Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2014/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Use of Democide and R.J. Rummel?
I do not have counter sources to substitute, but I am concerned about the use of democide on this page. I was reading this out of interest and learning and came across the term democide, which isn't even in the dictionary but is rather a theory proposed by a R.J. Rummel. Words like genocide, mass killings, mass casualties, annihilation, slaughter, or any number of terms would be a perfectly good substitute compared to a theory which seems to be heavily promoted by someone if you read the pages on R.J. Rummel or democide. Does anyone else agree? Or like R.J. Rummel's wiki page, because he has a FAQ on his website, he has verifiable sources so his word is better than normal lexicon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.197.5 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The term democide is used twice in the article accompanied by a Wiki link to the page democide with R.J. Rummel's figures for deaths due to Nazi and Japanese war crimes. Since there is already a Wikipedia page democide , I believe that it is appropriate to use it in conjunction with his figures. Bear in mind that Rummel's figures for deaths due to Nazi and Japanese war crimes are presented along with other academic sources that do not agree with his estimates. As editors it is not our job to decide what are the "correct" figures but to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The bottom line here is that Wikipedia articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)