Talk:Genocidal intent

This is factual please don’t delete. The Amhara genocide is ongoing. The people who want this deleted are the one who are committing and assisting the genocide.

Abiy Ahmed/Isaias Afwerki

In the Abiy Ahmed/Isaias Afwerki war crimes in the Tigray War, it seems like Abiy Ahmed is being very careful to stay on the crimes against humanity side and avoid a genocide conviction: Toward a Peaceful Order in the Horn of Africa, Abiy Ahmed 6 Feb 2021: The hopes stem from the removal – for good – of the corrupt and dictatorial TPLF. ... But I cannot deny that the removal of the TPLF has fueled unease in the international community.

Do we have any genocide scholars' opinions on whether killing all males above 4/7/14 years old as a form of removing a political party would absolve Abiy from genocidal intent, on the grounds that a political party is not a "group"? There's also the complication that Isaias is legally the commanding officer of the Eritrean forces who are doing most of the massacres and who are saying repeatedly that they have been ordered to kill all (or all males) above a certain very young age limit. Abiy is only cooperating with Isaias, there's no public evidence that he's the commanding officer. So I guess it's also a question of whether Isaias and/or Abiy would only be convicted of crimes against humanity ("removal") rather than genocide.

Obviously, an online opinion from a known scholar does not carry the same weight as a peer-reviewed research article, but it should still be usable until peer-reviewed material becomes available. (It's also rather annoying that these sorts of research topics seem to be even worse than the physical/biological sciences in terms of not being open access, and might not even show up at via their DOIs at Sci-Hub, which, of course, is subject to an ongoing ethical/legal debate about open knowledge). Boud (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Boud, Thanks for your work on this article. In legal terms political parties are not recognized under the Genocide Convention as they are not "national, ethnical, racial or religious groups". (If ethnic groups are targeted, killing only males above a certain age didn't save Mladic from genocide conviction.) Some other definitions of genocide, followed by a minority of scholars, do include political groups however. Simply avoiding genocide won't get Ahmed off the hook since crimes against humanity has the same punishment according to the Rome Statute[1]. I'm not convinced that he should be included in this article based on unpublished opinions, seems like recentism. (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I hadn't realised the Mladić similarity: Srebrenica massacre#Plan to execute the men of Srebrenica, although I was generally aware of it. I think you're right in terms of non-yet-peer-reviewed opinions by scholars in terms of this article, regarding Abiy (and Isaias; see the {{patronymic name}} template at the top of their articles if you're wondering why I used their "first" names, trying to follow the common usage); at the moment there are plenty of journal articles remaining to be sorted into the body of this article, and they take priority. On the other hand, some scholarly sources could reinforce the quality of war crimes in the Tigray War - once they exist, which I'm sure will happen sooner or later. Boud (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Denial section needs rewrite

It's not clear if the cited person is an authority on denial of genocide or is herself an example of denial. Or if the paragraph is even relevant to denial at all.

It just needs some rewriting to make it relevant to the section. 2603:7081:1603:A300:2CC4:A198:82DB:C8BF (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Preserved citations

These are the removed citations:

They do not appear to all be needed to verify the quote they are cited for. It's doubtful that the quote is from both the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals as the article says. It would be helpful to know which citation the quote came from. They should be reviewed before they are added back into the article. I will get around to it eventually if no one else does. Ben Azura (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Ben Azura (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Idk why you keep removing the source (Lattanzi) that actually supports the content. If you want to nail down exactly where it comes from I suggest getting a copy of the book and checking the refs. The other sources should be moved to further reading rather than being removed entirely. (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you that it supports the refs because I don't believe the quote can be from the ICTY, ICJ and ICTR. I have no interest in getting a copy of the book. And, after your bullshit edit summary alleging content was removed where you removed content that tried to balance the article I am tagging it as undue and moving on. You should consider moving the citations a further reading section instead of telling me about what should be done. Ben Azura (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You definitely did remove content ; as anyone see in this diff. It's ludicrous to argue that you know the content of a source that you say you never consulted. I will remove the tag because it's never explained what content may be undue. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I did remove content. It was not an "inappropriate removal of content and sources" as you accused (per your edit summary). And, if you wanted to restore the removed content, you could have (and should have) done that without deleting other content that was needed to balance the article. You should be able to figure it out: "An international court might look at whether the defendant ... acted with knowledge of such a preconceived plan." Now nothing in the article offers even an inkling that this is currently a debate so hotly contested in literature it is even called the "intend debate" by some authors. Because you deleted the content I added. And then you deleted the undue tag. Ben Azura (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Addendum

Having noticed Guenter Lewy is cited, I must implore editors to not simply restore the citations to the article without reviewing them. I have misgivings about citing Guenter Lewy for an article about genocidal intent. Many reliable sources including SPLC consider him a genocide denier, and I think it would reflect poorly on the encyclopedia to overlook this. He is widely cited in some other areas of academic study, but his work about genocidal intent does not seem to be well-respected by the academic community. I am of the view that it should not be cited uncritically. I am worried there might be other problems with some of the citations, and ask patience as we sort through them and continue working on the article. Ben Azura (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

undue sources

Many of these sources are journal articles cited for novel analysis: the most clearly stated example is speculation that Holocaust perpetrators would not have been found guilty under some of the ICTY standard. Are there any sources that have cited them? Have they been influential? - I think they're good. But me liking them is not enough to convince me they should be cited. Ok, for suggestion to move them to further reading. Ben Azura (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The undue tag is for the article content not the sources. Citing opinions/analysis from a paper is fine although in some cases attribution is needed. Feel free to start a further reading section if you like but you've indicated no reason the undue tag is valid (t · c) buidhe 13:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be balanced. It gives undue weight to views that are contentious in scholarly literature, like speculation about how courts could apply a weaker knowledge based standard, or the view that the standards of the tribunal were too high and would have allowed Holocaust perpetrators to go free, which is a preposterous and trivial opinion of one scholar that that should be removed from the article. Most scholars think the standards were too lax at ICTR. Thry are now discussimg something in between, so it is also out of date.

The tag is valid and added in good faith.

P.S. I am not going to move your citations to a further reading section, and I am not going to continue working on the article until one of two things happens: You move them your own damn self, or they are incorporated into the article by regular editing. I'm not your Wikimaid. Please don't remove the undue tag. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Azura (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that the views are undue in the scholarly literature? What's the proof that "Most scholars think the standards were too lax at ICTR"? (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

1. A judge's book should not be cited directly as evidence that their view of evidentiary standards has been widely accepted because it requires more evidence it is still UNDUE. And by quoting ICJ, ICTY and ICTR which are not current, and dont stack for greater authority, its is UNDUE. The content in the article as it stands contradicts the lede. Alerting readers to issues with the article is a "policy based reason". Is there a better or different tag we could use?

1. I will the add the proof directly to the article that many scholars think the ICTR standards were too lax, only after you clean up your citations mess. I am not moving them to a further reading section. Its too much trouble on a tablet. Is there a "policy based" requirement to leave citations that arent needed in the lede of the article for over a year? Ben Azura (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

   If you're going to make an argument that content is undue it needs to be supported by reliable sources not just your opinion. Relevant legal precedents from the past should be covered in the article even if they had been superseded - for which there is no evidence right now (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Undue content

Hi @Buidhe, I see you removed some content I had added, stating "wp:undue issues, should cite the sources about genocidal intent in general rather than specific cases to shoe horn them in."

I'm a bit confused since I added this content to the subsection of the article that is called "Cases" after all and there are plenty of specific cases in that subsection already: 1993 ICTY, 2004 War in Darfur, 2010 case with the Khmer Rouge, etc.

What is particular about the content that I added that means they should be removed?

In 2019, Canada's National Inquiry’s into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women argued that when it comes to state responsibility for genocide, "a state's specific intent to destroy a protected group can only be proved by the existence of a genocidal policy or manifest pattern of conduct."

Human rights observers and genocide experts attributed genocidal intent to Azerbaijan's nine-month long blockade, destruction of public infrastructure, and subsequent military assault on Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians (2022-2023).

The content from the 2019 case also was both specific (relevant to falling under the subsection called "Cases") and general: Canada's National Inquiry made a analysis in ascribing genocidal intent to states as opposed to individuals.

Thanks for your feedback! Phantomette (chat) 15:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is about genocidal intent in general. It's a coat rack to put in sources about various events in order to include them in the article. Furthermore, it's misleading when there is not agreement whether the events are genocide to begin with. (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean you think the entire Cases subsection is WP:undue? Virtually all of the content in this section refer to specific cases and/or show lack of consensus among scholars or legal experts:

• The acquittal of... was controversial, and one scholar opined that Nazis would have been allowed to go free under the ICTY's ruling.
• Claus Kress argued that the ICTY and ICTR
• Olaf Jenssen disagreed... arguing...

Phantomette (chat) 17:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's a source about genocidal intent and it refers to a specific case as an example, ok. If it's a source about a particular case and mentions genocidal intent briefly, probably Undue. We really should have a case law instead of a cases section because this is a legal topic. (t · c) buidhe 23:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

References