Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 17 November 2020

In Praise of Blood is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by (t · c) buidhe at 13:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Rwanda Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Rwanda. Military history This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call. Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... that the book In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front was praised as "investigative journalism at its finest" and accused of genocide denial? Source: https://www.rfi.fr/fr/afrique/20200927-rwanda-l%C3%A9loge-sang-ouvrage-pol%C3%A9mique-le-r%C3%B4le-fpr-pendant-le-g%C3%A9nocide https://newbooksnetwork.com/judi-rever-in-praise-of-blood-the-crimes-of-the-rwandan-patriotic-front-random-house-2018/

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Isambard Kingdom Brunel Standing Before the Launching Chains of the Great Eastern

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 04:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC).

• Article is long enough, well-cited, and was new enough when nominated. Copyvio check OK. Hook length OK. Good effort in article to create balance on a controversial topic. QPQ done. Ready to go. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC) -->

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the first part of the hook, with the quote, doesn't appear in the article. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: the quote was there when I reviewed it but the article has come under attack and seems to be unstable at the moment. I think we need to wait until there is a stable version before we point to it from the main page. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Please keep us updated. Yoninah (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe, Yoninah, and HouseOfChange: Is the article ready for a second review now? Narutolovehinata5 09:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Yoninah, and Narutolovehinata5:, Not yet, sorry. The article was disputed, then frozen, and is now to be rebuilt. I hope to be more helpful soon, after family Christmas subsides. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Just finish the review once the changes have been done. I noticed that you've made multiple changes to the article so it seems a new reviewer will be needed in any case. Narutolovehinata5 09:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, Thanks -- and of course you are right that the re-worked article will need a new review from someone who is not me. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• A new review is needed. Narutolovehinata5 09:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  There still are three maintenance tags on the article. Are those still valid? Edge3 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • • I think HouseOfChange has addressed the many of the underlying issues, is that correct? Can we just go ahead and remove the tags? (t · c) buidhe 16:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not familiar with the underlying dispute, but normally, yeah you can probably remove them. If someone challenges you, then that's a different story. Edge3 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe and HouseOfChange: I've removed the tags. Could you please provide a new hook that reflects the current content of the article? Edge3 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would ALT1... that the book In Praise of Blood was described as "an immediate, destabilizing influence on the world of orthodox Rwandan scholarship"? work as a hook? Narutolovehinata5 03:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Approving ALT1, with the offline source accepted in good faith. There is a neutrality tag that remains on the article, due to a dispute both on article's talk page and the OR noticeboard, which has recently led to an editing restriction on ANI imposed against a party to the dispute.

The DYK may proceed, Rule D6 notwithstanding. (See WP:DYKSG.) Rule D6 refers to "unresolved edit-warring", but in this case, the editors have engaged in WP:DR. Our DYK process, which focuses on article content rather than editor behavior, need not be delayed further by the ANI discussion. Edge3 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally won't promote this article with a neutrality tag still on it. Someone else might though, but I doubt it. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that neutrality and stability are two of the DYK criteria, this nomination cannot be approved until those are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 00:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@SL93 and Narutolovehinata5: Frankly, the whole reason there's a neutrality tag is that there was one editor who was disputing the article's neutrality. I haven't read the relevant discussions in their entirety (they're quite lengthy), but it appears there were attacks and other behavioral concerns that led to a topic ban. I really don't think it makes much sense for DYK to be delayed by a concern raised by a single editor, especially one who is no longer permitted to edit Misplaced Pages in this topic area. That's why I was willing to issue an WP:IAR waiver when I approved the hook. Edge3 (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed the tag as the dispute is no longer ongoing because of the topic ban. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Buidhe. Your reasons for reverting my edit are not valid. Check the Vidal article again. She mentions the Bureau of Special Investigations but she doesn't write they sent the reports to Rever. Even Rever herself doesn't claim that. Your dismissal of Helen Hintjens as "not notable" is an unwarranted insult directed at a well respected scholar of the field who has published numerous journal articles and book chapters on Rwanda and the genocide for over two decades. Most of your article is based on non-expert sources such as Laurie Garrett, who has never published anything about the genocide besides that book review. If you want to write a balanced Wiki page please sing a different tune and put back my edits Saflieni (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

From the article by Hintjens and van Oijen:

109 A Belgian journalist visited Gabiro in September 1994 and March 1995, but he didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary. Dirk Draulans, Een Grap van God (Groot Bijgaarden: Globe, 1997), 55, 84. 111 We were advised by Reza Gerretsen M.D. of The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) in The Hague, and by Dr. Sophie Churchill of the Corpse Project in London. We doublechecked their assessments with professor Tim Thompson of Teesside University and professor Rebecca Gowland of Durham University. 112 A major flaw in Rever’s argument is the assumption that mass incineration in open-air crematoriums leaves “ashes” that can be disposed of easily. In reality, large volumes of bone fragments remain that need to be crushed first, which is very labour-intensive work. The Nazis trained special crews for this job. According to Thompson, “. . .when burning that number of bodies, you would expect the process to be incomplete since the body packing works to protect the remains. Therefore you would expect to see a large amount of incompletely burned human remains—likely still with soft tissues present.” The alternative, dissolving a body in acid, takes a long time, even with an already burned body, and is hazardous for the killers themselves. Two cases of acid-murders investigated by the NFI showed that the killers needed several weeks to dissolve a couple of bodies. See Erwin Vermeij et al., “Microscopic Residues of Bone from Dissolving Human Remains in Acid,” Journal of Forensic Science 60,3 (2015): 770–6. Saflieni (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Not notable" isn't an insult, all it indicates is that I haven't found enough coverage of her work to meet WP:GNG. Your edits introduce excessive weight on one source's opinion, when in fact we aim to summarize what it says in each source without giving too much space for any one. You added the text, They trace the suggestion that "the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization, including the Interahamwe militia" to a public statement of the ministry of Defence, published in 1991 by the extremist magazine Kangura, and they refute Rever's claim But there is no evidence that Rever got the first claim from this 1991 publication; at best you could say, "A similar claim was made in 1991 by the Ministry of Defence and published in the extremist magazine Kangura". Likewise, "refuted" in this case is a breach of WP:IMPARTIAL. State the conclusion that was made and let the reader make up their own mind whether it was "refuted" or not. (t · c) buidhe 11:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The point you miss is that you give too much space to the opinions of non-experts who take the contents of Rever's book for granted. This way it looks like an advertisement of the publisher. The experts you cite provide subjective opinions. In that light it's not unreasonable to spend a few extra sentences on the only research that did check Rever's information. About the 1991 statement in Kangura: Rever doesn't cite credible sources for most of her claims about infiltration - even her ICTR document was not a final report with definite conclusions, maybe you should mention that - so the counter claim in Hintjens and van Oijen is functional. Rever's claim about the incineration is refuted by four specialists who were consulted by Hintjens and van Oijen. Those specialists refute Rever's claims as not possible, and there is a credible eye-witness who refutes the story. It's not "an opinion" of the authors as you claim. But if the word "refuted" is a problem, then I'll replace it.

102 Department of Military Operations, “Ese ubundi hari habuze iki ngo ingabo z’igihugu zikosore bariya banyamakuru b’Inkotanyi?” (Why Could the National Army Not Teach These Inkotanyi Journalists a Lesson?), Kangura, No. 27 BIS, December 1991, 3–5. For a complete translation, see Jean-Pierre Chrétien, “Chrétien Report,” ICTR-99-52, record no. 7663-01, JRAD (30 June 2002), chapters 5–21 and conclusion, 32–7, https://jrad.irmct.org/view.htm?r=196499&s. The conspiracy theory suggested in this press release was aimed at raising suspicion about all the critics of the Habyarimana regime, as well as about ordinary Tutsi civilians. First, the independent newspapers in Rwanda would be infiltrated, then the political opposition parties. After that, the RPF would fuel ethnic and regional divisions and infiltrators would try to brainwash government soldiers. Finally, criminals would be incited to commit crimes and armed RPF fighters would spread throughout Rwanda as a fifth column.Saflieni (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Saflieni (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Other subject: I'm not sure if highlighting the statement of Luc Marchal is in order. Marchal didn't see much of the genocide because he and the other Belgian peacekeeprs left after a week and a half. There is no indication that he held this opinion during or shortly after the genocide. Apparently his attitude changed dramatically after he was charged with dereliction of duty (of which he was cleared).Saflieni (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's not highlighted, it's included in a footnote which shows that multiple Western observers had similar observations. Please do not continue to insert the "tracing" claim, this is a WP:BLP violation since there is no indication that it is Rever's source. Also, please do not modify direct quotes in violation of MOS:QUOTE. (t · c) buidhe 14:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not suggest it's Rever's direct source, but am referring to a thesis in a journal article. Stop making things up. It's clear that you're not interested in creating a balanced Wikipage at all, with all those tendentious soundbites and skewed use of sources.Saflieni (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• But even the Hintjens article does not claim that Rever traces the argument to that source. All it says is that a similar claim was made in 1991. Exact quote: "She repeats this term dozens of times, in order to drive home the idea, first suggested by the Rwandan ministry of defence in 1991..." (t · c) buidhe 15:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You should read the article as a whole, not just tiny bits in it that explicitly mention Rever. On the other hand, that quote is pretty straight forward. Saflieni (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, this article is getting worse and worse. That quote attributed to Dallaire isn't in his book. If you don't clean up your act I'm going to request this Wikipage to be removed.Saflieni (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Really? I found it easy to confirm with Google. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Google? I have the book. You have included a comment from a book reviewer in the quote. The first half of the quote is in the book and is part of a discussion of shared responsibility. It names everyone who could have done better, including Dallaire himself, but he leaves no doubt who has the ultimate responsibility: "those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it," meaning the extremist Hutu. Dallaire's remark referred to specific incidents, btw. Not the genocide as such. The way you put it suggests otherwise, like most of your article.Saflieni (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC) By the way: Have you read the book? I'm getting the impression you've only read reviews and have no idea how to distinguish between the accuracy of those reviews. I'm looking at that remark by Garrett about the book containing 33 pages of references and interview notes, for example, but if you look at those references most of them do not offer any useful information like the dates and places of interviews, or anything verifiable for that matter even in some cases where the note refers to an NGO or an official. You have uncritically copied too many remarks like this in your article and have added some of your own. Going by her own information in the book, Rever didn't start publishing critical articles on Rwanda until 2013. You make it look as though she has continuously worked on the case since her reporting in the DRC in 1997.Saflieni (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• BTW Rever noticed the article and tweeted that it is too critical of the book If neither side likes it, then I guess I might be getting NPOV approximately right. As for the notes, Caplan did point out that many of them aren't verifiable, but the article already cites Caplan more than any other source. To maintain NPOV, it isn't our role to decide which reviews are more "accurate" in our opinion, the article should state the opinion of all reviewers where WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 11:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, now we're entering the wonderful world of logical fallacies. You avoid the issues I raise by referring to a tweet from Judi Rever who is not completely happy with your article? The quote you attribute to Dallaire is not his. Remove it. The reference to Marchal is misleading. Remove it. Lemarchand's remark that falsely suggests what other scholar think you have found on a website and it has no reference. Remove it. The suggestive remarks by Garrett. Remove them. Etc. And you misrepresent the NPOV. You are giving undue weight to non-experts and their tendentious remarks. Their opinions are irrelevant when it comes to content. It's not your job to mention every opinion as if they're of equal importance. And it's certainly not your job to highlight nonsense. Like I said: clean up your act Buidhe. Misplaced Pages is a community project, not your personal toy!Saflieni (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• While I certainly don't own the page, you don't either. It's wrong to remove stuff because you don't agree or personally believe it's "misleading" or "nonsense", unless you can find a reliable source explicitly criticizing those reviews in which case that can be added to the article. As I showed above, the quote by Dallaire can be found in his book and you haven't come up with any reason to remove the Marchal quote (from a footnote, it's not being given undue prominence!) except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rever's book was marketed to a popular audience and discussed by both expert and non-expert reviewers. All are clearly identified with their credentials so the reader can judge their credibility, but the popular reaction to her book also needs to be covered for comprehensiveness. (t · c) buidhe 13:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't distort the discussion. I have already explained to you that you include a comment from a book reviewer into the quote that you attribute to Dallaire. Dallaire didn't say that. The rest of it he said in a different context. That's deliberately misleading. You are ignoring my other remarks as well. I agree the popular comments can be given a place in this article, but not in the way you do it. You are not conducting this discussing in good faith. About the nonsense remark: If non-experts (even experts) use fallacies to make a point, as an editor you should know better than to repeat them in a Wiki-article. If you can't, you should go find another hobby.Saflieni (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC) What I don't understand is why you don't read your own evidence. When I follow your link to google books I find exactly what I've been telling you. It seems you have copied an error in Caplan's 2018 article, where the actual quote and Caplan's remark were copied together from his 2003 review. Use this lesson to always check the original source.Saflieni (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• What error? It is common practice to add to clarify the meaning of a quote. It's true that I duplicated the ones that Caplan used but this is not considered misleading or erroneous. (Such insertions are explicitly allowed by MOS:QUOTE). (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop messing with me. You're presenting it as a quote from Dallaire's book. It is not. Only the first sentence is in his book. The rest is Caplan commenting on it. And the context is twisted. You keep forgetting that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a school paper.Saflieni (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you've now adapted the quote without an apology? It's still the wrong context and basically a lie when you write: 'Western observers have stated that the RPF prioritized taking power over saving lives or stopping the genocide.' Your article has too many similar suggestive remarks, making it an opinion piece, not a Misplaced Pages article. And for the last time: Laurie Garrett is not a credible source. She's not an expert, not even in an amateur fashion, and The Lancet is a medical journal with no competence at all in the field of genocide studies. Yet you've based a large part of the article on her uncritical review without checking accuracy. Epstein and several of the other commenters you mention are in that category. You can't expect people who consult Misplaced Pages to know all that, so clean it up.Saflieni (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have cleaned up the article. In the section Content I have removed sentences and remarks that are not in the book, either because they are mistakes in the reviews that were used as sources or because they are violations of "no original research" rules. In the other sections I have removed tendentious remarks, and suggestive remarks that have no reference in the original source (which is not a reliable source). Finally I have corrected a misrepresentation of Colette Braeckman's article, I have added a new source: Linda Melvern, and I have expanded a little the Hintjes and van Oijen summary as discussed before.Saflieni (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, since you're completely uncooperative and respond destructively to improvements, I am going to call it a dispute.Saflieni (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• I kept most of your additions. (BTW I do not subscribe to Le Soir, so will trust you on the full content of the article). The issues are that you are removing information that is relevant, for instance the information on RPF goals according to Marchal, Dallaire, and Caplan, as well as important background that no RPF leader was indicted by the ICTR. Also, please be wary of MOS:WTW. You can't insert "claimed" or "alleged" just because you disagree with some statement. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You keep ignoring my comments. Your use of sources is not balanced, giving undue weight to non-experts over peer reviewed research. Your selection of quotes from the non-expert sources and one expert is largely tendentious, not adding useful information but leaving the impression that Misplaced Pages supports one side of the controversy. You copy mistakes from several reviews because apparently you are not in possession of the original sources and therefore you didn't check them, which creates a problem with accuracy. In the 'Content' section, you added an academic source from long before the book was published that appears to support a suggestion made by a source but by doing that you become part of the debate and the controversy yourself. You misrepresent sources to suggest they support the book's premises when in fact they do the opposite. You add an unreferenced remark with footnotes that quote remarks from people who at first glance look like eye witnesses but in one case that's not true, and in the other case the witness made the remark in more nuanced context. I've explained all this. And it goes on and on. I have tried to advice you and correct the flaws of the article, but you are completely uncooperative and unreasonable. After my repeated requests to clean up the article, I decided to do it myself. I left the structure and most of the article text as it was, but made it a more balanced presentation of the book and the controversy it caused. However, you reversed it again, without bothering to discuss it on the Talk page. This is not acceptable behaviour. And stop suggesting I'm removing relevant information. I've called a third opinion. In the meantime please revert to my last edits.Saflieni (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Btw: I added 'alleged' to a statement that in the source is ascribed to an anonymous witness. There's no way of verifying that controversial statement and therefore 'alleged' is appropriate to warn readers that it's not a given fact.Saflieni (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC) I have just re-read Caplan's article and see that you've been cherry picking from this source as well. Stop adding more controversial content. Show some respect for the subject.Saflieni (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• You'll have to be more specific about the content that you think belongs in the article, keeping in mind that Caplan's article is 50 pages long and we have to summarize it in accordance with WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 14:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Caplan's article is 39 pages, 36 of them text, half of which deals with his own work and the gap between the books of Gourevitch and Rever, the other half analyses Rever's book. You have taken some soundbites from the part that is not about Rever, which is misleading. Caplan's analysis is quite damning but your description of it leaves a different impression. For example: In your reference to the questions raised by Samual Totten. you write that, regarding Rever's new allegations, the book raises those questions. This is not true. Totten questioned Rever's poor methodology and wonders, as does Caplan, why she did not raise those questions. Literally: "Rever’s book raises none of these questions, or other equally pertinent ones." So it's quite different: a demonstration of one of many aspects in which the book fails. In this case it's a relevant omission because the answers to those questions, according to Caplan, are not likely to lend a lot of support to Rever's theories. Another thing: Caplan spends a number of pages on the problem of the empty references which I brought up before. Literally: "It’s true that Rever scrupulously footnotes her information, as she did in this case, but the footnotes are too often entirely useless." He then provides a number of examples of empty references and after having established this fact he takes it a step further to show that even with a number of key witnesses essential information is lacking, such as with the anonymous UN investigator. Caplan writes: "“At least a half a million deaths” is a pretty enormous charge for an anonymous source to make without corroboration." (Hence my "alleged" suggestion). But the main question here is why you include the comments of a non-expert who makes one mistake after the other in her review (Garrett), who praises the book as great journalism based on non-arguments such as the mere fact that it contains 33 pages of references, when instead you could have quoted Caplan's elaborate critique on this aspect. If you would want to give a fair representation of Caplan's analysis, you could use this quote: "The main contribution of Rever’s book is that it presses all of us to give the uglier aspects of the RPF’s record the prominence they deserve," in combination with the essence of his criticism, summarized (by himself) as: "... there are too many unnamed informants; too many confidential, unavailable leaked documents; too much unexamined credulity about some of the accusations; too little corroboration from foreigners who were eyewitnesses to history." And since you're so keen on quoting another non-expert, Epstein, you should refer to Caplan's cautioning tale about her lack of expertise and the fact that, like Rever, she relies in part on the unreliable information of prominent genocide deniers. Better yet: get rid of Garrett and Epstein altogether and some of the others who represent the minority view. What's the point of having a dozen people who know nothing of the genocide repeat how wonderful the book? You can summarize that in a few sentences and give prominence to the scholars and journalists who are experts. Even then you should note that Lemarchand and Reyntjens represent a minority view in the academic world on this book and on the double genocide theory. The vast majority does not share their views. Your article doesn't make that clear either. And it lacks a point of view from the Rwandan side. Did you look for it? So all the praise from the non-experts combined with that of the only two scholars who carry her flag makes up a disproportionately large part of article, which is then amplified by the "awards" at the end, and the jury report. You can mention the awards, of course, but is anyone on those juries an expert so that you need to repeat the uninformed praise again? And why don't you get rid of the suggestive statements you have added that are not relevant to the subject of the book or the controversy it caused. Those statements refer to different discussions and should not be included here: "Western observers have stated that the RPF prioritized taking power over saving lives or stopping the genocide." This statement and the information in the footnotes that go with it you have inserted as an expression of opinion. It doesn't have a function otherwise and it's a controversial statement that lacks the 'other side'. The same can be said of your comment: "The ICTR never indicted a RPF leader, leading it to be labeled "victor's justice" by critics." In itself this statement may be true, but it's also a controversial topic and you don't connect it to the book. Final remark: I'm not quite sure why you keep removing the remarks from Hintjens and van Oijen about Rever's infiltration story, as if you are bent on hiding that information.Saflieni (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

1. regarding Rever's new allegations, the book raises those questions Yes, I meant that the book elicits these questions, not that explicitly states or answers them (which seems to be what Caplan means). If you know a better way to phrase that, be my guest.
2. the answers to those questions, according to Caplan, are not likely to lend a lot of support to Rever's theories
3. “At least a half a million deaths” is a pretty enormous charge for an anonymous source to make without corroboration I agree that raising the issues with sources may be WP:DUE, but is this particular claim? It's not out of the ballpark of other estimates, such as those published in the recent panel in Journal of Genocide Research.
4. a non-expert who makes one mistake after the other in her review Garrett actually won a Pulitzer for on the ground reporting in Zaire in the 1990s, so it's not like she knows nothing about Africa.
5. The vast majority does not share their views. on the book
6. I'm not quite sure why you keep removing the remarks from Hintjens and van Oijen about Rever's infiltration story, as if you are bent on hiding that information. Well, if it's raised at all it has to be raised in a manner compliant with WP:BLP and verifiable to what the source actually says. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Listen Buidhe, you have started this article without having read or understood many of the sources you cite and without comprehending the context and wider implications of the controversy, and when I tried to help out you just responded negatively and dismissive and you still maintain that attitude, even though you have little by little been adjusting details according to my suggestions. FGS drop the attitude and don't respond with fallacies and rationalizations or waving Misplaced Pages rules that are not relevant. Just correct your mistakes.

1. If you want to mention those questions, tell the truth: Rever is criticized for not raising and exploring those questions.
2. Read his comments that follow Totten's questions. If you don't understand it then don't discuss it in the Wiki-article.
3. Both of your references are not research articles and are not about Rever's subject but about estimating the number of Tutsi killed during the 1994 genocide. One of the other papers in that issue is a research article by a credible scholar, Marijke Verpoorten, which reports a rough estimate of Hutu's that have disappeared from the record during the 1990s. That figure is close to Rever's estimate of Hutu's killed, but implies something very different. Verpoorten's estimate includes all excess deaths and the causes of those deaths during that decade. So it includes the Hutu's killed during the genocide by Hutu-militias and military, the victims of the cholera and dysentery outbreaks in the refugee camps, the victims of aids, malaria and other untreated diseases, malnutrition and exhaustion due to the circumstances, and of course also victims of violence inflicted by RPA troops. This last category is usually estimated to about 5 or 10 % of what Rever suggests and is also quite different from what you are suggesting.
4. Your reference to Laurie Garrett's award is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. She knows nothing of Rwanda and the genocide. She received her award for her reporting on the Ebola crisis in Zaire in the mid 1990s. It has no connection at all to the subject we're dealing with here. If you suggest otherwise you'd by lying.
5. You are the creator and editor of this Wiki page. It's your job to establish the majority and minority views but you've failed to do that. Don't start demanding citations to prove your assumptions wrong. Have you found anyone besides those two elderly scholars who support their views? Most scholars ignore books and articles like Rever's because they have appeared on the market in a constant flow ever since the genocide. The difference is that this one was published by reputable publishing houses. I know the history of that process but this is not the right context to elaborate. But you can get an idea of the majority view by looking at the number of specialized scholars, journalists, activists and eye-witnesses who have signed petitions published by newspapers over the past several years. There was one in Le Soir last year, look it up.
6. This is disingenuous. The infiltrations story is an important element in Rever's book and is commented on in a peer reviewed journal article (Hintjens and van Oijen) that reports research on several of Rever's claims, including this one. My edit which you've removed represented the comments in their paper well: "On Rever's "infiltrations"-theory, that the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization, they recall a comparable suggestion by the Rwandan ministry of defence published in 1991. Overall, they state that "Rever's book does little more than recycle... earlier denial narratives and sources"."
7. You are avoiding the other issues again.Saflieni (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC) I can't keep wasting my time on this endless and pointless discussion, but urge you again to make sure you understand the information you use and avoid untrue and controversial statements. To illustrate this point, which I've already done with Marchal's remark about what he (didn't) see, below is the relevant part from Caplan's original review of Dallaire's book. Take my advice that reflective essays often contain inaccuracies because the author will be thinking out loud so to speak. In many cases they won't have checked or re-checked whether all the details are factually correct. On Misplaced Pages you can't treat a botched up quote in an article as if you know what it means. What you could do is look for the original source. You quote Caplan as: "Caplan is convinced that...", which is not a fair representation. You'll understand this better once you read Dallaire's book together with Caplan's original review in which he wrote:

"Instead of moving heaven and earth to end the killings, it was Rwanda's tragedy that just about everyone but Dallaire and his people had other agendas and interests. Shake Hands with the Devil explicitly spells out Dallaire's hierarchy of Rwanda's betrayers, and it's largely consistent with the findings of most students of the genocide. "The ultimate responsibility" lay with the power-hungry faction of Hutu extremists who surrounded the president and "planned, ordered, supervised and, eventually, carried out" the genocide. Second come both the United States and France. Before the genocide, the French gave unconditional advice, arms and international legitimation to the race-based Hutu dictatorship. During the genocide, they intervened militarily, allowing much of the unrepentant génocidaire leadership to escape into Zaire to fight another day, leading, in turn, to the subsequent appalling wars in central Africa. As for former U.S. president Bill Clinton, his sole priority, after 18 Rangers were killed in Somalia six months earlier, was to avoid any political backlash at home from having more American soldiers die in some obscure African country. At the expense of nearly one million Rwandans, he succeeded. Compared to these front-runners, Dallaire concludes, the failings of the UN Secretariat and of Belgium, while serious, "were not in the same league." But there is one unexpected addition to Dallaire's list, and it comes in the standings immediately after France and the United States. "The deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius, Paul Kagame who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear, and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsi might have to pay for the cause." Dallaire believes Kagame made an immoral choice in refusing to deviate from his strategy of defeating the government in order to save lives. Since Kagame is now the president of Rwanda, the likely impact of this dramatic charge should not be minimized." ] Your personal conclusion, which is a violation of NPOV, that "western observers have stated that the RPF prioritized taking power over saving lives or stopping the genocide is incorrect. Dallaire, according to Caplan, questioned Kagame's strategy in the context of saving more lives than they did (in the book Dallaire provides several examples of the RPF saving lives). Either way, it's relevant to Dallaire's book and Caplan's reflections, but not to a discussion of Rever's book on Misplaced Pages. Saflieni (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• First, your repeated WP:Assume bad faith is not very helpful here.
• I don't see how it's relevant what Caplan wrote in 2003. That review, obviously, does not discuss Rever's book. Also, Rever's book is not about the failings of France, US, etc., so it's clearly irrelevant here. Furthermore, Caplan explicitly states that he changed his position on the RPF between 2003 and 2018.
• The text you added on infiltrations is clearly unacceptable: ""On Rever's "infiltrations"-theory, that the RPF was pulling the strings of every organization..." Unless you can quote a passage in Rever's book where she actually says that the RPF was indeed "pulling the strings of every organization", I am skeptical that she actually wrote that.
• Your interpretation of what the article should look like clearly goes against WP:NPOV which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Your opinion is that a majority of scholars reject Rever's book. This may be accurate but if so you have to find a source that explicitly says so, otherwise it's original research. Also, leaving aside the unwarranted removal of Garret's review, published in a reliable source, you are removing the review by Bachman who has published multiple scholarly books on atrocities and mass crimes and therefore can be considered a subject matter expert.
• To be honest, if you want your POV to be represented on Misplaced Pages you would be better off publishing your own review on the book. You could explain in detail all the reasons why Rever's book is dead wrong. Which could then be included here with regard to WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• Unassessed Rwanda articles
• Unknown-importance Rwanda articles
• WikiProject Rwanda articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class military history articles
• Unassessed Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Unassessed Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles