Edge Rewrite
// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a285a3dd3e4ecac0

Jump to content

Talk:Gersony Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by EdwinAlden.1995 in topic Thomas P. Odom and Phillip Drew

Odom

[edit]

Kwb2010 has twice inserted statements about the credibility of Odom: ("in his own book practically implicates himself as abetting the RPF's war crimes, is a well known apologist for the crimes against humanity communitted by the Kagame" & "well known fan of Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame who effectively brags about assisting the RPF in their killing campaigns") In both cases, Odom's own book was provided as a reference, but the wording make clear that these statements are Kwb2010's interpretations. This falls under the editing policy found at Wikipedia:No original research in which editor's own opinions and suppositions are strictly prohibited. If some credible source can be found that speaks to Odom's credibility, that may be worth adding, but I would ask that all editors refrain from inserting their personal opinions into content on this emotive subject. Thanks, BanyanTree 08:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thomas P. Odom and Phillip Drew

[edit]

The sources cited in the article subsection "Findings reported"—specifically those by Thomas P. Odom and Phillip Drew—have been used to challenge the credibility of the Gersony Report, asserting that claims of mass killings by the RPF in August 1994 could not be substantiated. However, these sources themselves are no longer accessible and appear to be based on personal opinions rather than verifiable documentation.

For example, the citation attributed to Phillip Drew is listed as "Dr. Phillip Drew, personal papers," yet no publicly available record of these papers exists. The lack of accessibility and independent verification raises concerns about the reliability of these claims as this issue aligns with Wikipedia:No original research, which prohibits editors from introducing their own interpretations or unsourced assertions. Unless a credible source evaluating Odom's credibility can be provided, it would be appropriate to remove these contested statements to maintain the integrity of the article and ensure that editorial content is based on verifiable, published sources. EdwinAlden.1995 (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply