour

Finished adding [citation needed] . Because there are so many [citation needed] , I will give enough times for anyone to find alternative sources. Anyway, no wonder this article is so contentious. Almost every contents are sourced from Rummels' own site. This is exactly what soapboxing is about, whether done by Rummel himself or by someone who support him. Both critics and supporters ought to find sources from verifieable source. If Rummel can't get his statistics or finding published in academic journal or newsmedia, then it's not worthy for wikipedia. Even if the quote come directly from horse's mouth, if it is not reported elsewhere verifiable, it does not cross wikipedia threshold of inclusion. What matter in wikipedia is not truth. I'm also not sure which book of his are propperly peer reviewd. This article should't be used for promoting his book sale.Vapour

What on earth is going on here? Demanding that statements like Rummel wrote a blog post titled "Censor the Media". (which is even linked directly to the aforementioned blog) should be confirmed by a third party source is not reasonable. There might be a need for more third party sources, but not of every single statement in the article.
Peter Isotalo 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There is two major function to verifiability criteria. One is to ensure the avaliability of sources to the public. This will allow anyone to check the source to verify that the content in wikipedia is accurate reflection of the source material. Another one is to set the threshold of inclusion appropriate to an encycropedia so that wikipedia won't become free for all. Information must come from the third party source with editorial oversight. Personal website is acceptable only as a source of mandane information such as date of birth or record of past employment. Wikipedia is quite explicit on this, even to the point of stating that it will reject contribution from a Nobel Prize Winner if his/her research is not published in verifiable sources. So obviously, it follow that a personal website of such Nobel Prize Winner cannot be used as source of his opinion about the topic he specialise in. I would also like to refer to this article as an demonstration of a worse consequence for allowing reference from personal or organisational website. Moreover, less notable the person is more difficult to find verifiable sources which counter such person's claim. If someone is notable enough, then there will be a plenty of information from verifiable source which describe his POV. So there is no need to refer to his website for his opinion. Please find alternative source from peer reviewed political science journals. In his personal website, he is entitled to lie if he so wish. Therefore, even if the website may accurately reflect what R says or think, such unverifiable contnet should not be included in wikipedia. For example, unless Rummel's estimation of democide of different regimes has been publised in verifiable sources such as peer reviewed academic journals, it should not be included in wikipedia. Vapour
Rummel has published peer-reviewed articles and books using academic press, the equivalent of peer-review for books. The article mainly references these. Name and year are given in text, everything needed to lend or buy them in order to check the statements. The links to his website is just for convenience. But even his blog posts can be used when he writes about democide or democratic peace. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."Ultramarine 07:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/2E/_/Talk%7ER._J._Rummel_a8e8.html"