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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
These are the removed citations:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
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)
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
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)
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)
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). [1] [2] [3]
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)
References
Genocidal intent in Nagorno-Karabakh can be further deduced from the actions of Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan. President Aliyev has knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily blockaded the Lachin Corridor, even after having been placed on notice for the consequences of his actions by the ICJ. In doing so, he has deliberately blocked the provision of life's essentials to the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, and openly disobeyed the legally binding orders of the Court.
Aliyev's genocidal intent is often expressed in his dehumanization of Armenians.
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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
These are the removed citations:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
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)
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
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)
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)
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). [1] [2] [3]
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)
References
Genocidal intent in Nagorno-Karabakh can be further deduced from the actions of Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan. President Aliyev has knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily blockaded the Lachin Corridor, even after having been placed on notice for the consequences of his actions by the ICJ. In doing so, he has deliberately blocked the provision of life's essentials to the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, and openly disobeyed the legally binding orders of the Court.
Aliyev's genocidal intent is often expressed in his dehumanization of Armenians.