Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 3

58.136.72.160's love for Hirohito
58.136.72.160 you may worship Shôwa but the fact is that he was very ambiguous about Yasukuni. You want references, there is an ENTIRE chapter in Hirohito and war by Peter Wetzler in which he analyse in details the relationship between Hirohito and Tôjô. From p. 195 : "The emperor's trust in Tôjô's handling of affairs is confirmed by his support during the war and his statements about him immediately after. Had he not been convinced of his former prime minister's correcteness and sincerity, he certainly would have blamed him for the calamity that overtook the nation. Tôjô and Kido were among the few who were spared the emperor's criticism." Shôwa did in fact said to liaison officer Hidenari Terasaki that Tôjô was a "loyal servant"... --Flying tiger 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Joe 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)The article cites a professor in Hawaii documenting the role of Emperor Hirohito in findings of Japanese war crimes. I have added a second authoritative source, to add the weight of at least second source confirmation, by citing John Bergamini's excellent book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, which fully explains the reason behind the deliberate deception of the imperial government to conceal Emperor Hirohito's direct involvement in ordering Japan to war. That is, in part, to protect the Emperor from the possiblity of being charged with war crimes or being punished in any way for his role in ordering the war. As a sidelight, the book also shows that the history books err in proclaiming "unconditional surrender" for Japan, as the last days of the war, even after the atomic bomb, centered around whether or not Hirohito would be tried for war crimes, as vigorously urged by the Austrialians, or whether MacArthur's view should prevail, to use the customs of respecting the Emperor as a basis for getting the Japanese population to accept American occupation with a minimum of actual troops. MacArthur's view, obviously, prevailed.

Later investigations/Japans coverup efforts
The sections on later investigations and Japans cover up efforts were merged. Some stated that Japans coverup efforts were POV. I still think Toyo Ishii's testimony needs to be included, If your going to edit that section please do not delete the references or the names of individuals who testified. Thanks.--4.23.83.100 11:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The victim of 731 forces is Chinese and Russian. It is being written in the testimony to Ishi. Scamp it! Korean.　--211.3.120.137 11:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Why is there a neutrality dispute put up? This is a good article with facts and statistics, and despite the nature of the subject, not biased at all.

I'm going to remove the NPOV heading, and I guess if you want, you can put it back up, but please, provide a good reason as to why it should be there. Previous unsigned comment by User:24.9.29.236.
 * Exactly, a need for specific references is not a NPoV dispute. We need a justification for the tag. User:Northwind12 is doing this and is also persistently changing the definition of comfort women from "sex slaves" to "prositutes". Whether one agrees with it or not, the allegation is that they were sex slaves. There would be no basis for/discussion of comfort women as a war crime if everyone agreed that they were prostitutes. Prostitutes in wartime are not, as a matter of course, victims of war crimes. And plainly most people do not agree that it was merely a matter of prostitution. Grant65 | Talk 05:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comfort women
Comfort women (慰安婦, ianfu?) is a euphemism for prostitute not for sex slave. This is right clearly. Of course employing prostitutes is not a war crime, and all of them don't make allegation that they were sex slaves. Northwind12 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, comfort women is euphemism for both prostitution and sexual slavery, and as Flying tiger's new paragraph shows, there is evidence of coercion. Grant65 | Talk 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how the "broader definition of coercion" can be construed as not involving implied force of some kind. Grant65 | Talk 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of comfort women is a crime, since the victims never agreed to it. The problem is the Japanese government claims that the comfort women agreed to prostitution. Good friend100 13:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Korean POW guards
I have moved the new material on this to the section on non-Japanese personnel, higher up in the article, where I feel it is more appropriate. In its original location it tended to convey an impression that all Korean guards (or only Korean guards) were torturers. Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Debate in Japan
This is a part of the "Debate in Japan" section:

'' However, the peace groups and the left also generally consider the bombing of Japanese civilians by the Allies, particularly the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to be unjust and/or a violation of the international law. The left is also accused of being soft on Soviet atrocities.''

I'm not sure how that is at all relevant to the said section. The part where this is from can be understood either as "the left in Japan condemns Japanese war crimes, but fails to see the justice in the A-bombings" or else as "the left in Japan criticises the A-bombs, therefore their opinion is irrelevant". Either way, the section should be reworded or removed, it's between-the-lines POV. TomorrowTime 05:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Some US Media inform that Japanese are reluctant/hide the war crime but that is not true.

One of main point is even Japan is looser, Japan cannot accept Chinese/Korean's one side View history recogniton far away from achademic truth. For example Chinese insist 300K Victims at Nanjing but according to Japanese professor's reserch report 40K Victims. And at that time population of Nanjing is 200K. How can they kill more than population ??? Majority of Japanese are recognise Japan's Nanjin War Crime, thats why even Japan was World No2 GDP country,Japan continued light Armed country policy. One side disatmament is the Gift from Japan to China& Korea but now Chinese &Koreans spitting it,and many Japanese are regretiing Japanese friendly policy & one side disarmament policy from 1945-2006,because of current China & Korea nationalist's un-friendly behavior. And China accepted settlement of war compensation ODA. Nanjing is 70years Ago. Why they need to release 7more propaganda films at United States the most important country for Japan? If China have frustration why they does not accuse Japan to international court? If you can read Mandarin & Visit Chinese forum you can read Chinese strategy for Dominate Asia---SPOIL US-JAPAN ALLY that the short cut way to realize Chinese Domination of Asia '''Okay if you run over someone,and apologized and payed compensation and Victim accepted settlement BUT victim's son does not know your 20times Apologize(Japan Gov Apologized over 20times ) and frustrate it, and does not go to court and visit your company/your customer and give the slandous rumor to your BOSS/Customer--is it Fair? And any countries history including legend and propaganda because war is too dirty. If Chinese&Koreans force Japanese to recognize their legend as historical truth its not different from Rape. '''

The position of the Japanese government
''The Japanese government officially honours war service by all those who died in wartime, including "listed war criminals". Some Japanese people believe such service is above all other considerations, even though war crimes are unacceptable. It is for this reason that Japanese leaders visit the Yasukuni Shrine. Emperor Hirohito himself refused to visit Yasukuni after Class A war criminals were enshrined there in 1978. However, he never blamed leaders such as Hideki Tojo, who was Prime Minister in 1941-44, calling him a "loyal servant".''

The above section needs to be removed there are some major misconceptions, 1.)The Japanese Governmemt is ambigious to say the least. The first line of the above text is the postion of the Shinto leaders of Yasukuni Jinja, State Shintoism ended after WWII. The "Yasukuni" position is completly independent from the govt.

2.) Line two used weasle words and should be removed.

3.) Line three, Former PM Koizumi and Gov. of Tokyo Ishihara have both made it clear that their visits to Yasukuni are highly personal, and in no way to be considered "official state business" Both men lost family in WWII that are enshrined at Yasukuni. In Shintoism ones deeds good or bad, are not connected to them after they die.

4.) Line four, This statement is a bit closer to the truth, Hirohito and his son the current Emperor have not visited Yasukuni not do the enshirnment of the war criminals but do to the fact that they are compling with the Japanese constitution. The post WWII Constitution written by Gen. MacArthur and his JAGs ended the notion that the Emperor is a living Kami. The leaders of Yasukuni reject this notion and if an Emperor showed up there it would be a sign they they supported the Yasukuni view. Yasukuni was built by Emperor Meiji, Hirohito's grandfather, any person who died in the service of the Emperor would be enshirned at Yasukuni as a Kami.

5.) Line five, Hirohito never blamed anyone for the mistakes or crimes of WWII but himself. When he met with MacArthur he took full responsibility for all actions both political and military and fully accepted MacArthur's authority and any fate bestowed upon him that MacArthur saw fit. His only request was that the Japanese people be fed. Tojo however was the one who got the blame, MacArthur knew if the Emperor was tried and killed for war crimes the Japanese would be completely emotionally crushed. Tojo was at the top of the list, he died so Emperor could live, he gave his life in service of the Emperor, hence he met the criteria to be enshrined at Yasukuni Jinja.

Conclusions, this section is titled Position of the Japanese govt. however, the views of Yasukuni leaders and former Emperor Hirohito as well as what some Japanese leaders do during their personal time does not constitute an official govt position.

--Caligvla 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you say makes sense and I defer to your knowledge in this matter. Grant65 | Talk 11:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grant65 that you make a compelling argument. If you have citations to back it up I hope you'll add it to the Yasukuni Shrine article if you haven't already. Cla68 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict Caligvla on point 5 but his argument is only based on the Mac Arthur version of the meeting which is in contradiction to the transcripts.

Here is a citation from John Dower, Embracing defeat, p. 296 : "Like many of Mac Arthur's oft-told tales, his statement that the emperor volunteered to take responsibility fot the war upon himself appears to have been, at best, a creatively ornamented version of what actually was said." Dower then cite in detail the Okumura's transcription and the Home Ministry's version that Showa NEVER offered assuming reponsibility for the war.

Second, Peter Wetzler, in Hirohito and war, p.195, precisely write : "The emperor's trust in Tôjô's handling is confirmed by his support of him during and after the war and his statements about him immediately after. Had he not been convinced of his former prime minister's correcteness ans sincerity, he certainly would have blamed him. He was extremely critical of a number of former governement leaders... Tôjô and Kido were among the few who were spared the emperor's criticism."

Third, from Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, p.589, about the Shôwa monologue made to defend the Emperor from the Tokyo tribunal : "(Hirohito) wanted his views clearly conveyed to General Headquarters but he also wanted to defend General Hideki Tôjô, whom he knew was being set up to take the fall for him." and p. 591 : " He leaped lavihs praise on Tôjô, calling him a man of understanding."

Fourth, Dower and Bix refer in details to pressure made by imperial family members such as princes Mikasa, Takamatsu and Higashikuni to make Shôwa assume reponsibility for the war and abdicate. Higashikuni talk of this two times in the press and Mikasa stood up in February 1946 on privy council to indirectly ask for the abdication in presence of the emperor. There would have been no "emotional crush" if Takamatsu or Chichibu would have been regent as it was almost common knowledge for one year. --Flying tiger 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever Hirohito may or may not have said, his statements do not reflect the Japanese Govt. current position, the Imperial House has no authority or sphere of influence in Japanese Govt today.--Caligvla 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Item 5's statement that Hirohito took full responsibility is misleading. In fact, as WWII came to a close, the imperial government engaged in a deliberate, elaborate deception plan to conceal from the Allies the direct responsibility that Emperor Hirohito had in instigating Japan's entry into the war. The object was to ensure the survival of the Emperor system. See David Bergamini's book, Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, which is absolutely definitive on this point.Joe 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Definitions" section
I suggest we move that entire section down to after the "Crimes" section. The "Definitions" section is basically a section to explain opposing views on how Japan really didn't commit any crimes or did any wrong. And I submit that when people come to this article, they are most interested in reading about the crimes, or alleged crimes. Right now, a reader almost has to scroll halfway down before they can read about the crimes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

GREAT idea ! --Flying tiger 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the "Definitions" section down below the "Crimes" section, and renamed it "Opposing view points" - because that section is essentially a section to explain how those crimes may not be considered crimes at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this discussion before now. Sorry, but I'm going to revert. This has been debated before and a defintion of the basic concept is essential to any article of this length and complexity. If people want to go straight to the "Crimes" section they can see it in the contents. Grant65 | Talk 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Definitions" are unnecessarily too wordy, and most of it is about how they are not war crimes. I have to disagree with you on this one.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And note - there is already a definition of the war crimes in the intro section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hong Qi Gong. The intro definition is suitable for an intro par, but is too brief for such a large article. Clearly the definitions differ from one "victim country" (for want of a better phrase) to another, and the gamut of definitions are too complex to be addressed in the introduction. We need to make it clear what is being discussed before we get into the details


 * You also say that "most of it is about how they are not war crimes." That is a separate matter and I'd like to hear how you think the wording can be improved. Grant65 | Talk 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the wording needs to be improved. I think that section should remain what it is - opposing points of views.  Points of views about how the Japanese government really didn't do anything wrong.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the move. I am strongly opposed for the reasons given above and there is no consensus for it. Grant65 | Talk 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I disagree strongly that "most of it is about how they are not war crimes". It is a controversial subject and we need to reflect the range of views, as abhorrent as some of them may be. Thanks, Grant65 | Talk 05:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Definition's section is necessary as Grant65 explains. I think, though, that the "International definitions" section should come before the "Japanese definitions" section.  The section probably could be condensed or written differently, but, no one has done it yet. Cla68 06:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree the section is necessary. And I absolutely agree that this topic is controversial.  I just think the section was misnamed and put in a bad position in the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it a "bad position"? A comprehensive definition of the subject is fundamental to any article and this "Japanese war crimes" are not at all easily defined.

However, I do agree with Cla, "Definitions" should be condensed and a separate article Definitions of Japanese war crimes or whatever created, given the overall length of this article. I've been intending to do the same with the "Compensation" section. Grant65 | Talk 06:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that the section is not a "comprehensive definition". The section is about the opposing opinions.  The comprehensive definition is the list of war crimes.  The article has to talk about what the war crimes are first before it starts refuting that they were war crimes.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the view that if the definitions should remain on a separate article or, if put at the beginning of this article, they need to be completly revised. Those sections about "definitions" were mostly added at the time users believed, in good faith, the Geneva convention was the only international law concerned with showa crimes. The propaganda of showa fanatics is simple : Japan had not sign this convention, so there were no crimes. Thus, the showa atrocities were "special" and should be analysed by bushido...

However, we now know those atrocities, such as use of chemical weapons, were also for the most part clear violations of the Hague conventions and the Treaty of Versailles. Given that fact, the "crimes" are not so "special". I agree with Hong Qi Gong that the way those sections are written is confusing and, the crimes should come first while we rewrite the text... --Flying tiger 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hong Qi Gong, definitions are "opinions"; what we have in this case is opposing opinions. A list of crimes is not a definition. (By way of analogy, it's like saying that newspaper reports of frauds are the definition of fraud.) And definitions always come first, that is a basic convention of any article.


 * Flying tiger, if you have a problem with the existing definition section then feel free to rewrite it. I am, however, opposed to the moving or large scale deletion of material from that section. We do need to explain the position of the "showa fanatics"; that is part of any proper article on the subject. Grant65 | Talk 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is no consensus for Hong Qi Gong's move, I have listed this matter at RfC. Grant65 | Talk 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Grant65: I saw your addition on WP:RFC/HIST - I've never said that a "Definitions" section is not necessary at the top. I have only said that the section should be named for what it is - opposing views - and moved down to make way for the more important sections at the top. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Renaming it and moving it mean that it is no longer a "Definitions" section. Grant65 | Talk 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm... It was never a "Definitions" section to begin with.  That's been my point all along.  It was a section of opposing views - a section of opinions that these war crimes are actually not war crimes.  All I did was named it properly.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I completely disagree that it was never a "Definitions" section! So do other people.


 * In any case we need a definition or definitions, whether it is one paragraph or 10. Do you know of a simple, generally agreed definition of "Japanese war crimes" that can take its place? I don't. If you don't like the present definition section then replace it or fix it, but it does not belong half-way through the article. That is fundamentally wrong in terms of the conventional structure of an article. This article was named as a Good article long before you began editing it. Can you name any other Featured Article/Good Article that only defines its subject half-way through?


 * Grant65 | Talk 09:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must say also that I don't understand your position. Please be clear. You say: "I've never said that a "Definitions" section is not necessary at the top." So are you saying that a "Definitions" section is necessary at the top? If not then then you are saying that it isn't necessary at the top. You can't have it both ways. Grant65 | Talk 09:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have taken steps to resolve this. (1) Created a separate definitions of Japanese war crimes article; (2) Cut 8KB from the section in question in this article and; (3) moved the section back to the top, which if I understand HongQiGong correctly (?), is the proper place for a "Definitions" section.

I hope I can have the assistance of others, in helping to further improve the "Definitions" section. Regards, Grant65 | Talk 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * War crimes definitions are defined at the war crime page. It is not necessary to describe how the Japanese government define it at the top of this article. --法網 ian 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as language and culture differ from one country to another, and from one historical period to another, so does the concept/definition of crime, including war crimes. It is very necessary to define it separately here, although that does not mean that war crime should not discuss the same material. Grant | Talk 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Grant65, congratulations for your work. I think the article loooks much better now. I put some suggestion for new title sections but of course, there may be better. I may add one thing or two in the sections but for, now, it is still adequate. --Flying tiger 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I like your idea for the sub-section titles although I have changed wording of one title. Grant | Talk 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

R.J. Rummel
I am not a Japanese war crimes denier. I am sure they were responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths of millions. The CIA estimated up to 1,000,000 Indonesians in less than one year in 1965 so it's not even a quibble about numbers. My quibble is with Rummel. He's a crackpot and hardly an objective academic. He has an agenda and that's it. It's like including John Lott's work as a serious, peer reviewed source or citation. To the best of my knowledge, Rummel has never been peer reviewed. He has his own page. Can't we keep his brand of propaganda contained in his own wiki entry?

Wikkid Won
 * What's his agenda? How do you know he's never been peer reviewed? Grant | Talk 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The second question is easy. No serious academic would be caught dead doing it. It would ruin their reputation. As far as I can tell his books are self-published by DIY cut rate publishing houses, except perhaps for those silly Sci Fi novels. I didn't check those. Some of his "work" (junk) may have been published in some out of the way periodicals or journals. Nothing major. As to the first question, that's a bit more difficult because he seems to have betrayed his original agenda. He's gone from claiming that democracies don't usually make war with democracies to insisting that this democracy has the right to make war on any non-democracy to force democracy on it. He's insane. Insanity is a legal term, not a medical one. He's a right wingnut gone neocon. But I do thank you for responding, Grant. I will tell you what my agenda is. To keep silliness, crap and propaganda out of the Wiki pages. I try to be as fair and objective as I can. I have no problem with Rummel having his own pages but I question the appropriatness of his inclusion in this or any other historical entry.

Wikkid Won 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "No serious academic would be caught dead doing it. It would ruin their reputation." I don't buy this; Rummel is based at the University of Hawaii. What's to stop academics at prestigious international universities from critiquing him? You also haven't explained or justified your use of POV terms like "crackpot", "junk", "insane", "nut", "silliness", "crap" and "propaganda". Grant | Talk 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rummel isn't based anywhere but his easy chair. You do know what "emeritus" means, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeritus

Terms like "crackpot", "junk", "insane", "nut", "silliness", "crap" and "propaganda" are perfectly legitimate and non-POV terms when applied to someone like Charles Krauthammer or Rummel or John Lott, or a whole host of other people with bold faced initials after their names. Most of them get jobs at think tanks. I don't suggest we put these words in a wiki article or the entry on Rummel (most intelligent people, with or without Ph.D.s, will come to this conclusion on their own with a little investigation of the man, provided they are not flogging the same agenda) but they are not inappropiate for a talk page about this person. I have explained my use of them in this case and you are just ignoring that and making it about "the words" I use. This reminds me of an all too familiar pattern and defense to legitimate criticism leveled at this type of politically driven junk science and propaganda. Perhaps you are choosing not to agree for personal reasons. If you find these words too strong, how about hackery or quackery? Are you the person responsible for the interjection of Rummel's bizarrre political theories and questionable use of statistical projections into this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot

Crackpot most generally means a capriciously eccentric person. In various other uses, the term can mean:

Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs.

Just find me one peer reviewed article of this guy's recent "work" (since he was "retired").

Something related to this "democide" business. That shouldn't be too difficult. I became suspicious when I read his Amazon self-penned bio.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/show-detail/A2PF0ZMWMRN7SO?ie=UTF8&mode=aboutMe

"Biography R.J. Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

See also "about R.J. Rummel www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM, or his curriculum vita at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/LONGVITA.HTM. His website is at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills, his daily blog is at freedomspeace.blogspot.com, and his book blog on the Principles of Freedom is at freedomism.blogspot.com.

Many of his books are downloadable free in pdf at: www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NH.HTM"

That bit about being frequently nominated for the Nobel peace prize, that's total bullshit. Sorry if that word offends you, but bullshit offends me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

And the Susan Strange Award does exist, but they only gave out the first award in 2000 and it wasn't to this Rummel crackpot. He is a liar, fraud and a shameless self promoter. If you are the person who injects him into wiki articles, shame on you and you should be embarassed. Like I said, my agenda is to keep wiki free of this type of fraud and propaganda and prevent it from being an embarassment to the people who work on it and use it as the wonderful resource it is and should remain.

http://www.isanet.org/committee/Strange.html

Wikkid Won 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So what exactly is your problem with Rummel? You still haven't said. Grant | Talk 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are being purposefully obtuse. I must conclude that you an "adherent" who subscribes to his "theories". You are a "disciple" as it were. You have a dog in this fight. I don't. My dog is Wiki and not cluttering up historical articles with thinly veiled political propaganda and crackpot ideas that aren't even being taught in any high school or university. Got it?

I have said quite exhaustively and explicitly what my problem with Rummel is, although I doubt that you read it or if it would matter if you had. You are intent upon keeping "it" in the article because of your agenda. If that is the case, let's cite Tom Cruise on articles about psychiatry and the treatment of depression. I'll repeat myself for your benefit. He is not a credible source, unless you wish to make a mockery out of Wikipedia. Like John Lott, his statistical methods have been challenged and debunked, along with his "theories". If you wish to cite numbers, fine. Find a credible historical souce. You haven't taken up my challenge because you can't. I'll make it easier for you. Find one textbook with "democide" in it. I'm new to editing Wiki. It will take me some time to learn my way around. When I do I will take this matter to the next step. I've got nothing but time. Intellectual disingenousness is all you have.

Wikkid Won 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your criticism seems to be all character-based, am I right? That is not relevant here. What about his methodology in countind the dead? That would be an issue in relation to this article. Grant | Talk 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)