Talk:Genocide justification

Did you know nomination
Gog is correct here, I don't see enough support for this wording in Jones. The fact that genocide justification is illegal in many countries suggests that this is not a widely held view. I don't believe it is a widely held view (or even a minority view in publications) that genocide is ever justified in fact, only that there have been attempts made to justify genocides for various reasons (political or ideological). JudgeJells (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will let Buidhe respond to Gog the Mild above regarding Jones (who I am reasonably certain supports language similar to that proposed by Buidhe), but note that JudgeJells has been arbitrarily deleting large amounts of unrelated content on the false pretense that there have been "objections from multiple editors," including content from Simon 2016 that is plainly supported by the Google Books link helpfully provided, clear as day. This editor has only ~42 edits at the time of writing, although he obviously feels confident enough to lecture Buidhe, an extremely experienced contributor to say the very least, as well as myself about sourcing and consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I may have made a mistake about Simon but I didn't remove anything under "false pretenses". How can you know why I removed something without even attempting to discuss it first? JudgeJells (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Explanation why content from Simon was removed
The Simon text is about criminal defenses for charges of genocide. This is the content I removed:

"Law scholar Thomas W. Simon argues that the usual defenses for homicide, such as circumstances or insanity, should not be allowed for genocide trials. He argues that either defense could lead to excusing all genocide."

"Circumstances" is not a criminal defense. Simon is quoted from the relevant page: "excuses involving circumstances". Insanity is a defense, but based on my quick Google search, it's an excuse defense, not a justification defense. Why should it be in this article?

I am not as confident as you think I am TheTimesAreAChanging. I am fretting that I've made a mistake and I'm so worried from your comments that I've done something wrong. I will read these books two or even three times before I make comments, but I acted quickly this time.

But I am lucky, Simon text doesn't support: "either defense could lead to excusing all genocide." ... What he says: "Excusing all individuals similarly accused" is a different meaning. We're not aiming for "similar" here, we're aiming for facts, so let's try to do that. JudgeJells (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I read this as, "If these defenses are allowed, no genocide prosecutions are possible, and therefore genocide is de facto legalized, if it cannot be prosecuted". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * However, I don't object to removal in this case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "But I am lucky, Simon text doesn't support: "either defense could lead to excusing all genocide." ..." Here is the relevant excerpt from Simon 2016:


 * The perpetrator of genocide should not (even though, under current practice, they can) be able to appeal to excuses involving circumstances or to defenses about mental states. In homicide cases, a defendant may bring exculpatory claims based, for example, on proving coercion or entrapment. In genocide cases, a defendant should not be able to to use an appeal to circumstances as exculpatory. ... If a court grants a defendant [in a homicide case] an excuse based on circumstances, it may lead to an indictment of part of the political and legal system. If a perpetrator of genocide tries to justify genocide by focusing on the circumstances, the perpetrator may bring the entire government, for example, all of the heinous rules, regulations, and acts employed by the Nazi regime, into the question. In genocide cases, if a court grants a defendant an excuse based on circumstance, it may result in excusing all individuals similarly accused. The circumstances at stake in genocide cases can cover the entire system. ...


 * As with the case of excuses based on circumstances, if insanity pleas functioned in genocide cases as they do in homicide cases, they then permit excusing an entire population that found itself caught in a wave or irrationalism. Genocide acts would then become excused by reason of an insanity writ large. If an international criminal justice system permitted a form of insanity defense in genocide cases, its action would have a serious implication not found if excuse of circumstances were permitted. If the legal system ever entertained something like a "collective insanity plea," then it would have effectively dismissed the very idea of a crime of genocide. [emphases added]


 * Parsing that carefully, Buidhe may have erred slightly in that Simon states that the insanity defense would effectively abolish "the very idea of a crime of genocide," whereas the appeal to circumstances (e.g., coercion or entrapment) would merely have the effect of making it impossible to hold any individuals—as opposed to a governmental system—personally and legally responsible for the crime. Nevertheless, JudgeJells's rationale for deletion —both the assertion that the entire excised text failed verification and that a coterie of editors expressed opposition to it on the talk page—is demonstrably false and deficient. At the same time, the lack of a valid rationale for deletion is not the same as an argument in favor of retention, so if Buidhe would like to drop the matter then I will do likewise. Legal defenses for genocide are related to justification for genocide, but the two topics are not the same—perhaps this citation would fit better in another article?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "perhaps this citation would fit better in another article" -> yes, that's what I was thinking. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, when did I say "the entire excised text failed verification and that a coterie of editors expressed opposition to it"? Gog has raised (separate) concerns about other portions of buidhe's edits. There is no consensus for buidhe's changes and you agree that there are errors in the text, but blame me for removing them. What should I have done? JudgeJells (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

El Salvador
There are very many terrific sources cited in this article that comprehensively cover the topic of genocide justification. If not even one of those sources has mentioned this quote editors need not trawl the college newspapers to dig it up, even ones as respectable as the Crimson. The article is not a collection of sensational quotes from political figures who very often make inappropriate remarks. If no scholar considered it of significance, the additions don't improve the articles to get across the main points of a subject. Kindly do not restore this garbage when it doesn't add anything significant. Gators bayou (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

1804 Haiti massacre was not a genocide and should not be included in the list
The article on the event itself is called massacre, not genocide, and the viewpoint that the events in question were genocide is not a mainstream consensus among historians. It is completely inappropriate to include it. Having it in the article puts mainstream contextualizing a massacre that was retaliation for a lifetime slavery and an independence debt on par with the fringe rationalizers and justifies of real genocides.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The event is included because it's the main example in the section of Adam Jones' book discussing whether genocide is ever justified, and also discussed as justification of genocide in Philippe R. Girard's paper. This is sufficient coverage to merit a section in this article. Whether you or I personally think it's a genocide is irrelevant. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing
— Assignment last updated by NavyBear314 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment edit: Armenian and Rwandan Genocide Section
Updated Armenian genocide section by changing the first paragraph to be more easily read. (Splitting up long sentences).

Also updated Rwandan genocide section by adding 3 paragraphs. One section about ties with Tutsi and RFP and discrimination resulting from this. One section about Kangura newspaper spreading anti-Tutsi propaganda justifying harm. One section about how other media, like Radio Rwanda, played a part in shaping people's views on the Tutsi.

Also added media supporting one of the paragraphs depicting Kangura newspaper. Erickgulyan (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)