Talk:Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconHuman rights
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Structure

The choice of Factors as the main section of this article was inspired by Predictions of the end of Wikipedia, which seems to be one of the better developed of the Category:Prediction articles, but is also justified by the structure of the sources, which mostly list multiple factors make a genocide likely to occur. Since ten stages of genocide allows time overlap between the stages, choosing Factors rather than Stages seemed better justified to take into account all the sources, especially as the topic here is the predictions of the new genocide, not an overall analysis of the genocidal events of the Tigray War. Boud (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article ten stages of genocide and the subsection Risk factors for genocide#Gregory Stanton: "Ten_Stages_of_Genocide" and the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?, in particular the Africa Check report ANALYSIS: Genocide Watch thin on transparency and methodology, 15 September 2016, Kate Wilkinson, shows that this is rather a genocide analysis model by one enthusiastic researcher, the use of the model is not very transparent, and it's not seen as a necessarily better model than other risk models of genocides. So staying with "Factors" is justified, and dropping the emphasis on Stanton's '10 stage model' would also be justified. Boud (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Boud, just fyi that the Journal of Genocide Research is doing a symposium on Ethiopia and genocide. Some of the articles are available advance access on their website: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2021.1992920, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2021.1992925, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2021.1992924 although not all are about the subject of this article. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks. I've already cited the one of those three that is open access (Ibreck & de Waal), but opinions differ about the significance of peer reviewed academic articles in some situations in Wikipedia: Talk:Tghat#Removal of peer-reviewed source. Boud (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be in the interests of knowledge dissemination if the authors of these articles could post their articles on
green open access may still frighten academic authors, but this was lost decisively by the publishers in the 1990s in astronomy/high energy physics, thanks to ArXiv and popular pressure. Several journals still have the face-saving principle that the journal's specific pdf and typesetting details (and html online version) may not be redistributed by the authors, which is an acceptable compromise, especially since ArXiv preprints are normally provided by the authors as source files, not pdfs; ArXiv robots produce the pdfs. The substantive content doesn't suffer from a slightly different typeface, paragraph formatting, figure/table layout, and so on. The EU and EU universities are also putting in place increasingly stronger obligations for open-access publishing.
SocArXiv seems like the best option for social sciences. See the comparison with Researchgate/Academia.edu and the problems with SSRN - the discussion is authored by SocArXiv, and SocArxiv seems to requires the use of CloudFlare and the article preparation guide is on GAFAM, but SocArXiv would seem to be the least worst option for social sciences green open access, it seems to me. Boud (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 29 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. No Move.Dunutubble (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Genocide Watch[1][2]
So while I do not wish to delete this article, which is well-researched and belongs here, I think we should instead name it to something more like:

1.

Tigrayan genocide
)

2. Ethnic cleansing in the Tigray war

3. If it is not neutral enough, then just do 'Ethiopia and the Genocide analogy.'

4. Genocide warnings for Ethiopia.

I am willing to accept alternative suggestions or opinions. My general idea is that 'Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia' is not a suitable name. – Dunutubble (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Dunutubble (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Turnagra (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying @Buidhe and @Boud, who have so far been the only contributors to this article. Dunutubble (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for opening the discussion. We certainly need a set of article names that are currently likely to achieve consensus and are likely to remain stable and not encourage duplicate content (apart from summaries for cross-referencing).
The current state of war crimes in the Tigray War#Genocide claims is that there are many claims by serious sources that a genocide has been occurring, and that genocide-by-famine is ongoing. There was a proposal to split off crimes against humanity from the war crimes page in March 2021; it didn't gain support. However, so far there has been no proposal to split off the genocide part into a separate article. The same issue as in March would come up: which parts are "just war crimes", which parts are crimes against humanity, and which are genocide?
It is misleading to describe Gregory Stanton#Genocide Watch as "the" world's leading organisation on genocide studies; it is one organisation specialising in the topic, it does not seem to be a university-type research institute subject to academic peer-review type organisational and funding processes, and it seems to be "thin on transparency and (method)" and has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 316#Genocide Watch: Unreliable source?.
  • Tigray genocide - the problem with this is that the predicted genocide would especially happen in Addis Ababa, at least per the predictions. It seems to be accepted that the genocide of the X-ian people is called the X-ian genocide, so Tigrayan genocide would seem viable - to apply to Tigrayans in the pre-war Tigrayan Region, and elsewhere in Ethiopia. The predicted Oromo genocide, which is part of the current predictions, could be a sentence or two in that article, based on the current sources.
  • Ethnic cleansing in the Tigray war seems like a bad option, since the Wikipedia article ethnic cleansing says that the term is currently an informal word for crimes against humanity, or sometimes genocide, depending on the case.
  • Ethiopia and the Genocide analogy - I see no point to this - I don't see any sources describing "genocide" as an analogy of what has and is happening in Ethiopia.
  • Genocide warnings for Ethiopia - We have several well-accepted articles called Prediction(s) of ..., but Category:Warnings was deleted and Category:Warning doesn't exist. Creating a precedent is not forbidden, but following accepted patterns is more likely to achieve consensus.
So overall, Tigrayan genocide would seem to be the closest of your suggestions that might achieve consensus. In that case, some of the content would shift from the war crimes article, keeping summaries appropriately, and the current article would become a subsection something like Prediction of a genocide of internees (inside an article, a subsection name has to make sense in the context of the article as a whole, not as a standalone topic). I guess I'd like to see
Tigrayan genocide (as an article rather than redirect). There's no point creating it and then having long title battles, which can diverge a lot of editing energy from content. Boud (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose move. Taking into account Buidhe's arguments in addition to mine above, I see no good option for a better name. The current one is a neutral description, and it follows a precedent in style Predictions of ... (which is helpful, though not required). Boud (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal: How about just Genocide in Ethiopia? Currently a redirect to a deleted section of Genocides in history. Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if there's any event in Ethiopia that is generally recognized as a genocide. I oppose this suggestion as it would require completely rewriting the article, if the topic even exists. (t · c) buidhe 10:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll close this discussion, then. Dunutubble (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ "Genocide Emergency:Ethiopia".
  2. ^ "Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia".

Article scope

It isn't totally clear to me what the scope of this article is. Some background to my question in the

Talk:Amhara genocide
. This article's opening sentence says, Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia, particularly one that targets Tigrayans, Amharas and/or Oromos, have frequently occurred during the 2020s. The article cites most notably a coalition of groups calling on the UN and also an opinion piece in the Guardian, and a shorter opinion in Eritrea Hub. All of these sources are from November 2021. So the opening sentence may be an overstatement of these sources.

There is also a warning from Genocide Watch, but this is not a prediction, because it says that Because both sides target each other based on ethnic identity and intentionally destroy significant parts of ethnic groups, both sides are committing genocide, describing genocide as presently occurring.

In all, I think this article could include a lot more (and better) sources if it were more broadly scoped. for example this article situates Ethiopia in

Genocide Studies debates, but it isn't a "prediction". Larataguera (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Predictions_of_a_genocide_in_Ethiopia&oldid=1209858723"