User talk:Paul Siebert/Archive 2010/July

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

War communism
Hi, Paul! You've brought some good and relevant sources to the discussion about the Soviet Union. It would be nice if you somehow insert these sources into the War communism article. Also this Lenin citation could be helpful:

''"Военный коммунизм" был вынужден войной и разорением. Он не был и не мог быть отвечающей хозяйственным задачам пролетариата политикой. Он был временной мерой.»'' (Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд., т. 43, с. 220).

My translation: ''The War Communism was forced by war and devastation. It wasn't and it couldn't be the policy consistent with the economic goals of the proletariat. It was a temporary measure'' (Lenin, V.I., Collected Works, volume 43, 1965. Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp. 220)

Greyhood (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do that in reasonable future (I have some good sources for that). I have no time for that right now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy of the USSR
Seeing that you know so much about the Soviet economy, I'm wondering if you can add/write a "Long-run performance" or "legacy" section in the article. I've saw some of your posts on the talk page of the USSR article, and you seemed to have more scholary sources than my. Of course, you don't have to, but you seem interested in the topic. --TIAYN (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I have no time to write anything de novo. Please, propose a draft (you may do that on your or my talk page), and I'll try to find needed sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
You may wish to contribute to a WQA I have filed concerning an editor involved in this article.. TFD (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wehrmacht War Crimes
Noticed your edits on the page(which I somewhat helped to develop). Wendy's work on rapes on Eastern Front is available online in case you don't have it: http://www.victimsheroessurvivors.info/

Also you might be interested that there is a more exact estimate of victims:

''Besonders von militärischer Seite wird immer wieder betont, Vergewaltigungen seien ein "bedauerliches Nebenprodukt" von Kriegen. Dagegen sprechen Statistiken:Die vorsichtigen Schätzungen von HistorikerInnen im Zusammenhang mit dem zweiten Weltkrieg gehen von mindestens 2 Millionen Vergewaltigungen allein auf deutschem Territorium aus - davon etwa 240.000 unmittelbar mit Todesfolge für die Mädchen und Frauen. Gleichsam wird die Anzahl von Vergewaltigungen durch deutsche Soldaten auf russischem Boden auf etwa 10 Millionen''
 * Befreier and Befreite. Krieg, Vergewaltigungen, Kinder, Munich, 1992

 (in short: 10 million in Soviet Union, 2 milion on areas of Nazi Germany(I guess this includes annexed areas and concentraion camps), of which 240.000 died. This information in the article comes from Sander, Helke; Johr, Barbara (Hrsg.): BeFreier und Befreite. Krieg, Vergewaltigungen, Kinder, München 1992.

I hope to write more on Wehrmacht's crimes regarding this subject when time allows, if you want to contribute, any assistance would be welcomed. Currently information on this is very scarce on Wiki. War rapes article for example doesn't include it at all(while informing about US and Soviet rapes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rapes

So if you would want any more information or to co-operate on writing on this this tragic subject, send me a message. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What concretely do you plan to do in close future?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand the rapes section in Wechrmacht War Crimes article;currently it misses a lot of vital information, for example the difference on treating rapes in the West and in the East, as well as the reasons for punishing rape by German judges. Then add section on War Rapes regarding German forces in WW2, as it is missing right now.Finally I would like to create an article on the Wehrmacht rapes, but as it is a sensitive subject, I would prefer to do it with some experienced editors, for example I am unsure as to what exact title I should use.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with first two. Regarding the separate article, let's see if we find sufficient amount of sources for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1r
you have again broken the 1r restriction on Mass killings under Communist regimes please self revert mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since WP:1RR relates to re-insertion, not removal of the text, I didn't break it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Figured you`d say that see Here mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction at Mass killings under Communist regimes
See WP:AN3. There may still be time for you to avoid sanctions if you revert your last change. The 1RR restriction was announced here, and may be enforced by blocks. Removal of material placed by a previous editor counts as a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have responded at User_talk:EdJohnston. If you have doubts about the wisdom of the policy, I suggest you raise those elsewhere. If you believe it is too late to revert your changes to the article, your agreement to avoid the article for a week may be enough to avoid sanctions. In the absence of an appropriate response from you, a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Mass killings under Communist regimes. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below. You've been blocked 24 hours for violating the 1RR restriction on Mass killings under Communist regimes. The full report of this case is at WP:AN3. See WP:Guide to appealing blocks if you wish to appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding reomoval of POV templates. The thread is Removal of POV templates.The discussion is about the topic Mass killings under Communist regimes. Thank you. --TFD (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "strict" and "intrinsic"
Paul, I know that English is not your first language so I want to be sure I understand you correctly. What exactly do you mean by Valentino seeing no "strict connection between Communism and mass killing" and sources attenpting to draw an "intrinsic connection between Communism and mass killings"? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the following. Valentino considered different type regimes and found that some of them, including many Communist committed mass killings (loosely defined by him). However, he noticed that many (majority) of Communist perpetrated no mass killings. He concluded that mass killings (or their absence) depended on how deep were social transformations designed and performed by one or another regime, as well as on personal qualities of the leaders. In addition, he also noted that no mass killing were planned by Communist by the moment of their coming to power, in other words, mass killings were not a necessary part of Communist policy, but reaction of the regimes on resistance to the transformations they were performing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you meant no connection to the ideology of communism. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, that is obvious. Of course, some Communist leaders were extremists, so they were ready to kill when they faced resistance, however, that was the case only under several, not all regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested
You might be interested in case you haven't read this before: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55263&start=30 The topic includes an extensive quote from the article "Genocide Surveyed" by W. D. Rubinstein, The International Journal of Human Rights, Spring 2001, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 117-120. Since it would flood this page I recommend reading it there. The review(no surprise) is very critical of Rummel's claims and methods of estimating deaths. ''Yet his methodology is often somewhat questionable. His statistics for genocide are not generally derived from original research in primary sources, but by taking the most probable figure after examining the range of estimates given by previous writers on the event. This procedure is not necessarily unreasonable, but can lead to the acceptance of figures for a particular act of genocide which are distorted by inaccurate and sometimes biased sources. For instance, Rummel states (Democide, p. 18) that the Nazis murdered 220,000 homosexuals. Most historians regard the actual figure as 10,000. Rummel gives as his source (p.45) for the estimate of 220,000 the Protestant Church of Austria, which is 'a figure often cited in Gay Liberation circles'. Rummel's figure is, however, almost certainly impossible. Homosexuals were not deported to the extermination camps in Poland, but only imprisoned (often in appalling conditions) in German concentration camps such as Dachau. Nor were homosexuals outside Germany affected: there was no general roundup of homosexuals throughout Europe as there was of Jews. Rummel’s estimate of 220,000 is so improbable that it is not even cited in the Encyclopedia's article (pp.338-40) on this topic.'' There are other critical analysis of his numbers quoted, including the ones regarding Soviet inflicted deaths. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For instance(this is a fragment of the text from the Journal of Human Rights):
 * Thanks, that is really interesting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Mass killings under Communist regimes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

You may wish to work on a version of this article in your user-space; it would be interesting to see what a literate editor made of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure I created this article? You probably didn't look through the article's history carefully: it was created by the user Joklolk. Anyway, I do not support deletion of this article because it seems senseless: this article has already survived three AfD. Moreover, the article's defenders do have some valid points: mass killings really occurred under some Communist regimes and some commonality between some events took place. The problem is that (i) the article does belong to WP, (ii) provided that all OR and SYNTH is removed from there. However, most defenders of this article simultaneously oppose to removal of SYNTH and OR. We are in an impasse, and I have see no solution so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Formal mediation might do it, but almost no one seemed interested when I proposed it. I think we will probably wind up there eventually, though. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How the question for the formal mediation would be formulated, in your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with it, myself, but I'm reading up on it now. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither I do. I would be interested to see what you will find.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Formal mediation is strictly for content disputes, not disputes on editor behavior, so I would propose mediation for the three areas of greatest contention: the title, the neutrality issues, and the synthesis issues.
 * 2) Formal mediation requires all involved editors to voluntarily agree to mediation. This will be the key hurdle, especially as long as some believe that AfD nominations are a better route. So I doubt all the others would agree before the AfD closes (but, assuming the article is not deleted by the current AfD, most editors would be most receptive to the idea of formal mediation immediately after this AfD, in my opinion). The other potential hurdle is that parties involved in mediation must be agreeable to compromise, but I doubt editors would really object to that (in principle).
 * 3) One of the biggest problems on the talk page has been the high volume of posts and large number of simultaneous conversations by the large number of interested editors. Interestingly, formal mediation allows the option (not required) for the sides in a dispute to choose representatives who will address each other on behalf of the groups. Such spokepersons can also be required by the mediator. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know
Hi Paul, There is a glitch in wiki, when one editor edits a subsection and the other edits top of the article at the same time, sometimes WP fails to recognize an edit conflict but writes one edit on top of the other, which makes it look like one editor deleted other editor's comment. (Igny (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Thank you for informing me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings
Hi Paul, I would like to suggest to work on mass killings under authoritarian regimes in user space, do not create the new article yet. If we take mass killings under Communist regimes as basis for this future article, it is possible to make the move after implementing required changes, which is easier in my opinion than to argue about merging these articles later. (Igny (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)) In my opinion, the Mass killings under Communist regimes should be expanded, renamed to Mass killings under authoritarian regimes, and then, if necessary, much shorter daugter article should be created that will discuss the mass killing phenomenon in a context of Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I believe that is enough for today. Let's finish with Rummel first and then return to other questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, basing such an article on Mass killings under Communist regimes may be a mistake because they distinct topics. The two articles are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist at the same time. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To Igny. Agreed. Do you propose to use my or your talk page?
 * To AmateurEditor. The main issue is that the Mass killings under Communist regimes is written in such a way that it is in actuality the  Mass killings under totalitarian regimes article: most general sources (including Valentino, Lemkin or Rummel) are devoted to the latter subject. However, all these sources are cited selectively, and only in a context of Communist mass killings: it has nothing been said that initially Lemkin developed his concept of genocide to describe Nazi crimes, that Valentino's concept deals with mass killings in general, that Rummel used Communist nature of regimes as only one (out of more than ten) variables in his factor analysis, and observed strong correlation with the degree of centralisation, not with Communism, etc. All these sources are much more general, and all of them are cited selectively.
 * Re:Do you propose to use my or your talk page? Yours. You seem to be much more knowledgeable in this area than me. (Igny (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
 * How can the Mass killings under Communist regimes article really be Mass killings under totalitarian regimes when no non-communist-regime events are included? Of the three general source examples you gave, only Rummel discusses totalitarianism, and only in some of what he is cited for in the article (for example, he does not mention it at all here). Valentino does not discuss it. His book is about three distinct kinds of mass killing: Communist mass killings, Ethnic mass killings, and Counterguerrilla mass killings (the word "totalitarian" appears in his entire book just one time, and in a way which makes a separate from "communist": "... especially totalitarian and communist regimes". Lemkin is not a source in the article. I assume you meant Anton Weiss-Wendt, who discusses Lemkin. Anton Weiss-Wendt is not a major source for the article. In fact he is entirely limited to the "Origin of Debate" section about Lemkin and does not discuss totalitarian mass killing, he only discusses Lemkin. Again in this source, the word totalitarian occurs exactly once and is quickly passed over. In contrast, the four sources I offered and quoted at length in the most recent AfD clearly demonstrate that their topic is communist regimes alone. I know you didn't participate in that, but I would encourage you to quickly take a minute or two and read those exerpts (here's the diff) before basing a Mass killing under totalitarian regimes article ( or a Mass killing under authoritarian regimes article) on this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be the source of your confusion over why POV... Mass killing is mass killing. There are no such kinds as communist mass killing, or christian mass killing or american mass killing... (Igny (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC))
 * I'll concede "kind" is not the best word. Yes, killing is killing. But there is such a thing as the "topic" of communist mass killing. Do you at least agree to that? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear AmateurEditor, let me firstly explain the essence of the Rummel's doctrine (I prefer to do that here because you are my only opponent who is capable to accept logical arguments, and the only opponent whose counter-arguments are strong and serious). Rummel himself described it as follows:
 * "I have gone through five research stages to test the hypothesis that democracy is causally and inversely related to democide. Specifically for this test, I collected data on all democide for all regimes for the period from 1900 to 1987, for which estimates in English were available in the literature. Second, I delineates the dimensionality of these data through factor analysis. Third, attending now to the hypothetical independent variable, I determined various ways of measuring democracy over the same years for different regimes. I then used a factor analysis to define the prime indicator of the theoreticald emocracy-totalitarianism continuum. Fourth,I collected datao n a number of control variables, particularly those defining cross-national sociocultural diversity, culture, war and rebellion, wealth, and power. I also separately factor analyzed these data to uncover their major indicators and reduce the number of variables and their multicollinearity in the tests. Finally, I then applied factor analysis, interactive multiple regression analysis, canonical analyses, and time series regression to test whether of all indicatorst he democracy-totalitariaonn e best accountedf or democide, as it should. It did, regardless of the controls or type of tests." (Democracy, Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder. R. J. Rummel. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 3-26)
 * In other words, the works of Rummel is really revolutionary, because he was the first historian and genocide scholar who passed from bare hand-waving to the more or less qualitative description of this type events. He is really a brilliant thinker, although the way he implemented his approach, as well as his conclusions have been extensively criticised.
 * Let me summarise his approach as I see it. He tried to find statistically significant correlation between different forms of democide and various characteristics of the regimes to find the trait (or a combination of traits) that is an indicator that the regimes possessing this trait are more prone to democide. He outlined the following raw data types: Foreign democide, Domestic democide, Domestic democide annual rate %, Prisons/camps, Forced labor, Terror, Massacre, Famine/disease, Deportation, Genocide, Prisoners of war, Bombing. He also selected the following parameters describing political system of the regimes: Democracy (dichotomy), Democracy Scale, Arat's Democracy Scale, Democracy vs. Autocracy, Political Competition, Elected Executive, Elected Legislature, Legislative Effectiveness, Authoritarian (dichotomy), Authoritarian, Monarchy, Authoritarian Scale, Totalitarian (dichotomy), Totalitarian Scale, Communist, Political Power, Traditional Elite Power, Government Expenditures. Note, Communism is just one of parameters in his data set.
 * Factor analysis of this data set led to five independent variables. The first variable with highest eigenvalue (2.56) had following coefficients for the democracy related parameters: Democracy (dichotomy) : 0.8, Democracy Scale : 0.96, Arat's Democracy Scale: 0.76, Democracy vs. Autocracy: 0.79, and for totalitarianism: Totalitarian: -0.54, TotalScale: -0.84, Communist: -0.51. Other coefficients were closer to zero which implies that they other regimes' characteristics has lesser effect on democide. Based on that Rummel concluded that "Empirically ... democracy is inversely related to democide." and that "power kills is the primary and, for domestic democide, singular general explanation of democide".
 * In other words, Rummel found, based on his quantitative data about the amount of killed that there is an inverse correlation between democide and democracy, and a direct correlation between power (not Communism) and democracy. With regards to the source you provided, these Rummel's assertions do not follow from his statistical calculations (and, probably, that is an explanation that they were not published in a peer-reviewed journal). In addition, since majority of XX century totalitarian regimes were Communist (Nazi regime, thanks to Stalin's USSR, lasted not so long) it is natural that Communist regimes were more deadly (in absolute numbers) than other totalitarian regimes. However, that does not mean that they were deadly because they were Communist; the Rummel's finding do not confirm that. Again, if we assume that Rummel's "democide" and Valentino's "mass killings" is about the same (frankly, I see no serious difference), we have to agree that Rummel's "Communist democide" is just "Democide committed by Communists", i.e., just a particular example of democide, not a separate kind of it. My conclusion is that Rummel's concept belongs to that Mass killing under totalitarian regimes ( or Mass killing under authoritarian regimes) article, not to that about Communist mass killings.
 * One more point. Since the Rummel's conclusion strongly depends on the numerical data he used, any error in number can seriously affect the eigenvectors' coefficients. Consequently, it is absolutely impossible to separate the figures Rummel used for his calculations from conclusions he made based on that. If Rummel's figures are wrong, his conclusions are questionable too. Rummel's results were significantly affected by the assumption that the Soviet Union killed more than 60 million people. Recent findings demonstrated that these data were a gross exaggeration. Had Rummel made his factor analysis based on the data set that was not skewed to highest estimate, the correlation he obtained would be quite different.
 * Paul, I would prefer we didn't think of each other as "opponents" here. I think we both want the same thing. We both agree there can be an article on communist mass killings, and we both agree there can be a separate article about totalitarian killings, whatever the titles of the two end up being (unless I've read you wrong). I accept your explanation of Rummels's approach in his journal article "Democracy, Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder", and I accept your point that his numerical estimates have a direct impact on whatever correlation he might find between communism and democide. However, I have reviewed Mass killings under communist regimes for just what it is that Rummel is being cited for there, and this journal article is not cited. He is cited from five or six sources (depending on what Bibliography: Rummel is - that citation appears to have been improperly formatted):
 * "Death by government" - (1 cite) for his definition of the term "democide"
 * Pioneers of genocide studies" - (1 cite) for his discussion of communism and killing in his chapter there
 * "The killing machine that is Marxism" - (2 cites) for his opinion
 * Bibliography: Rummel - (1 cite) for his Stalin numerical estimate
 * "China's bloody century" - (3 cites) for his discussion of deaths under Mao
 * "Statistics of democide" - (1 cite) for his DPRK numerical estimate
 * Where he is cited, each of his citations seems to me to be appropriate. For example, in the chapter he wrote in "Pioneers of genocide studies" (citation 20 in the wiki article with a link to the Google books preview), he does discuss communism and mass killing. Quote: "How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew - through Marxism - what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia." (He also says in that source: "Communism, of course, does not stand alone in such mass murder.") Look, we are free to disagree with sources in our own opinions, but unless you are arguing that Rummel is not a reliable source at all, I don't see what the problem is with using him as he is currently being used in the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Democide and Rummel articles are poorly written, however, since I expect my attempts to modify them to encounter a serious resistance, I do not plan to modify them right now. Re China bloody century, I believe Rummel has to be credited for pointing the attention at the Mao's mass killings, because the US traditionally underestimated the bloody nature of Chinese regimes (both Communist and anti-Communist).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Were there any other questions/issues you had with my earlier post, or are you occupied elsewhere? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, following the consensus achieved on RSN, I would summarise that Rummel is:
 * -useful for for his definition of the term "democide" (ref to "Death by government" is justified and necessary);
 * -obsolete for his discussion of communism and killing in his chapter in " Pioneers of genocide studies": when he speaks, e.g. about death of 30+ million in GULAG he discusses the crimes that never took place;
 * -needed for his opinion (with reservations, because his opinion is based on wrong numbers);
 * -obsolete and redundant for his Stalin numerical estimate (we don't need to go to the history of democie studies; if we have newer and more accurate data, there is no need to reproduce older ones);
 * -needed for his discussion of deaths under Mao, because he was arguably the first western scholar who raised this question;
 * -probably, needed for his DPRK numerical estimate, because a little is known on that account. However, since he was found to be dramatically wrong regarding the USSR and Yugoslavia, he probably makes the same mistake in that case also. Unfortunately, the lack of archival data does not allow to make more concrete judgement. Anyway, it would be honest to tell that Rummel is known to give exaggerated estimates.
 * Did I answer your questions?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we pretty much agree here on Rummel. I would just want to be very careful that we correctly source what we say about exaggerated numbers on his part. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)