Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Incitement to genocide/1

Incitement to genocide[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to GAR my own article because in my opinion, it does not meet the GA criteria.

ORiginal research: I think there is actually a fair bit of original research in the article. When I wrote it, I thought that it was ok to include anything vaguely synonymous with the stated article topic, even if it did not mention the legal concept of incitement to genocide. Now, I recognize that it was the wrong approach and led to a lot of original research being included in the article.
I would like to delete the "history" section or reduce it to actual prosecutions. Unfortunately, later on I realized that this section contains WP:FRINGE material, and I don't think it's salvageable in its current form. For example:
- The article suggests that the Armenian genocide happened because of anti-Armenian messages publicly stated by members of the CUP. As noted on the talk page, most sources about the Armenian genocide don't mention incitement to genocide at all or suggest that this was much of a factor.
- Even though some have hypothesized that the radio messages in RTLM contributed significantly to the Rwandan genocide, later research has shown that this aspect was not so important as a causative factor.
- Other subsections have similar issues which cannot be salvaged by editing because sources suggesting other causes for events won't mention "incitement to genocide" and therefore this page can (by definition and without including original research) cover only biased at best and likely fringe interpretations of various historical events.

In short, I don't think that this exists as a social science or history topic, and it should be constrained to the legal one. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 29 October 2023 (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.