Battle of Locust Grove

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Quality of Citation 32 (Southerland)

This source is a 2006 article in Radio Free Asia. While I don't have any reason doubt the existence of the atrocities it mentions, RFA is a known propaganda arm of the United States government known for spreading misinformation in and about the region under discussion in this article, and is therefore not to be trusted any farther than you can throw one of their broadcast towers. Perhaps we can find a primary source to replace it on the issues we're using it for here? Southerland himself cites a book, First They Killed My Father, by one Loung Ung (with whom I'm unfamiliar, but I did come to this article to learn in the first place), to substantiate some of the claims he makes that we repeat here. That might be a good starting point, if it's credible. A quick google search shows that some people have already picked at a few details, albeit unimportant ones. Cypionate (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to refer to this discussion about the reliability of RFA. I personally don't know much about this topic to give an informed opinion, but it's good to cross reference RFA with another source due to their bias in geopolitically-charged areas. PetraMagna (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Free Asia is usually considered a reliable source, as can be seen at WP:RSP. As can be read on that page there is consensus that for the purposes of Wikipedia it is neither a peddler of misinformation nor a propaganda outlet. If you disagree with that assessment the proper place to voice complaints is WP:RSN. XeCyranium (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible small discrepancy with links

In the Historical Background section there are links to all of the pages, but one of the sections has text briefly explaining it, and since I am a very new moderator, I would like if someone with more experience could confirm whether it should be changed for consistency or not. It seems to be fine, but might be easier if we add explanations to the other topics listed for easier access. MrGlassess (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Peter Landsiedel Source

This is an undetailed comment to be sure, but the Peter Landsiedel source that’s being used very early and prominently in the article to establish key facts about the genocide is painfully, abysmally weak and immediately throws the credibility of the entire article into question.

Surely there is a better, peer reviewed academic source that could be used to substantiate these important, basic-fact level claims. This source is essentially a Wordpress blog post. 2601:58D:200:DAF0:95B9:2484:A5CB:3105 (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]