Talk:Incitement to genocide/GA1

Active discussions

GA ReviewEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pi (talk · contribs) 00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    No issues with prose, spelling and grammar
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    No MOS issues
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    All sources are presented well
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    The article is comprehensively cited to reliable sources. I couldn't check all of the offline sources, however none of the statements dependent on offline sources were particularly controversial, and the citation was specific enough about the source content.
    C. It contains no original research:  
    No original research, all scholarly opinions are appropriately attributed to their sources
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    No identifiable copyright issues. Quotes from sources are appropriately cited
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    The topic is covered thoroughly
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    Article is focused on the topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    No undue weight to any particular viewpoints.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    The article is stable, no evidence of edit warring.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    All of the images are either public domain or suitable license.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    All images are relevant and appropriate to the topic
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Passed after further improvement

Some issues with sourcesEdit

I've been trying to acquire some of the offline sources from a library but I've had no luck due to Covid-19 and the libraries being closed, so I'm going to do the best I can with what I can get online. If there's anything that I think really needs checking in the source I will make further attempts to get them. There's a couple of issues which I think might be a bit problematic. I'm not saying they're blockers necessarily, I'm just listing my thoughts for now. Feel free to make some comments

  • "incitement to genocide is considered an inchoate offense and is theoretically subject to prosecution even if genocide does not occur" and "However, it may occur in the absense of genocide."- I don't have access to May 2010, however I have read Gordon 2017 and the judgement in Nahimana et al. (Media case) (ICTR-99-52), which is referenced by Gordon "The Chamber notes that this causal relationship is not requisite to a finding of incitement. It is the potential of the communication to cause genocide that makes it incitement". There seems to be enough in these sources to broadly support the sentence, but I wonder if slightly revising 'is considered' to clarify by whom might be more verifiable. Pi (Talk to me!) 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Added additional sources and dropped "considered", since most just say it is an inchoate crime.
  • "Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher was the first person to be held responsible for incitement to genocide, at the International Military Tribunal in 1946" - The source (USHMM) says that Streicher was convicted of Crimes Against Humanity, and while his conviction seems factually equivalent to incitement to genocide, I'm not sure that this credits him with being the first person convicted of incitement to genocide Pi (Talk to me!) 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Good point. I checked Gordon and he thinks that the case was more complicated than straightforward incitement and included other elements, so I've removed. buidhe 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "If genocide was committed, incitement could also be prosecuted as complicity in genocide, prohibited in Article 3(e), without the requirement to be direct or public" - Again, I don't have access to Schabas 2018, and so I can't verify your source, however this does seem to be contradicted by p493 of Benesch. (So the treaty law instructs only that to commit incitement to genocide: 1. one must have specific intent39 to cause genocide, and 2. the incitement must be direct and public. ) Pi (Talk to me!) 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That's what Schabas says, and I consider him to be more authoritative than Benesch. Also, I don't think that Benesch contradicts it. buidhe 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This quote from Gordon 2017 - "glossary of incitement techniques should be woven into judicial pronouncements" - I have the paper online but I can't see this quote (or indeed a page 399, although maybe that's because you're referring to the page in a journal, not the page of the paper itself) Pi (Talk to me!) 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I am using the Oxford University Press book, and I double checked that it appears on the page. I think the online paper is just a summary of the book. buidhe 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pi: Thanks so much for your review, I have access to pdfs of most or all of the sources and can send them to you if you like. I will reply to the issues above. buidhe 04:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry I've been distracted and it's taken me so long to get back to your very helpful review. buidhe 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe, No worries, can you ping me when you've finished going over it and then I'll take another look Pi (Talk to me!) 01:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Other IssuesEdit

  • I think that this text in brackets "(Private incitement to genocide may not be punishable under the Genocide Convention.)" needs to be improved to clarify why this is the case. The source (USHMM) states that private incitement may constitute Complicity in Genocide, and I think it's important to further explain this rather than just include this statement in brackets Pi (Talk to me!) 19:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed as unimportant.
  • but the Canadian Supreme Court found him guilty of incitement to genocide - This implies that he was convicted of Incitement to Genocide in Canada, which wasn't the case. The source (Benesch 2008) says But in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada found that Mugesera had indeed committed incitement to genocide, and the footnote of that paper cites Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) which ruled that reasonable grounds exist to believe that Mr. Mugesera committed a crime against humanity[1], in a non-criminal immigation case Pi (Talk to me!) 23:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • fixed and cited the judgement directly
  • By invoking collective self-defense, genocide is justified, just as self-defense is a defense for individual homicide - Can that be worded better? It sort of reads like a statement of fact.
Alt1: By invoking collective self-defense, a propagandist justifies genocide, just as self-defense is a defense for individual homicide
Alt2: Susan Benesch remarked that by invoking collective self-defense, genocide is justified, just as self-defense is a defense for individual homicide, and that while dehumanization "makes genocide seem acceptable", accusation in a mirror makes it seem necessary

Pi (Talk to me!) 23:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    • Done (edited version of ALT1)
  • A German at the time could not have missed encountering the message repeatedly. I think this needs further explaining, I know it's a quote from the source, but the article doesn't say where the quote is from. In fact when I first read it I thought it meant that it was a quote from Germany Must Perish!. I think it would probably be better to remove this quote, since the article already says that the book was "repeatedly emphasized in Nazi propaganda". Pi (Talk to me!)
    • Removed
  • Amin al-Husseini also incited genocide I'm inclined to think that this should be reduced to 'is said to have incited genocide' or similar. The sources for this are scholarly rather than legal, and given the context of the article, where other people mentioned have been convicted, the difference is more important Pi (Talk to me!) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Done
  • However, many countries signed these treaties to maintain a façade of respect for human rights while violating their provisions - This seems too much of an opinion. While it's factual and can be supported to say that certain countries haven't acted in accordance with the treaty, the sentence as it stands seems to me to be an academic opinion, rather than something verifiable Pi (Talk to me!) 02:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Attributed
  • The paragraph in International Treaties that begins The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia came to different conclusions - I don't think this belongs in this section. Neither the ICTY or ICTR defined incitement to genocide by a new treaty, and the different conclusions were established by case law. I think this section should be incorporated into the Definintion or Case Law section.
    • Moved to "Direct" section.
  • This means that it is no longer an inchoate offense, as it was held to be in previous case law - I don't think it's merely a case of no longer, it's simply that it won't be an inchoate offense before that court. Previously established precedent will still be binding on other courts. (Talking of upcoming Incitement to Genocide trials before other courts, did you see that Felicien Kabuga was arrested the other week?)Pi (Talk to me!) 02:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Reworded, and I did not.
  • In 2016, Léon Mugesera was convicted of incitement to genocide and inciting ethnic hatred based on a 1992 speech - This is put in the ICTR case law section, however Mugesera wasn't convicted by the ICTR, he was convicted in domestic Rwandan court. Perhaps move this to the History section? Pi (Talk to me!) 02:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • National case law is still relevant so I opened a new section for that.
  • The picture captioned with Israeli woman in Beersheva injured by a Hamas rocket - I think this image goes beyond the scope of the article and perhaps starts to become WP:UNDUE. While the paragraph about Hamas is reasonable since it is focused on incitement, and reliable scholarly sources describe this as incitement to genocide, illustrating this with the aftermath of a rocket attack implies that what Hamas carry out with rockets is genocide, which isn't claimed in the article or supported by the sources. Pi (Talk to me!) 02:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed. buidhe 11:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sections and ProseEdit

I know this is quite a general point, but some of the sections in the Definitions and Types section are very small, some only one sentence. Could some of the paragraphs be merged together? Alternatively, since some of these sections, such as 'Asking questions only contain a specific example of something that was held to be incitement to genocide, perhaps they could be moved to the case law sections.

  • MOS:PARA states that "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead." The problem is that we have uneven lengths and the "Accusation in a mirror" section, for instance, would not fit in a bullet point. I would rather not demote or remove any sections because that would give a misleading impression of what Gordon wrote. The current layout imo is the least bad option. buidhe 11:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Further ReviewEdit

I have looked over the changes that you have made and I am now happy to pass the article as GA Pi (Talk to me!) 02:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Incitement to genocide/GA1" page.