Talk:In Praise of Blood/Archive 2

Comment Saflieni
Apparently I accidentally deleted text. My comment which was subsequently reverted copied here:


 * A word of advice: Editors and administrators may have so far failed to understand the polarization going on here because they have never heard of people like Ann Garrison or websites like Blackstarnews, and they may ignore the attacks against the integrity of scientists and historians, but this won't last forever. Of course it's not uncommon for people who are new to this subject to get excited over a sensational story that claims to reveal some dark hidden secrets and cover-ups. And before you know it they're citing activist websites and articles that confirm their belief and they'll start accusing mainstream experts who've seen it all before of being part of some big ugly scheme. But those scholars usually have a panoramic view of the available evidence and even though their conclusions may differ on details and occasionally they'll make mistakes or get in each other's hair, they tend to see the bigger picture. So when they publish research or review the literature and use models to explain their observations they're expanding our knowledge and understanding, not engaging in international conspiracies to suppress or blackmail journalists on behalf of some foreign regime, even if the subject is genocide denial. To suggest otherwise and make them responsible for alleged death threats, based on a website article which doesn't even say that, is really not a good sign of NPOV.


 * And please do not use edit summaries for debate or to "prove" me wrong or for all kinds of suggestive remarks, especially if those comments aren't even accurate.Saflieni (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REVTALK: "Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial... Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." Per WP:TPG, "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." So, let's get back to improving the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved is pretty clear. That's about what I said. So please abide by it.
 * My comment was a response to an unwarranted attack by HoC and the deteriorating state of the article.
 * HoC is well aware that their patronizing "let's get back to improving the article" is very annoying, especially since the article is not improving at all and debate is non existent since HoC took ownership. And please remember that the responsibility to behave is not limited to one Saflieni. Thank you.Saflieni (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You write "Avoid using edit summaries... to express opinions of the other users involved" with an edit summary of "Behave please". That says it all. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did. They're personal attacks claiming I'm dishonest in one way or another: that I mislead; misquote; make up information; refer to pages that don't support a claim; use wikivoice to accuse the author; use my own POV instead of the professional opinions of scholars and researchers I cite; and so on. They wouldn't be PAs if those summaries were accurate and truthful, but they're not. However, administrators and other editors read those comments without knowing the background and they form their opinions based on them. I needed to make that point. I've done that now, so let's carry on with other issues such as the many errors and non-RS introduced in the article over the last couple of weeks. Saflieni (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this revert by you, today: My edit summary described the change I made and why I made it. The proper response by you would be to show us some text from pp 228-230 where the book says there was a genocide "equal in scale and cruelty". The content of the article needs to represent what RS say. And I think we need a new section to discuss the claim made in that sentence. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No framing please. I restored my edit which was then reverted by HoC.Saflieni (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

House's six proposals as posted 19 December
''Need to do other things this morning, but here is some "sensible criticism" of the current draft.


 * 1 The autobiographical setting of the book is important but not mentioned in Content. Similarly, threats against Rever and family, another topic removed from the article.
 * 2 The book's background section has disappeared from Saflieni's draft, replaced by a section about Judi Rever. We should be cautious about assisting efforts by some Rwanda-genocide-activists to turn criticism of errors in a book into a personalized dogpile.
 * 3 The background of the book's story is important. The book repeatedly distinguishes between RPF (descendants of wealthy Tutsi who had fled Hutu oppression to Uganda, where they learned Museveni's techniques of internal warfare, then returned as invaders in 1990) and interior Tutsi, who had stayed in Rwanda and were slaughtered during the genocide.
 * 4 Quoting: "Most academics who publicly commented on In Praise of Blood acknowledged the reality of RPF war crimes..." Shouldn't the book's "content" mention the many (according to Caplan) already agreed-upon war crimes? Why only describe places Rever made mistakes? Also article should explain the difference between A. what the academics agree RPF did to Hutus and B. what more or different RPF would have had to have done before they would call it a genocide.
 * 5 The two bitter factions of Rwanda genocide scholars are relevant to the criticism section.
 * 6 There should be a uniform way to describe people, whether they praise or dispraise Rever. The simplest is just to use a wikilink in the case of those who have an article. No peacockery such as "investigative journalists with a long-standing reputation in this area."

Let's improve the article! HouseOfChange (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

House's six proposals with responses interjected

 * 1 The autobiographical setting of the book is important but not mentioned in Content. Similarly, threats against Rever and family, another topic removed from the article. (said HOC)
 * The autobiographical element is noted where it matters: she reported from the DRC. The threats are part of the sensationalism that drives the narrative. Personal threats, harrassment, etc. are unfortunately a reality for many researchers who work in this field. Both sides (RPF and opposition) are guilty of this but unverifiable examples on this topic which are used in the book as a tool to influence readers on an emotional level - 'I receive threats so I must be telling the truth and deserve sympathy and support' - shouldn't end up in Wikipedia unless the threats have been the subject of a judicial inquiry. Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If threats and harassment are frequent in this field, why do we excise them from Judi Rever's story? You are entitled (on the talk page, not in the article) to your opinion that she invented threats to get reader sympathy. But the book's major content should be described -- not endorsed, just described -- in the Content section. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my words again. I wrote that Rever's claims are unverifiable. How does that get changed into "my opinion" that she "invented" threats? You're not addressing my explanation.Saflieni (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 2 The book's background section has disappeared from Saflieni's draft, replaced by a section about Judi Rever. We should be cautious about assisting efforts by some Rwanda-genocide-activists to turn criticism of errors in a book into a personalized dogpile. (said HOC)
 * "some Rwandan genocide-activists" is tendentious. Who are you referring to? Using phrases like "dogpile" is rude and condescending. Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. But please suggest some short phrase (that doesn't offend you) to describe "people who study Rwandan genocide (but not necessarily in the sense of being academics) who also sign petitions calling Judi Rever a denialist." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you to specificy who you are referring to when you write: "some Rwandan genocide-activists" and "dogpile". Please answer the question.


 * 3 The background of the book's story is important. The book repeatedly distinguishes between RPF (descendants of wealthy Tutsi who had fled Hutu oppression to Uganda, where they learned Museveni's techniques of internal warfare, then returned as invaders in 1990) and interior Tutsi, who had stayed in Rwanda and were slaughtered during the genocide. (said HOC)
 * The problem with this type of content is that the "background"-information is incorrect. If you include it in the article, it would need a lengthy discussion to clarify that. You can't have an in-depth discussion about every other error in the book in an encyclopedia text.


 * 4 Quoting: "Most academics who publicly commented on In Praise of Blood acknowledged the reality of RPF war crimes..." Shouldn't the book's "content" mention the many (according to Caplan) already agreed-upon war crimes? Why only describe places Rever made mistakes? Also article should explain the difference between A. what the academics agree RPF did to Hutus and B. what more or different RPF would have had to have done before they would call it a genocide. (said HOC)


 * The article is about the book, the fringe theory Rever posits, and the controversy that it caused. A list of proven (or agreed-upon) RPF-crimes would be quite short because how would you objectively determine them without turning the article into an indictment? Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Caplan covers some of the accepted material ("Let me offer some further pertinent examples of what was already on the histori­cal record before anyone heard of Judi Rever." p 154) We can use that as RS. The article is about the book -- yes. Full stop. The article also covers book's content (including fringe theories) and book's reception (not just "controversy" about the least plausible parts of the book and attacks against its author.)  More background on RPF crimes, from HRW The subtitle of the book is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front." Focusing on the 1994 genocide but failing to discuss RPF crimes is unbalanced. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can mention them in general, which is already done with references to the literature. But as I explained, you can't discuss that without creating an indictment. If you do that, you would have to inform the readers of evidence to the contrary in a non partisan way. For instance the details of the assault on president Habyarimana's plane can be described as part of the book. But since a judicial inquiry has thoroughly investigated the allegations - including hearing most of the witnesses Judi Rever uses for her theory - found no evidence that would hold up in a court of law (most witnesses contradicted each other or their statements were contradicted by evidence from documents and forensic evidence), you would have to add a discussion of that investigation, its arguments and its results. I could do that easily, but I don't think a Wikipedia page about a controversial book is the place for that. More problematic are the controversial claims about crimes in the book for which no supporting evidence exists. The crimes that were selected by the ICTR prosecutor as sufficiently investigated to take to trial were the Byumba stadium massacre and the Kabgayi killings. The Kibeho massacre is important but is a complicated case. There's already a page on that, which needs some work. The Mapping report could be cited, but since that report states that "... the Mapping Exercise was not to establish or to try to establish individual criminal responsibility of given actors ...", you have to be careful not to do that yourself and having a trial out of court based on information not intended to that end.Saflieni (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 5 The two bitter factions of Rwanda genocide scholars are relevant to the criticism section. (said HOC)
 * "bitter factions of Rwanda genocide scholars" is another tendentious remark. Who is "bitter" and why? Who is not "bitter" and why? Who are the neutral ones? If that's a topic for Wikipedia, it should have its own page but it would be difficult to describe it in a neutral, disengaged manner.Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize you are not a native speaker of English, so... "two bitter factions" means "two factions that are bitterly divided", not "two factions that are both bitter" and certainly not "one bitter faction and one not-bitter faction." Another way to describe: there is a division is between people whose opinions are warmly embraced by Kagame, and people whose opinions would earn them a jail sentence (at best) if they were in Rwanda. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what "bitter" means. That is not what I asked. Please answer the question. The polarization is a volatile subject so I would definitely avoid it on Wikipedia until it has been investigated and described by historians who are not affected by it themselves - which means it might take another few decades. For instance, how would you determine who is warmly embraced and who rejected? This changes by the day depending on the situation. And who would be the RS sources in this context? Saflieni (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 6 There should be a uniform way to describe people, whether they praise or dispraise Rever. The simplest is just to use a wikilink in the case of those who have an article. No peacockery such as "investigative journalists with a long-standing reputation in this area."(said HOC)
 * There's a difference between on the one hand investigative journalists who were present in places that matter when the events unfolded; in Rwanda (e.g.Braeckman) or the UN (Melvern) and have written important books that have been extensively cited in the academic literature, and on the other hand a newbie (Epstein) or someone whose only credential on the subject is having written an error-ridden book review (Garrett). A small remark to make that distinction is in order. Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's improve the article! HouseOfChange (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You've repeated this line so often after an uninformed but dismissive discussion of my edits or arguments, suggesting that I don't try to improve the article, that I'm taking it as a personal insult. Where's the neutral uninvolved administrator we were promised? Saflieni (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Let's improve the article" is an invitation to anyone reading the sentence to be part of "us", the people at work on the article. Suggesting that others work on your draft is not an insult to your draft or a personal insult to you. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Explaining page re-factoring

 * WP:TPO: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts, you may wish to use the or  templates to quote others' posts." I numbered my points to make that easy for people. Rather than move your interjected comments, I am going to re-post my own statement at the top of this talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. You are twisting my words again. I wrote that Rever's claims are unverifiable. How does that get changed into "my opinion" that she "invented" threats? You're not addressing my explanation
 * 2. I asked you to specificy who you are referring to when you write: "some Rwandan genocide-activists" and "dogpile". Please answer the question.
 * 5. Similarly, who exactly are you referring to when you write "bitter factions"? Who are in these factions, according to which reliable sources?


 * NB: A general remark to all the editors of this page, present and future ones: Please don't ignore the WP:CIR advice mentioned here []: "... avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." I'm not allowed to discuss it but somebody should. Saflieni (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

'Don't hide my remarks and questions, HouseOfChange. Nobody made you the chief editor and nobody made you the administrator.'


 * 1. You are twisting my words again. I wrote that Rever's claims are unverifiable. How does that get changed into "my opinion" that she "invented" threats? You're not addressing my explanation
 * 2. I asked you to specificy who you are referring to when you write: "some Rwandan genocide-activists" and "dogpile". Please answer the question.
 * 5. Similarly, who exactly are you referring to when you write "bitter factions"? Who are in these factions, according to which reliable sources?
 * NB: A general remark to all the editors of this page, present and future ones: Please don't ignore the WP:CIR advice mentioned here []: "... avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." I'm not allowed to discuss it but somebody should. Saflieni (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Saflieni (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Your demands are off-topic for article talk page = not relevant to improving the article. Briefly: 1) I got the impression that you disbelieved Rever from this: unverifiable examples .. [of threats] .. used in the book as a tool to influence readers on an emotional level - 'I receive threats so I must be telling the truth and deserve sympathy and support' - shouldn't end up in Wikipedia unless the threats have been the subject of a judicial inquiry. 2 and 5. Irrelevant to improving the article. Feel free to hat this yourself, the code is easy. Now...let's improve the article! HouseOfChange (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you are being disruptive. Don't tell me I'm off topic when I ask you to explain the things you write on this Talk page. You have repeatedly attacked scientists with abusive language and tendentious remarks. This is the second time you are hiding my remarks. And please stop posting lies on my Talk page and on Noticeboards. Saflieni (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This analysis (relevant to above discussion, and to the article) has also been quoted verbatim by Helen Hintjens: "Even scholarly and analytical writings tend to be pigeonholed by their critics as either apologias for or attacks upon Paul Kagame and the RPF."

Please discuss and improve the "Introduction" draft
Consider the lead of Gone With the Wind (novel) -- it does not begin by saying "The book describes cruel treatment of slaves and has been denounced for advancing racism"? One introduces a book by describing its main themes, not by singling out the parts that have been most criticized. You will see that the lead of that article DOES introduce its controversial elements, and that the body proceeds to discuss them in detail.

The current introduction says, accurately: "The book describes war crimes by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) that occurred before, during, and after the Rwandan genocide (against Tutsi)." You propose to remove this description of the BOOK with a description of claims made against it: "In Praise of Blood describes an alternative version of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and a secret genocide against Hutu committed by units of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)...Genocide scholars denounced the double genocide theory." IPOB is about crimes by the RPF fron 1990 onward, it is not an alternative version of the Rwandan genocide in 1994.(IPOB pp 229–230 "There is no part of this book that denies the genocide...There is no question that after Habyarimana's death, the [Hutu] hardliners chose genocide. ...But this book is not an examination of the dynamics of that 1994 genocide of Tutsis.)

The events of 1994 are only a small portion of the book. The book never mentions "double genocide." The books message is that decades of RPF war crimes have been hidden. The book's message is not that the RPF's tactics in 1994 caused or excused the Rwandan genocide. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Only you believe that. Why should Wikipedia become a poster for your extremely isolated minority view? Let me repeat this for the last time: Rever herself calls the RPF crimes genocide in her book. She says she adheres to the double genocide theory in a number of interviews and on her Twitter account. All the academics and most journalists discuss it and comment on it, the positive ones and the critical ones. Throughout the book Rever claims that the RPF provoked the Tutsi-genocide, ignited it, spurred it on, etc. as a strategy to seize power. I've given you all those examples from the book. You're just trying to get on my nerves again with your never ending contradictions so you can run to some Noticeboard and force your POV. Saflieni (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC) FYI: even the most notorious genocide deniers claim they're not genocide deniers.

Saflieni (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am here to help build an encyclopedia, . My point above is that the Rwandan genocide is part of the book, but not the main theme of the book. Our goal on the talk page is to create an article that describes the book itself as well as the criticisms that others have made concerning it. Both should be described in an unemotional NPOV way. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't build an encyclopedia on ignorance. The brief introduction of my version reflects what's in the rest of the article. It starts with the title of the book which already states "crimes of the RPF". The second sentence includes the fact that it's about a secret second genocide against Hutu. My version of the article gives a fair representation of the book's content, of Rever's background as a journalist, it presents all the relevant comments expressing a range of different viewpoints and it gives the last word to Rever. What you have done is the opposite: you just pile up favorable opinions by non-experts even if they contain untruths, and your polarizing language on the Talk page suggests you're a fan, not a neutral editor and you shouldn't be working on this article.Saflieni (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're correct that genocide deniers do not self-identify as such. The talking point of Armenian genocide deniers is "I have not denied genocide because there was no genocide." But Rever does not say that there was "no genocide" against Tutsi. You just have to look at Caplan's review to realize that you're misrepresenting the book in this version. Even though he considers many of the claims unproven, Caplan spends most of the time looking into what she says about RPF crimes during their occupation of northern Rwanda before 1994, mass killings of Hutu in Congo, etc. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't read the book. Stop leaving comments as if you have. And you misunderstand the critiques including Caplan's, we've discussed this at length. This discussion is not about the reality of RPF war crimes in general, which everybody accepts (note that the experts say there are no revelations in the book). It's about what Rever says about them in her book and in which context.Saflieni (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Because HoC keeps referring to it I took another look at the concluding chapter Remembering the Dead where Rever summarizes and explains her book. She spends 212 words on RPF crimes; 313 words on acknowledging the genocide against the Tutsi to suggest she's not a denier; 377 words shifting the responsibility for the genocide against the Tutsi to the RPF; 562 words on her argument that RPF crimes against Hutus constitute a second genocide; 92 words on the RPF continuing the alleged Hutu genocide after 1994; and 442 words on what she believes was the reason behind the RPF "strategy" (of provoking/participating in the Tutsi genocide and committing a second genocide) - to seize power with impunity, aided by the US. Saflieni (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and, here is what Caplan says, p. 168: "Rever had such an immediate, destabilizing influence on the world of orthodox Rwandan scholarship .. because she totally eschewed the orthodox Rwandan narrative. She had only one story to tell: The deplorable, bloody record of the RPF from the day it was founded, as it invaded Rwanda from Uganda, through the geno­cide, and on to the ferocious wars in the Great Lakes area of Africa thereafter....In effect, Rever’s book reminds genocide scholars they had largely ignored a significant aspect of the RPF record.' (Caplan 2018, p. 168.)"
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We need to create an NPOV article about a controversial book, including, of course, criticism of the book. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't change the subject. We were discussing if Rever's book is about double genocide. Caplan writes that the book leaves "little doubt that the RPF under President Kagame is indeed guilty of war crimes, though not of genocide." (p. 186) The criminal record of the RPF as such is not in dispute, as Caplan and many others (and I) keep saying, and Rever is commended for drawing attention to it. But, according to Caplan, she goes overboard with "her many unsubstantiated allegations," on which he comments, saying: "We need to get a grip here." (p. 183). Caplan comments on her poor methodology, the many unreliable and obscured sources that "undermine her credibility", and her empty references several times throughout his article. He concludes that the unsubstantiated allegations need to be tested by researchers (which is being done, btw) and that scholars in general need to give this aspect of history more prominence in their work, but he rejects her (Hutu-)genocide argument. You can't highlight one thing and ignore the rest.Saflieni (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Genocide by RPF against Hutus is one of the topics discussed in the book. Your repeated claim that and I want to ignore it is false. Rwandan genocide is an important topic of the book but it is not the central topic of the book. Your repeated claims that this book is "about genocide", and even more your efforts to center accusations that Rever is a genocide denier, are inappropriate. They violate WP:BALASP and your clumsy methods repeatedly violate WP:POV and WP:BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Before the book was published, she was largely unknown" (according to Caplan)
This is a misleading claim by Gerald Caplan, which should not be in the article. During the years before her book was published, Judi Rever was well-known to Rwanda dissidents, because of her many articles criticizing Paul Kagame, e.g. 2013, 20132015, 2015. She was well enough known that already in 2014 a news story notes "Judi Rever, an investigative journalist, has been documenting crimes that are being blamed on Kagame and his party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front."

Elsewhere in his article, Caplan wonders why Rwanda dissidents chose to tell their stories and forward their damning documents to Judi Rever. He is puzzled that those dissidents didn't choose instead to get in touch with the well-known "friends of Rwanda" who write about genocide against Tutsis rather than "war crimes of the RPF" (the topic of Rever's book.) Their choice isn't so puzzling when you realize that Judi Rever's past work gave them hope she would listen. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a good point. I agree that this should be dropped. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The assumptions are false. Rever's book states that she was approached "unprompted" by her main source, an RPF dissident, in 2012 who put her in touch with other informants. She also writes about meeting Faustin Twagiramungu, a rival of Kagame, in Canada in May 2013. He gave her a bundle of documents and in the acknowledgments of her book she thanks him for his assistance finding other sources. She was in touch with defence lawyers too during that period. Rever started writing critical articles about Rwanda after those meetings. Saflieni (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on the book (IPOB), is mistaken. JR describes (IPOB 49) a conference she attended in 2007 where she met Alison des Forges, who told her of Rwanda atrocities and of Montreal human rights lawyer Luc Côté, whose United Nations investigation into "atrocities in the Congo and Rwanda" - had been stifled. Côté quickly became an important source in JR's research. When Côté's draft report leaked to Le Monde in 2010, Rever quickly filed a story about it.(POB page 51, .) So Rever was in touch with and visible to Kagame critics well before 2012. It is misleading as well as off-topic to showcase Caplan's vague claim that until 2018 she was "unknown." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And of course you have to contradict me again for the hundredth time. You were talking about Rwanda dissidents who according to you knew Rever because of her many articles published from 2013 onwards. Yes Rever interviewed Coté in 2010 and published an article. I've already mentioned this myself. But Coté isn't a Rwandan dissident, is he? And he didn't contact Rever because he had read her articles in 2013. Saflieni (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Talking about whether or not this Wikipedia article should parrot Caplan's claim (JR was unknown before 2018), I said she was known to dissidents before 2018. Maybe I should have ignored your irrelevant claim that she was unknown before 2012. The talk page is to discuss the article, so talk about the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Largely unknown. Did many people know her outside Canada, except for a few insiders? I don't think so. Besides, you suggested a theory which doesn't correspond to the book, which is what I responded to. The information you countered with doesn't check out either. Contrary to your suggestion, Rever doesn't write that Alison Des Forges told her about Luc Coté. Also, there is no indication that she interviewed Coté more than once or that he quickly became an important source in her research, like you suggest. You speculate that Rever was contacted by dissidents because a couple of years before she had written an article about the Mapping report (like everyone else) but the book suggests something different: Rever writes that the dissident who first contacted her in 2012 did so after she had reached out to exiled RPF officials. "Unprompted" she claims, but it's quite plausible to think that they checked her out, came to the conclusion that she could be moulded into their uncritical spokesperson, and sent someone to reel her in. Either way, it's all speculation. We better stick to what the RS say and to what is in the book, don't you think? Saflieni (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * stick to what the RS say and to what is in the book: Yes. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you agree, then restore what you deleted. Another point I want to settle is your notion that Rever's book is not about genocide but about war crimes. First of all she writes that the RPF and Tutsi civilians provoked the genocide against the Tutsi, participated in it and spurred it on, and she qualifies RPF war crimes targeting Hutu as another genocide. Take a look at the summary on her website where she confirms this . Saflieni (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Start a new section if you want to start a new topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss and improve the new Contents section
Based on the suggestion by, I drafted a brief neutral summary of the book. Based on this discussion, it had general approval as an outline, with both and  wanting some minor changes. So now it is in the article, so please make improvements and we can discuss them here in this section. It will be easier to discuss if people correct one problem with each edit, rather than putting in multiple changes in a single edit.

Meanwhile, I am working to draft a book-reviews section for "Reception" and Saflieni has volunteered to create a balanced summary of expert response. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I had some major objections because you circumvented the neutrality we agreed on by adding opinions and value judgments by non-experts in the references. I had a few objections to the text as well. So, rather than continue to quarrel over all kinds of details, I'm suggesting a rough draft for a neutral text below. If acceptable I'll add the references and look at the make up. My aim is to reduce as much as possible quotes, opinions and suggestive remarks from this first part of the article. I will propose an alternative Reception section later today or tomorrow. A word of advice on Garrett's article: I have just re-read it and notice that about three quarters of it consists of factual errors. Saflieni (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Title: In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front is a 2018 non-fiction book by Canadian journalist Judi Rever and published by Random House Canada.


 * Introduction:
 * In Praise of Blood describes an alternative version of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and a secret genocide against Hutu committed by units of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The book was lauded in the popular press as a groundbreaking feat of investigative journalism but the overall reception by experts and survivor organizations was critical. Genocide scholars questioned the author’s methodology and denounced the double genocide theory as having no basis in science.


 * Career:
 * The first chapters of In Praise of Blood recount Rever’s early career as a reporter for Radio France Internationale in 1997 when she covered the aftermath of the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A three year stint as correspondent for Agence France Press (AFP) in Ivory Coast followed. Rever moved back to Canada in 2001 to raise a family. When in 2010 she had the opportunity to interview Luc Coté about a United Nations report on war crimes in the DRC she resumed writing about Africa. Two years later she was contacted by Théogène Murwanashyaka, a former RPA officer who would become the main informant of her book. From 2012 onwards Rever devoted her career to a full time investigation of RPF war crimes. The first critical articles on Rwanda based on her own research appeared in 2013 in Jeune Afrique and Le Monde Diplomatique. She also wrote for The Globe and Mail and contributed the foreword to Victoire IngabireUmuhoza's 2017 book Between 4 Walls of the 1930 Prison: Memoirs of Rwandan Prisoner of Conscience..


 * Content:
 * In Praise of Blood describes war crimes in Rwanda and the DRC which according to Rever’s sources were committed by the RPF under the leadership of Major General Paul Kagame, the current president of Rwanda, during the 1990s. Based largely on interviews with Rwandan dissidents and army deserters living in exile in Europe and North America and confidential documents from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) leaked to Rever by anonymous sources, the book discusses three periods during which these crimes took place: The Rwandan civil war of the early 1990s, the genocide and its aftermath in Rwanda, and the subsequent wars in the DRC. Rever qualifies the RPF crimes against Hutu civilians as a genocide comparable in scale and cruelty to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. The book accuses the RPF of having sown mistrust by infiltrating the political parties and the extremist Hutu militia during the the early 1990s, of creating fear with its incursions in northern Rwanda which caused hundreds of thousands of displaced people to gather in camps around Kigali, and finally to have shot down President Habyarimana’s plane on 6 April 1994 to use the ensuing chaos and mass killings to generate sympathy for its military campaign to grab power. The book suggests that during the genocide members of the RPF disguised as Interahamwe militia fueled and perpetuated the genocidal violence by participating in the killing of Tutsi civilians at roadblocks. RPF massacres of Hutu civilians described in the book include Byumba, Kibeho, Karambi, Gabiro, Gikongoro.  Rever writes that the RPF employed Nazi methods to secretly transport hundreds of thousands of Hutus to death camps in remote areas such as the Akagera National Park where they were killed and incinerated, leaving barely a trace. Her discussion of RPF crimes against Hutu refugees in the DRC draws in part from her personal experience. Rever argues that while suspects of the genocide against the Tutsi have been put on trial at the ICTR, these crimes committed by the RPF have been left unpunished.


 * your version is in many ways excellent but the introduction section is neither accurate nor neutral. The book does not give "an alternative version of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda." That is a talking point of the people trying to discredit her as a denialist, it is not what the book says or tries to say. "Double genocide" is a phrase that Rever never once uses in her book, it is another RPF talking point effort to use guilt by association to muddle what she does say with related but different things said in the past. We won't present those talking points in Wikipedia's voice. I have a few more objections to the text below, but in general you have created an excellent summary. (update) To clarify, I would like to use YOUR version and not MY version as the basis for the Content section, but it needs a few changes. Thank you for the work you put into this. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but please avoid the polarization by referring to RPF talk. I'm going by what scholars say, not politicians or whoever else says something. Rever doesn't have to use the phrase herself but that's the theory she unfolds in her book: two genocides happening side by side, one against Tutsi and one against Hutu, ergo: double genocide. She calls herself a revisionist for a reason, hence alternative version. The same goes for the blame shifting in the case of the Tutsi genocide. Rever suggests planning, provoking, starting and fueling the genocide on the part of the RPF which is also an alternative version compared to the generally accepted history. Btw I have a proposal for the Reception section(s). Not completely happy with it so I'll look at it again tomorrow and post it then. I've worked in a brief description of implicatory denial since it comes up in a couple of reviews. I'll add references over the weekend. Saflieni (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The book IPOB uses the word "genocide" more than 300 times, nearly every one of those refers to the genocide against Tutsi. The book accuses RPF of mass killings of civilians that were centrally-planned and racially motivated. She does not present those crimes (committed mostly by RPF soldiers against Hutus) as equivalent to the brutal mass-murders of Tutsis that resulted from the hateful campaign by Habyarimana's government to distract unhappy Hutus from his autocratic rule by inflaming them against Tutsis. Therefore, calling what Rever describes "double genocide" is misleading.


 * Similarly, anti-Rever militants overstate what she says about the role of the RPF in "potentiating" (to quote her website, it means "to increase the likelihood or power") of genocide by Hutus. Based closely on the ICTR report (now readable online), she says the RPF trained "technicians" (IPOB p 66 ff) whose goal was to destabilize the Habyarimana regime. Most of the training was for killing and sabotage, but one part was "intelligence." Some but not all the "intelligence" technicians were assigned to Kigali, and some from this Kigali group (if they could pass as Hutu) were assigned to infiltrate Hutu extremists. One of the tactics of these technicians was to encourage violence against local Tutsi. Describing (based largely on ICTR) what some "technicians" tried to do in a few places, Rever was not blaming nationwide Hutu genocide against hundreds of thousands of Tutsis on the RPF. And this article should not be claiming she was. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with what HouseOfChange is saying and also: if you need to specifically explain jargon, it's a good sign that too much jargon is being used, and likely puts too much emphasis on this particular POV. Just "XX says that the book denies genocide because of Y and Z" is enough. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * At minimum we need reliable and verifiable sources for this content before considering whether it should be added to the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The version that becomes stable in the article must be a consensus version. That means it must satisfy at least two of the three of us, (or else that we need to ask other people to help us reach consensus.) Although the "career" and "content" sections proposed by are basically good, the "introduction" is not neutral. Instead of describing the main emphasis of Rever's book (that RPF war crimes have been covered up) it showcases claims her critics make (interrupted only by a brief mention of praise in "the popular press.") Let's skip that "introduction," just start with Career and then Content. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I keep advising you both to read the book and try to understand what she says. Don't just use the search function of your ebook. I'll go over the points you make:
 * 1) You're polarizing again. Don't use "anti-Rever militants" because it's stereotyping and implies you're a pro-Rever militant.
 * 2) It's not just the scholars and journalists but also Rever herself who says she has espoused the double genocide theory and it's evident from her work as I've explained. Are you better informed than the rest of the world?
 * 3) The ICTR report has been on-line for more than two years. The technicians story in that report is largely based on the testimony of a single witness, Abdul Ruzibiza, who Rever describes as a controversial figure and a liar. Remember that it's not a final report but an internal communication between the team and their boss, the ICTR prosecutor. Everything has to be read in context. You might want to pay attention to the fact that this report supports some but not all of the claims Rever makes in her book.
 * 4) About the "potentiating" remark: I've already explained it but let me use a few quotes from the book: "Kagame and his Ugandan-raised colleagues provoked and nourished Rwanda's 1994 genocide in order to seize power and hang on to it for a very long time. They potentiated the violence by infiltrating the Interahamwe in Kigali, Butare and Ruhengeri, and urging these youth militia to kill even more Tutsis. RPF commandos also infiltrated Hutu political parties and their youth militias to sow division, engage in ethnic baiting and foment violence. These commando agitators egged on the violence, murdered Hutu politicians and killed Tutsis at roadblocks. These sinister, premeditated and deliberate acts fed the savagery. Infiltrating enemy ranks, fueling violence and engaging in false flag operations were vintage tactics (...).“; "(...) RPF technicians infiltrated the lnterahamwe and killed Tutsis at roadblocks to help spur the violence (...)"; "(…) a growing body of evidence now shows that Tutsi civilians betrayed and killed their Hutu neighbors in the same way that Hutus turned on Tutsis. The dynamic at work was chillingly similar.”; “These Tutsis -both abakada and civilians loyal to the RPF government and army- committed unspeakable atrocities against Hutus, crimes comparable to those committed by Hutu civilians and lnterahamwe.” And so on. You may also want to look at the quotes Rever uses, such as the one highlighted by Caplan which says the RPF were worse than the nazis. And then there's the comparable death toll of both genocides in her double genocide theory ("... upwards of 500,000 mainly Hutu civilians were massacred," in RPF controlled areas).
 * 5) Consensus is not a majority vote but about getting it right. We've been over this.
 * 6) If scholars and survivors use a different definition of genocide denial than Rever, this needs a few words to explain otherwise readers won't understand the controversy. Saflieni (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read the book. I have read WP:CONSENSUS. If the book actually made Kagame rather than Hutus the reason for genocide against Tutsis, it is remarkable that early reviews inc. Caplan's failed to mention such a shocking claim. This talking-point against Rever emerged later, from cherry-picking and groupthink. Certainly it should be discussed in Reception, but it isn't a major focus of her book (even though it is a major focus point among her angriest critics.) Now let's get back to improving the article. I look forward to your suggested text for Reception. Why don't you work on that, and I can easily put the appropriate references into the text you suggested for Contents. You will see that quotes in references do NOT appear inside the section where they are cited, but at the bottom of the page. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are censoring essential information, you insult scientists who criticize the book and you do it in a polarizing tone. First you insist - as the only person in the world - that the book is not about double genocide. Even Buidhe has included that information when he created the page. You've missed and now dismiss the important fact that Rever accuses the RPF of provoking, fueling and perpetuating the genocide against the Tutsi as a tool to come to power, despite the quotes from different parts of the book. You could take a look at what she says in interviews too. Here's an example from 2018 : "The new elements, I explain that in the capital in Kigali and in other regions, the RPF commandos infiltrated in the months before the genocide the Interahamwe militias and other militias and [that these commandos] have participated directly in the massacre of Tutsis. This is a very new and shocking element." Indeed. Even Theogene Rudasingwa, Kagame's fiercest rival and critic, was shocked and called the allegation downright callous. If you want to keep turning this page into your private fantasy, we're getting nowhere. Saflieni (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The material you want to emphasize is not the major focus of the book. The major point of the book, which is obvious when you read to the end her "Conclusion," is that hiding the crimes of the RPF has distorted Rwanda history and made true reconciliation impossible. The material you want to emphasize is a major focus of Rever's critics, so it will be part of the "Reception" section. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No HouseOfChange, this is the knowledge gap again. Look at the long quote of point 4 in my explanation above, about the provoking and nourishing the genocide. I took it from the concluding chapter. If you read on from there you'll get to this: "Had the ICTR investigated the causes and consequences of events in Rwanda in 1994, central Africa would be very different today. Understanding the political conspiracy that lay behind RPF crimes is essential to piercing the regime's continuing capacity to deceive. By April 1994, Rwanda had effectively become a Hobbesian trap, where fear, self-protection and a preemptive strike seemed the only option." Rever's message is that the RPF were behind everything with a cunning, self serving ploy (made possible by US support); even if the RPF didn't kill all the Tutsis themselves, they provoked it, ignited it, spurred it on, and then stood aside while secretly committing a second genocide. The descriptions of crimes in the book - some are true, some are exaggerated, some are fake - serve to illustrate/prove her theory. Saflieni (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the theme of the book is "The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front." It is not "double genocide," nor is it "Kagame attempted to provoke violence agains Tutsis." As to the latter, a quote from The London Review of Books is relevant": "The RPF expected a quick military takeover; the human cost – Guichaoua quotes one senior RPF cadre who anticipated that 'maybe five thousand, at the most, twenty thousand' Tutsi civilians would die as a result – was a price they were prepared to pay." Back to working on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw your notice. You should thank me for spending so much time trying to educate you on this subject. I was refining the Reception section in my sandbox but pulled it out to await the result of your new campaign. Saflieni (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your insults and preening distract me, so I would like them to stop. Use your own talk page to reply to messages left there, please. They are off-topic on an article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Really... You've been off topic from the start with your "attack" allegations, searching for dirt on Twitter to discredit bona fide scholars, and stereotyping critical voices as "ant-Rever militants".
 * For anyone else then, I've parked my proposal for "Reception" and an additional section "Double Genocide" here: Saflieni (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This draft (and your others) need inline citations to the RS they are based on. See WP:PROVEIT for the policy and CITE for guidelines. For the "Contents" section, we can meet your desire to avoid opinions in the references if we cite claims to page numbers in Rever's book. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update I have used the Content draft by Saflieni as the basis for a new draft now in the article. Based on Saflieni's objection to sourcing facts about the book to reviews of the book, I used on citations of page numbers in IPOB. So and, I hope we can now move more quickly toward consensus. Please discuss. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is pretty good but in some places it needs to be more explicit in attributing assertions to Rever's book, to avoid the impression that they are facts in wikivoice. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point! Yes, we want to avoid making it sounds as if anything Rever says in her book is endorsed here by wikivoice. Can you suggest some improvements, or would you like to build yet another draft of the book's contents? I am hoping that we can start moving again on building the article. HouseOfChange (talk)

Regarding a second proposed draft for Contents, this one based on Saflieni's but edited by HouseOfChange
EdJohnston, HouseOfChange is continuing to edit without consensus, stealing bits and pieces from my draft without permission, messing it up in the process. If you don't take charge I will. Saflieni (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interest of harmony, I replaced "my" draft with "your" draft, after adding citations (it had none) and using for citations only book pages, because you had objected to the "contents" citing reviews. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're not telling the truth. Besides, the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. What you did was badly written, biased, and showed no understanding of the subject again. Why don't you find another, less demanding project? Saflieni (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * When asked us to work on new drafts for the article (here and here), he did NOT say "you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus." Nor does Wikipedia policy say that. Per BRD, I should edit the article Boldly, and you are entitled to Revert my edit. Next we should Discuss on the Talk page to get consensus. Please propose improved text for "Contents," so we can move forward on creating an article about this book. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I quote: "Since there have been hot disputes, my guess is that we will need either a formal WP:RFC to settle the wording, or a series of talk page agreements in which several people give their explicit approval. One way to approach this is to start from a very simplified version of the article that doesn't say much as to who is right (or which group engaged in mass murder), and then expand it by a series of agreements. (EdJohnston, 6 December"
 * We all agreed to it - explicit approval, a series of agreements - but it never materialized. The "neutral" precondition immediately went flying out the window too. I asked to extend the ban on the article because I knew what would happen, and it did. Like I've said several times before: I can explain everything in depth and I've tried to do that, but everything bounces off of your beliefs, which are based on... what exactly? Saflieni (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is important, but like I told you above, no one has a veto power over article content—that's WP:OWNership. Nothing EJ wrote suggested otherwise; even if he did, policy takes precedence. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, . EdJohnston's "my guess is that we will need.." was very vague, and I doubt that he meant what Saflieni hoped that he meant. Note that did not object to my adding the Contents draft we had just discussed -- even after  complained on his talk page twice--first on Dec. 10 and again on Dec. 13. Can we get back to suggesting improvements for the article? HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ambiguous about "explicit approval". You're avoiding the question: what are your beliefs based on, aside from Rever's book and a couple of book reviews by non-experts?Saflieni (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

For the purpose of improving this article, I have now read quite a lot of scholarly research and dispute concerning the RPF, the Rwandan Revolution, Rwandan Civil War, First Congo War (not so much the Second) and of course Rwandan Genocide. Linda Melvern and Gerald Caplan, both of whom strongly criticize Rever, are impressive. René Lemarchand and Filip Reyntjens, who support her, are also impressive. Lemarchand seems the best of these four. Some experts are much less impressive, with articles more like polemic than like scholarship. Now let's get back to working on the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, reading literature is a step in the right direction, so good for you. But don't get ahead of yourself. I've said it before: genocide is not a subject you pick up in a few days or even a few years, much like any other academic field. This one is even more complex because it is a crossroads of different disciplines - criminology, forensic science, history, sociology, anthropology, political science, law, psychology... You're judging and ranking scholars but how and why you don't tell, nor how you relate your assessment to the subject of Rever's book. Anyway, my draft is a good basis. It covers all the different viewpoints and the relevant points of debate in the controversy. I suggest we refine it and replace the current version with it.Saflieni (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * We already *are* working with modified versions of your draft for the contents section. You seem to reject any changes that weren't approved in advance, but that's not how collaboration works on Wikipedia. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are taking a few sentences from my draft and use them out of context to support your narrative, just like you do with the quotes you select from reviewers.Saflieni (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to move forward on the Contents. I suggest you pick whichever draft you think best, and put that into the article. Then it will be good if we can move forward using WP:BRD, using short edits with good edit summaries. That way we can have talk page discussion on one topic at a time. instead of reverting, please instead replace brief stretches of content with your own version of what you think should be there. Then on the Talk page, explain the RS or policy behind your edit. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the announced neutral uninvolved administrator. Or get arbitration.Saflieni (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire point of uninvolved administrators is that they don't decide content. ARBCOM also does not address content disputes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but they can decide on my many failed attempts to get the article to conform with Wikipedia policy regarding articles (about) promoting fringe theories, the accuracy and due weight issues, the tendentious statements that I've been opposing and trying to correct from the beginning. They could look at your repeated false accusations against me allegedly misrepresenting sources and misquoting to force my POV. And they can take a look at my many attempts to educate you on the contents of the book, such as it being about double genocide, which you kept contradicting. And they might look at your personal attacks against scientists to suggest they have hidden agendas, being militants, and so on. Not to mention your many unsubstantiated accusations of my bias etc. It would be nice if somebody did that, instead of just taking your word for it as the other administrators have done so far.Saflieni (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

In this section we are discussing a new draft for "Contents". I do not agree to leave the article stuck in its disputed December 10 state. I would prefer if would post a new draft for Contents into the article, which we can then work on. Also, I tagged the current version as "confusing" with POV problems. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a third proposed draft for Contents, beginning with one taken verbatim from Saflieni's proposal

 * I have made a new draft which is not confusing. Haven't seen any sensible comments on it yet. Saflieni (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have inserted your draft for "Content" verbatim. Glad to start from there and work on improving it. I will start by cleaning up references and adding some paragraphing. One obvious problem is that (after the first paragraph) this draft discusses 1994 genocide in excessive detail including links to many POV references, but gives no description of pre-1994 or post-1994 content. This needs to be changed. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Overall comment: The purpose of the "Content" section is to describe the book in an NPOV way. It emphasizes things the BOOK emphasizes. The draft we are working on emphasizes instead the points in the book that CRITICS considered weak points. Instead, the "Reception" section is where we focus on what critics most disliked about the book. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just another example of not cooperating. Instead of answering my request to provide sensible comments to my draft you skip that step and the discussion to reach consensus and just do with it as you please. The article is not getting any better this way. And if you go on about NPOV etc. you might argue your case first with examples and the reasoning behind it. Saflieni (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't one of you open an WP:RFC about any of the unresolved issues about the Contents section. Or if not an RfC, at least describe a single item that needs a decision and collect the opinions pro and con here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * : please describe one or more of the issues you see. Or make your own edits to the article -- not massive reverts again, please, but suggested text changes to what's there now. I don't know how to file an RfC but I will stop editing a while to give you a chance to improve the article. I thought it was (yet another) gesture toward consensus start from your draft, verbatim, in the article. Your response, "" is yet another example of attacking editors rather than discussing content. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeh, yeh, everything I do or say is an attack ... Listen, I've made a compact article proposal which contains all the viewpoints in proportion to weight, have included African voices (one of them a Rwandan academic), and I've kept your wishes in mind regarding Epstein, Garrett, Caplan, Hintjens, Rever's final word, etc. So instead of cutting it up and ruining it, make sensible comments and suggest how to refine or expand it. And speaking of attacks EdJohnston, don't engage in it yourself by publicly accusing me of biased editing. When I make a synthesis of what the sources say and the fact that I'm capable of explaining their theories, it doesn't mean they're my personal opinion or "what I want". About your suggestion: What is wrong with trying my proposal and see which disputed elements remain before taking them to RfC? Saflieni (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I like suggestion of using an RfC to work on areas of disagreement. Meanwhile, '''let's rebuild Content section, happy to start our building on Saflieni's draft. Each of us can make small changes with good edit summaries, and discussion in the Talk page when others object. Small edits, replacing text with text, no more massive multi-edit reverts.''' That's my proposal. 's proposal: to use his draft, verbatim, getting his consent before any small change. I don't agree to Saflieni's proposal. , EdJohnston, what do you think? HouseOfChange (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Saflieni's proposal because WP:OWNership of articles is against policy. Saflieni does not get a special stake in the article above other editors. A RfC is possible but we would have to narrow down what we are asking first. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Back to "Content." I have trimmed down citation overkill. There is no need to cite book's contents to a bunch of opinion articles when we can instead cite the pages in her book. I would like to rescue those references I removed so that they can be used appropriately in the "Reception" section. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You're still avoiding a sensible discussion of my draft and are both trying to side-track me again and then have the nerve to accuse me of "ownership" for the nth time. Saflieni (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My fear that nobody looks at the content of the dispute appears to be justified, so perhaps a WP:RFC request wouldn't be a bad idea after all. The trouble will be getting someone who knows a bit about the subject and is not yet caught up in the polarized debate about Rwanda. Besides comparing my draft as a potential basis for the article with what has been produced so far, they would have to include a critical look at the campaign by some editors on Wikipedia - some of whom are self-declared anti RPF activists - to introduce unscientific and sometimes demonstrably false content to pages related to the genocide and the wars in Africa's Great Lakes region, to which HoC is also directing in his version, e.g. .Saflieni (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's obviously false; HoC never edited that article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I write that in his version (his edits in the current article) he directs (with a link) to that article, not that he edited that article. Link in this sentence: "Her discussion of RPF massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War began with ..." etc. Saflieni (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is typical wiki style to link to an article about a topic when one exists. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Missing the point. I'm saying that many if not most of the Wikipedia articles about the genocide and wars in the Great Lakes region are tainted by misinformation. I was using that article you link to as an example. The article on Double genocide is worse, for instance, and it doesn't stop there. I've been pointing at WP:CIR issues for a reason. Saflieni (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and denial
The sentence "... published an open letter in Le Soir criticizing the universities for giving the impression that by promoting Judi Rever's book they supported her "theory of "double genocide"," is not correct. The original version ended in "... her conspiracy theories and denial." This was paraphrased after translation from a sentence in the source which criticized the universities, and contained the phrases "les théories du complot" (conspiracy theories) and "le négationnisme et le déni." (negationism and denial), but not "theory of double genocide". In my draft I had compromised and changed it to: "... published an open letter in Le Soir criticizing the universities for giving the impression that by promoting Judi Rever's book they supported her theories." This is more general and covers more than just double genocide. Saflieni (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that what is in your draft, just "her theories" is an improvement over my correction to the article. I will put that correction into the article. (said HouseOfChange (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

(Below: hatting some unnecessarily contentious remarks that I made, followed by contention, none of which contributed to improving the article.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Briefly replying to the latest false accusation that I misrepresented the source. (See also here for slightly different claims.]
 * The RS cited for the sentence (page linked to if you click on the reference below) is https://plus.lesoir.be/252615/article/2019-10-09/rwanda-petition-contre-des-conferences-revisionnistes-sur-le-rwanda Its final sentence does not mention conspiracy or denial but is instead "Nous vous demandons donc de reconsidérer soigneusement votre décision." "Theory of double genocide" is in the first paragraph: "Nous, soussignés, universitaires, scientifiques, chercheurs, journalistes et historiens, nous vous écrivons aujourdʼhui pour exprimer notre grave préoccupation devant la plate-forme que vos universités respectives ont offerte à une négationniste connue du génocide de 1994 contre les Tutsi du Rwanda et quʼaucune occasion nʼa été offerte pour contester de tels points de vue. Judi Rever est l'auteure d'un livre, « In Praise of Blood » (Penguin Random House Canada 2018), qui fait la promotion d'une théorie du double génocide, une idée qui se répand depuis de nombreuses années dans la propagande des génocidaires et de leurs partisans".
 * Basing your edits on unpublished earlier sources or translations is OR, and "citing" them to a published source that says something different is wrong. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * These lies you are telling aren't supposed to be personal attacks again? If you've read the last sentence of the article, I'm sure that you've read the second to last sentence as well. It says: "En promouvant les théories du complot de Judi Rever, vous avez donné lʼimpression de soutenir le négationnisme et le déni." You can agree or disagree with the way I paraphrased it, but you can't accuse me of OR and of unjustly citing the "conspiracy theories" and "denial" to the source in this context. You were wrong to remove them and insert a phrase - theory of double genocide - from another part of the article. It doesn't belong there. You are rude and wrong in your edit summaries too.Saflieni (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out to you on previous occasions, it's unacceptable to accuse other editors of lying. Which edit summaries are "rude"? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't change the subject. If I can't use the word "lying" to describe the act of lying which you both employ to attack and discredit me, then please suggest another word that covers it.Saflieni (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is trying to attack and discredit you, we are focused on moving forward and improving the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, repeatedly accusing me of misrepresenting information or misquoting from the sources, and falsely accusing me of violating all kinds of Wiki-rules, qualifies as attacks. You are in fact changing the subject which isn't very helpful towards consensus building.Saflieni (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, stated above The original version ended in "... her conspiracy theories and denial." This was paraphrased after translation from a sentence in the source which criticized the universities, and contained the phrases "les théories du complot" (conspiracy theories) and "le négationnisme et le déni." (negationism and denial), but not "theory of double genocide". From this, I got the impression Saflieni was basing his claims "the original version" or maybe "the translation," rather than from the published version cited. I apologize for not being more tactful in my explanation that to do so would be against policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft for new Background section
The article's lead introduces the book itself, but the "Background" should help readers get context for the book.

At its most basic, the background should give an NPOV introduction (which can be brief thanks to Wikilinks) to unfamiliar terms. It should also give a brief background to the events before 1990 that led to the birth of the RPF amd to the Rwanda Civil War.

For example,


 * "The two majority ethnic groups in Rwanda are Hutu (85% and Tutsi (14%)."


 * "European colonial policies gave elite status to Tutsis over Hutus, which promoted hostility between the two groups. In the 1959 Rwanda Revolution, a Hutu-led government drove 300,000 Rwandan Tutsis into exile."


 * "The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) is a political and military force, organized by Rwandan Tutsis whose families had fled to Uganda." (Text based on Fred Rwigyema but sourceable to Britannica or many elsewheres.)

What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Genocide," "double genocide," and "genocide denial"-- do we need some RfCs?
Based on 's suggestion of RfCs:

1. genocide: IPOB describes RPF violence against Hutus as a "genocide." Most of the book's expert critics disagree. "Reception" should present their critiques, and note their consensus. (Two scholars supported the "genocide" claim, which should also be mentioned.), , do we agree? If not, can we work things out, or use an RfC or two?

2. double genocide: IPOB never uses the term "double genocide." Linking to double genocide is no substitute for explaining what IPOB says. MOS:JARGON says "Avoid excessive wikilinking ... Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." Do others agree?

3. genocide denial Accusations calling Rever a "genocide denier" are not helped by a wikilink to Rwandan genocide denial (".. the assertion that the Rwandan genocide did not occur, specifically rejection of the scholarly consensus that Rwandan Tutsis were the victims of a genocide between 7 April and 15 July 1994.") It is OR and SYNTH to claim experts calling Rever that really mean "implicatory genocide denial." So here we have an unfamiliar term that sounds a lot like "holocaust denier," repeatedly used to describe a living person. I am not sure how to handle this. I would welcome some good ideas here or via RfC. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The three above comments, with replies interspersed.
''1. genocide: IPOB describes RPF violence against Hutus as a "genocide." Most of the book's expert critics disagree. "Reception" should present their critiques, and note their consensus. (Two scholars supported the "genocide" claim, which should also be mentioned.), , do we agree? If not, can we work things out, or use an RfC or two? (HOC asked)''


 * Those two scholars and their opinions are mentioned. What's your point? To keep things simple, I've seperated the double genocide discussion from the more general reception by journalists and publicists.Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "most" is how we should frame it, per WP:RS/AC it is OR without an explicit source. I would just say who does, who doesn't, and maybe a brief explanation why. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My "point" was to solicit opinions on how to present this material, and to see if we had enough agreement that no RfC would be needed in this area. Thanks to for a link to a policy I didn't know. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for scholars to link to who state or imply that most experts disagree: Timothy Longman says "widely rejected by scholars.". Susan Thomson, criticizing Linda Melvern for focusing on the double genocide theory as if it were a relevant subject, says: "Legal and scholarly evidence to support a claim of a double genocide is non-existent (...).". We already cite six scholars and a letter of 60 experts, who are saying more or less the same, e.g. Scott Straus: "... careful empirical inquiries into this question do not support the idea of a “double genocide.”" Many other experts have commented on the double genocide theory, before and after Rever's book. Gerard Prunier in his book Africa's World War, for example, finds the double genocide theory "... absolutely unacceptable for reasons ranging from historical evidence to intellectual coherence." Helene Dumas explains: "This so-called “double genocide” thesis structures negationist rhetoric and serves as a privileged analytical grid for works denying the specificity of the Tutsi genocide." Omar McDoom comments: "The current and limited evidence we do have of Hutu civilian deaths in this time period does not, in my view, support claims of a double genocide or a politicide.". Human Rights Watch has always rejected the theory from its origins in 1994, and they still do. Here's a comment from 2017 saying it is "... offensive to genocide survivors, and contrary to research findings by Human Rights Watch and other independent organizations." These are just examples. So if you want a list of scholars who reject the theory it is going to be very very long. Better to say "most" or "all with a few exceptions", or to quote Longman's statement.Saflieni (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are plenty of sources including Longman (who doesn't mention Rever) saying that "double genocide" theory is widely rejected. Longman also says that Rusebagina's theory of a genocide against Hutu intellectuals "resembles" (i.e. is not the same as) double genocide theory. The Verwimp source he cites is contradicting "double genocide" theories with equal and opposite killing of Hutus and Tutsis, by showing that "the killing pattern among Hutu and Tutsi was different." Rever does NOT say that there was an equal and opposite killing of Hutus and Tutsis--she says that Hutus were killed by the RPF not by their neighbors. So we'd need an RS saying that "most scholars" reject Rever's theory, not one saying that most scholars reject "double genocide." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarifying the above, based on objection from : Rever says that the RPF targeted Hutus, first in Rwanda and later in Zaire, ultimately killing hundreds of thousands of Hutu men, women, and children. This she calls genocide. She also says that some Tutsis took revenge against Hutu neighbors. That small-scale killing, deplorable as it may be, she does not describe as an "equal and opposite" genocide. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

''2. double genocide: IPOB never uses the term "double genocide." Linking to double genocide is no substitute for explaining what IPOB says. MOS:JARGON says "Avoid excessive wikilinking ... Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." Do others agree? (HOC asked)''


 * I wouldn't link to the double genocide article until it becomes a proper representation of the subject. I have argued before that it doesn't matter whether Rever uses the phrase in her book. Everybody recognizes it as such, including Rever herself (see the examples I posted earlier). Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with avoiding unnecessary jargon. However, I would support linking to the page as it gives helpful context. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

''3. genocide denial Accusations calling Rever a "genocide denier" are not helped by a wikilink to Rwandan genocide denial (".. the assertion that the Rwandan genocide did not occur, specifically rejection of the scholarly consensus that Rwandan Tutsis were the victims of a genocide between 7 April and 15 July 1994.") It is OR and SYNTH to claim experts calling Rever that really mean "implicatory genocide denial." So here we have an unfamiliar term that sounds a lot like "holocaust denier," repeatedly used to describe a living person. I am not sure how to handle this. I would welcome some good ideas here or via RfC. (HOC said)''


 * The denial aspect of Rever's book is briefly but accurately discussed and explained by the sources I cite. The term is not unfamiliar because it is used in other contexts as well. See for example the discussions about climate denial. Literal denial (nothing happened) is not something you see very often because it's obvious that 70-75% of Tutsis in Rwanda were exterminated in 1994. That's why deniers use different techniques such as interpretative denial (massacres happened but it wasn't genocide), or implicatory denial (genocide is acknowledged but the blame is shifted). Rever calls the latter "revisionism". I finish the section with that remark so I believe it's well-balanced.Saflieni (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (genocide is acknowledged but the blame is shifted). Rever calls the latter "revisionism". This claim misrepresents Rever and the RS cited, which quotes Rever: "Am I a revisionist? I guess I am. Because the official narrative of the genocide stipulates that there's basically one group of people who were targeted ... and, in fact, that's not true." She says that the victims were not just Tutsis, not that the blame for genocide should be on Tutsis. Let's stick to what Rever says she means by the word "revisionism." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have been over this several times already. The experts refer to her denial in the sense of implicatory denial. Rever has responded to the claims of denial by saying she is not a denier but a revisionist. That phrase refers to her revisions of what she calls the "official narrative", a problematic term because her version doesn't exist in Rwanda (although some might perceive it like that), and is even more different from the narrative used by academics. But the revisions, the new elements she mentions in her book and her interviews, which deviate substantially from the generally accepted science, include the double genocide and the RPF being (largely) responsible for both genocides as part of an international political conspiracy. So there's the connection. I'm not going to repeat quoting the same texts from the book and interviews.Saflieni (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with HoC that it's crucial to avoid mischaracterizing Rever's position. Saflieni's text does exactly that. She tells what she means by revisionism and it's not clear whether most (or any) specialists would agree that pointing out that Hutu were also targeted during and after the civil war is genocide denial. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The RS cited when the article says Rever calls herself a revisionist quotes her specifically saying what she means. It is OR and SYNTH to claim that what she "really" means is that she blames genocide on the RPF or on Tutsis. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are both ignoring my explanation and are misrepresenting the discussion. Buidhe's remark: pointing out that Hutu were also targeted during and after the civil war is genocide denial. is not what Rever does. FYI: All sources including the Rwandan "official narrative" say that also Hutu were targeted. The "new elements" of her "revision" are her claim of a genocide against Hutu, committed by the RPF, comparable to the genocide against the Tutsi, and her arguments that attribute responsibility for the genocide against the Tutsi to the RPF. She explains this in her book - we have discussed this earlier with quotes from the book and all. In interviews she has also specified the new elements of her revision. They include the allegations I've just mentioned. See for instance . Looking at one article and then accusing me of mischaracterizing Rever's position is rude. You could just ask for sources and discuss them in a civil manner.Saflieni (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with your arguments is not the same as ignoring them. The topic we three are discussing is what Rever meant, in the RS cited, when she said she is a "revisionist".
 * How can we find out what she meant in the RS cited? By reading RS cited, where she directly explains: "Am I a revisionist? I guess I am. Because the official narrative of the genocide stipulates that there's basically one group of people who were targeted ... and, in fact, that's not true."
 * Where can we NOT find out what Rever meant by "revisionist" in the RS cited? By showing that other people call her "revisionist" for different reasons. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
 * Where else can we NOT find out what Rever meant by "revisionist" in the RS cited? By pointing to |a different article which does not discuss the term "revisionist." Again, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

IPOB contents and structure
Because the book's content and structure inform the article, here (hatted below) are my chapter-by-chapter notes.

The structure of the book is unusual. The introduction gives a brief overview of the book's story, organized around two UN documents that Rever got in 2015. Then the "story" that takes us from Ch 1 to Ch 15 traces Rever's own story and investigations.

Chapters 1 and 2 cover 1997, when Rever first hears claims that the RPF pursues Hutu refugees into the Congolese jungles. In Chapter 3 and 4, Rever in 1998 decides not to go back to the Congo, and in 2001 to start a family. She comes back in 2010 to the RPF story, and later recounts stories she hears from Rwandan dissident Théogene Murwanashyaka and Belgian UNAMIR commander Luc Marchal about the RPF during Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994). Chapters 5 - 9 describe RPF activities during the same 1990-1994 period, including military intelligence activities and a 1994 massacre in Byumba football stadium.

Chapter 10 describes killings in 1996-1997. Chapter 11 deals with the ICTR, how it gathered evidence of RPF crimes, but was then forbidden to indict RPF suspects, instead being forced to hand over their evidence to Rwanda. Chapter 12 describes the killing on June 5, 1994 of several priests and a small child, for which Rwanda prosecuted only two low-level soldiers. Chapter 13 describes the downing of Habyarimana's plane in 1994, allegedly by the RPF.

Chapter 14 describes threats Rever experiences as she continues to publish stories critical of the RPF. Chapter 15 surveys a range of charges against the RPF beginning in 1991 and continuing to 2016.

The "Conclusion" acknowledges the 1994 Rwandan genocide of Hutus against Tutsis, then claims that RPF violence against Hutus was also a genocide, and ends with the words of a Hutu widow saying that the RPF has faced no consequences for their actions.

I am going to hat my more detailed chapter notes below, so that they are readable to anybody who wants to see them. I removed some names due to BLP concerns. 04:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The structure of the book itself is important to the article. This is an article about a book, not an article about Rwanda or its genocide. In the Content section at least, the book's structure should be foremost. Parts of Saflieni's draft for the Career section can usefully be used in the Content section, because the structure of the book is a sequence of stories from Rever's investigation for a book about the RPF. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for working on the content section. Your version is detailed, but has become too long without internal section headings to break it up. The paragraphing is also short and choppy, harming readability. And I question the use of a blockquote from a reviewer in the content section, it is not helpful imo. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this civil and very helpful criticism. I will paraphrase the blockquote that describes the book's structure, and also try to improve the rest of the section based on your suggestions. 13:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Outline of IPOB.

 * Introduction: against the grain -- (March 2015 from anonymous source, Rever gets copy of 30 page 2003 document compiled by ICTR investigators concerning crimes allegedly committed by RPF. Later Rever gets copy of 2003 "deal" that turned prosecution of crimes alleged against RPF over to Rwanda government, so that UN indicted only Hutus who had killed Tutsis. )
 * 1	Kagame's inner station -- (1997, Rever in Zaire meets Rwandan Hutu refugees who say RPF soldiers are pursuing them through the jungle after attacking and destroying refugee camps near Rwanda border.)
 * 2	The rationale for war -- (Rever takes a scary journey to Rwanda, then goes home to Paris. Research: The West won't help refugees because they need military's help to get Congo's resources p 24ff "I wanted to understand why the international community had failed to protect the refugees in 1996 when the RPF had invaded Zaire." p 36 400,000 refugees (Oxfam estimate) p 39. UNHCR est that 93% of Hutus in Zaire were genuine refugees deserving protection. p 42 )
 * 3	Rwanda digs in -- (Rever leaves Africa, has kids. Meanwhile in Africa, two Congo wars. In 2010, meets Alison des Forges at a conference. August 2010 draft of UN "mapping report" leaks to Le Monde, Rever files story. Kagame threatens to withdraw troops from UN)
 * 4	Going for broke -- (Events related to Rever's interest in RPF crimes: 2005 Pierre Péan Noires Fureurs, Blancs Menteurs. 2006 French arrest warrants, 2008 Spanish indictments. 2010 Gersony report leaked. 2012 former RPF soldier Théogene Murwanashyaka (TM) reaches out to Rever. TM's story: When RPF invaded in Oct 1990, educated "interior Tutsis" at were first suspect, and later abandoned by RPF to genocide. RPF infiltrated all four Hutu militias. Dallaire pp 58-59. Luc Marchal, Belgian commander p 59-62. RPF was ready to seize power as soon as Habyarimana's plane went down, did not take opportunity to stop slaughter of Tutsis because its goal is to seize and hold power)
 * 5	The deep structures of RPF violence -- (Structure and influence of RPF's Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). DMI led the violence against Rwandans and Congolese. It was most active before and during 1994 genocide. Cites ICTR report on DMI. DMI began training commandos in June 1992. DMI reported to Kagame. Some French-speaking "technicians" were assigned to infiltrate Hutu groups and provoke violence against Tutsi. Théogene Murwanashyaka: "interior Tutsis" were a pawn in the game. "elaborate strategy to take control with support of international community." Many former DMI testified to ICTR about what they did.)
 * 6	Getting away with mass murder at the Byumba Stadium -- (April 1994. Thousands of Hutu peasants, promised food and drink if they went to the soccer stadium. Strongest men from group herded together into the dugout and killed first, with grenades and hoes. Bodies dumped into mass graves, later dug up to be burned in Akagera park. Informant estimates that RPA killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in 1994. Hypothesis that goal of killing Hutus was to make land available for Tutsis returning from Uganda. Role of Kagame alleged.)
 * 7	(...) roving death squads -- (April 20, 1994, Hutus from Karambi (a district of Byumba) were gathered and slaughtered by RPA, a survivor named Daniel told Rever. Another survivor named Malik and a former RPA officer confirmed this story. Death squads killing Hutu worked in areas controlled by RPA. In some cases, dead Hutus were piled on top of dead Tutsis who had been massacred by Hutus. HRW report None to tell the Story describes killings by RPF but does not identify an ethnic component. Hutus killed Tutsis, in a genocide, the the RPF killed "civilians" or "people" whose ethnicity is not mentioned. Describing a massacre in September 1994, they say soldiers killed "without regard for age, sex, or ethnic group." Another killing of 60 people is described as "generalized violence." )
 * 8	The Tutsi fifth column -- (In 1994, Rwanda was awash in fear, mistrust, and paranoia. ICTR document from 2005 details killings of Hutu in Giti. 2014 meeting with informant AA, a Tutsi who had worked at camps for displaced people in Ndera, near Kigali's airport. Hutus were singled out, taken away with their families, and killed, the bodies then burned. Theo describes a massacre nearby in Kanombe. "There was already such hatred for Hutus, the RPF was ready to eliminate everyone.")
 * 9	Spinning lies from truth -- (The legend of Giti. There was a massacre of Hutus by RPA. Then they found Hutu mayor, who had been in hiding, and made him a "hero" by saying he had prevented massacre of Tutsis in his commune. ICTR reported on Hutu massacres there, saying Hutu intellectuals were especially targeted. 1994, African Rights NGO compiled influential account of Hutu violence against Tutsis, Death, Despair, and Defiance. Rakiya Omaar told Rever that was because Tutsi victims were the people she had access to.)
 * 10	Scenes from a counterinsurgency -- (Kagame's post-1996 actions against Hutu refugees)
 * 11	An illegal deal -- (ICTR gathering evidence of RPA crimes, starting in 1999. The US in May 2003 made a deal to turn the investigation over to Rwanda, saying that ICTR would not investigate until Rwanda first had a chance to do so. UN tribunal closed in 2015. Quotes source who describes events as two genocides. Ultimately ICTR indicted 95 people, all of them linked to former Hutu regime, none from RPF.)
 * 12	The consequences of betrayal -- (June 5, 1994 massacre. In 2008, prosecution transferred to Rwanda. Rwanda trial convicted only two low level soldiers. ICTR declared itself satisfied with this result. HRW 2009 called it a miscarriage of justice. )
 * 13	The assassination of Habyarimana -- (Jim Lyons, ICTR investigator, heard detailed testimony from 3 men that shooting down Habyarimana's plane was planned and executed by RPF. ICTR shut down his investigation of that, saying they had no jurisdiction. )
 * 14	Becoming a target -- (Rever encounters people she believes were sent by RPF: 2013, Rever (in Europe doing interviews including research on RPF figures who were later hired by UN) is accosted and followed by mysterious figures. After publishing Rwanda-related stories, Rever gets hang-up phone calls and later a threatening call that mentions her daughter. Rwanda dissident Patrick Kagareya strangled in South Africa. York and Rever publish story in 2014 on deaths of other Rwandan dissidents. July 2014 in Belgium, Belgian state security warns Rever of threat to her life, and protects her during her stay there. In 2015, several Rwanda critics in Canada including Rever are warned that Rwanda agents plan to harm them with "auto accidents." News stories document these threats to Rever and others. )
 * 15	The signs were there from the beginning -- (1991 violence by RPA. 1992-93 hundreds of thousands of Hutu peasants forced into camps. Killings of both Hutus and Tutsis were occurring, but people interested only in the latter. Alphonse Furuma: "the goal was to displace the population and create a Hutu-free territory." Kibeho massacre by RPA in April 1995 framed by Gourevitch as retaliatory violence. "Kagame killed before the genocide. He killed during the genocide. And he killed after the genocide." As soon as genocide ended, he began to plan invasion of Zaire. ICTR testimony: false flag attacks created to justify invasion. ICC can't prosecute due to bilateral immunity agreement w US. Ntaganda convicted by ICC in 2019.)


 * Conclusion: remembering the dead -- ("There is no part of this book that denies the genocide...There is no question that after Habyarimana's death, the hardliners chose genocide. Their actions were deliberate and organized, and they used the power of the state to murder massively." (p. 230) But the RPF also began rounding up and killing Hutus after the president's plane went down "as early as April 7, 1994." The goals, informants said, were twofold. Killing educated Hutus to avoid risk of Hutus regaining government power. Killing peasant Hutus to open up land for Tutsis to return. "What the RPF did to Hutus is revenge for 1959" a Tutsi opposition activist told Rever. "The Hutus had it coming." Ending with death on April 11, 1994 of Hutu man who was part of Habyarimana's inner circle, executed by RPF. His widow says, We can't properly mourn his death ... We have to pretend that nothing is wrong." p 236)


 * Appendices :
 * Structure of RPF violence from 1994 through the counterinsurgency --
 * The criminals of the Rwandan Patriotic Front --


 * Acknowledgements --
 * Notes.

Per WP:TPO, please don't insert comments into the chapter outline, but comment below it or else create your own section. Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss and improve the "Reception" and "Double Genocide" drafts
Thanks to for creating both, which can be read in his sandbox. It will be good if we can discuss and reach a consensus version. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that parts of this draft aren't usable. For instance, "Other scholars such as Gerald Caplan, Samuel Totten, Claudine Vidal, Scott Straus, Bert Ingelaere and Marijke Verpoorten criticized Rever's methodology" is too vague. In addition, any content relating to double genocide theory (Rwanda) rather than Rever's book specifically should be discussed at that article page. So I can't support a "double genocide" section in this article. I believe that your version gives too much weight to various apparently non-notable writers who criticize the book in fairly obscure outlets. "Mainstream press" is also too vague, and awards are usually listed in a separate section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Compressing so much material as has done is no easy task, and there is much in this draft that we can use. We should give roughly the same level of detail in describing what people praised as what people criticized.
 * I agree with that the article double genocide is a better place for some of this draft. Also, there seems no reason to include the paper of Bert Ingelaere and Marijke Verpoorten, whose "criticism" of Rever's book is one dismissive phrase and a wikilink in a paper devoted another topic.  HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The point, still, is not to equal praise and critiques on a fringe theory because that would not be due weight. The book in its essence is about a double genocide theory, that's why most reviewers and all scholars comment on it. If you remove that, you're censoring essential information like I said before. Ingelaere and Verpoorten know what they're talking about and they comment in context - an article about double genocide - on Rever's book. About your other remarks: If you think something should be rephrased than say how. The six scholars I mention who all critize Rever's methodology: you don't have to spell out each comment seperately because that will make the article unreadable. The references are there for whoever wants to read their articles. And the fact that you don't know certain individuals or media (without mentioning who and which) doesn't make them not notable in context. Mainstream press: I have referenced two examples: LA Review of books, NY Review of books. And don't start about a consensus when you really mean that you want to make final decisions. Saflieni (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an inline citation to a page in the book supporting that "according to Rever’s sources hundreds of thousands of Hutu were burned in an outdoor crematorium"? What I see is her footnote about Akagera National Park on p. 269 of a maximum 180,000 people (assuming ten trucks per day.) HouseOfChange (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On p. 200 she writes: "(...) Hutus were falsely promised safety and loaded onto trucks and brought to Akagera National Park, only to be killed and then burned at Gabiro, the military training barracks on the edge of the park. Witnesses estimated that hundreds of thousands of Hutu civilians were killed in these schemes." And on p. 151 she writes about "(...) the RPF's outdoor crematoriums at Gabiro, on the edge of Akagera National Park."Saflieni (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have combined the sections and have added inline citations and references to book pages as requested. Saflieni (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The inline citations just given are a good illustration of how isolated mentions and passages inside the book have been transformed into central talking points against the book. The same POV shines out in your new proposed "introduction." But let's discuss that in a new section, below. This section is about "Reception."HouseOfChange (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Restarting the discussion of the Reception section
Taking note of point about appropriate weight to different opinions, I think both Epstein and Caplan deserve a bit more weight than other reviewers, not least for the amount of text and thought they gave to assessing it. Caplan's expertise on the 1994 Rwanda genocide is balanced by Epstein's earlier research into RPF war crimes, inc. her book on Mugabe (correction, Uganda's 30-year dictator Yoweri Museveni) and Guardian articles in 2017.

There are substantive criticisms of the book, but some of those in the current proposed text are problematic.
 * "Jean-François Dupaquier questioned the factual basis of the book, pointing out that “the forest” of Akagera National Park, where according to the book large scale killings took place, doesn’t exist." I wonder if M Dupaquier also questions the factual basis of The National Geographic and the memories of Kagame veterans.
 * Again with M. Dupaguier, he and his interviewer both seem convinced that "According to Judi Rever's investigation, there were some 500,000 Hutus killed by the RPF between 1994 and 1996, particularly in the Akagera forest, in the east of the country, where many Hutu civilians were reportedly transported by truck, then their bodies burnt." But if I search the book's text for "500,000", I find no such claim in the book. On page 238, Rever says Kagame "allegedly" was responsible for killings of "upwards of 500,000 Hutu civilians" in 1994-1995, but she does not say this many were buried in the park. On page 203, one of her sources estimates that "hundreds of thousands" were killed "in such schemes" (with corpses burned and buried somewhere in the 1,080 square miles of Akagera's park.) She herself estimated a maximum of 180,000.(p. 269)
 * I haven't seen any scientific "methodology" from Jos van Oijen's report, cited in the Hintjens-van Oijen paper, saying that experts disprove crematoria in Akagera. We hear the expert's replies to van Oijen, but we don't hear the questions they are answering. One couldn't make that many bodies disappear, they say. But how many bodies, spread over how large an area, over what period of time, are they assuring us couldn't have happened?
 * Dirk Draulaans is a Belgian journalist who wrote a book called The Joke of God. He "wandered for months through the wars of Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan and Zaire... Draulans encounters amorous soldiers, peaceful gorillas, rogue aid workers and mysterious women." Does it really belong in Wikipedia that he visited a park more than three times the area of NYC but doesn't mention in his book that he noticed "anything unusual"?
 * Somebody else visited Gabiro Barracks and saw no signs of a Nazi-style death camp. But Rever doesn't say that Hutus were held at Gabiro Barracks and then killed. She says that they were loaded into containers, which were loaded onto trucks, which went to Akagera. Most suffocated en route. Those who didn't were left tied up on the ground until they died of exposure and starvation. Saying that there were no Hutus being held inside Gabiro Barracks has little relevance to the most of the book, which is about a very wide range of RPF war crimes.

Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts as we try to create a section about Reception. What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , These are very good points. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * When did Epstein write a book about Mugabe?
 * A search for "half a million" will probably do the trick (or reading the book from start to finish). Dupaquier is a veteran of the subject so dismissing his information will take a little more than non-specific references from the internet.
 * About the cremations: The point of the discussion is Rever's argument that hundreds of thousands were allegedly burned to ashes in an open air crematorium. The ashes were then mixed with soil or spread in the lakes: "mass murder leaving barely a trace," says Rever. But the fundamental error, according to the forensic specialists in Hintjens & v. Oijen, is that bodies do not burn to ash in an open air (or any other) crematorium. A significant volume of remains would be left. The explanation from the H&vO article is here . The rest is published here although HoC earlier said he had read it.
 * About Dirk Draulans: The reference in H&vO says "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." I believe that "visiting Gabiro" twice is a little more specific than the suggestion of "visiting a park bigger than NYC".
 * About the Gabiro barracks: That "someone" also published pictures of the camp. Like Draulans they saw no sign of "... bulldozers for digging, stocks of diesel and petrol to burn corpses, and even acid to dissolve the victims' remains." And Rever quotes several sources saying the Hutus were brought to Gabiro, that they could not escape from Gabiro, where they were "killed and burned near the Training Wing ..." (the lodge and nearby barracks), that they saw "intense smoke at dusk", "daily movements of tractor trailers", and so on. Rever also writes that the US "... would have been aware of Kagame's bulldozers and the RPF's outdoor crematoriums at Gabiro, on the edge of Akagera National Park," and: "...killed and then burned at Gabiro, the military training barracks on the edge of the park." This all seems pretty clear. Saflieni (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these helpful suggestions. Nevertheless, it seems UNDUE to devote line after line to Akagera National Park. The book is about RPF crimes and very little of the Reception material addresses substantial discussion elsewhere of the rest of the book or 90% of the alleged crimes, which supposedly are "just recycled" as in "we already knew about them.") The book says a lot more about events in "Byumba" (76 mentions) than about "Gabiro." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind HoC that I merely clarified the points of criticism which they list as "problematic." Besides: Gabiro was located in Byumba prefecture, and Rever writes that the victims of the stadium massacre were exhumed and transported to Akagera to be burned in the "RPF's improvised ovens." Saflieni (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * More about HoC's scepticism regarding Dupaquier. In the interview Dupaquier says: "There is no real forest. It is a savannah region with trees everywhere." This is an accurate description according to, which classifies the region as shrubland. Older maps show isolated patches where the "shrubs" are close together; thickets rather than "forest". They may have provided cover for guerrilla units in 1990 but are unlikely locations for mass killing and open air crematoriums. Saflieni (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What RS say is the topic of IPOB
I am tired of debating the repeated claim by that The main topic of the book is double genocide. So here are some RS describing what IPOB is "about" -- its main topic -- which is crimes of the RPF. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RS who say the book's main topic is crimes of the RPF

 * HKFP 2018: This book tells the story of the numerous crimes against humanity if not outright genocide, perpetrated by Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front.
 * RFI Sept 2020: "L’éloge du sang de la Canadienne Judi Rever est un livre d’enquête sur les crimes commis par l’armée patriotique rwandaise de Paul Kagame, rébellion devenue armée nationale au Rwanda." (In Praise of Blood by Canadian Judi Rever is a book investigating the crimes committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army of Paul Kagame, a rebellion turned national army in Rwanda."
 * Colette Braeckman 2020: "De Bukavu et Goma jusque Mbandaka en passant par Kisangani, Judi Rever a suivi la piste sanglante partie du Rwanda et se poursuivant à travers le Congo. C’est de là que part sa quête: durant des années, la journaliste canadienne, horrifiée par les crimes de guerre dont elle avait été témoin, a voulu en savoir plus. Ce qui l’a menée à enquêter sur le Front patriotique rwandais, libérateur du Rwanda et bourreau du Congo." From Bukavu and Goma to Mbandaka via Kisangani, Judi Rever followed the bloody trail that started out from Rwanda and continued through Congo. This is where her quest begins: For years, the Canadian journalist, horrified by the war crimes she had witnessed, wanted to know more. This led her to investigate the Rwandan Patriotic Front, liberator of Rwanda and executioner of Congo.
 * Claudine Vidal: "Published in March 2018, Judi Rever’s investigative work, In Praise of Blood, quickly garnered international attention. It is an indictment of both the Rwandan patriotic front (RPF) and its leader, current Rwandan president Paul Kagame, and foreign governments and international institutions – the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in particular – that allowed crimes committed against Hutu civilians to go unpunished. Yet these crimes had been documented."
 * Garrett, Lancet" Over the years, less valiant portraits of Kagame and the RPF have appeared in academic monographs and self-published accounts by Western and Rwandan academics, journalists, and independent researchers... In Praise of Blood is the most accessible and up-to-date of these studies."
 * Reyntjens, De Standaard: (translation from a review in Dutch of the book's Dutch edition) "The truth about Rwanda: that is the daring title of a book that has already been awarded several times, but which has also sparked controversy. The latter is understandable, because Canadian investigative journalist Judi Rever questions the way in which Rwandan history of the last quarter century is read....much research by UN agencies, international NGOs, journalists and academics has long shown that the RPF has also committed crimes against humanity and war crimes on a large scale. This happened in Rwanda in 1994, in Congo at the end of 1996-early 1997 and again in Rwanda in 1997-1999."
 * Gerald Caplan, p 159: "Rever writes an entire book dedicated to exposing RPF crimes... 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."
 * Gerald Caplan, p 168: "..she totally eschewed the orthodox Rwandan narrative. She had only one story to tell: The deplorable, bloody record of the RPF from the day it was founded, as it invaded Rwanda from Uganda, through the genocide, and on to the ferocious wars in the Great Lakes area of Africa thereafter. All of this was known to some extent or other by the Rwandan specialists who read her book, but likely with far fewer details, and certainly with far less emphasis. In effect, Rever’s book reminds genocide scholars they had largely ignored a significant aspect of the RPF record."

RS who say the book's main topic is double genocide
Of course the book includes much material about its claim that RPF killings of Hutus were "genocide," a claim which specialists call "double genocide" when they are not calling it "genocide denial." It warps our article if we neglect all the topics and chapters about other "crimes of the RPF" to focus on "double genocide. But feel free to add RS examples that agree with Saflieni about the book's main topic." HouseOfChange (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * [url No RS so far]: "IPOB is a book about double genocide."

This is getting out of hand again. HouseOfChange keeps recycling the same discussions over and over ad infinitum. Two of his six sources aren't even RS on this subject and the sources who are, like Claudine Vidal, explain that Rever's book is mainly about an alleged second genocide against Hutu. Quoting from Vidal's article:
 * "It reads like a prosecutor’s closing argument: the massacres are described in such a way as to classify them as genocide. Rever begins with hints, such as a quote from a former RPA soldier stating that the massacre of thousands of people perpetrated in October 1997 was meant to eliminate as much of the Hutu population as possible. Regarding the large-scale killings carried out in 1994 in the Byumba region, in North-eastern Rwanda, another former RPA soldier claims that the leaders of the RPF had settled on the killings as a way to make the land available for Tutsi refugees, formerly exiled in Uganda. According to Rever, the military authorities who organised and committed the massacres therefore took part in a joint criminal enterprise (emphasis added by Rever).This legal notion, introduced by the ICTY, was retained by the ICTR. By the conclusion of the book, the hints become an unequivocal statement: “[The] darkest secret that the FPR hid from the international community is that its troops continued to commit genocide against the Hutus in 1994 and throughout the following years.”" And so on.

I understand that the subject may be very complex and confusing for newcomers, but double genocide as a concept is really not that hard to grasp. I have provided HoC with a simple definition by two experts only yesterday: "This is the theory – recently revived on flimsy and mostly unverifiable sources [a reference to Rever's book] – that there in fact were two genocides happening at the time: one against the Tutsi, and one committed by Tutsi fighters and civilians against the Hutu." For more sources discussing the double genocide theory in Rever's book, see my draft Saflieni (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not confused about what "double genocide" means. I do not dispute that RPF genocide against Hutus is ONE of the book's topics. I do dispute that it is the book's main topic. And I don't see Claudine Vidal, in your quote, saying that double genocide is what Rever's book is mainly about. I hear her saying that it is a book topic that she has something to say about.
 * In the movie Shakespeare in Love, people are talking about Romeo and Juliet and somebody wonders what the play is about. So one of the actors, the one who is playing the part of Juliet's nurse, explains, "Well, there's this - Nurse." Yes, of course people who are experts on Rwandan genocide are very interested in the part of IPOB that is about genocide. But that doesn't make it the main topic of the book, for Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Update: To be fair, saying that IPOB's main topic is RPF genocide against Hutus (aka double genocide) is more like saying Romeo and Juliet is "about" Juliet than like saying that it is about her nurse. Juliet is important, she should be discussed when we talk about the play, but if we center reviews of the play on Juliet we won't be giving a balanced review of the play. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said: ad infinitum... I explain, give evidence, HoC contradicts, I explain again, give evidence, HoC contradicts, etc. Until I get fed up, use a wrong word, and they're off to the Noticeboards. EdJohnston: No offense, but if over the last few days you still havn't noticed who is obstructing, insulting others, putting up walls of text, owning the article, refusing to cooperate, pushing their POV, violating Wikipedia guidelines on RS and NPOV. then maybe it's time for a new, neutral administrator. What do you say? Saflieni (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there were three big controversies about the book wrt 1994 genocide: 1) IPOB claims that RPF helped provoke Tutsi genocide 2) IPOB claim that the RPF killed hundreds of thousands of Hutu civilians (Dupaquier estimates no more than 90,000) 3) IPOB declares RPF violence against Hutus (in the Congo as well as in Rwanda) was a "genocide". I don't think conflating these three different issues as "double genocide" is helpful or informative to our readers. I think all three controversies should be mentioned, with references to sources where readers can learn more. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) That's an understatement.
 * 2) Dupaquier doesn't estimate, but refers to estimates by others: ... there are figures ranging from 30,000 to 80,000 or 90,000 Hutus.
 * 3) IPOB does not separate the events. It claims there was a genocide against Hutus that started before the genocide against the Tutsi and continued during and afterwards: its troops continued to commit genocide against Hutus in 1994 and in the following years.
 * All the criticized elements of the book disappear from the article little by little, based on HoC's "I don't think that ...", etc. How about leaving that up to the reliable sources and instead focus on cleaning the article from errors and contentious statements based on non-RS?Saflieni (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there any examples yet of RS that say the main topic of IPOB is double genocide. Just because "double genocide" is the main topic of, for example, Vidal's article doesn't mean that Vidal thought it was the book's main topic. Concerning the book itself, she clearly says (condensing first two sentences of her review: "..In Praise of Blood... is an indictment of both the Rwandan patriotic front (RPF) and its leader..." HouseOfChange (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking questions that have been answered in detail already is not very productive. And your "condensed" text omits the massacres are described in such a way as to classify them as genocide.. Why is that? Saflieni (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2021 (UTCt )

When I say I am condensing first two sentences of her review, that is because people typically summarize the topic they are about to discuss in the first paragraph or so. Vidal is talking about a book, she tells her readers what the book is about: RPF crimes. I am sure there are some genocide experts who agree with you that the book's "main topic" is genocide, but Claudine Vidal clearly isn't one of them. In paragraph 5, Vidal's article gets the text you ask about, the massacres are described in such a way as to classify them as genocide. My point in showing the large number of RS who disagree with you was an effort to let you consider an opinion that isn't your own. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And this is your idea of cooperating?Saflieni (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Judi Rever's claim of genocide" is the main topic of Vidal's article. Interestingly, Vidal coauthored an article for MSF that uncompromisingly denounced a wide range of RPF crimes "Under the politically motivated leadership of General Kagame, the RPF engaged in the organized slaughter of Hutus - after, during, and even before the genocide of the Tutsis...The goal of this article is to describe how in Rwanda, crimes against humanity have became a fact of life."


 * Vidal, Caplan, Straus, and some other genocide-expert reviewers strongly object to Rever's use of the word genocide. Filip Reyntjens and René Lemarchand, academics who have also written extensively about Rwanda, feel her claim is worth considering. The expertise and focus of all these people on Rwandan genocide give us a useful lens into one of the book's important topics, which the article should reflect. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles about other controversial nonfiction books
I have been looking at some of Wikipedia's "good articles" about nonfiction books, hoping for guidance on structure and on Wikipedia's treatment of controversy. (Below, I have hatted some article descriptions that inspired suggestions about IPOB.)


 * And the Band Played On: Reception has separate sections for "mainstream" press and scientific (expert) critiques of the book. Both the contents and criticism sections uniformly use past tense except for a brief use of present in a content summary, "Shilts focuses on several organizations and communities that were either hit hardest by AIDS—and were given the task of finding the cause of the disease—or begging the government for money to fund research and provide social services to people who were dying. He often uses an omniscient point of view to portray individuals' thoughts and feelings." Material about "Patient 0" which was controversial gets its own section. The article refutes some false claims critics made about the book with direct quotes from the book. It has one footnote that includes many short quotes from reviewers.
 * The Rape of Nanking (book) uses past tense throughout e.g. "The book depicted in detail the killing, torture, and rape that occurred during the Nanking Massacre. " It has a separate section on "Death Toll" with different estimates (only estimates that were quoted in the book.) It separates "reception" into "acclaim," "criticism," and "reaction in Japan (which was intense.)" It has one footnote that gives examples from one reviewer about the author's alleged sloppiness with detail." It has a "See also" section listing other related books.
 * Merchants of Doubt This short-ish article uses present tense throughout, both for describing what the book says and what each reviewer says. From the lead, "Some of the book's subjects have been critical of the book, but most reviewers received it favorably." Note that the latter part of the sentence is given and referenced in the article body: "Most reviewers received Merchants of Doubt enthusiastically.[10]"
 * Not in Front of the Children Article separates mainstream from scholarly reviews, putting the latter into a section confusingly called "themes." The reception section begins with the book's awards, and is then organized with one or two reviewers per paragraph. I couldn't see any logical sequence in the order of reviews/paragraphs. It concludes with two negative reviews, one from the NYT that called it "extreme" and one from American Prospect that called it one-sided. Since the former was published 2 days before the latter, it supports a guess that chronology rather than influence is the ordering principle.

Based on these models, I have a few suggestions for the IPOB article:


 * 1) Add a "See also" section listing (for example) Des Forges HRW report, Caplan's OAU report, Gourevitch, Prunier...
 * 2) Add a section on Death tolls because the book lists multiple estimates from different sources.
 * 3) Uniformly use present or past tense.
 * 4) Separate reception into mainstream, scholarly, and Rwanda genocide-related. Caplan and Lemarchand would go into a scholarly section. The "open letters" would go in the genocide section, as would other genocide-focused things such as the Lancet letter from Agnes Binagwaho, and the dispute of Reyntjens vs Vidal over whether or not the book was written in order to promote "double genocide" theory. H and van O, and Straus are also focused on genocide.
 * 5) I also liked putting the awards section at the head of the Reception section, since those represent some of the earliest opinions about the book.
 * 6) There is a partial timeline of the book reviews in my sandbox-y userpage about the book, which we could build from.

I think a little work now can make the article more organized and less confusing. , others, what do you think? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not in favor of see also sections because it is very subjective what to include. However, a template for books related to the Rwandan genocide would be useful, similar to Works about the Armenian Genocide. I will start working on that.
 * Have no objection to this. Journal of Genocide recently published an issue exploring academic consensus on death tolls; I have access to these papers if you don't. (although it mostly focuses on Tutsi deaths)
 * Yes, consistency is good.
 * No objection.
 * No objection
 * That looks helpful for organization. Chronological order is an objective way to do it.
 * Lastly, thank you so much for all your work on this article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for your openness to other people's ideas. I would be grateful if you could work on #1 and #2 above, and I will try to move forward on 3 - 6. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now added a template Works about the Rwandan genocide and academic estimates of Hutu death toll. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,. I am working on putting the "reception" into chronological order. I am also trying to make clear the main complaint(s) for each critic, not just their most colorful name-calling "flimsy and unreliable sources" "genocide denier" "victim blaming" "merely recycles" etc. Then once I have everybody's main objections in, I will make sure that the objections shared by several get well-covered. For example, although Judi Rever set out to write about RPF crimes not Rwandan genocide (and thousands of books are out there about genocide) multiple people object that by leaving out the decades of anti-Tutsi racism and violence, IPOB gives the impression that RPF machinations post-1990 played a role in triggering genocide that was much larger than the role they could really have played. Anyway, working on creating an informative and NPOV article with everybody's thoughts heard from. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I do see one issue from the reception section. You quote "any reference to documented plans of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis that were systematically implemented in phases starting in 1959" without any indication that this is a FRINGE view. The ICTR ruled that there is no evidence that the genocide was planned prior to 7 April 1994 and André Guichaoua and other mainstream historians hold that it has never been proven Some historians have argued that there was some sort of plan, but they date it to some time during the civil war rather than back to 1959(!) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Have you a suggestion how to express this? So the racism was there a long time but the plans were not? HouseOfChange (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes that is a mainstream accurate description: racism and discrimination against Tutsi existed since 1959 but genocide happened in 1994. However, the letter in Lancet you are citing does not mention racism or discrimination. I am satisfied by what is currently quoted from it, which accurately expresses the content of the letter without misleading Wikipedia readers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)