Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide

Argument against deletion
The main reason for the proposal for this articles, or even sub article's deletion is the postulation it is a source reference outside of the reference section.

This proposal was put forward when this was initially the case. I did some work to separate films from this section, and kept the books under this header. It was at first simply a list of all the materails in use for authorship of the original French article. This is the English translation of such. I think though, it is now a reflectional, rather than refrencial part of the main article. If the contents of this section are kept non-achademic, and on the level of accounts, it should be seen as a vital window on the contemporary reaction to this still contemporary event. Complimentarily, a bibliography, alongside the filmography, is of an importance beyond simple evidentiality. Like non-contemporary historical articles have their pop-culture sections, this is a contemporary, and fuller, substantiation of similar topical merit. Truely achademic histories always try to separate the facts from the fictions. These cultural idioms, if you will, of films and books, are the fictions, and the facts should not be seen to be within them, it is really viser verser.

I move this is far from a candidate for deletion. If the main-article was to loose this sub-article it would certainly, and woefully lack appropriate coverage and categoriseation (encyclopedically) of key aspects of the event history remembers as the Rwandan Genocide.

Achademic study involves scientific rigour, and the application of fact over fictionaliseations... at least ideally. This section should contain things not at this level of scruity. Things that do not concern themselves so much with the facts, yet rather with the fictises, of a more conjectural than consensural point of view. You simply cannot reference the reflection of journalistic, either personal or general accounts, without the definition of this a conjecture, and not consensus. This is key, as this means it does not qualify as ultimate historical evidence, yet rather unique evidentality of historic occurances... abstractly. Hence this bibliography section, like the filmography section, must be kept to provide information on the subsequent eventualities (emphasis on the 'event') of thought, and cultural dynamics, directly apportionable to the topic itself. The books and films for presentation within the main article's subsection, should be contemporaryily, self determinational. Ergo, part of the history.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)